Animal Research Review Panel 1

GUIDELINE22:
DRAFTGUIDELINESFORTHE
HOUSINGOFMICE
IN
SCIENTIFICINSTITUTIONS

Prepared by Dr Anne Fawcett BA(Hons) BSc(Vet)(Hons) BVSc(Hons) CMAVA
NSW Department of Primary Industries, Animal Welfare Branch, West Pennant Hills. [email protected]

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 2

Guideline22 DraftGuidelinesfortheHousingofMiceinScientific Institutions TableofContents

RECOMMENDATIONS 4 18 18 19 19 19 20 24 29 29 30 38 40 40 43 44 47 49 51 53 53 57 60 61 61 64 65 67 68 73 76 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 RESPONSIBILITIES OF INSTITUTIONS 1.3 RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHIEF INVESTIGATORS/ TEACHERS 1.4 THE AUSTRALIAN CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE CARE AND USE OF ANIMALS FOR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES 1.5 ASPECTS OF MOUSE BIOLOGY, PHYSIOLOGY AND BEHAVIOUR RELEVANT TO HOUSING 1.6 GENETICALLY MODIFIED, TRANSGENIC AND KNOCKOUT MICE

2.0 CAGE DESIGN 2.1 LIVING AREA 2.2 CAGE FLOOR AREA 2.3 CAGE HEIGHT AND CAGE LID 2.4 CAGE SHAPE 2.5 CAGE MATERIALS 2.6 CAGE FLOORING 2.7 BEDDING 2.8 NESTING MATERIAL 2.9 INCAGE SHELTERS 2.10 CAGE DIVIDERS 3.0 MOUSE CARE AND MANAGEMENT 3.1 THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 3.2 ISOLATION/INDIVIDUAL HOUSING 3.3 METABOLISM CAGES 3.4 EFFECTS OF HANDLING, ROUTINE HUSBANDRY PROCEDURES AND TRANSPORT 3.4.1 HANDLING (GENERAL) 3.4.2 HANDLING (NEONATES) 3.4.3 ROUTINE HUSBANDRY PROCEDURES 3.4.4 TRANSPORT 3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ENRICHMENT 3.6 FOOD AND WATER 3.7 MONITORING OF MICE

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 3

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES

4.1 GENERAL
4.2 LIGHT
4.2.2 LIGHT CYCLES
4.3 TEMPERATURE
4.4 HUMIDITY
4.5 AIR QUALITY AND VENTILATION
4.5.2 STATIC ISOLATOR CAGES AND
FILTER TOPS
4.5.3 INDIVIDUALLY VENTILATED CAGES 4.6 SOUND AND VIBRATION 4.7 CLEANING 4.8 MONITORING OF ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES 5.0 IDENTIFICATION AND RECORDS 5.1 IDENTIFICATION 5.2 CAGE LABELS 5.3 BREEDING RECORDS 6.0 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 7.0 REFERENCES 8.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

79 79 80 83 84 89 90 92 94
99
102
104
105
105
106
108
110
111
136

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions
Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682
Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink:
http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 4

Recommendations
The following recommendations appear in the body of the text:
1.2.1 Institutions using mice for scientific purposes are responsible for meeting recommendations of the institutions Animal Ethics Committee to ensure that facilities for the housing and care of mice are appropriate to the maintenance ofwellbeingandhealthofthemice. 1.3.1 The chief investigator/teacher (person in charge of a research/teaching project) has direct and ultimate responsibility for all matters related to the welfare of mice under his or her control, which includes their housing and care.(As per the principle contained in Clause 3.1.1 of the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes). 1.3.2 Thechiefinvestigator/teachershouldensurethattheextentofpersonnel/staff supervision is compatible with the level of competence of each person and the responsibilitiestheyaregiveninrelationtomousecareandmanagement.(As per the principle contained in Clause 3.1.3 of the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes). 1.5.1 To meet the requirements of the Code of Practice (that is to provide accommodation that meets the species specific needsof mice), housing should allow mice the opportunity for social interaction, the opportunity to carry out normal behaviours and the opportunity to rest and withdraw fromeach other. Normal behaviours of mice include eating, drinking, urinating, defecating, foraging, exploring, gnawing, hiding, climbing, playing, nesting, digging and engaginginarangeofsocialactivities. 1.5.2 Housing requirements for individual mice may vary according to strain, age, physiology, stocking density, the purpose and the length of time for which animalsareused(forexamplebreedingorexperiments)1. 1.5.3 The code of practice recognises that there may be circumstances where the requirements of experimental procedures will preclude meeting some species specific needs (Clause 4.4.19). Variations to these requirements as part of a project must endeavour to meet the physiological and psychological needs of mice as closely as possible, and must receive prior Animal Ethics Committee approval. 1.6.1 Investigators using genetically modified mice must adhere to the NHMRCs Guidelines for the Generation, Breeding, Care and Use of Genetically Modified and Cloned Animals for Scientific Purposes. Genetically modified and cloned animals are subject to State and Territory animal welfare legislation. Investigators must make enquiries to determine whether they are subject to requirements of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under theGeneTechnologyAct. 1.6.2 Mouse behaviour may vary between different strains or stock. Investigators should be well acquainted with behaviour and needs of their particular
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 5

experimental animals and incorporate this knowledge into husbandry and experimentaldesign. 1.6.3 Structured welfare assessments should be performed for newly bred and maintained genetically modified mice and any genetically modified lines introducedintotheestablishment. 1.6.4 Investigators should evaluate the impact of housing, husbandry and environmental enrichment on welfare and experimental variability for each strainused 1.6.5 Forspecific husbandry advice foreachindividualstrain,investigatorsshould seek strainspecific information and recommendations from the supplier, institution of origin and murine databases such as the Mouse Genome Informatics Database (www.informatics.jax.org) and Eumorphia (www.eumorphia.org). 1.6.6 When using genetically modified, transgenic or knockout mice, investigators should carefully weigh the value of the experiment against welfare issues relatedtotheparticularstrainorstrainsused.Investigatorsshouldbemindful thatwelfare concernsarise notonly duringthe study,butinthe development andproductionofparticularstrains. 2.1.1 The living area for mice must allow them to satisfy their basic physiological and behavioural needs including the ability to eat, drink, urinate, defecate, forage, explore, gnaw, hide, climb, play, nest, dig and engage in a range of socialactivities. 2.1.2 The living area should be constructed and arranged in such a way to allow mice tocompartmentalise theirspace,sothatdifferentareascanbe usedfor urination,defecation,eatingandresting. 2.2.1 As a guide, enclosures should allow for a minimum floor area of 60cm2 per adultmouse,withaminimumfloorareaof500cm2fortwoormoremiceanda minimumfloorareaof250cm2forasinglemouse. 2.2.2 As a guide, a breeding pair or female with pups requires a minimum total cage floor area of 500cm2, with an additional 100cm2 for each additional adultfemale. 2.2.3 Toreduce anxiety andaggression,largercagesshouldbe designedinsucha wayastoavoidlargeopenspaces. 2.2.4 Becauseofthe wide variationinconclusionsdrawnfromstudiesdesignedto determine optimum cagefloorarea,itisnecessary forresearcherstoassess whetheraparticularstrainiscopingwithaparticularlivingarea.Parameters assessed may include tendency to perform normal behaviours, aggressive encounters or fight wounds, weight changes, incidence of illness and/or reproductiveperformance.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 6

2.3.1 The heightofcagesshouldallowmice tostandontheirhindlegs,stretchup fully and climb on the bars of the cage lid. This height does not need to be providedovertheentireareaofthecage. 2.3.2 Thecagelidshouldincorporateagridsectionwhichwillallowtheanimalsto climb. Toreduce the incidence ofstereotypic behaviour, nestingmaterial, an incage shelter and environmental enrichment should be provided (see sections 2.8 Nesting Material, 2.9 Incage Shelters and 3.5 Environmental Enrichmentforfurtherdetails). 2.3.3 Where cages are fitted with platforms or incage shelters, the distance between the top of the platform or incage shelter and the top of the cage should be sufficient to allow mice to climb on topof the platform or incage shelter. 2.3.4 While cage height (over part of the cage) should allow for upright standing behaviour, foodandwatershouldbe accessible atalevelthatallowsmice to sitwhileeatinganddrinking 2.3.5 Untilfurtherevidencebecomesavailable,itisrecommendedthatmousecages areaminimumof12cmhigh. 2.3.6 Thedesignofthecagelidshouldfacilitateclimbing. 2.4.1 There is no clear evidence of preference among mice for a particular cage shape. Evidence indicates the contents of the cage is more important than cageshape. 2.4.2 Until further evidence comes to light the use of rectangular or square shaped cagesisappropriateformice.

2.5.1 Cages should be constructed fromnontoxic, nonabsorbable material that is easytoclean.Untreatedwoodencagesshouldnotbeused. 2.5.2 Cages should be durable, resistant to heat and chemicals, and escape and predatorproof. 2.5.3 Wornordamagedcagesand/orwatercontainersshouldbereplaced. 2.5.4 Polycarbonate or polysulphone cages and/or water containers should be avoided,particularlyinreproductivestudies. 2.5.5 Colourless, transparent cages or white opaque cages are preferred. Unless requiredforastudy,cagecolourshouldbeconsistentthroughoutthefacility. 2.5.6 Cages should be handled and maintained to minimise damage. For example, cages should not be hit or banged against hard surfaces or stacked morethan 15 cages high. Plastic cages and bottles should be washed in hot (6066C), soft water with a manufacturerrecommended detergent solution. All residue mustberemovedpriortoautoclavingasthismaybebakedontothecage.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 7

2.6.1 Solidfloorsarerecommendedformousecaging. 2.6.2 Wire mesh floors should not be used for mouse caging without express permission of the Animal Ethics Committee of the institution on the basis of compelling evidence for the need to use such flooring. In such cases, a solid floor section and nesting material should be provided. The size of the mesh gapsshouldnotexceed8mmx8mm(Seealso3.3MetabolismCages).

2.7.1 Beddingshouldbeprovidedinmousecagesandshouldbepresentinsufficient quantitytocovertheentirefloor.Thedepthofbeddingrequiredwillvarywith the type of bedding used, the number of mice in the cage and frequency of cleaning. Ideally mice should be able to dig, if not burrow. As a guide, the depthofthebeddingshouldbeaminimumof2cm. 2.7.2 Bedding should produce a minimal amount of dust and consist of particles thatlendthemselvestomanipulationbymice. 2.7.3 To reduce experimental variability, particularly where pharmacological experiments are concerned, the use of a single type of bedding is recommended. 2.7.4 Autoclaving of bedding is recommended to reduce the potential for microbial contamination. It should be ensured (for example by consulting the manufacturer) that toxic compounds are not formed during treatment of bedding. 2.7.5 Softwoodderived bedding should be avoided. Paper, grassbased or hardwoodmaterialshouldbeutilisedinstead.

2.8.1 All mice should be provided with nesting material in addition to bedding material. 2.8.2 Nesting material should be nontoxic, atraumatic, loose, manipulable and light enough to be carried. Suitable materials include shredded paper and tissues. 2.8.3 To minimise aggression, at least some nesting material should be transferred duringcagecleaning. 2.8.4 Depending on the strain of mice used, nesting material may be placed on top ofthecagetoallowmicetopullthematerialthroughthebars.

2.9.1 Mice should be provided with an incage shelter within their cage. Shelters shouldbeprovidedinadditionto,notasasubstitutefor,nestingmaterial. 2.9.2 Incage shelters should have solid or grid sides and a roof that allows withdrawalfromlight(andfromothermice)andshouldbeconstructedsothat micecanclimbontotheroof.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 8

2.9.3 Where incage shelters are made of chewable material such as paper or cardboard, itshould be ensured the material is nontoxic to mice norprone to causegastrointestinalobstructions. 2.9.4 Thereshould be enoughspace between the roof of theshelter and the cage lid toallowformiceclimbingontotheroofoftheshelter. 2.10.1 Cagedividers, labyrinths and mazes should not be used in the housing of aggressivestrains,particularlymalemice. 2.10.2 Cage dividers should be arranged in a way that provides an escaperoute for mice. 2.10.3 Where cage dividers, labyrinths and mazes are used, mice should be monitored for fight wounds and/or aggressive behaviour, as this will impact on the welfare of the mice in addition to being a source of experimental variability. 3.1.1 Mice are social animals and should, wherever possible, be maintained in stable,harmonioussocialgroups. 3.1.2 Groups of mice should be monitored to ensure social stability as well as the detection of behavioural and physiological abnormalities. There are situations, for example studies involving highly aggressive strains, where grouphousingisnotsuitable. 3.1.3 Pair housing of male mice is not recommended due to a high probability of aggression. 3.1.4 Ideallymousegroupsshouldconsistoflittermatesofthesamesex. 3.1.5 Miceshouldbegroupedwitheachotherbeforetheyreachpubertytominimise aggressionbetweenunfamiliarindividuals. 3.1.6 As a guide, the optimal size for a group of adult mice is three to five for femalesandthreeformales.However,indetermininggroupsize,factorssuch as differences between individual animals, strain, sex and cage size should be takenintoaccount. 3.1.7 Thedisruptionofestablishedsocialgroupsshouldbeavoided. 3.1.8 Separationofcagematesshouldbelimitedtolessthan24hours. 3.1.9 Adultmalesfromdifferentgroupsshouldnotbeplacedinthesamecage. 3.1.10 Whereitisnecessarytomixunfamiliaradultmales,theyshouldbeexposedto eachotherbeforetheyaremixedtogether.Thiscanbeachievedbyplacingthe newcomer into an adjoining cage to allow visual, auditory and olfactory contactwiththeothermale.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 9

3.1.11 Nesting material should be provided to minimise conflict. Following cage cleaning, nesting material should be transferred fromthe old to the new cage tominimiseaggression(seeSection4.7Cleaning). 3.1.12 Mice should not be housed in the same room, or within auditory, olfactory or visualcontact,withpredatoryspeciesincludingratsandcats.

3.2.1 Ideally mice should not be housed individually, however there are some circumstances (for example with highly aggressive individuals or strains) whereindividualhousingmaybemoreconducivetomousewelfare. 3.2.2 Except in cases where immediate isolation of an individual is required to prevent injury, investigators must seek Animal Ethics Committee approval priortohousingmiceindividually. 3.2.1 Where mice are housed individually due to aggression, visual, auditory and olfactorycontactwithothermiceshouldbelimitedasfaraspossible. 3.2.4 Where mice are housed individually for reasons other than aggression, they shouldbehousedinvisual,auditoryandolfactorycontactwithothermice. 3.2.5 In cases where individual housing is required, environmental enrichment shouldbeprovidedtoamelioratetheimpactofindividualhousing(seeSection 3.5EnvironmentalEnrichment). 3.3.1 Mice should not be housed in metabolism cages without the express permission of the Animal Ethics Committee of the institution on the basis of compelling evidence for the need to house mice in this way. In such cases, mice should be able to be in visual, auditory and olfactory contact with other mice as far as possible. The size of the mesh gaps should not exceed 8mm x 8mm(Seealso2.6CageFlooring. 3.3.2 Miceshouldbeacclimatisedtothemetabolismcagebeforestudiescommence. 3.3.3 Where metabolism cages have to be used, consideration should be given to enriching the cages (for example by providing an area of solid floor and/or a nestbox)providingthisdoesnotinterferewiththestudy.

3.4.1.1Animal handlers should wash their hands, change gloves and wear clean coatsbeforehandlingmice. 3.4.1.2Steps should be taken to familiarise mice with handlers so as to reduce the stressofhandling. 3.4.1.3Miceshouldbehandledquietlyandgently. 3.4.1.4Periodsofrestraintshouldbekepttoaminimum.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 10

3.4.1.5Handling mice for routine husbandry procedures such as cleaning should not follow,norbeassociatedwith,proceduresthatmaycausedistressinmice. 3.4.1.6Chasing mice around their cage should be avoided. Mice that prove difficult tocatchbyhandshouldbedirectedintoaplastictubeorsimilarstructureand thenceliftedfromtheenclosureandcoaxedfromthetube. 3.4.2.1Investigators must be aware that handling of neonates can have a long term impactonthewelfareofanimalsthatpersiststhroughouttheirlives. 3.4.2.2Handling of neonates should only be performed where necessary and must be performed consistently across a subpopulation or population of mice to minimiseexperimentalvariability. 3.4.2.3Whereneonatesarehandled,handlingmustbeperformedquietlyandgently. 3.4.2.4Earlyweaningofmice(priorto21daysofage)shouldonlybeperformedwith permissionfromtheAnimalEthicsCommittee.

