The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Department of Pathology, Division of Comparative Medicine, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Charles River Laboratories, Stone Ridge, New York.
J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2024 May 1;63(3):279-284. doi: 10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-23-000073. Epub 2024 Mar 1.
The use of soiled-bedded sentinels (SBSs) has historically been the standard for colony health surveillance monitoring at our institution. With the advent of newer technologies in which dust collected from filters is tested by PCR, we compared traditional SBS with PCR testing of both exhaust air dust collected from a filter in the downstream vertical plenum (exhaust dust test [EDT]) and the SBS cage-level exhaust filter (SCEF). Our hypothesis was that both methods of filter testing would identify more pathogens than SBS testing. Twenty-five individually ventilated mouse racks that used disposable caging were sanitized and placed into rotation. Rack plenums were tested by PCR to verify negative results before the study start. Exhaust dust collection media were placed in the exhaust plenum (n = 25). SBS cages were placed on each side of the rack with 2 mice per cage (n = 42 mice), with the remaining cage slots occupied by research animals. At each triweekly cage change, the exhaust air filters were carefully removed from the cage top, placed in sterile 50-mL conical tubes, and pooled for submission. After 3mo, the SBS mice were tested via serology for bacterial and viral agents and by PCR for Helicobacter species, pinworms, and ectoparasites. In addition, the EDT filter and SCEF were collected for PCR to evaluate for the same agents. Our results indicate that the SCEF consistently detected agents more frequently than the EDT filter placed in the plenum and that the EDT filter media detected agents more frequently than did the SBS mice. Our data suggest that both PCR methods of detection are superior to SBS for individually ventilated disposable rodent cages and that the SCEF is superior to EDT. These data supported our movement of institution toward environmental monitoring as a method of rodent colony health surveillance.
使用污染垫料哨兵（SBS）历来是我们机构监测群体健康的标准。随着新技术的出现，即从过滤器中收集的灰尘通过 PCR 进行测试，我们比较了传统的 SBS 与从下游垂直通风箱（排气灰尘测试[EDT]）和 SBS 笼级排气过滤器（SCEF）中收集的排气灰尘的 PCR 测试。我们的假设是，两种过滤器测试方法都将比 SBS 测试识别出更多的病原体。将 25 个使用一次性笼具的独立通风鼠架进行消毒并放入轮替中。在研究开始之前，通过 PCR 对通风箱进行测试以验证阴性结果。在排气通风箱中放置排气灰尘收集介质（n=25）。在架子的每一侧放置 SBS 笼，每个笼子有 2 只老鼠（n=42 只老鼠），其余的笼子插槽中放置研究动物。每三周更换一次笼子时，小心地从笼子顶部取出排气过滤器，将其放入无菌 50 毫升锥形管中，并混合提交。3 个月后，通过血清学测试 SBS 小鼠以检测细菌和病毒病原体，并通过 PCR 测试以检测 Helicobacter 种、蛲虫和外寄生虫。此外，收集 EDT 过滤器和 SCEF 进行 PCR 以评估相同的病原体。我们的结果表明，SCEF 比放置在通风箱中的 EDT 过滤器更频繁地检测到病原体，而 EDT 过滤介质比 SBS 小鼠更频繁地检测到病原体。我们的数据表明，两种 PCR 检测方法都优于单独通风的一次性啮齿动物笼具中的 SBS，并且 SCEF 优于 EDT。这些数据支持我们机构将环境监测作为啮齿动物群体健康监测的方法。
