Mouse Anesthesia: The Art and Science

There is an art and science to performing mouse anesthesia, which is a significant component to animal research. Frequently, anesthesia is one vital step of many over the course of a research project spanning weeks, months, or beyond. It is critical to perform anesthesia according to the approved research protocol using appropriately handled and administered pharmaceutical-grade compounds whenever possible. Sufficient documentation of the anesthetic event and procedure should also be performed to meet the legal, ethical, and research reproducibility obligations. However, this regulatory and documentation process may lead to the use of a few possibly oversimplified anesthetic protocols used for mouse procedures and anesthesia. Although a frequently used anesthetic protocol may work perfectly for each mouse anesthetized, sometimes unexpected complications will arise, and quick adjustments to the anesthetic depth and support provided will be required. As an old saying goes, anesthesia is 99% boredom and 1% sheer terror. The purpose of this review article is to discuss the science of mouse anesthesia together with the art of applying these anesthetic techniques to provide readers with the knowledge needed for successful anesthetic procedures. The authors include experiences in mouse inhalant and injectable anesthesia, peri-anesthetic monitoring, specific procedures, and treating common complications. This article utilizes key points for easy access of important messages and authors’ recommendation based on the authors’ clinical experiences

Mouse Anesthesia: The Art and Science

There is an art and science to performing mouse anesthesia, which is a significant component to animal research. Frequently, anesthesia is one vital step of many over the course of a research project spanning weeks, months, or beyond. It is critical to perform anesthesia according to the approved research protocol using appropriately handled and administered pharmaceutical-grade compounds whenever possible. Sufficient documentation of the anesthetic event and procedure should also be performed to meet the legal, ethical, and research reproducibility obligations. However, this regulatory and documentation process may lead to the use of a few possibly oversimplified anesthetic protocols used for mouse procedures and anesthesia. Although a frequently used anesthetic protocol may work perfectly for each mouse anesthetized, sometimes unexpected complications will arise, and quick adjustments to the anesthetic depth and support provided will be required. As an old saying goes, anesthesia is 99% boredom and 1% sheer terror. The purpose of this review article is to discuss the science of mouse anesthesia together with the art of applying these anesthetic techniques to provide readers with the knowledge needed for successful anesthetic procedures. The authors include experiences in mouse inhalant and injectable anesthesia, peri-anesthetic monitoring, specific procedures, and treating common complications. This article utilizes key points for easy access of important messages and authors\u27 recommendation based on the authors\u27 clinical experiences

Effects of Standard and Sustained-release Buprenorphine on the Minimum Alveolar Concentration of Isoflurane in C57BL/6 Mice

Both standard and sustained-release injectable formulations of buprenorphine (Bup and BupSR, respectively) are used as preemptive analgesics, potentially affecting gas anesthetic requirements. This study tested the effects of Bup and BupSR on isoflurane requirements and confirmed that buprenorphine could reduce isoflurane requirements during a laparotomy in mice. We hypothesized that both Bup and BupSR would significantly decrease the required minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of isoflurane. C57BL/6 mice received either isotonic crystalloid fluid (control), Bup (0.1 mg/kg), or BupSR (1.2 mg/kg) subcutaneously 10 min prior to the induction of anesthesia. Each anesthetized mouse was tested at 2 isoflurane concentrations. A 300-g noxious stimulus was applied at each isoflurane concentration, alternating between hindfeet. In addition, a subset of mice underwent terminal laparotomy or 60 min of anesthesia after injection with Bup, BupSR, or saline to ensure an appropriate surgical plane of anesthesia. Mice were maintained at the lowest isoflurane concentration that resulted in 100% of mice at a surgical plane from the aforementioned MAC experiments (control, 2.0%; Bup and BupSR, 1.7%). Analysis showed that both Bup and BupSR significantly decreased isoflurane requirements by 25.5% and 14.4%, respectively. The isoflurane MAC for the control injection was 1.80% ± 0.09%; whereas Bup and BupSR decreased MAC to 1.34% ± 0.08% and 1.54% ± 0.09%, respectively. Sex was not a significantly different between the injection groups during MAC determination. All of the mice that underwent surgery achieved a surgical plane of anesthesia on the prescribed regimen and recovered normally after discontinuation of isoflurane. Lastly, heart and respiratory rates did not differ between mice that underwent surgery and those that were anesthetized only. Bup and BupSR are MAC-sparing in male and female C57BL/6 mice and can be used for effective multimodal anesthesia

Microfluidic Single-Cell Analysis Shows That Porcine Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell–Derived Endothelial Cells Improve Myocardial Function by Paracrine Activation

Rationale: Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) hold great promise for the development of patient-specific therapies for cardiovascular disease. However, clinical translation will require preclinical optimization and validation of large-animal iPSC models. Objective: To successfully derive endothelial cells from porcine iPSCs and demonstrate their potential utility for the treatment of myocardial ischemia. Methods and Results: Porcine adipose stromal cells were reprogrammed to generate porcine iPSCs (piPSCs). Immunohistochemistry, quantitative PCR, microarray hybridization, and angiogenic assays confirmed that piPSC-derived endothelial cells (piPSC-ECs) shared similar morphological and functional properties as endothelial cells isolated from the autologous pig aorta. To demonstrate their therapeutic potential, piPSC-ECs were transplanted into mice with myocardial infarction. Compared with control, animals transplanted with piPSC-ECs showed significant functional improvement measured by echocardiography (fractional shortening at week 4: 27.2 +/- 1.3% versus 22.3 +/- 1.1%; P<0.001) and MRI (ejection fraction at week 4: 45.8 +/- 1.3% versus 42.3 +/- 0.9%; P<0.05). Quantitative protein assays and microfluidic single-cell PCR profiling showed that piPSC-ECs released proangiogenic and antiapoptotic factors in the ischemic microenvironment, which promoted neovascularization and cardiomyocyte survival, respectively. Release of paracrine factors varied significantly among subpopulations of transplanted cells, suggesting that transplantation of specific cell populations may result in greater functional recovery. Conclusions: In summary, this is the first study to successfully differentiate piPSCs-ECs from piPSCs and demonstrate that transplantation of piPSC-ECs improved cardiac function after myocardial infarction via paracrine activation. Further development of these large animal iPSC models will yield significant insights into their therapeutic potential and accelerate the clinical translation of autologous iPSC-based therapy. (Circ Res. 2012;111:882-893.)Cardiac & Cardiovascular SystemsHematologyPeripheral Vascular DiseaseSCI(E)22ARTICLE7882-89311