3.4.3.1To minimise the impact of disruptions, mice should be allowed a conditioning period to ensure that disturbances such as laboratory animal personnel entering the room do not cause undue stress. A period of seven days is recommended. 3.4.3.2Persons entering the mouse holding roomshould follow a routine as much as possible. 3.4.3.3Stressfulproceduresshouldbeconductedinisolationfromothermice. 3.4.4.1Transportation times should be kept to a minimum. Effort should be taken to containmiceinsuchawaytominimisenoise,vibrationandextreme variation intemperature. 3.4.4.2Where possible, mice should be transported in their home cage to minimise stress. 3.4.4.3Mice should have access to food and water during transport. Precautions should be taken to prevent water spillage, for example by providing an alternatesourceofwatersuchasasterilewatergel. 3.4.4.4Following onsite transport, a minimum of 24 hours should be allowed for acclimation. 3.4.4.5Following offsite transport, a minimum acclimation period of 37 days is recommended, although longer may be required for stabilisation of behaviouralandreproductiveparameters. 3.4.4.6Mice deemed to be unwell or injured should not be transported, unless it can beestablishedthattransportdoesnotresultinadditionalpainordistress.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 11

3.5.1 Miceshouldbeprovidedwithenvironmentalenrichmentinadditiontonesting materialandanincageshelter. 3.5.2 Depending on the type of enrichment and how it is implemented, environmental enrichment may be a significant source of experimental variability. It is therefore critical that environmental enrichment is applied consistentlytogroupsofmice. 3.5.3 Items that allow mice to perform each of the five following categories of behaviourshouldbeprovided: (i) socialinteraction(seeSection3.1TheSocialEnvironment) (ii) chewing/gnawing (iii) locomotion(includingclimbing,exploring,playing) (iv) resting/hiding (v) manipulating,carryingandhoardingfoodandobjects 3.5.4 Enrichmentitemscanbeprovidedonarotatingbasistoincreasetheirnovelty value . 3.5.5 When techniques are used in an effort to provide environmental enrichment for mice it is important that the success of the techniques, in terms of improving mouse welfare, is evaluated. In particular, male mice should be monitoredforincreasedaggression. . 3.5.6 Spatial conditions should be generous enough to allow coping with any increasedaggressionthatmayresultfromenvironmentalenrichment. 3.6.1 Foodandfreshwatershouldbeprovidedad libitumunlessspecialpermission hasbeenobtainedfromtheAnimalEthicsCommitteeoftheinstitutiontovary thisregime . 3.6.2 Anutritionallyadequatedietshouldbeprovidedformice. 3.6.3 Where treats are fed, these should be accounted for in the overall ration of micetoavoidobesity. 3.6.4 Food and water should be free of contaminants unless these are part of the study.Autoclavedorirradiatedpelletsshouldbeusedforimmunodeficientor barriermaintainedmice. 3.6.5 Food must be stored in a clean, dry, verminfree, wellventilated area to reducetheriskofpostpurchasecontamination. 3.6.6 Water delivery systems should be checked daily to ensure proper function. Caremustbetakentoensurewaterdeliverysystemsdonotleak,particularly when cages are moved during cleaning or transport. Where practical, mice shouldbeprovidedwithanelevatedorsuspendeddryrefugeareaincaseof flooding.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 12

3.6.7 To minimise the risk of crosscontamination, it should be ensured that water bottlesarenotinterchangedbetweengroupsofmice. 3.6.8 Itshouldbeensuredthatmiceareabletousewaterdeliverysystems. 3.6.9 Food may be scattered throughout the cage as a form of environmental enrichment(seesection3.5EnvironmentalEnrichment). 3.7.1 Welfaremonitoringofmiceviabehaviouralobservationshouldbecarriedout in addition to monitoring for physical health. Investigators should be familiar with strain and/or transgenemediated health conditions so that they can be diagnosedandtreatedinatimelymanner. 3.7.2 Monitoring should be carried out when a person with whom the mice are familiar is present. It should be ensured that there are sufficient, properly trainedstaffandresourcestomonitormiceeffectively. 3.7.3 In the monitoring and investigation of health issues (such as growth rate, reproductive performance and disease) the effects of housing conditions shouldbetakenintoaccount. 3.7.4 Animal carers should be familiar with the normal physical appearance and behaviour of mice and of the individuals within a group and note any deviationsfromthenorm,includinganimalsthatdonotmovearoundthecage normally. Mice that give cause for concern may need to be removed from the group. 3.7.5 In particular, mice should be monitored for signs of bullying including fight wounds, barbering or loss of body condition secondary to denial of access to foodorwater. 3.7.6 Sick mice (unless part of a study) should be examined and diagnosed by a veterinarian and any animals that die unexpectedly should routinely be submittedforpostmortemanddiagnosis. 3.7.7 Records and score sheets should be reviewed regularly to detect trends and subtlechanges. 4.2.1.1Lighting within cages during the light phase should be maintained at a luminance below the threshold of aversion for mice. For most pigmented strains this is below 60lux and for albino strains it is below 25lux. To enable staff to perform tasks in mouse rooms it may be necessary to increase the lightingto210luxatworkingheight. 4.2.1.2Light intensity can be reduced by using recessed lighting consoles in the ceilingwithfluorescentlightsofabout2536wattandalowspectralintensity (wavelength). This can be achieved by using a low colour number, e.g. colour 33tubes.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 13

4.2.1.3Shadingshould beprovided over the topshelves ofracks and cages and racks should be positioned in a way that protects mice in the top cages from overhead lights and provides more uniform light levels between cages on differentshelves. 4.2.1.4Lighting should be diffuse and uniform to avoid glare, heat clusters and fluctuatinglightingconditionsforindividualcages. 4.2.1.5Ifhalogenlightingisused,asilicaglasscovermustbeinterposedbetweenthe bulbandmicetominimisegenotoxicandcarcinogeniceffects. 4.2.1.6If mice are observed during the dark phase red or sodium lamps should be usedtominimiseanydisruptiontotheirnocturnalactivities. 4.2.2.1A seminatural light cycle of 12:12 or 10:14 hours light:dark is suggested. Variations in the light:dark cycle to mimic seasonal change could be considered. 4.2.2.2The use of dimmers in mouse rooms is suggested to allow the creation of twilightperiodsbetweenthelightanddarkcycles. 4.2.2.3Cycles may be disturbed if lighting clocks or timers malfunction. Clocks and timers should be checked regularly. In the event of a disturbance mice should be allowed an additional acclimation/habituation period, as disruption to the lightcycleisasourceofexperimentalvariability. 4.2.2.4Care should be taken to prevent light leaks in animal rooms during the dark phase. 4.2.2.5Lightsshouldbecheckedforflickeringandanyflickeringrectified. 4.3.1 A room temperature range for mouse housing between 20 and 26C is recommended. Consideration of the strain of mice used (for example hairless or obese strains) and procedures that may disrupt thermoregulatory ability (forexampleanaesthesia,viralinoculation)shouldbetakenintoaccount. 4.3.2 Significant fluctuations in temperature should be avoided. In particular, ambient temperature must be carefully controlled where cardiovascular parametersandsleepareassessed. 4.3.3 Mice should be provided with nesting and bedding materials and an incage shelter to allow them to select an appropriate microclimate, particularly for sleeping. 4.3.4 Special attention should be given to those circumstances where the mouses thermoregulatory ability is altered or compromised. Cage temperature for lactating mice and pups up to three weeks of age should be at the higher end oftherecommendedrange(2426C).
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 14

4.3.5 Ambient temperature should be monitored within the cage and at various points within the room to monitor variation so as to optimally manage the microenvironment. 4.3.6 Adjustingthe ambienttemperature may be apotentialapproachtopromoting recuperation following sleep deprivation and mitigating the effects of viral infection.FormoreinformationseeJhaveriet al2. 4.4.1 Arelative ambienthumidity atthe levelofmouse cagesof55percent+/15 percent(4070)isrecommendedforadultmice. 4.4.2 A relative ambient humidity at the level of mouse cages of 5070% is recommendedforyoungmicepriortoweaning. 4.5.1 The number of room air changes per hour needs to be adjusted to keep air qualityandhumidityatacceptablelevelswithincages.Roomventilationrates of1520ACHmaybeneeded . 4.5.2 Racks should be positioned in a room so as to optimise air exchange and avoidanimalsbeingexposedtodraughts. 4.5.3 Air quality, air flow, temperature and humidity should be measured both in theroomandwithincages. 4.5.4 Exhausts should be installed close to ground level when cages are placed paralleltowalls. 4.5.5 Intracageammonialevelsshouldbekeptat25ppmorbelow. 4.5.2.1Staticisolatorcagesmustbecleanedonceaweektoavoidexcessiveammonia andcarbondioxidelevels. 4.5.2.2Supply air temperature should be maintained at 22 degrees, and room ventilationat15ACH,tominimiseammoniaconcentration. 4.5.2.3The population density of mice in static isolator cages should be kept to a minimum. 4.5.3.1For rooms holding individually ventilated cages, usually five ACH will be sufficienttomaintainroomairquality . 4.5.3.2Ideally,ventilatedsystemsshouldbesetupsothatindividualcagesareunder negativepressurewithallairexhaustenteringoutoftheroomviaaheating, ventilationandairconditioningsystem. 4.5.3.3Forindividuallyventilatedcageshousingnongravidadultmice,aventilation rateof60ACHisrecommendedifcagesarechangedfortnightly.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 15

4.5.3.4For individually ventilated cages housing breeding trios and/or pups, a ventilation rate of 60100 ACH is recommended. Cages should be changed fortnightly. 4.5.3.5It is imperative that nesting material and an incage shelter are provided in ventilatedcages. 4.5.3.6Cleaning regimes should be managed to maintain ammonia levels within a cagebelow25ppm. 4.5.3.7Investigatorsshouldbeawareofthepotentialimpactofindividuallyventilated cages on the emotionality and behaviour of particular mouse strains. For example, different systems may produce different levels of noise, some of whichmaybeaversiveorharmfultomice. 4.5.3.8As air supply can be interrupted by power failure, instillation of an airflow controller in the supply air duct (positive pressure) or exhaust duct (negative pressure),whichisconnectedtoanalarmsystem,isrecommended3. 4.6.1 Investigators should familiarise themselves with the hearing range and any potentialauditorydysfunctionofthestrainofmicebeingused. 4.6.2 Sources of sound including ultrasound should be considered when assessing soundlevelstowhichmiceareexposed.Environmentalnoisemaybeasource of variance which may confound results, necessitating the use of additional experimental animals. Computers, or any other equipment likely to emit high frequency ultrasound, should not be used in rooms where mice are housed. If the use of such equipment is unavoidable then measures, such as packing the equipment in polystyrene foamplating, should be taken to dampen ultrasonic noises. 4.6.3 Sound measuring equipment including soundlevel meters, condenser microphones, attenuators, amplifiers, weighting and filter networks must be capable of detecting sounds in the range of frequencies appropriate to the species/strainbeingused. 4.6.4 Because of the potential for adverse effects, unnecessary sounds or noise should be eliminated from facilities in which mice are kept. In particular, avoidsudden,loudsounds. 4.6.5 Individually ventilated cages and racks should be checked for vibration and vibrationinanimalrooms,especiallyofcages,shouldbeeliminated. 4.6.6 Due to the vibrations created, placing motorised equipment on bench tops withcagesshouldbeavoided. 4.7.1 The need for changing bedding depends on the type and amount of bedding usedandairquality.Frequencyofbeddingchangeswillalsobeinfluencedby stocking rates, ventilation system, strains of mice used and particular disease
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 16

conditions(forexample,diabetes).Asaguide,beddingiscommonly replaced aboutonceaweek. 4.7.2 Cleaning regimes should be managed to maintain ammonia levels within a cagebelow25ppm. 4.7.3 Nesting material should be transferred from the old to the new cage during cleaningtominimiseaggression.Note,beddingmaterialsoiledwithurineand faeces should not be transferred to clean cages as this may exacerbate aggression. 4.7.4 Care should be taken to avoid contamination of cages with scents from differentmouse strains.Cagesshouldbe cleanedthoroughly andstepstaken to ensure soiled bedding or nesting material cannot fall into other cages. In addition,stepsshouldbetakentoensurethatmalemicearenotexposedtothe urineofothermalemicewhentemporarilyremovedfromtheirsocialgroups. 4.7.5 Plastic cagesandbottlesshouldbewashedinhot (6066C) softwaterwitha manufacturerrecommended detergent solution. All residue must be removed priortoautoclavingasthismaybebakedontothecage.

4.8.1 Mouse roomsshouldhave temperature andhumidity readingsdisplayedina positionwherestaffcaneasilyseethem. 4.8.2 Regardless of centralised computer systems regulating the general environmentalconditions,itisstillessentialtocheckthesevariablesregularly intheroomtoindicateconditionsatthecagelevel. 4.8.3 Sensors should be fitted to monitor and report malfunctions in ventilation, temperature and humidity control on a 24 hour basis, with automatic alarm activationandalertingofappropriate staffsothatany unexpectedvariations canbeidentifiedandcorrected. 4.8.4 Onalargerscale,facilitiesmustbe equippedtodetecthazardssuchasfireor entryofunauthorisedpersons. 4.8.5 Care should be taken that the operation of an alarm causes minimal disturbancetomice1(seeSection 4.6 Sound and Vibration) 5.1.1 Where it is necessary to individually identify mice, the least invasive method that is compatiblewiththeuseofmiceshouldbeused. 5.1.2Nontoxic dyesandpermanentmarkersmaybe usedonthefurandtail.These methods ofidentificationusuallyneedtobereplacedeverytendays.Swabbingthetailwith70 per cent isopropyl alcohol prior to marking is recommended to extend the life of markeridentification. 5.1.3Furclippingmaybeusedbutneedstobecarriedoutfrequently. 5.1.4Subcutaneousmicrochipping,tattooingandearnotchingmaybeusedwherepermanent identification is necessary. Note there is some transitory pain associated with
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 17

applyingthese formsof identification.Anaesthesia orsedation andanalgesiashould beusedinapplyingtattoosandearnotches. 5.1.5Toeandtailtipamputationarepainfulproceduresandshouldnotbeused. 5.2.1 All cages should have labels attached to them that provide the following information, or cross reference to a central record in the same room containingthisinformation: *Mouseidentification(strain,sex,numberofmice;) *Age(dateofbirth)oflittersorofindividualmice; *Nameandapprovalnumberofprojectinwhichmicearebeingused; *Name,locationandcontactnumbersofthechiefinvestigator/teacherand,if applicable,otherinvestigators/teachersusingmice *Name,locationandcontactdetailsofstaffassociatedwiththe housing and careofthemice. *Treatments/procedures 5.3.1 To assist in the monitoring and management of mouse breeding colonies, regularreportsmustbe made tothe AnimalEthicsCommittee,forreview,on thefertility,fecundity,morbidityandmortalityofallmousebreedingcolonies. Reports should be submitted every six months, but may be required more frequently if deemed necessary by the Animal Ethics Committee. For further information refer to ARRP Guideline 16: Supervision of Animal Supply by AnimalEthicsCommittees. . 5.3.2 Section 4.5.8 Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals For Scientific Purposes states that the person in charge must maintain adequate records to allow effective management of the breeding stock including the detection of the origin and spread of disease. Records should include: (i) the source, care, allocation, movement betweenlocations, use and fateofallanimals; (ii)detailsofanydiseases; (iii) the fertility, fecundity, morbidity and mortality in breeding colonies;and (iv)thehealthstatus,geneticconstitutionandphysicalenvironmentof theanimals.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 18

