Woolsey Joshua M, Bonica Jennie, Godbey Savannah, Washington Ida M
Office of Animal Care Management, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.
J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2025 Jul 1:1-7. doi: 10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-25-070.
Health monitoring of rodent colonies has traditionally used live animal (LA) sampling by means such as the use of soiled bedding sentinels (SBS), with the associated expenditure of labor, supplies, and animals. In the spirit of the 3Rs, sentinel-free (SF) approaches are becoming more common. PCR testing of environmental samples is replacing traditional SBS-based testing for routine health monitoring of rodent colonies. Passive sampling of in-cage media exposed to pooled, soiled bedding is effective for detecting some common rodent pathogens. We hypothesized that PCR testing of commercially available media exposed to soiled bedding would be as effective as sampling SBS, or SBS combined with samples from colony animals, for detecting several enzootic organisms of mice (Mus musculus) within our facility. Media were placed in IVC cages and exposed to pooled dirty bedding from all cages on a rack side at biweekly cage changes during a 3-mo period. PCR results of the SF soiled bedding-exposed media were compared with results from feces, pelt, and oral swabs from SBS with and without SBS combined with 10 randomly sampled colony animals from the same rack side over the same period. Detection rates were similar for murine norovirus and Staphylococcus xylosus using SF testing compared with SBS with and without direct colony samples. Five organisms, Proteus mirabilis, Rodentibacter heylii, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella oxytoca, and Klebsiella pneumoniae, were detected by SF testing, but not by LA samples. Demodex musculi, Entamoeba, Proteus mirabilis, Helicobacter spp., and Rodentibacter heylii were detected at significantly higher rates by SF testing compared with SBS with and without colony animal samples. SF testing detected organisms of zoonotic concern (S. aureus, K. pneumoniae) that were undetected by LA testing. SF testing detected organisms at similar rates during 2 consecutive quarters. We conclude that PCR testing of media exposed to pooled soiled bedding effectively detects these common enzootic organisms.
传统上,啮齿动物群落的健康监测采用活体动物(LA)采样方法,如使用脏垫料哨兵(SBS),这伴随着劳动力、物资和动物的相关消耗。本着3R原则,无哨兵(SF)方法正变得越来越普遍。环境样本的PCR检测正在取代基于SBS的传统检测方法,用于啮齿动物群落的常规健康监测。对暴露于混合脏垫料的笼内介质进行被动采样,对于检测一些常见的啮齿动物病原体是有效的。我们假设,对暴露于脏垫料的市售介质进行PCR检测,在检测我们设施内小鼠(小家鼠)的几种地方性生物方面,将与对SBS进行采样或SBS与群落动物样本相结合一样有效。在3个月的时间里,每两周更换笼子时,将介质放置在独立通风笼盒(IVC)笼子中,并暴露于架子一侧所有笼子的混合脏垫料中。将SF脏垫料暴露介质的PCR结果与同期来自SBS的粪便、皮毛和口腔拭子的结果进行比较,以及与SBS加上从同一架子一侧随机抽取的10只群落动物样本的结果进行比较。与有或没有直接群落样本的SBS相比,使用SF检测法检测小鼠诺如病毒和木糖葡萄球菌的检出率相似。通过SF检测法检测到了五种生物,即奇异变形杆菌、海氏啮齿杆菌、金黄色葡萄球菌、产酸克雷伯菌和肺炎克雷伯菌,但LA样本未检测到。与有或没有群落动物样本的SBS相比,SF检测法检测蠕形螨、内阿米巴、奇异变形杆菌、幽门螺杆菌属和海氏啮齿杆菌的检出率显著更高。SF检测法检测到了LA检测未发现的具有人畜共患病风险的生物(金黄色葡萄球菌、肺炎克雷伯菌)。SF检测法在连续两个季度中以相似的速率检测到生物。我们得出结论,对暴露于混合脏垫料的介质进行PCR检测能有效检测这些常见的地方性生物。