Assessing the welfare of genetically altered mice

Wells, Dominic J.; Playle, L; Enser, W E J; Flecknell, P. A.; Gardiner, Marie; Holland, Jennifer; Howard, Bryan; Hubrecht, Robert; Humphreys, Kevin; Jackson, Ian J.; Lane, Natasha E.; Maconochie, Mark; Mason, Georgia; Morton, David B.; Raymond, Ruth; Robinson, Vicky; Smith, Jane A.; Watt, Natalie

doi:10.1258/002367706776318971

Cited by 62 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The whole animal is imaged using sensitive optical detectors, which may or may not incorporate a tomographic facility (Figure 4). The potential influences of genetic modification and/or substrate administration on immunogenicity and response to treatment, as well as animal welfare, must be considered (Tuchin, 1993; Dennis, 2002; Condeelis and Segall, 2003; Wells et al , 2006). …”

Section: Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for the welfare and use of animals in cancer research

et al. 2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal experiments remain essential to understand the fundamental mechanisms underpinning malignancy and to discover improved methods to prevent, diagnose and treat cancer. Excellent standards of animal care are fully consistent with the conduct of high quality cancer research. Here we provide updated guidelines on the welfare and use of animals in cancer research. All experiments should incorporate the 3Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement. Focusing on animal welfare, we present recommendations on all aspects of cancer research, including: study design, statistics and pilot studies; choice of tumour models (e.g., genetically engineered, orthotopic and metastatic); therapy (including drugs and radiation); imaging (covering techniques, anaesthesia and restraint); humane endpoints (including tumour burden and site); and publication of best practice.

show abstract

Section: Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for the welfare and use of animals in cancer research

et al. 2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From pnd 0 to pnd 4, animals were observed for skin appearance, activity and presence of milk in the stomach (milk spot) to confirm feeding (as a wellbeing indicator 9,29,30 ). From pnd 5 to pnd 21 the cages containing mother and pups were taken daily to an experimental room at the beginning of the light period and all parameters of morphological development and neurological reflexes were measured starting at 08:30, by the same experimenter (MJCC), randomly choosing the order of the litters and animals within litters tested.…”

Section: Test Procedures With Newbornsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification methods in newborn C57BL/6 mice: a developmental and behavioural evaluation

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of group-housed rodents in many fields of biomedical research imposes a need to identify individuals in a cage. Few studies have been designed to assess possible negative effects of identification methods of newborn mice on their development and wellbeing. In the present study, three different identification methods were applied to newborn C57BL/6J mice on postnatal day ( pnd) 5 (toe clipping, toe tattoo ink puncture and subcutaneous implantation of a small transponder). All identification methods used proved to be effective for long-term marking of individual animals. Newborn mice showed the least reaction to toe clipping followed by toe tattoo ink puncture and transponder implantation was the most distressful individual identification procedure in newborn mice. Importantly, clipped toe tissue proved to be enough for genotyping purposes. No overall consistent differences in somatic and neurological reflex development during the postnatal period were shown as a result of the newborn individual identification procedures used. Further, none of the methods interfered significantly with the adult animals' general normal behaviour (e.g. ability to move, grasp, climb) and sensory -motor functions as assessed with a simplified SHIRPA battery of tests, as well as Rotarod and Elevated Plus Maze tests. Postmortem thymus and adrenal gland weights gave no indication of chronic stress as a consequence of the identification method. We conclude that toe clipping might even be advisable in newborn mice at a very young age, when genotyping is needed. Toe tattoo ink puncture is also a good identification method for newborn mice and transponder implantation should only be used in older newborns or applied at weaning.

show abstract

“…If genetic manipulations produce a deleterious homozygous phenotype, when possible, heterozygous animals should be maintained (see Wells et al, 2006 for a review). This may involve the addition of extra nesting material for warmth, use of specific bedding substrate particulate size that will prevent ingestion by pups or minimize obstruction if ingested, provision of food, water, or special diets on the cage floor, or other forms of supportive care.…”

Section: Micementioning

confidence: 99%

Rodent and Rabbit Welfare in the Research Environment

Turner

2014

Laboratory Animal Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing the welfare of genetically altered mice

Cited by 62 publications

References 3 publications

Guidelines for the welfare and use of animals in cancer research

Guidelines for the welfare and use of animals in cancer research

Identification methods in newborn C57BL/6 mice: a developmental and behavioural evaluation

Rodent and Rabbit Welfare in the Research Environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About