Measurement and Mitigation of Laboratory Animal Distress Sources of Distress in the Animal Laboratory

Pain and distress differ, but overlap. For the purposes of this discussion, we will consider pain to involve nociceptive input of stimuli that are potentially tissue damaging, and that further include an unpleasant emotional component (Merskey and Bogduk 1994). Pain need not necessarily induce distress, as when an animal or human willingly undergoes some painful situation in order to achieve a desired reward. In that case, while the pain may be unpleasant, it is not so severe as to be intolerable. Likewise, there are many potential causes of distress that do not involve physical pain

Pain and Laboratory Animals: Publication Practices for Better Data Reproducibility and Better Animal Welfare

Scientists who perform major survival surgery on laboratory animals face a dual welfare and methodological challenge: how to choose surgical anesthetics and post-operative analgesics that will best control animal suffering, knowing that both pain and the drugs that manage pain can all affect research outcomes. Scientists who publish full descriptions of animal procedures allow critical and systematic reviews of data, demonstrate their adherence to animal welfare norms, and guide other scientists on how to conduct their own studies in the field. We investigated what information on animal pain management a reasonably diligent scientist might find in planning for a successful experiment. To explore how scientists in a range of fields describe their management of this ethical and methodological concern, we scored 400 scientific articles that included major animal survival surgeries as part of their experimental methods, for the completeness of information on anesthesia and analgesia. The 400 articles (250 accepted for publication pre-2011, and 150 in 2014–15, along with 174 articles they reference) included thoracotomies, craniotomies, gonadectomies, organ transplants, peripheral nerve injuries, spinal laminectomies and orthopedic procedures in dogs, primates, swine, mice, rats and other rodents. We scored articles for Publication Completeness (PC), which was any mention of use of anesthetics or analgesics; Analgesia Use (AU) which was any use of post-surgical analgesics, and Analgesia Completeness (a composite score comprising intra-operative analgesia, extended post-surgical analgesia, and use of multimodal analgesia). 338 of 400 articles were PC. 98 of these 338 were AU, with some mention of analgesia, while 240 of 338 mentioned anesthesia only but not post-surgical analgesia. Journals’ caliber, as measured by their 2013 Impact Factor, had no effect on PC or AU. We found no effect of whether a journal instructs authors to consult the ARRIVE publishing guidelines published in 2010 on PC or AC for the 150 mouse and rat articles in our 2014–15 dataset. None of the 302 articles that were silent about analgesic use included an explicit statement that analgesics were withheld, or a discussion of how pain management or untreated pain might affect results. We conclude that current scientific literature cannot be trusted to present full detail on use of animal anesthetics and analgesics. We report that publication guidelines focus more on other potential sources of bias in experimental results, under-appreciate the potential for pain and pain drugs to skew data, and thus mostly treat pain management as solely an animal welfare concern, in the jurisdiction of animal care and use committees. At the same time, animal welfare regulations do not include guidance on publishing animal data, even though publication is an integral part of the cycle of research and can affect the welfare of animals in studies building on published work, leaving it to journals and authors to voluntarily decide what details of animal use to publish. We suggest that journals, scientists and animal welfare regulators should revise current guidelines and regulations, on treatment of pain and on transparent reporting of treatment of pain, to improve this dual welfare and data-quality deficiency

Pain and Laboratory Animals: Publication Practices for Better Data Reproducibility and Better Animal Welfare

Scientists who perform major survival surgery on laboratory animals face a dual welfare and methodological challenge: how to choose surgical anesthetics and post-operative analgesics that will best control animal suffering, knowing that both pain and the drugs that manage pain can all affect research outcomes. Scientists who publish full descriptions of animal procedures allow critical and systematic reviews of data, demonstrate their adherence to animal welfare norms, and guide other scientists on how to conduct their own studies in the field. We investigated what information on animal pain management a reasonably diligent scientist might find in planning for a successful experiment. To explore how scientists in a range of fields describe their management of this ethical and methodological concern, we scored 400 scientific articles that included major animal survival surgeries as part of their experimental methods, for the completeness of information on anesthesia and analgesia. The 400 articles (250 accepted for publication pre-2011, and 150 in 2014–15, along with 174 articles they reference) included thoracotomies, craniotomies, gonadectomies, organ transplants, peripheral nerve injuries, spinal laminectomies and orthopedic procedures in dogs, primates, swine, mice, rats and other rodents. We scored articles for Publication Completeness (PC), which was any mention of use of anesthetics or analgesics; Analgesia Use (AU) which was any use of post-surgical analgesics, and Analgesia Completeness (a composite score comprising intra-operative analgesia, extended post-surgical analgesia, and use of multimodal analgesia). 338 of 400 articles were PC. 98 of these 338 were AU, with some mention of analgesia, while 240 of 338 mentioned anesthesia only but not post-surgical analgesia. Journals’ caliber, as measured by their 2013 Impact Factor, had no effect on PC or AU. We found no effect of whether a journal instructs authors to consult the ARRIVE publishing guidelines published in 2010 on PC or AC for the 150 mouse and rat articles in our 2014–15 dataset. None of the 302 articles that were silent about analgesic use included an explicit statement that analgesics were withheld, or a discussion of how pain management or untreated pain might affect results. We conclude that current scientific literature cannot be trusted to present full detail on use of animal anesthetics and analgesics. We report that publication guidelines focus more on other potential sources of bias in experimental results, under-appreciate the potential for pain and pain drugs to skew data, and thus mostly treat pain management as solely an animal welfare concern, in the jurisdiction of animal care and use committees. At the same time, animal welfare regulations do not include guidance on publishing animal data, even though publication is an integral part of the cycle of research and can affect the welfare of animals in studies building on published work, leaving it to journals and authors to voluntarily decide what details of animal use to publish. We suggest that journals, scientists and animal welfare regulators should revise current guidelines and regulations, on treatment of pain and on transparent reporting of treatment of pain, to improve this dual welfare and data-quality deficiency

