Toxic Interactions in the Rat Nose: Pollutants from Soiled Bedding and Methyl Bromide

Bolon, Brad; Bonnefoi, M.; Roberts, Kay; Marshall, Marianne W.; Morgan, Kevin T.

doi:10.1177/019262339101900402

Cited by 44 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Detection of danger signals such as chemical warnings emitted by their conspecifics (alarm pheromones) or predator-produced cues (kairomones) takes place in the different olfactory subsystems present in their nasal cavities, which then convey multiple sensory informations (Ma, 2010). To increase their survival strategies and fitness, adaptation of the air-breathing pathway in nasal cavities as well as the general nose morphology itself have facilitated this specific olfactory detection (Negus, 1954; Harkema, 1991; Harkema et al, 2006; Rae et al, 2006). This environmental adaptation is especially significant for the most rostral part of the rodent wet-snout, the so-called rhinarium (Hill, 1948; Ade, 1999), which is implicated both in tactile and active olfactory sensing (sniffing behavior) (Wachowiak, 2011; Haidarliu et al, 2012, 2013) and is directly dependent of the environmental context such as temperature variations (Ade, 1999; Ince et al, 2012; Brechbühl et al, 2013a; Cilulko et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphological and physiological species-dependent characteristics of the rodent Grueneberg ganglion

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the mouse, the Grueneberg ganglion (GG) is an olfactory subsystem implicated both in chemo- and thermo-sensing. It is specifically involved in the recognition of volatile danger cues such as alarm pheromones and structurally-related predator scents. No evidence for these GG sensory functions has been reported yet in other rodent species. In this study, we used a combination of histological and physiological techniques to verify the presence of a GG and investigate its function in the rat, hamster, and gerbil comparing with the mouse. By scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmitted electron microscopy (TEM), we found isolated or groups of large GG cells of different shapes that in spite of their gross anatomical similarities, display important structural differences between species. We performed a comparative and morphological study focusing on the conserved olfactory features of these cells. We found fine ciliary processes, mostly wrapped in ensheating glial cells, in variable number of clusters deeply invaginated in the neuronal soma. Interestingly, the glial wrapping, the amount of microtubules and their distribution in the ciliary processes were different between rodents. Using immunohistochemistry, we were able to detect the expression of known GG proteins, such as the membrane guanylyl cyclase G and the cyclic nucleotide-gated channel A3. Both the expression and the subcellular localization of these signaling proteins were found to be species-dependent. Calcium imaging experiments on acute tissue slice preparations from rodent GG demonstrated that the chemo- and thermo-evoked neuronal responses were different between species. Thus, GG neurons from mice and rats displayed both chemo- and thermo-sensing, while hamsters and gerbils showed profound differences in their sensitivities. We suggest that the integrative comparison between the structural morphologies, the sensory properties, and the ethological contexts supports species-dependent GG features prompted by the environmental pressure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphological and physiological species-dependent characteristics of the rodent Grueneberg ganglion

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it is uncertain whether the olfactory pathway as a route of infection extrapolates to NHPs and humans. Indeed, the rodent olfactory epithelium has a much larger surface area in comparison to primates (Harkema, 1991; Philström et al, 2005). This perhaps predisposes rodents to infection via this route.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Particle-size dependent effects in the Balb/c murine model of inhalational melioidosis