1.0 General
1.1Introduction
(i) These guidelines are intended for use by people involved in the housing and care of mice in scientific institutions. The guidelines are not intended to be a complete manual on mouse care and management but rather to provide some key guiding principles on best practice standards in mouse housing. The guidelines will be revised from time to time to take account of advances in the understanding of murine physiology and behaviour, technological advances, and changes in community attitudes and expectations about the welfare of animals. (ii) The recent explosion of scientific studies on the subject of the housing of mice has facilitated the development of evidencebased guidelines4. The housing of mice in particular has been targeted as mice used for scientific purposes spend the majority if not all of their existence in laboratory housing. The nature of that housing therefore has the potential to significantly impact upon the welfare of all laboratory mice4. The number of mice used in laboratories is likely to increase, as the use of genetically modified, transgenic and knockout mice to understand gene function has resulted in an increase in the number of animals used in scientific procedures5, 6, 7. The implementation of housing guidelines will therefore have a broad impact. (iii) Under the Australian Code Of Practice For The Care And Use Of Animals For Scientific Purposes (see below section 1.3 Responsibilities of Chief Investigators/Teachers), investigators and teachers who use animals for scientific purposes have personal responsibility for all matters regarding the welfare of these animals, and are obliged to treat animals with respect and consider their welfare when planning or conducting projects. The Code of Practice is underpinned by the principals of replacement of animals with other methods, reduction of the number of animals used and refinement of techniques used to reduce adverse impact on animals8. (iv) It is in the interest of investigators and teachers to promote improved animal welfare. Improved animal welfare may translate into improved research outcomes, as pain, suffering and distress in mice can lead to physiological and behavioural changes that may confound experimental data9. To minimise confounding variables, investigators should strive to maintain a stable physiological and behavioural baseline. This necessitates a familiarity with behaviour and biology of experimental species and strain on the part of investigators. Furthermore, investigators and teachers must be aware of the potential impact of husbandry and environmental variables on experimental animals. While the guidelines focus on the welfare of mice, it is implicit that conditions contributing to meeting the physiological and behavioural needs of mice will also contribute to the quality of scientific outcomes. The guidelines contain many examples of the physiological and behavioural responses of mice associated with variables in housing and hence the effects of these variables on mice as research subjects. (iv) The guidelines are based on principles regarding the care and management of mice taken from scientific literature. These principles are detailed throughout the document, as are recommendations for the care and management of mice which are derived from these principles. In some areas, conclusions to be drawn from the
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 19

available literature are not entirely clear, and in such areas recommendations are extrapolated from information available and practices in mouse care and management current at the time of writing. (v) The principles outlined in the document address requirements of the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (as outlined below in Section 1.4). The requirements of the Code of Practice include that animals held for scientific purposes should have their speciesspecific behavioural and physical needs met, whilst at the same time ensuring that the animals can adequately be monitored and are protected from disease, and taking into account the requirements of the research for which the animals are being used. (vi) The guidelines outline the requirements for housing to meet the physiological and behavioural needs of mice. Where mice are physiologically or behaviourally abnormal, for example post surgery, acute pain models, or disease models such as diabetics and Parkinsonian mice, modification of housing to meet their specific needs may be required.

1.2ResponsibilitiesofInstitutions
Recommendations 1.2.1 Institutions using mice for scientific purposes are responsible for meeting recommendations of the institutions Animal Ethics Committee to ensure that facilities forthe housingand care of mice are appropriate to the maintenance ofwellbeingandhealthofthemice.

1.3ResponsibilitiesofChiefInvestigators/Teachers
Recommendations 1.3.1 The chief investigator/teacher (person in charge of a research/teaching project) has direct and ultimate responsibility for all matters related to the welfare of mice under his or her control, which includes their housing and care.(As per the principle contained in Clause 3.1.1 of the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes). 1.3.2 Thechiefinvestigator/teachershouldensurethattheextentofpersonnel/staff supervision is compatible with the level of competence of each person and the responsibilitiestheyaregiveninrelationtomousecareandmanagement.(As per the principle contained in Clause 3.1.3 of the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes).

1.4 The Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of AnimalsforScientificPurposes
Principles (i) The Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes 2004 sections 4.4.19 to 4.4.23 states:
4.4.19 Animal accommodation should be designed and managed to meet speciesspecific needs. Pens, cages and containers should ensure animal wellbeing and comfort. The following factors should be taken into account:
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 20

(i)

Speciesspecific behavioural requirements, including the availability and design of space to enable free movement and activity, sleeping, privacy, contact with others of the same species and environmental enrichment; provision of single housing for animals when appropriate for the species and if necessary for the purpose of the project, (for example during recovery from surgery or collection of samples); speciesspecific environmental requirements, such as lighting, temperature, air quality, appropriate day/night cycles and protection from excessive noise and vibrations; the need to provide ready access to food and water; the need to clean the pen, cage or container; protection from spread of pests and disease; requirements of the project; and the need to observe the animals readily.

(ii)

(iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii)

4.4.20 Pens, cages and containers must: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) be constructed of safe, durable materials; be kept clean; be maintained in good repair; be secure and escapeproof; protect animals from climatic extremes; not cause injury to animals; be large enough to for the species and the number of animals held; and be compatible with the behavioural needs of the species.

4.4.21 The number of animals in cages, pens or containers and the placement of these should enable social and environmental conditions for the species to be maintained. Where it is necessary to individually house animals of a species that normally exists in social groups, the impact and time of social isolation should be kept to a minimum. 4.4.22 Bedding and litter must be provided if appropriate to the species, and should be comfortable, absorbent, safe, nontoxic, able to be sterilised if needed, and suitable for the particular scientific or educational aims. Pregnant animals must be provided with nesting materials where appropriate. 4.4.23The AEC, investigators and teachers should be consulted in advance of planned changes to these conditions, since these may affect the welfare of animals and the results of the scientific and teaching activities.

1.5 Aspects of mouse biology, physiology and behaviour relevanttohousing

Principles
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 21

(i) Mice are physiologically and behaviourally distinct from rats, from which they diverged over 17.5 million years ago10. The laboratory mouse (Order Rodentia, family Muridae, subfamily Murinae, genus Mus, subgenus Mus, species musculus) is descended from the house mouse of North America and Europe, MusMusculusdomesticus11. The genome of laboratory mice is derived from M. musculus and M. domesticus subspecies11, 12. It is believed that fancy mice strains from Europe and East Asia contributed to the genome of common laboratory strains including C57BL/6, BALB/c and DBA12, 13. Mice used in biomedical research range from captive wild individuals to strains bred hundreds or even thousands of generations in a laboratory setting, often with spontaneous or deliberately induced genetic alterations14. Most laboratory strains originate from pet dealers who became suppliers of laboratory mice15. Mice are social animals. In the wild they live in groups which vary extensively in size16. The social patterns and behaviour of wild mice by necessity differ significantly from those of laboratory mice16. Social organisation of wild mice is dynamic and dependent on environmental variables including resource availability and shelter1719. Complex environments may support a higher density of mice than open areas19. Commensal or house mouse territories with stable and abundant food supplies may house up to 10mice/m2 18. The extended family unit, known as a deme, may consist of a single dominant male, several subordinate males and breeding females16. Feral or dispersed (noncommensal) mouse populations are typically less dense, and less stable20.

(ii)

(iii) From birth to approximately two to three weeks of age, pups are dependent on their mother for warmth, food and toileting16. While pups begin to explore beyond the nest at around three to four weeks of age, they tend to remain in the nest until they reach sexual maturity (at around five to six weeks, although this may be as late as twelve weeks depending on genotype and environmental factors16). (iv) Dispersing mice seek out a protected site in which they can build a nest and establish territorial boundaries. Territory size varies, depending on environmental factors including food availability and population density16. Where a concentrated food source is available, territory size may range from 26m2, while feral or noncommensal mice may have a home range of up to 80,000m2 16. House mice can be polygamous but may pairbond16. If environmental factors are favourable (ample food and nesting material), a reproductive female can produce up to ten litters a year16. Gestation lasts from 18 to 21 days, with the female building a nest in the days preceding parturition16. During this time females may exhibit aggression towards nonreproductive mice, although pregnant and/or lactating female mice are known to form communal nests with close relatives, and may share nursing duties21. Mothers are known to destroy their own litters (infanticide), a behaviour which may be attributed to disturbances, overcrowding, dietary restriction or other environmental factors16. Adult males are highly infanticidal,

(v)

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 22

although less commonly to their own pups16. Adult males exhibit varying degrees of tolerance to one another22. (vi) Murine sensory input is dominated by olfactory, auditory and tactile cues, many of which are beyond the range of human sensation16. The implication is that aspects of the laboratory environment which are highly relevant to mice may be unnoticed by investigators and laboratory personnel23.

(vii) Olfactory cues are the primary means of communication between mice24. Mice employ a main olfactory system to detect airborne volatile scents, in additional to the vomeronasal system which detects pheromones24. They signal individual identity via expression of major urinary proteins predominantly in the high mass fraction of their urine25, 26. Urine is deposited in streaks and spots in and around the territory27, with the dominant owner marking more frequently than subordinates24. Dominant males refresh their own marks, and may enter neighbouring territories to overmark the urine of a competitor16. Aside from urine, mice have other sources of secretions which may act as olfactory cues, including salivary glands, plantar glands and the preputial gland28. Via odours, mice can recognise kin relationships29 the social status of male mice30 and the , oestrus status of female mice31. Mice use olfaction and olfactory cues to assess territorial boundaries, detect food, identify one another, and to evaluate sexual and social status16, 25. Mice commonly sniff the anogenital region of cohabitants and prospective sexual partners32. Scent impacts a wide range of behaviour including competitive and territorial aggression between males24 28, 33. In addition, pheromones can prime or inhibit reproduction24, 34. For example, male odours induce oestrus and synchronise oestrus in females (the Whitten effect)35 while unfamiliar male odours can prevent the establishment of pregnancy in females (the Bruce effect)36. Inbreeding of mice inhibits their ability to discriminate via olfactory cues because individuals are almost genetically identical37. This may alter competitive/aggressive behaviour24, 37 and therefore experimental outcomes. Olfactory cues should be taken into consideration when devising a cleaning protocol, as inadvertent disruption of chemical signals during cleaning may result in outbreaks of aggression19, 24, 28 (see Section 4.7 Cleaning). In addition, unfamiliar odours (such as those associated with humans) may cause stress responses in mice. (viii) Mice have a well developed sense of hearing, and can hear sounds from 2300Hz (23kHz) to over 85000Hz (85.5kHz)38. Mice produce ultrasonic (above 20kHz) vocalisations during nonaggressive interactions39 that are inaudible to the unaided human ear. The function of these vocalisations is yet to be established, but in the laboratory setting they occur more frequently in mice housed in socially and environmentally enriched cages39, suggesting that they may be a useful indicator of affect or emotion. Mouse pups are deaf for up to ten days postnatally40, yet emit ultrasonic vocalisations when separated from the doe, reliably stimulating the mother to retrieve them39, 41, 42. Ultrasonic vocalisations in pups may be context specific42, 43. For example, distinctive vocalisations were
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 23

associated with isolation outside the nest, jostling for the does nipples, being handled roughly by adults or the immediate postpartum period43. It is possible that mice use ultrasonic calls for the purpose of echolocation and judging distances in the darkness, as may be the case in rats16, 44, but this is yet to be established. Differences in ultrasound vocalisation rate and acoustic structures have been observed between different strains of mice41. Some strains of laboratory mice are genetically predisposed to auditory dysfunction and hearing loss (see section 4.6 Sound and Vibration). (ix) Mice have dichromatic colour vision, similar to redgreen colour blindness in humans45. They have a retinal mechanism which is maximally sensitive to ultraviolet light. In humans with normal vision, UV is blocked by the cornea, so artificial lighting has been designed to emit little UV. When housed in laboratories without these UV wavelengths, mice may have distorted or altered colour perception23. As with all small mammals, risk of predation is an important factor influencing activity and movement patterns of mice. Mice exhibit thigmotaxis, a tendency to maintain contact with vertical surfaces such as walls, particularly when exploring a new area46, 47.When faced with a real or perceived threat, mice may retreat or freeze. Retreating mice have a tendency to run away as well as upwards32. In captive animals this often results in the animal landing on the bars of the cage if shelter is not available. Muscle fasiculations or convulsive behaviour may be noted. Alternatively, mice may crouch in one spot. The adoption of a full submissive posture, in which the animal lies on its back, has been reported32. Mice are primarily crepuscular or nocturnal16, 48, however they may alter their activity patterns depending on food availability16.

(x)

(xi)

(xii) Mice are omnivorous, but are known to prefer foods high in fat and protein, and will eat meat and live insects16. They may acquire most of the water they need from their food16. Mice eat up to 20 per cent of their body weight daily, consumed in small, frequent portions16. (xiii) Normal behaviours of mice include eating, drinking, urinating, defecating, foraging, exploring, gnawing, hiding, climbing, playing, nesting and digging and engaging in a range of social activities.49, 50. (xiv) House mice exhibit developmental plasticity, with aspects of the early environment impacting on adult phenotype16. For example maternal stress during gestation can delay postnatal development; prenatal stress can induce masculinisation of female pups and feminisation of male pups (which impacts in turn on reproductive performance and aggression in later life); and low food availability during gestation can reduce weaning weight and increase aggression16. Quality and quantity of maternal care can affect weaning weight, onset of sexual maturity and corticosterone responses to stress in later life16. Thus the development of mice varies between sites, depending on local environmental factors. This plasticity
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 24

may account for differences in phenotype between laboratory mice obtained from different facilities16. Some inbred strains display behavioural complexes which are believed to reflect functional adaptations to particular habitats. Thus BALB/c mice, which are adapted to living on the surface, display exploratory behaviour, whereas C57BL/6J mice are traditionally holedwellers, with a tendency to dig13. This may influence the way each strain interacts with a particular environment. Recommendations 1.5.1 To meet the requirements of the Code of Practice (that is to provide accommodationthatmeetsthe speciesspecific needsofmice),housingshould allowmice the opportunity forsocialinteraction,the opportunity tocarry out normalbehavioursandthe opportunity torestandwithdrawfromeachother. Normal behaviours of mice include eating, drinking, urinating, defecating, foraging,exploring,gnawing,hiding,climbing,playing,nesting,digging and engaginginarangeofsocialactivities. 1.5.2 Housingrequirementsforindividualmice may vary accordingtostrain,age, physiology, stocking density, the purpose and the length of time for which animalsareused(forexamplebreedingorexperiments)1. 1.5.3 The Code of Practice recognises that there may be circumstances where the requirementsofexperimentalprocedureswillpreclude meetingsome species specific needs (Clause 4.4.19). Variations to these requiements as part of a projectmustendeavourtomeetthe physiologicalandpsychologicalneedsof mice asclosely aspossible,andmustreceive priorAnimalEthicsCommittee approval.

1.6Geneticallymodified,transgenicandknockoutmice
Principles (i) For the purposes of these Guidelines, the term genetically modified applies to transgenic mice, knockout mice, knockin mice, chimeras, cloned mice and mice genetically modified in any other way. (ii) In addition to these guidelines, investigators using genetically modified mice must adhere to the NHMRCs Guidelines for the Generation, Breeding, Care and Use of Genetically Modified and Cloned Animals for Scientific Purposes51. Genetically modified and cloned animals are subject to State and Territory animal welfare legislation. They may also be subject to requirements of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under the Gene Technology Act51.

