Bodnar Maya J, Makowska I Joanna, Schuppli Catherine A, Weary Daniel M
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
PLoS One. 2025 May 19;20(5):e0323785. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323785. eCollection 2025.
Mice are commonly tail-handled, despite evidence that this is aversive. Alternatives include cupping and tunnel handling; both methods are associated with improved welfare outcomes, including reduced anxiety and improved ease of handling, but tail handling may be perceived as more practical for handlers. Practicality may be improved by using handling objects already present in facilities, such as upturned mouse huts. Our first aim was to compare hut handling with the established refined alternatives of cupping and tunnel handling. As both tunnels and huts may be used as part of mouse caging, a second aim was to assess the effects of handling object familiarity (from the home cage vs. a novel object). Outcomes assessed were voluntary interaction with the handler and time spent in the open arms of an elevated plus maze (EPM). Mice (n = 51) were randomly assigned a handling method: cupping, tunnel, or hut. Cages (n = 14) were randomly assigned to contain either a tunnel or hut. Mice underwent 9 days of handling and voluntary interaction tests were conducted on days 1, 5, and 9. On day 10, mice were tested in the EPM. We found that interaction varied with handling object: hut-handled mice spent the most time interacting, followed by tunnel-handled and cupped mice (41.7 ± 1.5 s, 36.1 ± 1.4 s, and 33.0 ± 1.5 s, respectively). Familiar objects improved interaction at the outset, but this difference was no longer evident by day 5. We found no effect of handling object or object familiarity on time spent in the open arms of the EPM. These results suggest that hut handling is a refined handling method; this method may be a practical alternative in facilities that already use huts.
尽管有证据表明抓小鼠尾巴会让它们感到厌恶，但这种操作仍很常见。其他方法包括用杯子扣住和通过管道抓取；这两种方法都与更好的福利结果相关，包括焦虑减少和抓握更容易，但抓尾巴对操作人员来说可能被认为更实用。利用设施中已有的物品，如倒置的小鼠屋来抓小鼠，可能会提高操作的便利性。我们的首要目标是将用小鼠屋抓小鼠与已确立的改进方法——用杯子扣住和通过管道抓取——进行比较。由于管道和小鼠屋都可作为小鼠笼具的一部分，我们的第二个目标是评估抓握物品熟悉度（来自于小鼠的家笼还是一个新物品）的影响。评估的结果包括与操作人员的自愿互动以及在高架十字迷宫（EPM）开放臂中停留的时间。小鼠（n = 51）被随机分配一种抓握方法：用杯子扣住、通过管道抓取或使用小鼠屋。笼子（n = 14）被随机分配，里面要么有管道，要么有小鼠屋。小鼠接受9天的抓握训练，并在第1天、第5天和第9天进行自愿互动测试。在第10天，小鼠在EPM中接受测试。我们发现互动情况因抓握物品而异：用小鼠屋抓的小鼠互动时间最长，其次是通过管道抓的小鼠和用杯子扣的小鼠（分别为41.7±1.5秒、36.1±1.4秒和33.0±1.5秒）。熟悉的物品在一开始能提高互动，但到第5天这种差异就不再明显了。我们发现抓握物品或物品熟悉度对在EPM开放臂中停留的时间没有影响。这些结果表明，用小鼠屋抓小鼠是一种改进的抓握方法；这种方法在已经使用小鼠屋的设施中可能是一种实用的替代方法。
