Hybrid model intermediate between a laboratory and field study: A humane paradigm shift in feline research

Fischer, Amy; Benka, Valerie A.W.; Briggs, Joyce R.; Maki, Joanne; Morris, Kevin N.; Myers, Kayla A.; Rhodes, Linda; Weedon, G. Robert; Levy, Julie

doi:10.1177/1098612x18791872

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the large number of viraemic FeLV-infected cats at both rescue facilities, 39% (15/38) and 31% (16/51) of cats, respectively, were FeLV-unexposed (i.e., FeLV-uninfected and NAb-negative). This perhaps reflects the solitary nature of many cats even when group-housed [43], although abortive infections with primarily a cell-mediated rather than a humoral immune response (resulting in a NAb-negative result) are also a possibility (as evidenced by the two presumptively regressively-infected cats in Group 1 that tested NAb-negative) [7,18]. It is also possible that cats in Groups 2 and 3 were tested relatively early during outbreaks of FeLV infection at the two facilities, and that with repeated testing at later time points more cats might have demonstrated exposure to FeLV.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Diagnosis of Feline Leukaemia Virus (FeLV) Infection in Owned and Group-Housed Rescue Cats in Australia

Westman

Norris

Malík

et al. 2019

Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A field study was undertaken to (i) measure the prevalence of feline leukaemia virus (FeLV) exposure and FeLV infection in a cross-section of healthy Australian pet cats; and (ii) investigate the outcomes following natural FeLV exposure in two Australian rescue facilities. Group 1 (n = 440) consisted of healthy client-owned cats with outdoor access, predominantly from eastern Australia. Groups 2 (n = 38) and 3 (n = 51) consisted of a mixture of healthy and sick cats, group-housed in two separate rescue facilities in Sydney, Australia, tested following identification of index cases of FeLV infection in cats sourced from these facilities. Diagnostic testing for FeLV exposure/infection included p27 antigen testing using three different point-of-care FeLV kits and a laboratory-based ELISA, real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) testing to detect FeLV proviral DNA in leukocytes, real-time reverse-transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) testing to detect FeLV RNA in plasma, and neutralising antibody (NAb) testing. Cats were classified as FeLV-uninfected (FeLV-unexposed and presumptively FeLV-abortive infections) or FeLV-infected (presumptively regressive and presumptively progressive infections). In Group 1, 370 FeLV-unexposed cats (370/440, 84%), 47 abortive infections (47/440, 11%), nine regressive infections (9/440, 2%), and two progressive infections (2/440, 0.5%) were identified, and 12 FeLV-uninfected cats (12/440, 3%) were unclassifiable as FeLV-unexposed or abortive infections due to insufficient samples available for NAb testing. In Groups 2 and 3, 31 FeLV-unexposed cats (31/89, 35%), eight abortive infections (8/89, 9%), 22 regressive infections (22/89; 25%), and 19 progressive infections (19/89; 21%) were discovered, and nine FeLV-uninfected cats (9/89; 10%) were unclassifiable due to insufficient samples available for NAb testing. One of the presumptively progressively-infected cats in Group 3 was likely a focal FeLV infection. Two other presumptively progressively-infected cats in Group 3 may have been classified as regressive infections with repeated testing, highlighting the difficulties associated with FeLV diagnosis when sampling cats at a single time point, even with results from a panel of FeLV tests. These results serve as a reminder to Australian veterinarians that the threat of FeLV to the general pet cat population remains high, thus vigilant FeLV testing, separate housing for FeLV-infected cats, and FeLV vaccination of at-risk cats is important, particularly in group-housed cats in shelters and rescue facilities, where outbreaks of FeLV infection can occur.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Diagnosis of Feline Leukaemia Virus (FeLV) Infection in Owned and Group-Housed Rescue Cats in Australia

Westman

Norris

Malík

et al. 2019

Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the period 2015–2016, ACC&D initiated two studies, both of which were of a new nature for the organization. One evaluated the potential of a non-surgical fertility control vaccine for free-roaming cats [ 14 , 15 ]; the other, a new ear marker designed to identify free-roaming dogs as having been sterilized without surgery or vaccinated against rabies [ 16 ]. The first study took place in a customized, indoor-outdoor facility designed to simulate aspects of a free-roaming cat colony while also ensuring that cats had a comfortable, enriched, safe environment and unlimited food and veterinary care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ethics of Innovation: Ethical Decision-Making and Review for Field Studies and Projects Targeting Dogs and Cats

Benka¹

2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To date, independent ethical oversight of many companion animal welfare initiatives has been limited and, in some instances, inadequate. Beyond a blurred line between “innovation” and “research,” the nature of the work conducted in animal welfare projects is often poorly aligned with established institutional ethical review structures, which are designed for research involving humans or research involving animals and are also focused on industry and academic institutions. This commentary details the struggle of one United States-based nonprofit organization to find ethical guidelines and support for conducting non-traditional field-based animal welfare studies, and subsequent experience establishing an Ethical Review Board to evaluate organizational initiatives. The commentary discusses member selection, materials and processes, and lessons and learnings from the creation and use of an Ethical Review Board. Sharing content of the ethical review process, as well as challenges and learnings from it, is intended to support other organizations and individuals seeking to ensure that innovation for animal welfare consistently meets high ethical standards.

show abstract

Increasing shelter cat welfare through enrichment: A review

Houser

Vitale

2022

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hybrid model intermediate between a laboratory and field study: A humane paradigm shift in feline research

Cited by 3 publications

References 6 publications

The Diagnosis of Feline Leukaemia Virus (FeLV) Infection in Owned and Group-Housed Rescue Cats in Australia

The Diagnosis of Feline Leukaemia Virus (FeLV) Infection in Owned and Group-Housed Rescue Cats in Australia

The Ethics of Innovation: Ethical Decision-Making and Review for Field Studies and Projects Targeting Dogs and Cats

Increasing shelter cat welfare through enrichment: A review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About