(iii) A wide variety of genetically modified, transgenic and knockout strains of mice, both inbred and outbred, are currently used in laboratories within Australia. (iv) By targeting a particular condition or aspects of that condition using genetically modified animals, researchers may require fewer animals in a study 52. However, more animals may be required to create and maintain

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 25

each genetically modified line and a higher than normal culling rate may apply6, 51, 53. (v) The GA (Genetically Altered) Mouse Welfare Assessment Working Group found that while being genetically altered was not in itself a welfare issue, the effects of genetic alteration on mouse phenotype may be5. Impacts on mouse welfare may be due to techniques used to produce and monitor the genetic modification or modifications; expression of the modified or deleted genes (GM phenotype); position of the modified gene in the genome; action of unpredicted factors in gene expression and interactions between gene products; disruption of physiological processes of the mouse or poor fit between the new strain and its environment5, 51. It should be noted that the majority of genetic mutations give rise to no discernible effect, or lead to death at the embryonic or foetal stage. However, genetic modification or mutation may cause perinatal or neonatal death, or produce animals with compromised welfare. Genetic modification can compromise mouse health and welfare by causing or predisposing the animal to pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm5. A Danish survey involving 87 mouse genetically modified strains found that 36 per cent of strains were reported as experiencing discomfort, with 21 per cent experiencing minor discomfort (for example mice with increased aggression, lymphoma or a weakened immune response) while 15 per cent experienced severe discomfort (for example mice with cystic fibrosis, diabetes, seizures, malformation of the skull or rectal prolapse)54. In addition, 30 per cent of the strains were reported to suffer increases in mortality, disease incidence and susceptibility to disease54. The most frequently reported conditions were increased mortality, decreased fertility and diabetes. It is also possible that genetically modified animals may be more robust in the face of experimental challenge (for example exposure to a specific pathogen) than their nongenetically modified counterparts53. Physiology and behaviour can vary markedly between different strains of mice, and even different subpopulations of the same strain55. Many genetic alterations are maintained in mice of mixed genetic backgrounds, the genotype of which depends on the breeding strategy and background strains5. Transgenic or knockout mice may have severely disturbed physiology56, 57. This may manifest as abnormal immune response, altered lifespan, impaired sensory abilities, genderinfluenced survival, altered susceptibility to nociceptive stimuli, and altered reproduction, particularly reduced litter size52, 55, 57, 58, as well as development of clinical disease. To ensure appropriate action is taken to minimise suffering, it is essential that investigators understand the impact of genetic modification on mice5.

(vi)

(vii) It has been argued that murine behaviour is simpler and much less flexible than that of the rat59. Investigators conducting a behavioural review hypothesised that this simplification, which may assist mice in adapting to a different ecological niche than the rat, may be mediated by accelerated brain maturation during development, rendering the mouse less dependent on complex social behaviour and plastic nervous system changes. If this is
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 26

the case, differences in genotype may alter behaviour dramatically between strains. (viii) Phenotype of new strains may be poorly characterised, making it difficult for investigators to set specific monitoring protocols or define endpoints52. Investigators should be familiar with strainspecific and transgene mediated health conditions including tumour growth, hair loss, degenerative joint disease, diabetes, respiratory tract disorders and intestinal obstruction so that they can be diagnosed and treated in a timely manner57. (ix) Genetic modification may lead to changes in emotionality, anxiety and predisposition to psychological stress60, which may also compromise welfare. For example, genetic modification may lead to an anxious phenotype (in some studies this may be desirable61, 62). It may also lead to aggression63, which is stressful to victims and may necessitate individual housing. Some strains are more predisposed to developing stereotypies than others64, and may be more likely to do so within a particular environment. Variations in phenotype of genetically modified mice may lead to profoundly different husbandry requirements. For example, food and water sources may need to be placed at the bottom of the cage for mice which are small, debilitated or with neurological models exhibiting balance problems52, 65 . Toothless phenotypes may require a powdered diet52. Some transgenic mice may need to be maintained on a medicated diet (for example, a diet incorporating doxycycline or tamoxifen) to maintain a gene in an on or off state66. Other characteristics that may alter housing requirements include the propensity of certain strains for aggression or cannibalism13, 57. Some phenotypes may have a reduced capacity to thermoregulate. For example, nude strains and those with poor maternal performance may require supplemental nesting, bedding materials or haired companions52, 58. Immunocompromised strains such as models for severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) require a high level of biological containment, including individually ventilated sterile cages as well as sterilised bedding, food and water, to prevent fatal septicaemia6.These variations should be taken into account in relation to mouse housing and husbandry, as well as experimental design13. Phenotypic expression may be significantly affected by aspects of husbandry and housing, including laboratory conditions67, investigator68 and environmental enrichment5.

(x)

(xi)

(xii) The social consequences of genetic modification and extreme inbreeding are not well characterised, but have the potential to impact on both mouse welfare and experimental variability. For example, extremely inbred BALB/c strains failed to discriminate between their own scent marks and those of other males37. This could lead to social disruption between dominant and subordinate males, with the possibility of marked urine retention with subsequent nephritis in some strains.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 27

(xiii) Because of the vast number of new strains emerging it is beyond the scope of these guidelines to provide specific husbandry advice for each individual strain. Investigators should seek strainspecific information and recommendations from the supplier, institution of origin and literature databases52. Both the Mouse Genome Informatics Database (www.informatics.jax.org) and Eumorphia (www.eumorphia.org) provide information on phenotypes of different strains. (xiv) As stated in the NHMRCs Guidelines for the Generation, Breeding, Care and Use of Genetically Modified and Cloned Animals for Scientific Purposes: 1.3.1Eachprojectinvolvinggenetic modificationorcloningwillhave uniquefeaturesthatrequireattentivemonitoringandassessmentofthe welfare of the animals across the various stages of the project. The purpose ofmonitoringis tomake andanalyse routine observationsin order to detect deviations from norms of health and wellbeing in animalsandto signal the needforresponsestodistress.The purpose of assessment is to characterise the nature of deviations or distress detectedbymonitoringsothatinterventionscanbeappropriate. (xv) Noninvasive, structured welfare assessments can be carried out to ensure that the needs of newly bred and maintained genetically altered mice are met and any genetically modified lines introduced into an establishment. A list of standard indicators of welfare is used to analyse the phenotype, as per Wells et al5. It is critical to take into account the choice of background strain and/or the breeding experience of the dam when conducting a neonatal welfare assessment, as some strains are negatively affected by disturbance while others tolerate increased intervention5. Welfare assessments should take into account factors such as appearance, morphology, coat condition, posture, gait, activity, interaction with the environment, relative size, clinical signs and pre and post weaning losses. Whole of life monitoring is necessary to fully appreciate the physiological, behavioural and welfare implications of a particular modification as the expression of genes can occur at any stage in the mouses life51. However should intervention become necessary to avoid suffering, this should take precedence over whole of life monitoring. (xvi) When using genetically modified, transgenic or knockout mice, investigators should carefully weigh the value of the experiment against welfare issues related to the particular strain. Welfare concerns arise not only during the study, but in the development and production of particular strains52. Recommendations 1.6.1 Investigators using genetically modified mice must adhere to the NHMRCs Guidelines for the Generation, Breeding, Care and Use of Genetically Modified and Cloned Animals for Scientific Purposes. Genetically modified and cloned animals are subject to State and Territory animal welfare
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 28

legislation. Investigators must make enquiries to determine whether they are subjecttorequirementsofthe Office ofthe Gene Technology Regulatorunder theGeneTechnologyAct. 1.6.2 Mouse behaviour may vary between different strains or stock. Researchers should be well acquainted with behaviour and needs of their particular experimental animals and incorporate this knowledge into husbandry and experimentaldesign. 1.6.3 Structured welfare assessments should be performed for newly bred and maintained genetically modified mice and any genetically modified lines introducedintotheestablishment. 1.6.4 Investigators should evaluate the impact of housing, husbandry and environmental enrichment on welfare and experimental variability for each strainused. 1.6.5 Forspecifichusbandryadviceforeachindividualstrain,investigatorsshould seek strainspecific information and recommendations from the supplier, institution of origin and murine databases such as the Mouse Genome Informatics Database (www.informatics.jax.org) and Eumorphia (www.eumorphia.org). 1.6.6 When using genetically modified, transgenic or knockout mice, investigators should carefully weigh the value of the experiment against welfare issues relatedtotheparticularstrainorstrainsused.Investigatorsshouldbemindful thatwelfare concernsarise notonly duringthe study,butinthe development andproductionofparticularstrains.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 29

2.0CageDesign
2.1Livingarea
Principles (i) The living area for mice is three dimensional, comprised of the floor area as well as the vertical space. These parameters need to be considered together, rather than in isolation. Despite numerous experimental studies, there is no consensus on minimal or optimal cage space for mice69. The Council of Europe revised housing guidelines in 2006 to regulate for increased minimum space of laboratory mice70. The rationale behind the change was to allow the incorporation of environmental enrichment to facilitate expression of speciestypical behaviour. At the same time, several USbased groups published studies suggesting that less space may be advantageous for mice69, 7173. (ii) There is no single definition of crowding or excessive population density for mice18. Given that freeliving male mice establish territories ranging from 1m2 to 80,000m2 16, it is possible that even housing mice in the same room as other mice in separate cages within visual, auditory and/or olfactory range may be experienced as crowding18 (see Section 3.1 The Social Environment for further information on population density). Thus if a mouse shows the same behaviour when allowed a floor area of 20cm2 and 30cm2, it is possible that both cage areas are too large or too small69.

(iii) In addition to three dimensional space, the shape of the living area needs to be taken into account in determining optimal living area. (iv) The living area for mice must allow them to satisfy their basic physiological and behavioural needs including the ability to eat, drink, play, rest, groom, forage for food, explore, gnaw, hide, reproduce, engage in a range of social activities, urinate and defaecate49. If given the opportunity, mice tend to compartmentalise their living areas for these different activities, for example feeding, resting, urination and defaecation28, 50, 74, 75. These divisions allow mice to control their environment, including light levels and temperature50. An example of a cage that promotes compartmentalisation is the Cambridge cage76. The design, construction and management of a mouses immediate enclosure will determine to a large extent how environmental factors, such as temperature, light levels, humidity and air quality impact on the mouse77. Living area or cage size affects feeding and energy expenditure of mice, at least in wild strains. Thus wildtype Peromyscus californicus housed in smaller cages (L29cm x W19cm x H13cm: 7163cm3) had lower daily energy expenditure and lower food intake than their counterparts housed in larger (L48cm x W27cm x H20cm: 25,920cm3) cages78. In contrast, energy expenditure and food intake of smaller Peromyscuseremicus mice were not affected by cage size. Thus the impact of living area varies with strain.

(v)

(vi)

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 30

(vii) When attempting to determine optimal living area, different studies assess different parameters including cage microenvironment (ammonia, relative humidity, temperature, noise, airflow), reproduction (fertility, litter size), physical parameters (growth, survival), mouse physiology (stress hormones, immune function) behaviour and preference tests69. Recommendations are frequently based on the weight of individual mice and number of animals per cage79. Many studies which assess living area requirements for mice do not address potential confounding variables such as group size, strain effects, sex, age of mice and stage in breeding cycle, type of space (vertical vs horizontal) or enrichment methods79. Due to the complexity and variability of experimental design, it is difficult to extrapolate optimal cage size and population density. (viii) The cage lid, insofar as it allows mice to climb, is an important consideration in determining living area (see Section 2.3 Cage Height and Cage Lid). Recommendations 2.1.1 The living area for mice must allow them to satisfy their basic physiological and behavioural needs including the ability to eat, drink, urinate, defecate, forage, explore, gnaw, hide, climb, play, nest, dig and engage in a range of socialactivities. 2.1.2 The living area should be constructed and arranged in such a way to allow mice to compartmentalise their space, so that different areas can be used for urination,defecation,eatingandresting.

2.2Cagefloorarea
Principles (i) There is no consensus in the scientific literature about the minimum cage floor area or maximum stocking density for housing laboratory mice. Different strains may have significantly different space requirements, which may be altered by incage furnishings or enrichment items. Table 1 provides a summary of some of the major studies evaluating cage floor area in different strains of mice. (ii) As discussed in Section 2.1 Living Area, the living area should be large enough to allow mice to compartmentalise their space. At the same time, excessively large cages should be avoided as these may be stressful to mice.

(iii) In terms of physical movements, mice should be able to turn freely without twisting their heads and bodies, walk at least a few steps, stand on their hind limbs and stretch up. They should also have room to shelter and rest. The floor area should ensure that no part of a mouses body is unavoidably distorted by contact with the cage in any of the postures that mice may adopt. However, this does not imply that a larger cage is necessarily better. Mice exhibit thigmotaxis, and may therefore not respond to an increase in living area in the same way as other species80.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 31

Table1:Studiesevaluatingcagefloorarea(listedalphabetically)

No.mice percage Parametersmeasured Keyresults Conclusion/ Comments

Author

Strain

Sex

Benhar E81 Breeding pairs with litters of 9 Number of litters, number of weaned mice

C57BL/6JWn and SWR

M,F

Cagedimensions, totalfloorareaor floorareaper mouse 29cm x 14cm (406cm2) or 29cm x 17.5cm (507.5cm2) 429cm2, 505cm2 or 729cm2 Open field, lightdark exploration, elevated plus maze, weaning weight, locomotor skills of pups

Increased cage floor area may reduce reproductive performance. Increased cage floor area may be associated with increased anxiety.

Davidson LP et al82

Cr:SW

M,F

Breeding pairs with litters of ten

Forsyth NY et al83

C57BL/6NCrl, Crl:CD1, BALB/cAnNCrl 4 15.2cm x 15.9cm (58cm2/mouse); 15.2cm x 26cm (96.8cm2/mouse); 43.2cm x 20.3cm (219.4cm2/mouse)

Organ weight, white blood cell counts

Increased cage floor area may be stressful for mice, with some strains more vulnerable than others.

Fullwood et al84

C57BL/6

32.2cm2/mouse; 64.5cm2/mouse; 96.8cm2/mouse; 129cm2/mouse

Body weight, food and water consumption, immunological parameters, mortality,

C57BL/6JWn mice in the larger cage produced 19 per cent fewer weaned mice. SWR mice in the larger cage produced 15 per cent fewer weaned mice. No differences in weaning weight between cage size. Mice reared in 505 and 729cm2 cages explored a significantly larger area; mice in 505cm2 cages spent more time in the centre than those in the larger cages; failed to establish consistent link between decreased floor space and increased anxiety like behaviour. No consistent association between available floor space and development of locomotor skills in pups. C57BL/6 and CD1 mice had the lowest total white cell counts in medium cages; BALB/c mice had lowest total white cell counts in small cages. All strains had the highest total white cell counts in the large cages. Cage size did not affect body or organ weight. Cage size did not influence body weight. Mice in smaller cages consumed or wasted more food and water than those in larger cages.

The findings are difficult to interpret as increased plasma glucocorticoid

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 32

adrenal weight, plasma glucocorticoid concentrations

concentrations and adrenal weights are typically considered indicators of stress.

McGlone JJ et al80

BALB/cJ Growth rates, mortality, weight, food and water consumption, immunologic parameters, grooming, behavioural parameters

M, F

3 litter mates of same sex

32.2cm2/mouse; 96.8cm2/mouse; 129.0cm2/mouse

Reduced cage floor area (32.2cm2/mouse) did not adversely affect behaviour, health, immunocompetence or performance in this strain.

McMahon K et al85

C57BL/6 Reproductive performance, microenvironment

1 female with pups

20.3cm x 40.2cm (816.06cm2 total cage size) vs 15.2cm x 25.4cm (386.08cm2 total cage)

Mice in the smallest cages had greater lymphocyte proliferation, but mice given 64.5cm2 each had greater natural killer cytotoxicity than those given greater or less space. Mortality increased as more space was provided. In the larger cages mortality was due to bite wounds. In contrast, adrenal weights and plasma glucocorticoid concentrations were progressively greater with less space. Increased weight gain, sitting behaviours, grooming behaviours and Tlymphocyte proliferative response in females in smallest cages; no mortalities of mice in smallest cages. Necropsy of mice which died in larger cages revealed emaciation, barbering and bite wounds suggesting increased aggression. Mice housed in larger cages had higher birth rates (9.8pups/female) than those in smaller cages (7.2pups/female). Larger cages had lower ammonia (17ppm) than smaller cages (24ppm), as measured on day of cage change.

