Tunnel use facilitates handling of ICR mice and decreases experimental variation

Nakamura, Yu; Suzuki, Kaoru

doi:10.1292/jvms.18-0044

Cited by 38 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Considering these facts, it is highly probable that the recently recommended methods using cups and tunnels are making mice accustomed to high altitudes, and it is questionable whether they actually reduce various anxiety-like behaviours in mice. Furthermore, it has also been reported that mice undergoing tunnelling do not exhibit altered anxiety-like behaviour 32 . In this study, the mice used for comparison were held by their tails for 30 s every day by the experimenter to induce elevation-related anxiety.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…These studies used tools (cups and transparent tunnels) to move the mouse to a specific location, and their authors describe that these methods reduce the effect on the anxiety levels in mice. Using tunnels or cups has been recommended by additional studies as a method to reduce anxiety-like behaviour in mice if their handling is unavoidable [30][31][32] . In fact, handling tunnels and cups minimize human contact with animals, but it is impractical to perform all experimental work solely with tunnels and cups.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of repetitive gentle handling of male C57BL/6NCrl mice on comparative behavioural test results

Ueno

Takahashi

Suemitsu

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mice are the most commonly used laboratory animals for studying diseases, behaviour, and pharmacology. Behavioural experiment battery aids in evaluating abnormal behaviour in mice. During behavioural experiments, mice frequently experience human contact. However, the effects of repeated handling on mice behaviour remains unclear. To minimise mice stress, methods of moving mice using transparent tunnels or cups have been recommended but are impractical in behavioural tests. To investigate these effects, we used a behavioural test battery to assess differences between mice accustomed to the experimenter's handling versus control mice. Repeatedly handled mice gained slightly more weight than control mice. In behavioural tests, repeatedly handled mice showed improved spatial cognition in the Y-maze test and reduced anxiety-like behaviour in the elevated plus-maze test. However, there was no change in anxiety-like behaviour in the light/dark transition test or open-field test. Grip strength, rotarod, sociability, tail suspension, Porsolt forced swim, and passive avoidance tests revealed no significant differences between repeatedly handled and control mice. Our findings demonstrated that mice repeatedly handled by the experimenter before behavioural tests showed reduced anxiety about high altitudes and improved spatial cognition, suggesting that repeated contact can affect the results of some behavioural tests.Mice have been the most widely used laboratory animals for disease, behaviour, and pharmacology studies over the past century 1 . To successfully transfer the results obtained in mice to human studies, it is necessary to determine appropriate treatment and handling methods for experimental mice since handling of normal mice may affect the obtained experimental results.Laboratory mice spend most of their lives in home cages before being used in experimental procedures. Environmental factors in the home cage play an important role in the health of these animals. The assessment of subjective animal welfare components relies primarily on physiological 2,3 and behavioural 4-6 measurements. Environmental conditions in animal facilities can affect the results of tests that measure natural behaviour in particular 7 . A factor often overlooked is how researchers handle animals. Lack of consideration for handling techniques can impede reproducibility and cast doubt on the relevance of otherwise valuable scientific research. Care and handling are integral parts of an animal's daily life 8,9 , and handling is the most common procedure experienced by laboratory mice because it is necessary for routine (e.g. cage cleaning and breeding) and research (e.g. injections and blood sampling) procedures. For practical reasons, animals are usually subjected to stress between periods of inactivity during the light cycle 10 . To improve the reproducibility of animal studies, we need to consider all stressors that may influence the experimental animals, and handling is one of them. Insufficient description of this process can cause exper...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of repetitive gentle handling of male C57BL/6NCrl mice on comparative behavioural test results

Ueno

Takahashi

Suemitsu

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both of these methods are considered non-aversive, because they result in an increased willingness of mice to interact with their handler, and have been found to lower anxiety-like behaviour and enhance the performance of mice in standard behavioural tests [7][8][9][10][11][12]. These findings have been replicated in several laboratories with a range of mouse strains [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Where examined, the positive effects of anxiety reduction, improved exploration and interaction with a handler are similar for cup and tunnel handling methods [7,8], suggesting the benefits of using either tunnel or cup methods are similar.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research suggests that handling mice using a home-cage tunnel can also improve ease of handling during oral gavage compared to tail-handled mice [11]. Furthermore, tail-handled mice show decreased responsiveness to reward compared to tunnel handled mice, indicative of anhedonia and chronic stress [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A single study has shown that handling method can influence glucose metabolism [10], and there are inconsistent results regarding the influence of handling methods upon plasma corticosterone levels from two studies [10,13]. Importantly, single or repeated restraint [7,11,14,15], lifting the tail for abdominal inspection [7] and injection [11,14,16] do not negate the beneficial effects of tunnel handling upon voluntary interaction with a handler. In addition, while most studies have employed daily handling to investigate impacts upon behaviour and physiology, recent studies have shown that weekly or fortnightly handling during cage cleaning is sufficient for mice to show positive responses to tunnel handling [14,16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identifying obstacles preventing the uptake of tunnel handling methods for laboratory mice: An international thematic survey

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Handling of laboratory mice is essential for experiments and husbandry, but handling can increase anxiety in mice, compromising their welfare and potentially reducing replicability between studies. The use of non-aversive handling (e.g., tunnel handling or cupping), rather than the standard method of picking mice up by the tail, has been shown to enhance interaction with a handler, reduce anxiety-like behaviours, and increase exploration and performance in standard behavioural tests. Despite this, some labs continue to use tail handling for routine husbandry, and the extent to which non-aversive methods are being used is currently unknown. Here we conducted an international online survey targeting individuals that work with and/or conduct research using laboratory mice. The survey aimed to identify the handling methods currently being used, and to determine common obstacles that may be preventing the wider uptake of non-aversive handling. We also surveyed opinions concerning the current data in support of non-aversive handling for mouse welfare and scientific outcomes. 390 complete responses were received and analysed quantitatively and thematically. We found that 35% report using tail handling only, and 43% use a combination of tail and non-aversive methods. 18% of respondents reported exclusively using non-aversive methods. The vast majority of participants were convinced that non-aversive handling improves animal welfare and scientific outcomes. However, the survey indicated that researchers were significantly less likely to have heard of non-aversive handling and more likely to use tail handling compared with animal care staff. Thematic analysis revealed there were concerns regarding the time required for non-aversive methods compared with tail handling, and that there was a perceived incompatibility of tunnel handling with restraint, health checks and other routine procedures. Respondents also highlighted a need for additional research into the impact of handling method that is representative of experimental protocols and physiological indicators used in the biomedical fields. This survey highlights where targeted research, outreach, training and funding may have the greatest impact on increasing uptake of nonaversive handling methods for laboratory mice.

show abstract

The laboratory mouse

Pritchett‐Corning,

Garner

2024

The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tunnel use facilitates handling of ICR mice and decreases experimental variation

Cited by 38 publications

References 16 publications

Effects of repetitive gentle handling of male C57BL/6NCrl mice on comparative behavioural test results

Effects of repetitive gentle handling of male C57BL/6NCrl mice on comparative behavioural test results

Identifying obstacles preventing the uptake of tunnel handling methods for laboratory mice: An international thematic survey

The laboratory mouse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About