Considerations for determining optimal mouse caging density

At the 2006 National Meeting of the American Association of Laboratory Animal Science, a panel discussed the question of what constitutes optimal or acceptable housing density for mice. Though there is a consensus that present guidelines are somewhat arbitrarily defined, scientific research has not yet been able to provide clear recommendations for amending them. Speakers explored the many factors that influence decisions on mouse housing, including regulatory requirements, scientific data and their interpretation, financial considerations and ethical concerns. The panel largely agreed that animal well-being should be the measure of interest in evaluating housing density and that well-being includes not only physical health, but also animals\u27 behavior, productivity and preference

Conserved syntenic clusters of protein coding genes are missing in birds

BACKGROUND: Birds are one of the most highly successful and diverse groups of vertebrates, having evolved a number of distinct characteristics, including feathers and wings, a sturdy lightweight skeleton and unique respiratory and urinary/excretion systems. However, the genetic basis of these traits is poorly understood. RESULTS: Using comparative genomics based on extensive searches of 60 avian genomes, we have found that birds lack approximately 274 protein coding genes that are present in the genomes of most vertebrate lineages and are for the most part organized in conserved syntenic clusters in non-avian sauropsids and in humans. These genes are located in regions associated with chromosomal rearrangements, and are largely present in crocodiles, suggesting that their loss occurred subsequent to the split of dinosaurs/birds from crocodilians. Many of these genes are associated with lethality in rodents, human genetic disorders, or biological functions targeting various tissues. Functional enrichment analysis combined with orthogroup analysis and paralog searches revealed enrichments that were shared by non-avian species, present only in birds, or shared between all species. CONCLUSIONS: Together these results provide a clearer definition of the genetic background of extant birds, extend the findings of previous studies on missing avian genes, and provide clues about molecular events that shaped avian evolution. They also have implications for fields that largely benefit from avian studies, including development, immune system, oncogenesis, and brain function and cognition. With regards to the missing genes, birds can be considered ‘natural knockouts’ that may become invaluable model organisms for several human diseases. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13059-014-0565-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

IFPA meeting 2016 workshop report I: Genomic communication, bioinformatics, trophoblast biology and transport systems

Workshops are an important part of the IFPA annual meeting as they allow for discussion of specialized topics. At IFPA meeting 2016 there were twelve themed workshops, four of which are summarized in this report. These workshops covered innovative technologies applied to new and traditional areas of placental research: 1) genomic communication; 2) bioinformatics; 3) trophoblast biology and pathology; 4) placental transport systems

Assessing Cervical Dislocation as a Humane Euthanasia Method in Mice

Research investigators often choose to euthanize mice by cervical dislocation (CD) when other methods would interfere with the aims of a research project. Others choose CD to assure death in mice treated with injected or inhaled euthanasia agents. CD was first approved for mouse euthanasia in 1972 by the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia, although scientific assessment of its humaneness has been sparse. Here we compared 4 methods of spinal dislocation–3 targeting the cervical area (CD) and one the thoracic region–in regard to time to respiratory arrest in anesthetized mice. Of the 81 mice that underwent CD by 1 of the 3 methods tested, 17 (21%) continued to breathe, and euthanasia was scored as unsuccessful. Postmortem radiography revealed cervical spinal lesions in 5 of the 17 cases of unsuccessful CD euthanasia. In addition, 63 of the 64 successfully euthanized mice had radiographically visible lesions in the high cervical or atlantooccipital region. In addition, 50 of 64 (78%) mice euthanized successfully had radiographically visible thoracic or lumbar lesions or both. Intentionally creating a midthoracic dislocation in anesthetized mice failed to induce respiratory arrest and death in any of the 18 mice subjected to that procedure. We conclude that CD of mice holds the potential for unsuccessful euthanasia, that anesthesia could be valuable for CD skills training and assessment, and that postmortem radiography has minimal promise in quality-control assessments

Report of the Working Group on Animal Distress in the Laboratory

Finding ways to minimize pain and distress in research animals is a continuing goal in the laboratory animal research field. Pain and distress, however, are not synonymous, and often measures that alleviate one do not affect the other. Here, the authors provide a summary of a meeting held in February 2004 that focused on distress in laboratory animals. They discuss the difficulties associated with defining ‘distress,’ propose methods to aid in recognizing and alleviating distressful conditions, and provide recommendations for animal research conduct and oversight that would minimize distress experienced by laboratory animals

Considerations for determining optimal mouse caging density

At the 2006 National Meeting of the American Association of Laboratory Animal Science, a panel discussed the question of what constitutes optimal or acceptable housing density for mice. Though there is a consensus that present guidelines are somewhat arbitrarily defined, scientific research has not yet been able to provide clear recommendations for amending them. Speakers explored the many factors that influence decisions on mouse housing, including regulatory requirements, scientific data and their interpretation, financial considerations and ethical concerns. The panel largely agreed that animal well-being should be the measure of interest in evaluating housing density and that well-being includes not only physical health, but also animals\u27 behavior, productivity and preference