Manosevitz M and Pryor86

C57BL/6

M,F

1 female with 48 pups

Approx 26.7cm x 16.5cm (440.55cm2) vs

Weight, openfield activity and defacation, running wheel activity,

Males reared in large cages weighed 12% more than those housed in small cages at 38 days. Animals

Increased cage floor area may increase reproductive performance. The authors suggest that differences in reproductive performance may be due to differing ammonia levels. Increased cage floor area may be associated with

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 33

75.6cm x 70.8cm (5352.48cm2)

exploration, water consumption

reared in large cages were 16% more active in an open field. Those reared in small cages defecated 2.2 times more, and had lower water consumption.

OMalley J et al87

ICR

1 female with 516 pups or 1 female with litter culled to 6 pups

419.25cm2 total cage floor area Faecal corticosterone levels; growth; weaning weights; reproductive performance of progeny.

increased body weight, exploration and water consumption. Cage size confounded with cage texture (wire mesh vs plexiglass) and environmental enrichment. Reduced cage floor space per pup is not stressful

Peters A and Festing M88

BALB/c, MF1

M,F

6, 10, 35, 36

33cm x 15cm (495cm2) or 45cm x 28cm (1260cm2); 33cm2/mouse; 55cm2/mouse; 27cm2/mouse; 37cm2/mouse

Aggressive encounters, mortality, weight, growth rate, adrenal weight

Growth rates of pups from culled litters (smaller litters) was significantly greater, however when corrected for litter size to account for competition to nurse, growth rate did not differ between pups from intact versus culled litters. Corticosterone levels did not differ significantly between groups nor did reproductive performance of progeny. BALB/c mice gained more weight and had significantly smaller adrenal weights in higher density housing (groups of 35 vs 26).

Sherwin CM89 4

CB57

37cm x 21cm (777cm2) + additional space

Preference for additional space

Mice worked to gain access to additional space, despite increasing costs.

Reduced cage floor area may reduce anxiety and aggression. Cage size confounded with population density. The difference between 27cm2 and 37cm2 may be too small to reveal any adverse effects69. Mice did not show a preference for a particular amount of

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 34

(29x11cm or 319cm2; 37x21cm or 777cm2; 50x32cm or 1600cm2)

Sherwin CM90 1 Preference for additional space

TO

Mice worked to gain access to additional space, despite increasing costs.

additional space over another, thus additional space was an important resource but quantity was not. Findings may indicate true preference for additional space for its own sake. May also be a refuge from other mice or territorial monitoring. As above.

Sherwin, CM91 4 Preference for additional space

C57BL/6

As above.

Smith A et al71 420

C57BL/6J

M,F

27cm x 10cm (270cm2) with a range of additional space available (196cm2 to 1600cm2) Enriched cage 50cm x 32cm (1600cm2) + additional space 37cm x 21cm (777cm2) Cage size 333cm2 or 728cm2 with 20.6cm2 per mouse 77.4cm2 per mouse

Mice worked to gain access to an empty cage despite being housed in an enriched cage containing cagemates, food, water, nesting material, shelter, cardboard tube, chew sticks and running wheel Ammonia concentrations exceeded limits at 20.6cm2 although mice had microscopically normal nasal passages and eyeballs. All parameters within normal limits when mice housed at 36.1cm2 or above. Injury, hair loss, aggressive behaviour, survival, body weight, food and water consumption, cage microenvironment, urine testosterone concentration Injury, hair loss, aggressive behaviour, FVB/NJ displayed early onset aggression with reduced floor space;

Reduced cage floor area not associated with adverse effects.

Smith A et al72 420

BALB/cJ, NOD/LtJ, FVB/NJ

M,F

Cage size 333cm2 or 728cm2 with

Reduced cage floor area not associated

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 35

36.1cm2 per mouse 83.2cm2 per mouse survival, body weight, food and water consumption, cage microenvironment, urine testosterone concentration no apparent deleterious effects on BALB/cJ or NOD/LtJ strains.

Van Loo PLP et al92

BALB/cAnNCrlBr

3, 5 and 8

80cm2/mouse or 125cm2/mouse Frequency of attack, latency to attack, urine corticosterone levels, food and water intake, weight, number of wounds, tyrosine hydroxylase, organ weight

Larger cages associated with moderate increase in aggression, with aggression considerably higher in groups of 8 animals compared with groups of 3. Dominant and subordinate mice demonstrated different stress levels.

with adverse effects in 2/3 strains, but associated with increased aggression in one strain. Early onset aggression may be an age effect as investigators were unable to source sufficient numbers of 3 week old mice so ages ranged from 35 weeks; alternatively this strain may be highly sensitive to variation in cage floor area. Increased cage floor area may be associated with increased aggression. Aggression may be increased at lower population densities where available space can be defended. Decreasing floor size may be used as a temporary measure to reduce high levels of aggression in an existing group of male mice, but group size should be kept to 35 animals.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 36

Whitaker J et al93 Cage size had no significant impact on reproductive parameters and inconsistent effects on behaviour in weaned pups.

C57BL/6Tac

M,F

3 adults plus 120 pups

208.3cm2 or 315cm2 Litter size, litter survival to weaning age, average pup weight at 7, 14 and 21 days, and number of days between litter births. Male and female performance in elevated plus maze test, open field assay and acoustic startle test before and after an intraperitoneal saline injection.

No significant difference between mice housed in standard cages and cages that are 50 per cent larger. Enrichment provided in this study (nestlet and PVC tunnel in all cages) may have masked effects of cage size on reproduction and behaviour69.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 37

(iv) A number of studies have challenged the generosity of cage floor area recommendations published in overseas guidelines, on the grounds that they appear to be based on current practice rather than evidence. In addition, there is evidence that increased cage size may be associated with increased mortality, in particular due to fighting between male mice. However, investigators should keep in mind that most studies confound effects of cage floor area with effects of group size when reviewing the literature. Furthermore, many do not factor in the presence of nesting and bedding material and an incage shelter. Incage shelters (see section 2.9 InCage Shelters) are desirable additions to mouse housing, however dimensions of the floor area must be sufficient to accommodate such furnishings without negatively impacting on mouse behaviour by reducing floor space or restricting access to areas of the cage. negative effects of increased floor area may be offset by the provision of cage furnishings, dividers or other structural elements. A 2008 survey of animal units in the United Kingdom found that the floor area per mouse ranged from 22cm2 to 960cm2 94. In the majority of cases (95.9 per cent), mice were housing in cages which allowed for 60cm2 per mouse. Only one per cent of cages allowed for less than 30cm2 per mouse.

(v)

(vi)

(vii) The Cambridge cage, one of the few examples of an environment designed to allow mice to compartmentalise their living area, measured 27cmx22cm, yielding a total floor area of 594cm2 76. (viii) Optimal cage floor area and housing density will facilitate normal behaviour and support physiologically normal mice, but it is impossible to determine exactly what that will be based on the current literature alone. Given significant strain variation, a single set of recommendations is unlikely to be appropriate79. (ix) Factors other than floor area may influence how mice use floor space for example, brightly lit open space is more likely to be avoided95. The recommendations below represent a best estimation, based on the scientific literature on minimum cage size (see Table 1), as well as literature on the needs of mice. The recommendations are consistent with the dimensions of common commercially available mouse cages in Australia at the time of publication.

(x)

Recommendations 2.2.1 As a guide, enclosures should allow for a minimum floor area of 60cm2 per adultmouse,withaminimumfloorareaof500cm2fortwoormoremiceanda minimumfloorareaof250cm2forasinglemouse. 2.2.2 As a guide, a breeding pair or female with pups requires a minimum total cage floor area of 500cm2, with an additional 100cm2 for each additional adultfemale.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 38

2.2.3 To reduce anxiety and aggression, larger cages should be designed in such a wayastoavoidlargeopenspaces. 2.2.4 Because of the wide variation in conclusions drawn fromstudies designed to determine optimum cage floor area, it is necessary for researchers to assess whetheraparticularstrainiscopingwithaparticularlivingarea.Parameters assessed may include tendency to perform normal behaviours, aggressive encounters or fight wounds, weight changes, incidence of illness and/or reproductiveperformance.

2.3CageHeightandCageLid
Principles (i) Normal behaviours of mice include standing on their hind limbs and stretching, sitting on their haunches and grooming, and climbing. Where cage design permits, climbing is a regular component of locomotor activity. Buttner96 found that mice invested more time in climbing on the cage lid than locomotion on the ground. Climbing onto an incage shelter is also an important locomotor activity in mice97, 98.

Figure2.3.1Traditionalwiretoppedcagesfacilitate climbingbehaviourinmice.

(ii)

Evidence suggests that climbing on the cage lid is important for mice, as it may be a positive natural behaviour associated with exploration of the home environment. However, this is controversial, as one survey found a correlation between increased levels of stereotypy and increased levels of climbing94. The authors noted that this is unsurprising as many documented mouse stereotypies, such as gnawing, circling and

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 39

somersaulting, tend to occur at or on the bars of the cage lid. They conclude that high levels of climbing may form an integral part of certain stereotypies. In the same study, climbing was associated with increased physical injuries, yet it was also associated with a reduction in the incidence of obesity. An earlier study found that wiregnawing and jumping (both stereotypies) developed from climbing behaviours99. The same authors found that preventing stereotypic wiregnawing had no significant effects on chronic measures of stress, therefore they concluded that this behaviour did not reduce stress100. However, another study found that C57BL/6 mice that were prevented from climbing on bars (those housed in a cage with a plexiglass lid) from age three to seven weeks exhibited altered fear responses and impaired fearmotivated associative learning in behavioural tests compared with controls101. Females were particularly sensitive to thwarting of lidclimbing behaviour, demonstrating increasing anxiety levels in an elevated plus maze, hyperactivity in an open field, reduced condition freezing and reduced prepulse inhibition. The authors described this as a complex syndrome of anxiety and psychoticlike symptoms. Therefore, based on current knowledge, cage height should not be increased to such an extent that it prevents access to bars from which mice frequently hang, as this would thwart normal behaviour4. Male and female mice were able to reach and climb on bars that were 19cm off the cage floor101. (iii) Mice housed in individually ventilated cages have limited climbing opportunities compared with mice housed in conventional wire grid topped cages. While the provision of a wire grid in individually ventilated cages did not appear to compensate for housing effects on spontaneous behaviour, sensorimotor behaviour and fear learning, it did improve response in fearpotentiated startle tests in singly housed B6J males102. (iv) (v) Where mice are provided with a foodhopper built into the cage lid, they may utilise this to nest beneath. Information on the height requirements of mouse caging is scarce and many recommendations are based on available products. According to Article A of the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes (ETS No. 123)1, the minimum height of cages in which mice are housed should be 12cm. This is slightly lower than the US National Research Council Guidelines for the Use of Laboratory Animals, which stipulate that cages have a minimum height of 12.7cm73.

Recommendations 2.3.1 The height of cages should allow mice to stand on their hind legs, stretch up fully and climb on the bars of the cage lid. This height does not need to be providedovertheentireareaofthecage. 2.3.2 Thecagelidshouldincorporateagridsectionwhichwillallowtheanimalsto climb. To reduce the incidence of stereotypic behaviour, nesting material, an incage shelter and environmental enrichment should be provided (see
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 40

sections 2.8 Nesting Material, 2.9 Incage Shelters and 3.5 Environmental Enrichmentforfurtherdetails). 2.3.3 Where cages are fitted with platforms or incage shelters, the distance between the top of the platform or incage shelter and the top of the cage should be sufficient to allow mice to climb on topof the platform or incage shelter. 2.3.4 While cage height (over part of the cage) should allow for upright standing behaviour,foodandwatershouldbe accessible atalevelthatallowsmice to sitwhileeatinganddrinking. 2.3.5 Untilfurtherevidencebecomesavailable,itisrecommendedthatmousecages areaminimumof12cmhigh. 2.3.6 Thedesignofthecagelidshouldfacilitateclimbing.

2.4Cageshape
Principles (i) To date there are no studies investigating the impact of cage shape alone in mice. For example, in one study mice preferred the more squareshaped enclosure but this differed from the other enclosures in its height, opacity and the presence of a shelter103. In another study, mice of different strains housed in the squareshaped Cambridge cage produced more young per female than their standardhoused counterparts104. It should be noted, however, that aside from a different cageshape, the Cambridge cage incorporates other forms of environmental enrichment including shelter material which may be perceived to be more important to mice than the shape of the cage per se. (ii) Mice exhibit thigmotaxis and may spend much of their time in contact with the wall of a cage. Thigmotaxis is used as a measure of emotionality (anxiety and fear) in mice, and some strains are more thigmotactic than others105. This should be taken into account when selecting cage shape.

Recommendations 2.4.1 There is no clear evidence of preference among mice for a particular cage shape. Evidence indicates the contents of the cage is more important than cageshape. 2.4.2 Untilfurtherevidence comestolight the use of rectangularorsquare shaped cagesisappropriateformice.

2.5Cagematerials
Principles (i) Cages must be constructed from nontoxic, nonabsorbable material that can be cleaned (autoclaved). They must be escape and predator proof.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 41

(ii) Ideally, caging material should be resistant to heat and chemicals, inexpensive and durable106. Most mouse cages today are solid tubs made from plastics such as polypropylene (opaque), polycarbonate, polysulphone and polyetherimide (transparent). Other cage materials include polystyrene and polyphenylsulfone. Wood is not a suitable material as rodents tend to chew it. Unless coated with an impervious finish, wood also tends to soak up urine and is extremely difficult to clean.

(iii) Recent studies have shown that some synthetic materials release bioactive substances that may affect mice. For example, high temperature polycarbonate (polyphthalate carbonate) cages and water bottles damaged by oneoff washing in a harsh alkaline quarternary ammonium detergent released bisphenol A (BPA), an oestrogenic compound that led to increases in meiotic disturbances, including an 8.3 fold increase in aneuploidy and a 20fold increase in chromosome misalignment in mice 106, 107 . In addition, there was an increased frequency of mortality in young (one to fourmonthold) mice during the period of maximal exposure. In the months following exposure, investigators noted an increase in reproductive tract tumours in exposed mice. In this report the detergent caused visible, progressive damage to the cages including change in colour from yellow, becoming initially slightly crazed, before turning opaque, then whitish and rough, and finally sticky and bubbly106. Water bottles were slower to deteriorate, possibly due a protective effect of water. However, visible damage is not an accurate indicator of the amount of BPA leaching from exposed materials107. (iv) Laboratory mice housed in polycarbonate and polysulfone cages are exposed to BPA via leaching, with exposure levels highest in older cages108. Bisphenol A hydrolyses and leaches from polycarbonate products under heat and alkaline conditions, with the amount of leaching increasing with use. Significant levels of BPA (up to 310g/L) were leached from used polycarbonate cages placed in water (neutral pH) at room temperature108. In addition, detectable levels of BPA were released from new polycarbonate cages (up to 0.3g /L) as well as new polysulphone cages (1.5 g/L), while no BPA was detected in water incubated in glass or used polypropylene cages. Prepubescent female CD1 mice subjected to BPA by being housed in polycarbonate cages had a 16 per cent increase in uterine weight compared with mice housed in used polypropylene cages, although the difference was not statistically significant. While normal care and use of some synthetic cages can result in leaching of BPA, exposure to a basic detergent, continued use of cages and/or water bottles beyond the manufacturers recommended shelf life or high concentration of corrosioncontrolling amines in autoclave steam are events which may exacerbate cage and/or water bottle damage and increase the risk of BPA leaching106. Cages may also be damaged by banging the plastic against a hard surface (for example when removing soiled, stuck bedding); overstacking (mouse cages stacked more than 15 high); washing in hard as opposed to soft water; heating or autoclaving

(v)

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 42

cages that contain debris or disinfectant residue; and use of amine corrosion inhibitors in steam sterilisation systems109. (vi) Cage materials can affect the microclimate by modifying light and heat exchange. Opaque cages have the advantage of filtering out harmful glare and allowing mice to hide from humans. They have the disadvantages of impeding the observation of mice from outside the cage (thereby necessitating more disruption to check mice), restricting mices vision of activities outside the cage (including humans and other mice), and blocking the passage of light, resulting in different light levels in boxes at different levels on cage racks. Transparent cages have the advantage of allowing observation of mice from outside the cage. They have the disadvantage of not allowing mice to hide as effectively from humans. Heat is well preserved in solid plastic tubs, such as polypropylene and polycarbonate.

