| Literature DB >> 32488031 |
Simeon O A Helgers1, Steven R Talbot2, Ann-Kristin Riedesel3, Laura Wassermann2, Zhiqun Wu3, Joachim K Krauss3, Christine Häger2, André Bleich2, Kerstin Schwabe3.
Abstract
Humane endpoint determination is fundamental in animal experimentation. Despite commonly accepted endpoint criteria for intracranial tumour models (20% body weight loss and deteriorated clinical score) some animals still die before being euthanized in current research. We here systematically evaluated other measures as surrogates for a more reliable humane endpoint determination. Adult male BDIX rats (n = 119) with intracranial glioma formation after BT4Ca cell-injection were used. Clinical score and body weight were assessed daily. One subgroup (n = 14) was assessed daily for species-specific (nesting, burrowing), motor (distance, coordination) and social behaviour. Another subgroup (n = 8) was implanted with a telemetric device for monitoring heart rate (variability), temperature and activity. Body weight and clinical score of all other rats were used for training (n = 34) and validation (n = 63) of an elaborate body weight course analysis algorithm for endpoint detection. BT4Ca cell-injection reliably induced fast-growing tumours. No behavioural or physiological parameter detected deteriorations of the clinical state earlier or more reliable than clinical scoring by experienced observers. However, the body weight course analysis algorithm predicted endpoints in 97% of animals without confounding observer-dependent factors. Clinical scoring together with the novel algorithm enables highly reliable and observer-independent endpoint determination in a rodent intracranial tumour model.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32488031 PMCID: PMC7265476 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-65783-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Physiological and behavioural parameters for the last eight days before endpoint. (a) Body weight change in per cent compared to d-8; significant differences were found between the day of the endpoint compared to all other days and between the second last day compared to day -6, -5 and -4 (F(8,144) = 33.769, p < 0.001). (b) Clinical score was increased on the last two days compared to all previous days (F(8,144) = 195,069, p < 0.001). (c) Burrowed gravel in gram (g) was decreased on the day of the endpoint compared to all other days and on the second last day compared to day -6 (F(8,96) = 14.937, p < 0.001). (d) Distance travelled in meters (m) in the open field; significant differences were shown on day -8, -7, -6 and -4 compared to the last two days (F(8,96) = 4.836, p < 0.001). Data are shown for the glioma-only and the resection group as mean ± S.E.M. Additionally, absolute values of two individual animals are shown with greyed symbols in c and d. (e) Total home cage activity measured by telemetric devices; significant differences were observed between dark and light phase except for day -5 (F(1,48) = 173.271, p < 0.001) and between day -7 and -6 compared to the last day (F(8,48) = 6.268, p < 0.001). (f) Heart rate variability in milliseconds (ms) was decreased the last day compared to all previous days except for day-2 (F(8,48) = 4.680, p < 0.001). Data are shown for the central 8 hours of the dark and the light phase measured by the telemetric device as mean ± S.E.M. Absolut values of one individual animal are shown with grey symbols in e and f. Significant differences compared to the day of the perfusion are shown as asterisks (*), differences compared to d-1 are shown as hashtags (#) and differences between the dark and the light phase are shown as circles (o). Two-way RM ANOVA with a post-hoc test (p < 0.05).
Number of individual rats that deteriorate on the day of the endpoint.
| Endpoint | |
|---|---|
| 3/9 | |
| 10/14 | |
| 8/9 | |
| 6/8 | |
| 6/8 | |
| 4/7 | |
| 4/7 | |
| 6/7 | |
| 5/7 | |
| 6/7 | |
| 4/7 | |
| 4/7 | |
SDNN = standard deviation of the heartbeat intervals; *significant differences observed on group level between the second last and the last day.
Figure 2Principal component analysis of behavioural and physiological parameters for the last 8 days before the endpoint. Contribution of the different parameters to the first dimension (a) and the second dimension (b) are shown in per cent. The dashed line indicates the threshold for the equal contribution of each parameter. Illustration of the first two dimensions of the principal component analysis is shown as arrows (c). Length, direction and colour of the arrows code for the level of contribution of each parameter to the different dimensions. Clusters are based on the principal component analysis for each day (d). 95% confidence ellipses around group clusters (days) are shown as different colours and symbols for each day. BW_Change – body weight change (%); Clin_Score – clinical score; HR_dark – heart rate (dark phase, bpm); SDNN_dark – heart rate variability (dark phase, ms); Act_dark – activity counts (dark phase); Temp_dark – body temperature (dark phase, °C); HR_light – heart rate (light phase, bpm); SDNN_light – heart rate variability (light phase, ms); Act_light – activity counts (light phase); Temp_light – body temperature (light phase, °C); Burrowing – burrowed gravel (g); Openfield – distance traveled in the open field (m); Nesting – nest complexity; Balance_Beam – completion time of the balance beam test (sec); Rotarod – time until falling form the rod (sec); Interaction_Time – total interaction time (sec); Interaction_Freq – interaction frequency.
Figure 3Performance and evaluation of endpoint detection algorithm. (a) Endpoint detection rate and (b) mean number of false alarms per animal for different SD window sizes and SD widths. The optimal window size is indicated by a vertical dashed line. Endpoint detection rate and false alarm rate at the optimal window size of 6 days for different SD widths (c). Optimal SD width is indicated by the dashed line. Endpoint detection using normalized body weight change data with optimized settings (SD window size = 6, SD width = 2.5) in the regular mode (d,g), the MAD constrained mode (e,g) and score constrained mode (f,i) for two individual animals (d–f and g–i). Boundaries are indicated by the dashed lines and alarms by the crosses.
Definitions of terms used for the description of the endpoint detection algorithm.
| Moving average | Unweighted mean of the previous number of data points; here: average body weight of a certain number of previous days |
|---|---|
| Window size | number of previous data points; here: number of days used for calculation of the moving average |
| Width-factor | standard deviation multiplication factor; here: for the calculation of the boundary widths |
| Boundaries | upper and lower decision levels around the moving average; here: calculated by SD multiplied by the width factor |
| MAD | mean absolute deviation; here: mean of the lagging data window minus the observed data point |
| EDR | endpoint detection rate; here: the proportion of correctly identified endpoints |
Performance of the endpoint detection algorithm in all three modes on the training and the validation set.
| Training set | Validation set | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| regular | MAD | score | regular | MAD | score | |
| set size (n) | 34 | 34 | 34 | 63 | 63 | 63 |
| failed detections | 3 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 2 | 2 |
| mean # false alarms | 1.56 | 2.76 | 1.97 | 1.13 | 2.63 | 1.43 |
| EDR | 0.91 | 1 | 1 | 0.83 | 0.97 | 0.97 |
EDR = endpoint detection rate; MAD = mean absolute deviation.