Impact of Refinements to Handling and Restraint Methods in Mice

There is increasing evidence that, compared to non-aversive handling methods (i.e., tunnel and cupping), tail handling has a negative impact on mouse welfare. Despite this evidence, there are still research organisations that continue to use tail handling. Here, we investigated handling for routine...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jennifer R. Davies, Dandri A. Purawijaya, Julia M. Bartlett, Emma S. J. Robinson
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2022-08-01
Series:Animals
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/17/2173
_version_ 1797496799312740352
author Jennifer R. Davies
Dandri A. Purawijaya
Julia M. Bartlett
Emma S. J. Robinson
author_facet Jennifer R. Davies
Dandri A. Purawijaya
Julia M. Bartlett
Emma S. J. Robinson
author_sort Jennifer R. Davies
collection DOAJ
description There is increasing evidence that, compared to non-aversive handling methods (i.e., tunnel and cupping), tail handling has a negative impact on mouse welfare. Despite this evidence, there are still research organisations that continue to use tail handling. Here, we investigated handling for routine husbandry by three different methods: tail, cupping and tube in a relevant real-world scenario involving mice bred off-site. After transfer to the destination unit, mice were assessed for overt behaviours associated with anxiety and fear. Mice that experienced tail handling were less easy to handle, were more responsive to the box opening, and scored lower in a hand approach test. One barrier to non-tail handling methods is the current practice of restraining mice by the tail for procedures. We therefore next assessed whether a modified method for restraint that takes the animal from cupping to restraint without the use of the tail was associated with better welfare. This refined restraint method reduced overt signs of distress although we did not find any differences in corticosterone levels or anxiety-related behaviours. These findings suggest that avoiding tail handling throughout the animal’s laboratory experience, including during restraint, benefits their welfare.
first_indexed 2024-03-10T03:08:43Z
format Article
id doaj.art-91e7d62eb3884cf6b87b57000c78e9a1
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2076-2615
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-10T03:08:43Z
publishDate 2022-08-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Animals
spelling doaj.art-91e7d62eb3884cf6b87b57000c78e9a12023-11-23T12:36:25ZengMDPI AGAnimals2076-26152022-08-011217217310.3390/ani12172173Impact of Refinements to Handling and Restraint Methods in MiceJennifer R. Davies0Dandri A. Purawijaya1Julia M. Bartlett2Emma S. J. Robinson3School of Physiology, Pharmacology & Neuroscience, Biomedical Sciences Building, University of Bristol, University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TD, UKSchool of Physiology, Pharmacology & Neuroscience, Biomedical Sciences Building, University of Bristol, University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TD, UKSchool of Physiology, Pharmacology & Neuroscience, Biomedical Sciences Building, University of Bristol, University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TD, UKSchool of Physiology, Pharmacology & Neuroscience, Biomedical Sciences Building, University of Bristol, University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TD, UKThere is increasing evidence that, compared to non-aversive handling methods (i.e., tunnel and cupping), tail handling has a negative impact on mouse welfare. Despite this evidence, there are still research organisations that continue to use tail handling. Here, we investigated handling for routine husbandry by three different methods: tail, cupping and tube in a relevant real-world scenario involving mice bred off-site. After transfer to the destination unit, mice were assessed for overt behaviours associated with anxiety and fear. Mice that experienced tail handling were less easy to handle, were more responsive to the box opening, and scored lower in a hand approach test. One barrier to non-tail handling methods is the current practice of restraining mice by the tail for procedures. We therefore next assessed whether a modified method for restraint that takes the animal from cupping to restraint without the use of the tail was associated with better welfare. This refined restraint method reduced overt signs of distress although we did not find any differences in corticosterone levels or anxiety-related behaviours. These findings suggest that avoiding tail handling throughout the animal’s laboratory experience, including during restraint, benefits their welfare.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/17/2173mousestresshandlingrestraintrefinementcumulative suffering
spellingShingle Jennifer R. Davies
Dandri A. Purawijaya
Julia M. Bartlett
Emma S. J. Robinson
Impact of Refinements to Handling and Restraint Methods in Mice
Animals
mouse
stress
handling
restraint
refinement
cumulative suffering
title Impact of Refinements to Handling and Restraint Methods in Mice
title_full Impact of Refinements to Handling and Restraint Methods in Mice
title_fullStr Impact of Refinements to Handling and Restraint Methods in Mice
title_full_unstemmed Impact of Refinements to Handling and Restraint Methods in Mice
title_short Impact of Refinements to Handling and Restraint Methods in Mice
title_sort impact of refinements to handling and restraint methods in mice
topic mouse
stress
handling
restraint
refinement
cumulative suffering
url https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/17/2173
work_keys_str_mv AT jenniferrdavies impactofrefinementstohandlingandrestraintmethodsinmice
AT dandriapurawijaya impactofrefinementstohandlingandrestraintmethodsinmice
AT juliambartlett impactofrefinementstohandlingandrestraintmethodsinmice
AT emmasjrobinson impactofrefinementstohandlingandrestraintmethodsinmice