(vii) A change in cage materials may affect the breeding performance of mice. For example, the number of young weaned by CBA does transferred from opaque to transparent cages was lower110. These changes may be transient, as the number slightly increased in the second generation. In another study, inbred BALB/cW, DBA/2W, RIII/W, C3H/A, C57BL/W, BN/a and BN/b mice transferred from wooden to plastic cages showed a decrease in productivity for one to two years, followed by a gradual increase111. Q values (number of young weaned/prenatal days x 100) for most inbred strains were in fact higher at the end of the study period. For this reason it is important to be consistent in the cage materials used throughout a study. (viii) Cage materials may impact on mouse body composition. For example, male mice transferred from metal cages to other metal (aluminium) cages had a body fat percentage of 21.8 per cent at fourteen weeks of age, compared to 13.6 per cent in male siblings transferred into polypropylene cages112. However, the study confounded cage type with cage volume, light penetrance and the presence of aluminium sulphate, each of which independently varied body fat to some extent. In another study, male C3H/HeJ mice housed in polycarbonate cages showed a consistent trend to higher body weights than those kept in stainlesssteel wire mesh cages113. This may have been due to variation in temperature between the cages. (ix) Behaviour and physiology of mice may be affected by cage colour. Female CBA mice consistently showed a significant preference for white cages over black, green and red cages114. The colour of the home cage strongly influenced behaviour, with mice from white home cages having the highest food consumption, lowest body weight and least anxiety (as evaluated in the raised plus maze test) than those originally housed in black, green and red cages.

Recommendations 2.5.1 Cages should be constructed fromnontoxic, nonabsorbable material that is easytoclean.Untreatedwoodencagesshouldnotbeused.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 43

2.5.2 Cages should be durable, resistant to heat and chemicals, and escape and predatorproof. 2.5.3 Wornordamagedcagesand/orwatercontainersshouldbereplaced. 2.5.4 Polycarbonate or polysulphone cages and/or water containers should be avoided,particularlyinreproductivestudies. 2.5.5 Colourless, transparent cages or white opaque cages are preferred. Unless requiredforastudy,cagecolourshouldbeconsistentthroughoutthefacility. 2.5.6 Cages should be handled and maintained to minimise damage. For example, cagesshouldnotbehitorbangedagainsthardsurfacesorstackedmorethan 15 cages high. Plastic cages and bottles should be washed in hot (6066C), soft water with a manufacturerrecommended detergent solution. All residue mustberemovedpriortoautoclavingasthismaybebakedontothecage. 2.6Cageflooring Principles (i) When given a choice between bedding material on a solid floor and a wire mesh floor, mice preferred the former115, however preference was affected by ambient temperature75 (see Section 4.3 Temperature). Similarly, when provided with synthetic gauze pads, grouphoused male and female B6C3F1 and individuallyhoused male CD1 mice in stainlesssteel ventilated cages with wire mesh floors preferred to rest on the pads116 117. (ii) Housing mice on wire mesh floors can be detrimental to their health and wellbeing. Survival of B6C3F1 mice housed on wire mesh floors was significantly lower than those housed in solidfloored polycarbonate cages, irrespective of diet, sex and whether they were individually housed118.

(iii) While female B6C3F1 mice housed in suspended wire cages with a flooring grid of 2mm round intersecting stainless steel wires with mesh gaps measuring 8mm x 8mm did not show cage associated differences in clinical signs, body temperature, grasping power of fore and hindlimbs, tail flick latency or motor nerve conduction velocity than their solidfloor housed counterparts, they exhibited a significant decrease in body weight and serum triglycerides than their solidfloor housed counterparts119. (iv) Housing mice on wire mesh floors is associated with mouse urological syndrome (MUS), a potentially fatal inflammatory condition of the urinary tract. In one study, all entire male AKR/NCrIBR mice housed in suspended wire cages or raised wire floors for a period of sixteen weeks developed MUS, compared with none of their solidfloor housed counterparts120. While the researchers did note that this strain was highly susceptible to MUS, they found that MUS occurred in B6C3FI/CRlBR and NIH Swiss strains, albeit at a lower incidence (6 per cent and 21 per cent respectively) housed in suspended wire cages. Neonatal pups may slip through largespaced mesh (1cm x 1cm)121.

(v)

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 44

(vi)

Because wire mesh floors are open they allow dissipation of heat from the bodies of mice and may thus influence thermoregulation. When given a choice, mice housed on a wire mesh floor chose an ambient temperature of 28C75. Thus the cage temperature for mice housed on a wire mesh floor may need to be higher than for mice housed on a solid floor (see Section 4.3 Temperature).

Recommendations 2.6.1 Solidfloorsarerecommendedformousecaging. 2.6.2 Wire mesh floors should not be used for mouse caging without express permission of the Animal Ethics Committee of the institution on the basis of compelling evidence for the need to use such flooring. In such cases, a solid floor section and nesting material should be provided. The size of the mesh gapsshouldnotexceed8mmx8mm(Seealso3.3MetabolismCages).

2.7Bedding
Principles (i) Mice have a behavioural need to burrow and are highly motivated to do so 122,123 . Burrowing behaviour persists even in the presence of a previously built system of burrows or shelters123125. Furthermore, Sherwin found the number of burrowing bouts increased, rather than decreased, as burrows were constructed123. Young male TO mice preferred to sleep in sawdust than make use of a selection of prefabricated shelters (tubes) to sleep in125. (ii) Deep bedding provides opportunities for digging and burrowing behaviours and mice spend a significant amount of time digging in such bedding when provided126. When digging, mice tend to alternate between digging with their forepaws and kicking back with their hindpaws32.

(iii) Bedding material may allow mice to perform selective soiling behaviour. Male TO mice preferred to defaecate on floors covered with sawdust bedding than on a bare plastic floor74. (iv) Ideally bedding should be nontoxic, free of dust, microbial, parasitic or chemical contaminants, atraumatic, moisture absorbent and ammonia binding127. In addition it is desirable for bedding to be inexpensive, readily available, easy to store, easy to use and easy to dispose of11. There is evidence that the size and manipulability of bedding material are the main determinants of selection by mice. When given a choice between ten commercially available bedding products, pregnant ARS Ha (ICR) Swiss mice most commonly chose a combination of materials, with products of wood origin overwhelmingly preferred128. When offered a choice, male ICR mice chose soft bedding that allowed them to hide and build nests129. In another study, male ICR mice preferred cloth bedding over recycled paper, wood shavings and paper130. Female C57BL/6JIco

(v)

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 45

and BALB/cBYJIco mice prefer bedding consisting of relatively large, rough, fibrous particles over sawdust115. (vi) Pregnant CF#1 mice preferred sawdust bedding over commercial, deodorised cellulose131.

(vii) Bedding may impact on aggression. Lawton et al found that adult MF1 NuNu males housed on thick corn cob bedding were less aggressive than those housed on fine grade corn cob, hemp, sawdust or aspen chip132. Aspen chip appeared to increase aggression in this strain. (viii) Small bedding particles (<300m) may irritate or damage the airways of mice127. For example, vermiculite bedding was reported to cause histological changes in the lungs of mice, reduced body weight and lead to fewer litters133. Small particles may also irritate and traumatise the vaginal or preputial mucosa115. (ix) Variations in absorbency of bedding can affect incage humidity, temperature and ammonia levels via concentration of ureaseproducing bacteria which convert urea into ammonia. For example, relative humidity in cages containing male NOD/LrJ mice varied significantly depending on the type of bedding used134. This is a potential source of experimental variability. Some bedding materials contain chemical compounds which can impact on mouse physiology and the response of mice to pharmacological agents. These compounds can enter the experimental model via direct ingestion of bedding, inhalation of volatiles or inhalation of dust particles135. Bedding made from hard and softwoods contains organic compounds such as tannins, alkaloids, lignins and resins that may impact on experimental results and even constitute a health hazard to mice and those working with them135. For example, some woodbased bedding products induced changes in hepatic enzymes involved in drug metabolism in both mice and rats 136142 resulting in altered drug metabolism and increasing the incidence of spontaneous tumours139. Thus some woodderived bedding altered barbiturateinduced sleep times139, 140, 142144 and/or demonstrated cytotoxicity145. In addition, the livertobodyweight ratio of mice exposed to red cedar bedding was significantly increased compared to mice exposed to the other beddings140. It should be noted that not all strains were affected to the same extent142. Industrialderived wood contains anti fungal and insecticidal agents which are also potentially toxic145. Pelkonen and Hanninen146 examined the cytotoxic and enzymeinducing effects of a variety of types of bedding from different parts of the world, finding a 200fold variability in the hepatocyte toxicity of commonly used bedding materials. Pine shavings were generally found to be highly cytotoxic (although the least cytotoxic of these was from Australia) (see also 145). Extracts of corncob, rice hulls and straw were found to be minimally toxic. Corncob extracts were practically devoid of inducers, whereas straw, ricehulls and sugar cane based beddings had enzyme

(x)

(xi)

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 46

inducer activity comparable to the hardwoods. A paper sample from Australia (telephone book strips) was minimally cytotoxic compared to other woodderived bedding materials, but had quite high enzymeinducer activity (comparable to pine). The authors recommend avoidance of softwood bedding, concluding that hardwoods were less problematic than softwoods, and grassbased bedding was better still. (xii) Where woodderived bedding is utilised, investigators should be familiar with the species of tree from which it is sourced and the manufacturing process, as well as its potential impact on the biological system and experimental outcomes135. This requires knowledge about naturally occurring compounds present in the bedding that may impact on mouse physiology as well as likelihood of treatmentinduced compounds in the bedding that may impact on mouse physiology. (xiii) Paper typically has a low cytotoxicity and inducer activity141, 145. Recycled or bleached paper products including paper towel had a higher cytotoxicity145, 147 and enzyme inducing activity147 than unbleached pulp. Analysis of telephone book strips found that while this bedding was minimally cytotoxic compared to other woodderived bedding materials, it had quite high enzymeinducer activity (comparable to pine)146. The latter may have been due to the presence of ink or the use of polyhalogenated compounds during manufacture. (xiv) Treatment of bedding may alter properties of bedding including toxicity. Autoclaving bedding material did not alter barbiturateinduced sleep times or liver:body weight ratios140 nor did it appear to impact on the enzyme induction properties of bedding145. In fact, potentially toxic compounds could form during treatment (eg heat treating or steam sterilisation) of bedding135. Recommendations 2.7.1 Beddingshouldbeprovidedinmousecagesandshouldbepresentinsufficient quantitytocovertheentirefloor.Thedepthofbeddingrequiredwillvarywith the type of bedding used, the number of mice in the cage and frequency of cleaning. Ideally mice should be able to dig, if not burrow. As a guide, the depthofthebeddingshouldbeaminimumof2cm. 2.7.2 Bedding should produce a minimal amount of dust and consist of particles thatlendthemselvestomanipulationbymice. 2.7.3 To reduce experimental variability, particularly where pharmacological experiments are concerned, the use of a single type of bedding is recommended. 2.7.4 Autoclaving of bedding is recommended to reduce the potential for microbial contamination. It should be ensured (for example by consulting the manufacturer) that toxic compounds are not formed during treatment of bedding.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 47

2.7.5 Softwoodderived bedding should be avoided. Paper, grassbased or hardwoodmaterialshouldbeutilisedinstead.

2.8Nestingmaterial
Principles (i) Mice of most strains, whether wild or captive, build nests when materials are available148. Nesting behaviour has been observed in young and old, male and female, pregnant and nonpregnant mice (see 149 and 150 for reviews of nest building by mice of different gender, reproductive status and strain), and is thus not exclusively relevant to adult females or dependent on pregnancy. (ii) Mice are highly motivated to build nests. They repeatedly rebuild nests which are removed daily149, they will work (by pressing a lever) for access to nesting material151154 and will endure an aversive experience such as traversing shallow water155, 156 or living on grid floor98 for access to nesting material.

(iii) The provision of nesting material enables mice to control their microenvironment148, 149 (see also section 4.3 on Temperature), avoid aggressive cohabitants149, 157, 158 and shelter from light or external disturbance149, 159.

Figure2.8.1Micearehighlymotivatedtobuild nests.Thissinglehousedfemalemousehasshred dedtissuetocreateanest.

(iv) (v)

The use of nesting material reduces preweaning mortality and enhances the number of litters160. Mice provided with nesting material spent 10 to 20 per cent of their time (day and night) manipulating that nesting material157. Mice provided with a cellulose nestlet spent significantly more time interacting with this form

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 48

of enrichment than did mice provided with other enrichment items (a marble and a split polyvinyl chloride pipe)126. Materials such as this encourage activity as they require mice to tease them apart in order to build them into a nest161. Similarly, mice provided with gauze pads spent time pulling at the gauze threads116. (vi) Provision of nesting material influences stress related parameters. In one study, male BALB/c and CD1 mice provided with nesting material in the form of two tissues, which were transferred to a new cage during cleaning, had lower urine cortisone levels and heavier thymuses than controls162.

(vii) Provision of nesting material resulted in reduced food consumption yet equal or higher weight gain than controls116, 157, 162, 163. Possible explanations for this trend include that a) nesting material enables mice to better thermoregulate, reducing metabolic demand for food and water157, 162 ; b) mice consume more food and water in the absence of nesting material due to a boredom effect164 and/or c) mice housed without nesting material exhibit a stress effect162. (viii) As with bedding the size and manipulability/structure of nesting material may be a stronger determinant of preference than the material itself159. For example, mice preferred cages containing tissues or paper towels over those containing shredded paper, and cages with cotton or wood wool were preferred over wood shavings159. (ix) When given a choice mice show a strong preference for nesting material over rigid structures such as commercially available nesting boxes98, 149, 165, 166 . When offered a selection of nesting and/or bedding materials mice tend to use a combination to construct their nests128, 149, 159, 167. The provision of nesting material in male mice may reduce aggression in the short term by allowing subordinate males to avoid their cohabitants. Grouphoused male BALB/c mice provided with cornhusk nesting material had significantly fewer wounds than controls four days after the nesting material was introduced, but the difference between the groups was not significant on day seven158. Aggression in grouphoused male BALB/c and CD1 mice was reduced if nesting material (tissues) was transferred at cage cleaning28, 162. Furthermore, male BALB/c and CD1 mice housed in cages enriched with nesting material (tissues) had lower urinary corticosterone levels than standardhoused mice168.

(x)

(xi)

(xii) Nesting material appeared to increase aggression in highly aggressive male NIH/S mice169, however this was completely replaced (and not transferred) during cage cleaning. The authors found that provision of an incage shelter (a tube or box) in conjunction with nesting material prevented fighting.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 49

(xiii) Nesting material should be carefully selected as it has the potential to act as a foreign body or irritant. For example, female athymic nude Cby.Cg Foxn mice provided with a commercial cotton nesting material invariably developed conjunctivitis, with fragments of the material found trapped in the conjunctival sac170. The authors suggest that these mice were predisposed to conjunctival foreign bodies due to the strains absence of eyelashes. In another study, postmortem examination of the gastrointestinal tracts of mice provided with gauze pads found no evidence of foreign material or lesions referrable to the pads116 suggesting that these are safe to use in mice. (xiv) The provision of nesting material is not likely to jeopardise experimental outcomes150. Recommendations 2.8.1 All mice should be provided with nesting material in addition to bedding material. 2.8.2 Nesting material should be nontoxic, atraumatic, loose, manipulable and light enough to be carried. Suitable materials include shredded paper and tissues. 2.8.3 Tominimise aggression,atleastsome nestingmaterialshouldbe transferred duringcagecleaning. 2.8.4 Dependingonthe strain ofmice used,nesting materialmay be placedon top ofthecagetoallowmicetopullthematerialthroughthebars.

2.9Incageshelters
Principles (i) In the wild, mice live in complex burrows consisting of tunnels and nest chambers in which they build their nests122. When given a choice mice prefer cages containing an incage shelter and avoid cages without one 97. (ii) For the purposes of these guidelines, the term shelter refers to a rigid structure within the cage, also known as an incage shelter or nest box.

