BackgroundThe increasing use of zebrafish model has not been accompanied by the evolution of proper anaesthesia for this species in research. The most used anaesthetic in fishes, MS222, may induce aversion, reduction of heart rate, and consequently high mortality, especially during long exposures. Therefore, we aim to explore new anaesthetic protocols to be used in zebrafish by studying the quality of anaesthesia and recovery induced by different concentrations of propofol alone and in combination with different concentrations of lidocaine.Material and MethodsIn experiment A, eighty-three AB zebrafish were randomly assigned to 7 different groups: control, 2.5 (2.5P), 5 (5P) or 7.5 μg/ml (7.5P) of propofol; and 2.5 μg/ml of propofol combined with 50, (P/50L), 100 (P/100L) or 150 μg/ml (P/150L) of lidocaine. Zebrafish were placed in an anaesthetic water bath and time to lose the equilibrium, reflex to touch, reflex to a tail pinch, and respiratory rate were measured. Time to gain equilibrium was also assessed in a clean tank. Five and 24 hours after anaesthesia recovery, zebrafish were evaluated concerning activity and reactivity. Afterwards, in a second phase of experiments (experiment B), the best protocol of the experiment A was compared with a new group of 8 fishes treated with 100 mg/L of MS222 (100M).ResultsIn experiment A, only different concentrations of propofol/lidocaine combination induced full anaesthesia in all animals. Thus only these groups were compared with a standard dose of MS222 in experiment B. Propofol/lidocaine induced a quicker loss of equilibrium, and loss of response to light and painful stimuli compared with MS222. However zebrafish treated with MS222 recovered quickly than the ones treated with propofol/lidocaine.ConclusionIn conclusion, propofol/lidocaine combination and MS222 have advantages in different situations. MS222 is ideal for minor procedures when a quick recovery is important, while propofol/lidocaine is best to induce a quick and complete anaesthesia.

Background: Volatile anesthetics such as isoflurane are widely used in clinical and research contexts. Concerns have been raised that the effects of these drugs on the central nervous system may result in long-term impairment after surgery or general anesthesia. Hence, this study aimed to detect how different isoflurane concentrations influence spatial learning and cell death in adult mice. Methods: Fifty-two C57BL/6 mice were randomly divided in four groups. Mice in three groups were exposed to different concentrations of isoflurane (1, 1.5, and 2%) for 1 h; the control group was not exposed to anesthesia. Five mice per group were killed 3 h after anesthesia to perform histopathologic and immunohistochemical analyses (hematoxylin-eosin staining; caspase-3 activation). Eight mice per group were used for behavioral tests (open field, T-maze spontaneous alternation, and water maze) on subsequent days. Results: There were no differences between groups in the T-maze spontaneous alternation test or in the open field (no confounding effects of stress or locomotion). The group anesthetized with 1% isoflurane performed worse in the water maze task on day 1 (550.4 Ϯ162.78 cm) compared with the control group (400.1 Ϯ 112.88 cm), 1.5% isoflurane (351.9 Ϯ 150.67 cm), and 2% isoflurane (364.5 Ϯ 113.70 cm; P Յ 0.05) and on day 3 (305.0 Ϯ 81.75 cm) compared with control group (175.13 Ϯ 77.00 cm) and 2% isoflurane (204.11 Ϯ 85.75 cm; P Յ 0.038). In the pyramidal cell layer of the region cornu ammonis 1 of the hippocampus, 1% isoflurane showed a tendency to cause more neurodegeneration (apoptosis) (61.4 Ϯ 26.40, profiles/mm 2 ) than the group with 2% of isoflurane (20.6 Ϯ 17.77, profiles/mm 2 ; P ϭ 0.051). Conclusion: Low isoflurane concentration (1%) caused spatial learning impairment and more neurodegeneration compared with higher isoflurane concentrations. Results for mice receiving the latter concentrations were similar to those of control mice.