Centre for Behaviour and Evolution, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4HH, UK.
Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4HH, UK.
Sci Rep. 2020 Sep 3;10(1):14562. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71476-y.
Millions of mice are used every year for scientific research, representing the majority of scientific procedures conducted on animals. The standard method used to pick up laboratory mice for general husbandry and experimental procedures is known as tail handling and involves the capture, elevation and restraint of mice via their tails. There is growing evidence that, compared to non-aversive handling methods (i.e. tunnel and cup), tail handling increases behavioural signs of anxiety and induces anhedonia. Hence tail handling has a negative impact on mouse welfare. Here, we investigated whether repeated scruff restraint, intraperitoneal (IP) injections and anaesthesia negated the reduction in anxiety-related behaviour in tunnel compared with tail handled BALB/c mice. We found that mice which experienced repeated restraint spent less time interacting with a handler compared to mice that were handled only. However, after repeated restraint, tunnel handled mice showed increased willingness to interact with a handler, and reduced anxiety in standard behavioural tests compared with tail handled mice. The type of procedure experienced (IP injection or anaesthesia), and the duration after which behaviour was measured after a procedure affected the willingness of mice to interact with a handler. Despite this, compared with tail handling, tunnel handling reduced anxiety in standard behavioural tests and increased willingness to interact with a handler within hours after procedures. This suggests that the welfare benefits of tunnel handling are widely applicable and not diminished by the use of other putatively more invasive procedures that are frequently used in the laboratory. Therefore, the simple refinement of replacing tail with tunnel handling for routine husbandry and procedures will deliver a substantial improvement for mouse welfare and has the potential for improving scientific outcomes.
每年有数百万人被用于科学研究，他们代表了大多数在动物身上进行的科学程序。用于进行一般饲养和实验程序的标准方法称为尾巴处理，涉及通过老鼠的尾巴来捕捉、抬起和限制老鼠。越来越多的证据表明，与非痛苦处理方法（即隧道和杯子）相比，尾巴处理会增加焦虑的行为迹象，并引起快感缺失。因此，尾巴处理对老鼠的福利有负面影响。在这里，我们研究了重复的颈部束缚、腹腔（IP）注射和麻醉是否消除了与尾巴处理的 BALB/c 老鼠相比，隧道处理减少的焦虑相关行为。我们发现，与仅经过处理的老鼠相比，经历重复束缚的老鼠与处理者互动的时间减少了。然而，在重复束缚后，与尾巴处理的老鼠相比，经过隧道处理的老鼠在标准行为测试中表现出与处理者互动的意愿增加，并且焦虑减轻。经历的程序类型（IP 注射或麻醉）以及在程序后测量行为的时间长短会影响老鼠与处理者互动的意愿。尽管如此，与尾巴处理相比，隧道处理在标准行为测试中减轻了焦虑，并在程序后数小时内增加了与处理者互动的意愿。这表明，隧道处理的福利效益广泛适用，并且不会因实验室中经常使用的其他假定更具侵入性的程序而减弱。因此，简单地将尾巴处理替换为隧道处理用于常规饲养和程序，将为老鼠的福利带来实质性的改善，并有可能改善科学结果。