(iii) The provision of a shelter may improve mouse welfare. In a study across 46 facilities across the UK, the frequency of stereotypic behaviour was lower in cages containing a shelter94. (iv) Female BALB/c mice provided with a shelter and nesting material had a comparatively lower food and water intake than those housed in standard or nestonly enriched conditions163. Both BALB/c and C57BL female mice enriched with this combination of an incage shelter and nesting material were more active, spent less time eating and drinking and weighed less than control and nestmaterial only groups. They had the highest urinary corticosterone/creatinine ratio of all groups, possibly due to greater level of physical activity. The provision of shelters with nesting material, or nesting material alone, had no effect on organ weights, adrenal histology,

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 50

lymphocyte proliferation or plasma corticosterone concentration163. Male ICR mice provided with a redtinted polycarbonate hemisphere (Mouse Igloo) showed no change in food intake or weight gain when compared with controls171.

Figure2.9.1:Micemakeuseofincageshelters.Themodelinthispictureisan igloostyleshelter.

(v)

When shelters were provided in combination with cagedividers, male CFLP mice displayed an increase in aggression and reduced resistance to experimental infection with Babesia microti when compared with controls172. However, resistance to infection increased as time spent in the shelters increased, suggesting that the shelters offset the damaging effects of aggression on immunocompetence by providing refuge from attacks. When given a choice between different shelters, mice preferred small, angular structures over larger, circular shelters173. They preferred shelters made of grid metal over clear or white perspex boxes or no box, and boxes made out of perforated metal over those made from grey PVC or sheet metal97. Grid or perforated shelters may be preferred because they allow for passage of olfactory cues97. When offered a shelter with one open side or two, the majority of mice preferred a box with one open side and typically slept with their head towards that side.

(vi)

(vii) Given the opportunity, mice will make use of space in the vertical as well as horizontal plane. In one study, wildcaught mice spent a significant amount of time sitting on top of a shelter47. Climbing onto a shelter may be an important component of locomotor activity in mice97. Slippery or steep sloped shelters may prevent mice from using additional space by climbing onto the roof of the shelter. Shelters that facilitate climbing may be preferred.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 51

(viii) Mice may retreat into shelters when disturbed or threatened97, however provision of shelters does not complicate catching or handling of mice. Male FVB (inbred) and NMRI (outbred) were no more difficult to catch or handle when provided with two 15cm long, 5cm diameter PVC tubes than those in standard cages174. Furthermore, the tubes facilitated catching of NMRI mice, evidenced by reduced catching times, and did not significantly affect food or water intake in either strain. (ix) Mice are highly motivated to nest even when a shelter is provided. When nesting material, for example tissues, is available mice will drag it into a shelter to build elaborate nests166. The performance of nesting behaviour may be just as important as its outcome, therefore mice should be provided with nesting material in addition to incage shelters (Sherwin, pers comms, 2007). The use and benefits of shelters may vary significantly between strains, and may be gender dependent. In summary, incage shelters have multiple functions and can be used for a variety of activities that are part of the natural behavioural repertoire of the mouse: They provide a microclimate which may aid in thermoregulation (temperature and relatively humidity are usually higher within the shelter); They facilitate the use of nesting material; They allow withdrawal from light; They provide a means of escape from aggressive social interactions; They better satisfy the thigmotactic (wallhugging) aspects of mouse behaviour than a single large cage; They may expand functional living area by providing a structure that mice can climb, chew and interact with.

(x) (xi)

Recommendations 2.9.1 Mice should be provided with an incage shelter within their cage. Shelters shouldbeprovidedinadditionto,notasasubstitutefor,nestingmaterial. 2.9.2 Incage shelters should have solid or grid sides and a roof that allows withdrawalfromlight(andfromothermice)andshouldbeconstructedsothat micecanclimbontotheroof. 2.9.3 Where incage shelters are made of chewable material such as paper or cardboard, itshould be ensured the material is nontoxic to mice norprone to causegastrointestinalobstructions. 2.9.4 Thereshould be enoughspace between the roof of theshelter and the cage lid toallowformiceclimbingontotheroofoftheshelter.

2.10Cagedividers
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 52

Principles Cage dividers including incage mazes can be used to increase (i) environmental complexity. The use of vertical and horizontal incage dividers may increase living area but also be more reflective of the natural environment, facilitate increased exercise/activity, and reduce perceived animal density175. (ii) Cage dividers may reduce stress and emotionality in mice. Male and female CLFP mice reared in complex cages (with multiple vertical dividers and a horizontal platform) gained more weight, demonstrated increased activity levels, defaecated less, performed better in box emergence and open field tests, and had smaller adrenal weights, than those kept in simple cages with no dividers175. In addition, regardless of complexity of home cage, all mice demonstrated a strong preference for more complex cages when given the choice.

(iii) Male BALB/c mice provided with a cage divider comprised of two platforms and an inbuilt shelter exhibited a significantly higher frequency of exploratory behaviour and significantly lower frequencies of bar gnawing, wood gnawing and drinking compared to counterparts in standard laboratory cages176. (iv) Increased cagecomplexity has been associated with increased aggression among male mice. Male CFLP mice housed in cages furnished with shelves and incage shelters (nest boxes) displayed increased aggression and reduced resistance to experimental infection with Babesia microti172. Male DBA/2J mice housed in cages furnished with a platform based on vertical dividers showed a marked increase in territorial aggression, with increased aggression toward intruders, a less stable dominance hierarchy and higher plasma cortisone levels than controls177. Both DBA/2J and CBA/J male mice showed an increase in aggression and delayed body weight gain when housed in cages furnished with a horizontal labyrinth178. Attack frequencies of males housed in these cages progressively increased during the course of the study. Strain differences were reported in the way in which the presence of incage dividers affected social organisation and endocrine parameters. Contrasting study results may reflect strain differences, as some studies employed highly aggressive strains while others did not179. Furthermore, properties of cage dividers/labyrinths/mazes, including the number of openings in walls, may trigger aggression in mice. In one study examining the impact of structural complexity of territory in captiveborn, wild male house mice, almost all encounters with intruders ended because the resident lost track of the intruder19. In another study comparing aggressive behaviour in environments enriched with dividers, the number of bite wounds was 45 times higher in inbred male HLG/Zte mice in cages with a closed passageway which limited escape than those housed with parallel open corridors or controls with no dividers180.

(v)

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 53

(vi) Although the differences between structures can be subtle, territorial aggression may be more of a problem when incage dividers or mazes/labyrinths are used than when incage shelters are provided. Thus time spent in shelters offset negative effects of cohabiting in a complex environment172 (see Section 2.9 InCage Shelters).

Recommendations 2.10.1 Cagedividers, labyrinths and mazes should not be used in the housing of aggressivestrains,particularlymalemice. 2.10.2 Cage dividers should be arranged in a way that provides an escaperoute for mice. 2.10.3 Where cage dividers, labyrinths and mazes are used, mice should be monitored for fight wounds and/or aggressive behaviour, as this will impact on the welfare of the mice in addition to being a source of experimental variability.

3.0Mousecareandmanagement
3.1Thesocialenvironment
Principles (i) Mice are social animals and should, wherever possible, be maintained in stable, harmonious social groups181. Mice have a strong preference for each others company. When given a preference, male BALB/cAnNCrlBR mice preferred each others company to individual housing, irrespective of social status or kinship182, 183. (ii) Strains may differ in their degree of social affiliation. For example, one study found that DBA mice were more likely to stay close to cagemates than C57 mice184. This impacted on behaviour in open field tests: C57 mice exhibited increased exploratory behaviour when alone, whereas DBA mice showed increased exploratory behaviour when in groups.

(iii) Aggression between male mice is a wellrecognised problem in laboratories world wide185 . Aggressive behaviour may be due to offensive, defensive or predatory motivation, or a mixture of these17. Aggression levels vary markedly with strain. For example, outbred Swiss CD1 mice exhibited higher levels of intermale aggression, interfemale aggression, maternal aggression and infanticide than other strains186. Environmental and husbandry factors may exacerbate agression185 (see especially Sections 2.10 Cage Dividers, 3.5 Environmental Enrichment, 4.7 Cleaning). (iv) Isolation may exacerbate aggression. Individual housing of male mice followed by group housing reliably induces aggression in many strains33, 63, 187 . For example, individuallyhoused male DD/S mice changed to grouphousing showed an increased tendency to fight, when compared with their permanently grouphoused counterparts188.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 54

(v) Pairhousing of male mice is not recommended, as the subordinate mouse may be frequently exposed to attacks and suffer subsequent stress and injuries181. Behaviour exhibited by dominant mice includes attacking, tail rattling, chasing, biting and adopting a sideon offensive posture181. Conversely, subordinate mice exhibit behaviours such as flight, hiding and freezing. Subordinate mice do not initiate attacks. Where conflict leads to injury, it may be necessary to remove the dominant mouse181. Identification and removal of dominant male Crl:CD1 mice lead to a 57 per cent reduction in the number of mice reported for clinical signs, euthanasia and death181. When removed dominant mice should be housed in another room as their urine may stimulate aggressive behaviour in dominants housed in the same room181. Nesting material should be supplied as this may partly compensate for deprivation of social contact165.

(vi)

(vii) For males unable to be housed with other male mice, ovarectomised females may be suitable companions as they do not induce male behavioural change through copulation or courting behaviour189 and production of unwanted progeny can be prevented190. However, the welfare of the male must be weighed against the welfare of the female, who must undergo major abdominal surgery. (viii) Female mice may exhibit maternal aggression, attacking both defensively and offensively17. Interfemale aggression may also be stimulated by male urinary odour. For example, virgin Swiss albino females individually housed for 24 hours in a cage previously inhabited by a male showed increased levels of attack and mounting of samesex intruders17. (ix) Previous social experiences influence aggressive behaviour. Thus Swiss mice that had repeatedly defeated conspecifics showed increased offensive aggression towards intruders than those without positive fighting experience191. There is evidence that keeping siblings together may reduce aggression and improve wellbeing. There were no physiological or behavioural differences detected in dominant or subordinate male Swiss CD1 mice grouped in samesex sibling groups from birth192. The authors argue that what is stressful for the mice is not group housing in itself, but a lack of familiarity or relatedness with respect to cagemates. Therefore group housing of samesex siblings from birth may be used to reduce the risk of detrimental aggression between mice. Male and female mice from litters that had been combined with other litters experienced a marked decrease in weight gain in comparison to undisturbed litters, regardless of litter size193. The age at which mice are grouped may impact on behaviour and physiology. For example, 26 to 28 day old male Swiss CD1 mice mixed into groups of five to six animals from different litters exhibited higher levels of aggression, smaller preputial glands and marked reduction of

(x)

(xi)

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 55

neophobia in a free exploratory paradigm than controls which remained in samesex littermate groups since weaning, and those grouped after puberty194. (xii) Brief periods of isolation, such as those that may occur during husbandry or experimental procedures, may not alter dominant/subordinate relationships. For example, dominant/subordinate relationships between pairhoused male mice remained unchanged following individual housing for periods of 6 to 12 hours191. (xiii) Optimal population density depends on a number of factors including strain, age, gender, experimental duration, genotype, degree of inbreeding, previous social experience of mice, familiarity of mice with one another, experimental procedures and the order in which animals are tested69. Male BALB/c Crl mice housed in a stainless steel cage with a floor area of 390cm2 had significantly elevated plasma corticosterone levels and decreased initial peripheral lymphocyte count when housed in pairs or groups of eight, compared to those housed in groups of 4195. (xiv) The level of aggression between male mice can be influenced substantially by group size, and cage size92. Aggressive behaviour in grouphoused male BALB/c mice was best prevented by housing the animals in groups of three to five. (xv) Social structure in female laboratory mice depends on the number of animals per cage. Dominant female mice had significantly lower corticosterone plasma levels than subordinates196. This study found that groups of three or five females were much more stable than pairs or groups of four. In groups of three or five, all females had a sufficient number of social contacts. The dominant female was able to reduce her contacts (for example pushing other mice away) to a minimum, while subordinate females stayed in close contact with one another. (xvi) High population density has been associated with deleterious effects, although some strains may be more vulnerable than others. In one study comparing weight gain, plasma corticosterone, behaviour and immune parameters in female BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice housed at population densities ranging from 210 mice per cage (484cm2 total cage floor area, or 48.4242cm2/mouse), high density housing had more deleterious effects on BALB/c mice197. Thus BALB/c mice housed at ten animals per cage gained less weight, had higher corticosterone levels, spent more time in the outer portion of the open field and had fewer entries into the open field area than those housed at two animals per cage. Furthermore, helper T (CD4+) cells were lower in BALB/c mice housed at ten per cage. C57BL/6 females housed at ten per cage showed less exploratory behaviour than those housed at two per cage, but other parameters were unaffected. (xvii) Other adverse effects associated with high population density include:
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 56

Suppressive effect on granuloma formation when compared to individually housed controls (albino male mice, strain not specified; population density five adult mice in a single 17.8cm x 25.4cm cage)198; An increase in plasma cholesterol and lipid levels, and increased severity of fatty lesion (atherosclerosis) development, in female C57BL/6 mice199 (it should be noted that group sizes in the study ranged from one to five mice, but cage size was not specified); Reduced brain weight in C57BL/10 male mice200; Tail dermatitis with possible self trauma in male and female C3H/HeJ mice201. The incidence of these lesions was 4 per cent in breeding pairs but 21 per cent in weaned mice housed in groups of 40. Incidence was lowered among weaned mice kept in groups of 40 in large cages with sexes separated, but healing of the lesions occurred when mice kept in groups of 40 were separated into groups of five in smaller cages. (xviii) Housing mice within visual, olfactory and/or auditory contact of predators, including rats, is stressful for mice202, 203. Four strains of mice (BALB/c, C57BL/6, CD1 and SwissWebster) exposed to a rat through a wire screen demonstrated varying degrees of defensive behaviour including freezing and avoidance204. Grouphoused BALB/c mice housed in a room containing rats had increased levels of sympathetic neurotransmitters when compared with controls205. In the same study investigators found that there was a greater increase in sympathetic nervous system activity in individuallyhoused mice exposed to rat odour, suggesting the problem was compounded by the stress of isolation. Chronic exposure to auditory and olfactory cues from rats affected both sucrose intake and behaviour in an elevated plus maze in male CD1 mice206. In this particular study, housing mice in the same room as rats caused such a degree of stress that it reduced their sensitivity to a reward (sucrose) and prevented habituation to the elevated plusmaze. In another study, olfactory and visual exposure to rats elicited anxiety responses in male BALB/cByJ and C57BL/6ByJ207. As with other stressors, exposure to rats can alter immune parameters. For example, group housed male CD1, BALB/cByJ and C57BL/6ByJ mice given visual and olfactory exposure to rats for a fifteen minute period had reduced macrophage activity and natural killer cell cytotoxicity208. Exposure to rats reliably provoked an increase in urination and defaceation, as well as fearassociated behaviour including startle response and freezing. Similarly, exposure of BALB/c mice to cat odour resulted in ></Cite></EndNote>211, 215, 216, individual housing of mice is ehaviour and moving away from the odour209. Mice housed in standard (as opposed to enriched) cages also exhibited higher levels of plasma corticosterone following exposure to cat odour. Male ICR mice exposed to cat urine odour for 58 days failed to habituate to the scent and became more aggressive when compared to mice exposed to rabbit urine or water over the same period of time210. Recommendations 3.1.1 Mice are social animals and should, wherever possible, be maintained in stable,harmonioussocialgroups.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 57

3.1.2 Groups of mice should be monitored to ensure social stability as well as the detection of behavioural and physiological abnormalities. There are situations, for example studies involving highly aggressive strains, where grouphousingisnotsuitable. 3.1.3 Pair housing of male mice is not recommended due to a high probability of aggression. 3.1.4 Ideallymousegroupsshouldconsistoflittermatesofthesamesex. 3.1.5 Miceshouldbegroupedwitheachotherbeforetheyreachpubertytominimise aggressionbetweenunfamiliarindividuals. 3.1.6 As a guide, the optimal size for a group of adult mice is three to five for femalesandthreeformales.However,indetermininggroupsize,factorssuch as differences between individual animals, strain, sex and cage size should be takenintoaccount. 3.1.7 Thedisruptionofestablishedsocialgroupsshouldbeavoided. 3.1.8 Separationofcagematesshouldbelimitedtolessthan24hours. 3.1.9 Adultmalesfromdifferentgroupsshouldnotbeplacedinthesamecage. 3.1.10 Whereitisnecessarytomixunfamiliaradultmales,theyshouldbeexposedto eachotherbeforetheyaremixedtogether.Thiscanbeachievedbyplacingthe newcomer into an adjoining cage to allow visual, auditory and olfactory contactwiththeothermale. 3.1.11 Nesting material should be provided to minimise conflict. Following cage cleaning, nesting material should be transferred fromthe old to the new cage tominimiseaggression(seeSection4.7Cleaning). 3.1.12 Mice should not be housed in the same room, or within auditory, olfactory or visualcontact,withpredatoryspeciesincludingratsandcats.