Thomas¹,

Davies²,

Núñez³

et al. 2012

Front. Cell. Inf. Microbio.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deposition of Burkholderia pseudomallei within either the lungs or nasal passages of the Balb/c murine model resulted in different infection kinetics. The infection resulting from the inhalation of B. pseudomallei within a 12 μm particle aerosol was prolonged compared to a 1 μm particle aerosol with a mean time-to-death (MTD) of 174.7 ± 14.9 h and 73.8 ± 11.3 h, respectively. Inhalation of B. pseudomallei within 1 μm or 12 μm particle aerosols resulted in a median lethal dose (MLD) of 4 and 12 cfu, respectively. The 12 μm particle inhalational infection was characterized by a marked involvement of the nasal mucosa and extension of bacterial colonization and inflammatory lesions from the olfactory epithelium through the olfactory nerves (or tracts) to the olfactory bulb (100%), culminating in abscessation of the brain (33%). Initial involvement of the upper respiratory tract lymphoid tissues (nasal-associated lymphoid tissue (NALT) and cervical lymph nodes) was observed in both the 1 and 12 μm particle inhalational infections (80–85%). Necrotising alveolitis and bronchiolitis were evident in both inhalational infections, however, lung pathology was greater after inhalation of the 1 μm particle aerosol with pronounced involvement of the mediastinal lymph node (50%). Terminal disease was characterized by bacteraemia in both inhalational infections with dissemination to the spleen, liver, kidneys, and thymus. Treatment with co-trimoxazole was more effective than treatment with doxycycline irrespective of the size of the particles inhaled. Doxycycline was more effective against the 12 μm particle inhalational infection as evidenced by increased time to death. However, both treatment regimes exhibited significant relapse when therapy was discontinued with massive enlargement and abscessation of the lungs, spleen, and cervical lymph nodes observed.

show abstract

“…Third, we learned little about when rats would start to avoid their soiled cages, given the opportunity, if ammonia did start to accumulate, and this still remains an unknown issue. While concentrations above 100 ppm can cause health problems as described above (Serrano, 1971;Broderson et al, 1976;Gamble and Clough, 1976;Schoeb et al, 1982;Tepper et al, 1985;Bolon et al, 1991), modern in-cage concentrations tend to be much lower (Hoglund and Renstrom, 2001;Burn et al, 2006a;. In-cage ammonia concentrations ranging between 0 and 85 ppm showed no relationship with respiratory pathology or sneezing rates (Burn et al, 2006a), but no more subtle evaluation of rats responses to low ammonia concentrations has yet been published, as it has for mice (Green et al, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The (space) beststudied component of cage-soiling is ammonia, although the rat's tolerance of ammonia relative to humans is not yet known. Concentrations above 100 ppm have occasionally been observed in artificial rat burrows (Studier and Baca, 1968), but can increase blinking (Broderson et al, 1976), decrease activity levels (Tepper et al, 1985), and cause respiratory problems (Serrano, 1971;Broderson et al, 1976;Gamble and Clough, 1976;Schoeb et al, 1982;Bolon et al, 1991). Lower concentrations, which are more representative of current in-cage concentrations (Hoglund and Renstrom, 2001;Burn et al, 2006a;, have not been tested in rats, but mice show no significant preference or avoidance of them (Green et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rats seem indifferent between their own scent-marked homecages and clean cages

Burn

Mason

2008

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous large-scale, long-term studies suggest that rat welfare is little affected by cage-cleaning frequency. Here, we investigate this further using a preference test: arguably a more sensitive welfare indicator than those used previously. Nine pairs of rats were each housed in two interconnected cages of differing cleanliness. One cage was cleaned every 3-4 days, while the other remained uncleaned for 18 days. All rats were handled at each cage-cleaning (regardless of which cage they chose) so that this aspect of the cleaning routine remained consistent. Furthermore, ammonia build-up was negligible. We could thus see whether rats prefer their own scent-marks over clean bedding, without the confounds of differential handling or the potential harm induced by ammonia. Dwelling, resting, feeding, drinking, defecation, and ammonia concentrations were compared between the two cages. None were found to differ significantly between the cages over the course of the experiment. Power tests and confidence intervals support the conclusion that the rats had no meaningful preference for self-scented, familiar areas over clean areas. A weak preference cannot be ruled out, due to the small sample and the space limitations within laboratory cages. Also, the lack of ammonia means that the threshold at which rats would start to avoid soiled areas that do generate this compound remains undetermined. Nevertheless, together with previous studies showing no clear effects of cage-cleaning frequency on rat welfare, these choice tests indicate that it is unlikely that olfactory disruption during cage-cleaning is an important welfare concern for stable nonbreeding groups of rats. #

show abstract

Toxic Interactions in the Rat Nose: Pollutants from Soiled Bedding and Methyl Bromide

Cited by 44 publications

References 10 publications

Morphological and physiological species-dependent characteristics of the rodent Grueneberg ganglion

Morphological and physiological species-dependent characteristics of the rodent Grueneberg ganglion

Particle-size dependent effects in the Balb/c murine model of inhalational melioidosis

Rats seem indifferent between their own scent-marked homecages and clean cages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About