2018
DOI: 10.30802/aalas-jaalas-17-000161
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Various Cleaning Agents on the Performance of Mice in Behavioral Assays of Anxiety

Abstract: Cleaning behavioral equipment between rodent subjects is important to prevent disease transmission and reduce odor cues from previous subjects. However, the reporting regarding the cleansing procedures used during such experiments is sporadic and often incomplete. In addition, some investigators are reluctant to clean devices between subjects because they are concerned that animals will react negatively to the smell of the cleansing agents. We hypothesized that mice tested on an elevated plus maze (EPM) soiled… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We ultimately replaced this with a Kaytee CritterTrail 3" Elbow Tube which led to a standard mouse housing unit (from our animal facility) which was replaced for each trial. The entire maze surface and elbow tube were thoroughly cleaned with 10% bleach solution [ 14 ] after every run and a clean empty cage unit used for every trial to prevent odor mediated cues from disrupting the assessment of learning and memory.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We ultimately replaced this with a Kaytee CritterTrail 3" Elbow Tube which led to a standard mouse housing unit (from our animal facility) which was replaced for each trial. The entire maze surface and elbow tube were thoroughly cleaned with 10% bleach solution [ 14 ] after every run and a clean empty cage unit used for every trial to prevent odor mediated cues from disrupting the assessment of learning and memory.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For methods relying on visual tracking, marking the animals to make them stand out from the background and also distinguishable from each other, can improve performance (Ohayon et al, 2013;Lorbach et al, 2017). However, this comes at the cost of increased human intervention and the possibility of changing animal behavior (Walker et al, 2013;Burn et al, 2008;Hurst and West, 2010;Hershey et al, 2018). Markerless techniques rely on inherent differences in animal appearance (Dell et al, 2014;Branson et al, 2009;Hong et al, 2015;Burgos-Artizzu et al, 2012;Brose et al, 2006;Unger et al, 2017;Pérez-Escudero et al, 2014;Kühl and Burghardt, 2013;Berman et al, 2014;Matsumoto et al, 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, animals need to go through additional preparations for these methods, adding cost of time and potential confound factors such as discomfort or inflammation. There are also concerns that these methods could alter animal behaviour (Walker et al, 2013;Burn et al, 2008;Hurst and West, 2010;Hershey et al, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Grooming frequency was taken as the number of body cleaning with paws while horizontal locomotion is the number of squares crossed with four paws (Falodun et al, 2015). The cage was cleansed with 70% ethanol after each assessment to remove olfactory cue from the previous animal (Hershey et al, 2018). The experiment was carried out between 9.00 am and 4.00 pm daily to avoid changes in biological rhythm.…”
Section: Novelty-induced Rearing Grooming and Horizontal Locomotionmentioning
confidence: 99%