Literature DB >> 31645236

Assessment of Mouse Handling Techniques During Cage Changing.

Carolyn M Doerning1, Sarah E Thurston2, Jason S Villano3, Carian L Kaska3, Tracy D Vozheiko4, Scott A Soleimanpour4, Jennifer L Lofgren2.   

Abstract

Mouse handling during cage changing and health evaluation has traditionally been performed by using forceps. This method was adopted as a biosecurity measure but can adversely affect employee ergonomics and rodent behavior. In this study, we evaluated alternative methods of rodent handling and their potential implications for efficiency, biosecurity, and animal welfare. Study groups included plastic cups, gloved hands, 2 methods of tunnel handling, and forceps. Evaluations included speed of cage change, ATP-based assessment of sanitization, and retrospective analysis of colony health and breeding data. The time to change 14 cages was significantly faster at each time point for the gloved hands and forceps groups as compared with the other methods. Overall speed did not increase significantly with each subsequent study week for any group. ATP levels after sanitization with hydrogen peroxide-peracetic acid mixture differed significantly between gloves and forceps. When ATP level was evaluated on a per-cm² basis, no significant difference between gloves and forceps was detected. Although tunnel and cup handling both increased the time for cage-changing, the tunnel served as both an indirect handling method and a shelter when left within the cage. Retrospective analysis revealed that breeding performance and colony health were similar among groups. Although efficiency is a concern for large-scale implementation of novel handling methods, the tunnel method may prove beneficial for sensitive strains or studies requiring indirect handling. In addition, using gloved hands to directly handle mice during cage changing is efficient and avoids the ergonomic strain associated with forceps. Precautions should be taken when handling mice with gloves, given that the increased contact area carries an increased load of organic debris. Changing gloves between rack sides or before proceeding to the animals belonging to a different investigator minimizes the potential for cross-contamination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31645236      PMCID: PMC6926398          DOI: 10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-19-000015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci        ISSN: 1559-6109            Impact factor:   1.232


  13 in total

1.  Cage change influences serum corticosterone and anxiety-like behaviors in the mouse.

Authors:  Skye Rasmussen; Melinda M Miller; Sarah B Filipski; Ravi J Tolwani
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.232

2.  Developing a Performance Standard for Adequate Sanitization of Wire-Bar Lids.

Authors:  Linna E Srn; Louise K Hammarberg; Robin J Kastenmayer; Liselotte C Hallengren
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 1.232

3.  Musculoskeletal load in and highly repetitive actions of animal facility washroom employees.

Authors:  Claudia Kiermayer; Ulrike M Hoehne-Hückstädt; Markus Brielmeier; Mark Brütting; Rolf Ellegast; Jörg Schmidt
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.232

4.  An ergonomics process for the care and use of research animals.

Authors:  Joshua Kerst
Journal:  ILAR J       Date:  2003

5.  Effects of cage density, sanitation frequency, and bedding type on animal wellbeing and health and cage environment in mice and rats.

Authors:  Mandy J Horn; Shanice V Hudson; Linda A Bostrom; Dale M Cooper
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.232

6.  Microbial testing methods for detection of residual cleaning agents and disinfectants-prevention of ATP bioluminescence measurement errors in the food industry.

Authors:  J Lappalainen; S Loikkanen; M Havana; M Karp; A M Sjöberg; G Wirtanen
Journal:  J Food Prot       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.077

7.  Optimising reliability of mouse performance in behavioural testing: the major role of non-aversive handling.

Authors:  Kelly Gouveia; Jane L Hurst
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Effect of three different forms of handling on the variation of aggression-associated parameters in individually and group-housed male C57BL/6NCrl mice.

Authors:  Sinja Mertens; Miriam A Vogt; Peter Gass; Rupert Palme; Bernhard Hiebl; Sabine Chourbaji
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-12       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Reducing mouse anxiety during handling: effect of experience with handling tunnels.

Authors:  Kelly Gouveia; Jane L Hurst
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  The Effect of Gentle Handling on Depressive-Like Behavior in Adult Male Mice: Considerations for Human and Rodent Interactions in the Laboratory.

Authors:  Caroline Neely; Christina Lane; Julio Torres; Jane Flinn
Journal:  Behav Neurol       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 3.342

View more
  4 in total

1.  Assessing Accumulation of Organic Material on Rodent Cage Accessories.

Authors:  Kenneth P Allen; Tarrant J Csida; Joseph D Thulin
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 1.232

2.  The Effectiveness of Hot Bead Sterilization in Maintaining Sterile Surgical Instrument Tips across Sequential Mouse Surgeries.

Authors:  Julie A Holdridge; Madison S Nichols; William D Dupont; Carissa P Jones; Katherine A Shuster
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 1.232

3.  Evaluation of Various IVC Systems According to Mouse Reproductive Performance and Husbandry and Environmental Parameters.

Authors:  Mitchel G Stover; Jason S Villano
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 1.706

4.  Effects of non-aversive versus tail-lift handling on breeding productivity in a C57BL/6J mouse colony.

Authors:  Margaret A Hull; Penny S Reynolds; Elizabeth A Nunamaker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.