3.2Isolationandindividualhousing
Principles (i) Numerous studies have suggested that individually housed rodents, including mice, may exhibit physiological and behavioural changes when compared with their grouphoused counterparts211, 212. These changes, which may include alterations in corticosterone levels, neurochemistry, metabolism, growth, reproduction and behaviour, are often collectively referred to as isolation syndrome213, 214. Reports on isolation syndrome must be interpreted with caution in mice, as the terms singlehousing, individualhousing and isolation are frequently used interchangably213, but may not describe the same circumstances. For example, in some studies, mice are housed individually but are not completely isolated, in that they remain in olfactory, auditory and/or visual contact with conspecifics.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 58

(ii)

Although the concept of isolation stress has been challenged211, 215, 216, individual housing of mice is associated with a range of behavioural and physiological changes, some of which may indicate a stress response. Reported behavioural and physiological consequences of individual housing of mice include: Increased aggression, particularly in male mice, towards cohabitants33, 63, 187 or inanimate targets217 (the effect is well established, such that isolation is commonly used to induce aggressive behaviour in mice); Increased risk assessment behaviour, thought to be a manifestation of anxiety, in female CD1 Swiss albino mice218; Increased irritability219; Altered drug metabolism220, 221 (for a review see Baer212) ; Increased faecal corticosterone levels persisting for up to 14 days in outbred male MF1 mice222; Convulsions in male C3H mice associated with routine husbandry procedures such as cage cleaning and weighing223; A significantly increased heart rate (4 per cent higher than pairhoused counterparts) in outbred adult male HanIbm:NMRI mice189; Disruption of sleeping pattern in outbred adult male HanIbm:NMRI mice, as evidenced by increased frequency and decreased duration of resting189; Increase in consumption of food224, 225; Significant weight gain in B6C3F1 mice, associated with a large increase in the incidence of liver tumours in both sexes and a smaller increase in lung neoplasia in males226; Significant increase in neurotransmitter release in male BALB/C mice after 714 days205; Behavioural changes including hyperactivity, increased anxiety behaviour, impaired memory and reduced habituation in male C57BL/6J and DBA/2 mice227; increased activity in male NIH Swiss mice215; altered performance in consumer demand studies in female CB57 mice; Increased sensitivity to stressors211. For example, exposure of individually housed male Swiss CD1 mice to a novelty environment led to higher basal corticosterone, reduced splenocyte proliferation and lower type 1 (IL2) and type 2 (IL4) cytokines228; Increased susceptibility to experimental infection228; Increased secondary IgM and IgG titres following inoculation challenge in male C57BL/6J and BALB/c mice229; Straindependent activation of cytokine production in male C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice230; Transient increase in lymphocytic reactivity and increased resistance to infection in male C3H/HeJ mice231 (immune reactivity did not alter with housing conditions in female C3H/HeJ or male C57BL/6J mice); Decreased IgM plaque forming cell response to sheep red blood cells in male CD1 mice were antagonised with an anxiolytic (diazepam)232;

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 59

Reduced natural killer cell activity in NC900 and NC100 mice233 and DD/S mice234; Enhanced tumour growth following tumour cell transplantation235. (iii) In a study where individually housed female BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice in unenriched cages were handled irregularly, they had elevated basal heart rate and core body temperature, and a significantly increased relative recovery time following routine husbandry procedures, than mice provided with grouphousing, frequent handling and an enriched cage236. (iv) Individual housing may affect a range of physiological parameters. Single housed male C57BL/6J mice were smaller, had less softlean tissue and bone mineral content, and lower bone mineral density than their group housed counterparts237. For welfare reasons, individual housing may be recommended for known highly aggressive strains such as FVB or Swiss/CD1 mice33, 94, 238 which cannot workably be grouphoused with siblings. Alternatively, excessive aggression may be addressed by using females instead of males or a docile strain. Ovarectomised females may be suitable companions for males (see Section 3.1 The Social Environment). The effects of individual housing will vary depending on the period of isolation, in addition to the age, sex, strain, and social and housing history of the individual animal. For example, effects of individual housing on exploratory and emotional behaviour were more marked in DBA/2 than C57BL/6J mice227.

(v)

(vi)

(vii) Separating mice in a cage using a grid partition, so that the animals remain in tactile, visual, olfactory and auditory contact with one another, may be more stressful than isolating mice completely. Adult male Hsd:NMRI mice housed for ten days with sensory contact to an unfamiliar male displayed significant increases in heart rate, core body temperature and motor activity, in addition to impaired nestbuilding, with almost no habituation, when compared to those housed in sensory contact with a female companion239. The authors argued that this degree of stress far exceeded that brought about by complete social isolation. The effects on females were less dramatic. Female C57BL/6JOlaHsd mice separated by a grid partition following abdominal surgery had a significantly higher heart rate (as measured by telemetry) than grouphoused or fully isolated counterparts224. However, interpretation of these results is difficult as the separated mice had half of the space afforded to their counterparts. (viii) Change in housing condition, for example from group to individual housing versus individual to group housing, may be particularly stressful. Grouphoused male DD/S mice changed to individual housing had markedly increased tumor growth rates than permanently individually housed mice, permanently grouphoused mice and individuallyhoused mice changed to group housing188. Furthermore, when changed from group to individual housing, these mice demonstrated a decrease in
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 60

survival time and an altered response to chemotherapy240. Male C3He mice changed from group to individual housing had markedly reduced natural killer cell cytolytic activity241. Change from group to individual housing, and vice versa, lead to an exacerbation of tumour growth in male DBA/2 mice235. Change from individual housing to group housing and back again reduced antibody production in male CBA/USC mice242. (ix) While mirrors may be a useful form of environmental enrichment in some species when individually housed, they do not ameliorate the negative effects of isolation in mice. In preference tests, adult male and female C57BL/6J mice demonstrated a mild aversion to cages containing mirrors, with a strong aversion during feeding243. Furthermore, mirrors are unlikely to prevent barbiting behaviour in mice.

Recommendations 3.2.1 Ideally mice should not be housed individually, however there are some circumstances (for example with highly aggressive individuals or strains) whereindividualhousingmaybemoreconducivetomousewelfare. 3.2.2 Except in cases where immediate isolation of an individual is required to prevent injury, investigators must seek Animal Ethics Committee approval priortohousingmiceindividually. 3.2.3 Where mice are housed individually due to aggression, visual, auditory and olfactorycontactwithothermiceshouldbelimitedasfaraspossible. 3.2.4 Where mice are housed individually for reasons other than aggression, they shouldbehousedinvisual,auditoryandolfactorycontactwithothermice. 3.2.5 In cases where individual housing is required, environmental enrichment shouldbeprovidedtoamelioratetheimpactofindividualhousing(seeSection 3.5EnvironmentalEnrichment).

3.3MetabolismCages
Principles (i) When metabolism cages are used to house mice individually the degree of isolation may be greater than from individual housing in standard cages, in that the design of metabolism cages will restrict exposure of mice to olfactory, auditory and visual contact with other mice. Furthermore, metabolism cages have a wire mesh floor (see section 2.6 Cage Flooring). Thus the potential impact on the wellbeing of mice is greater and there are fewer options to ameliorate these effects. (ii) Limited environmental enrichment of metabolism cages can be introduced without affecting data. Male BALB/c and C57BL mice housed in metabolism cages made extensive use of enriched sections of the cage, including a section of solid floor, a nest box or a nest box with a solid floor, where these were provided244. Effects of enrichment on food and water intake, faeces and urine production were minimal. Urine creatinine

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 61

levels did not differ significantly between mice housed in standard and enriched cages, although mice of both strains housed in enriched cages had higher body weights than those in nonenriched metabolism cages. Recommendations 3.3.1 Mice should not be housed in metabolism cages without the express permission of the Animal Ethics Committee of the institution on the basis of compelling evidence for the need to house mice in this way. In such cases, mice should be able to be in visual, auditory and olfactory contact with other mice as far as possible. The size of the mesh gaps should not exceed 8mm x 8mm(Seealso2.6CageFlooring). 3.3.2 Miceshouldbeacclimatisedtothemetabolismcagebeforestudiescommence. 3.3.3 Where metabolism cages have to be used, consideration should be given to enriching the cages (for example by providing an area of solid floor and/or a nestbox)providingthisdoesnotinterferewiththestudy.

3.4 Effects of handling, routine husbandry procedures and transport 3.4.1Handling(general)

Principles (i) In both animal holding facilities and the laboratory it is inevitable that mice come into contact with humans either directly when they are handled or indirectly when they are exposed to human activity. In both situations interactions with humans elicit physiological and behavioural responses which have implications for animal welfare and the validity of data collection245. (ii) As mice have a strong sense of smell, it is important that animal handlers wash their hands, change gloves and wear clean coats when touching them, particularly after handling predator species such as cats, dogs and rats246. The use of scented soap and/or perfumes and colognes should be avoided as this may disrupt the behaviour of some mice148.

(iii) Basic handling procedures have a significant impact on the heart rate and may be associated with stressinduced hyperthermia in mice. Studies using telemetry to record electrocardiograms (ECG) have revealed that in freely moving male BALB/c mice with a normal resting heart rate of 450500 beats per minute (bpm), weighing mice increased the heart rate to 700 750bpm247. Hand restraint or placement of the mouse in another cage increased the heart rate further, to a maximum of 750800bpm. In another study, male CD1 mice removed from their cage, picked up and held for 15 seconds had a core body temperature increase of approximately 1.7C, as measured by telemetry248. In the same study, intraperitoneal injection of saline further increased core body temperature. Body temperature tended to peak 15 minutes posthandling and remain elevated for several hours, although mouse activity in the hours following handling may have contributed to the increase in temperature. Repeated disturbance of
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 62

individually housed male NMRI mice (being touched gently on the back five times at one minute intervals) lead to hyperthermia lasting for at least 20 minutes249. (iv) Both manual handling and restraint using various apparatus cause stress in mice. Immobilisation of individually housed male NMRI mice in a cylinder for one minute lead to hyperthermia249. Plasma glucose was significantly elevated in B6C3F1 and ICR mice following primary handling and transportation250. Additionally, decapitation in mice caused a significant increase in plasma glucose concentrations, probably related to handling techniques with which mice about to be decapitated were unfamiliar250. In the same study, blood sampling by venesection of the tail vein resulted in a rapid but transient increase in plasma glucose concentrations, which took about an hour to return to baseline levels. Female CD1 mice restrained by scruffing for 15 seconds exhibited a decrease in locomotor activity for 30 minutes following return to home cage. Different strains may habituate to handling at different rates. For example, the gene response of C57BL/6 mice to repeated saline injections over a period of two weeks was the same as controls, whereas many brain areas of salineinjected DBA/2J mice still showed elevated Fos and Fosrelated antigen expression251. Some mice may not habituate to handling. Corticosterone levels rose significantly in both group and individually housed male CD1 mice which were removed from their home cage and placed for 1.1hour into a black Plexiglass container and bled following decapitation252. Corticosterone levels increased with daily handling over a period of 15 days. In another study, female BALB/c mice handled for two minutes daily (by being picked up by the tail and handled without restraint on a gloved palm) for two weeks prior to injection with alveolar carcinoma cells had increased metastases compared with controls253. Interestingly, mice handled for one week had decreased metastases when compared with controls, suggesting that the relationship between handling and immune response is not linear in mice. In another study, male BALB/c mice handled for injection for seven days had significantly higher serum corticosterone than those not subjected to handling for the same period254.

(v)

(vi)

(vii) Handling of mice affects other immune parameters. Both handling alone and handling combined with rectal temperature measurement significantly increased natural killer cell activity in female BALB/c mice255. These interventions also had differential effects on mouse hormone and cytokine profiles. In another study, individually housed male C3J/HeJ mice handled daily for two weeks (restrained as if for an injection) had reduced titres of IgM and IgG to an antigen when compared with unhandled controls256. In another study by the same authors, grouphoused female mice had a reduced primary IgG response to an intraperitoneally injected antigen following once daily handling for two weeks257.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 63

(viii) Interpretation of studies on the effects of handling is difficult. Handling effects on mouse immunity may not be mediated by glucocorticoids. There was no difference in baseline corticosterone between male C3H/HeJ mice handled daily and unhandled controls256. Similarly, there was no increase in glucocorticoid levels in handled BALB/c mice following an intraperitoneal injection of an antigen, while unhandled mice had significantly elevated corticosterone levels in response to the injection258. (ix) Restraint stress can impact on reproductive parameters. In one study, female B6D2 mice mated to SW males exposed to five hours of restraint stress on days 13, 46 or 16 of pregnancy had reduced pregnancy rates (52 per cent, as compared with 90 per cent) and reduced litter size compared with controls (8.2 versus 5.2 pups)259. In another study, a single fourhour period of restraint in a tubular restraining device led to an increased abortion rate in pregnant C3H/HeJ mice, but not in CBA/J or A/J strains260.

Figure3.4.1.1Animalhandlersshouldwashtheirhands,changegloves andwearcleanclothesbeforehandlingmice.

(x)

Mice can be easily injured if handled roughly or subjected to procedures by inexperienced personnel. Juvenile male ICR mice administered deionised water via gastric gavage had significantly higher mortality and less efficiency of food utility when the procedure was carried out by personnel with zero to three years experience than those with over fifteen years experience261. The study did not determine whether the reduced efficiency of food utility and increased mortality was due to a stress response or subclinical injury. In an assay of thermal nociception (tail flick/withdrawal test) in mice of varied strains, investigator identity had the strongest association with tailwithdrawal latency, outweighed by genotype67. This may be related to the level of experience or manner of handling employed by particular investigators.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 64

(xi)

Different strains may respond differently to handling. For example, wild strains may be much more difficult to catch and handle (thus taking more time and potentially exposing the mouse to injury and/or greater stress) than laboratory strains. However, one study found substantial variation in ease of handling between common laboratory strains262.

Recommendations 3.4.1.1 Animalhandlersshould washtheirhands, change glovesandwearclean coatsbeforehandlingmice. 3.4.1.2 Stepsshouldbetakentofamiliarisemicewithhandlerssoastoreducethe stressofhandling. 3.4.1.3 Miceshouldbehandledquietlyandgently. 3.4.1.4 Periodsofrestraintshouldbekepttoaminimum. 3.4.1.5 Handlingmiceforroutine husbandryproceduressuchascleaningshould notfollow,norbe associatedwith,proceduresthatmay cause distressin mice. 3.4.1.6 Chasing mice around their cage should be avoided. Mice that prove difficulttocatchby handshouldbe directedintoaplastic tube orsimilar structureandthenceliftedfromtheenclosureandcoaxedfromthetube.

3.4.2Handling(neonates)
Principles (i) Handling neonates produces different effects that may persist through the animals life263. In rats, the most likely mediator for handling effects is increased maternal care (licking and grooming) following the return of stressed pups to the nest264, 265. In a mouse study, maternal care was not affected by neonatal handling in a highlyaggressive strain (NC900), but it was significantly augmented in a lowaggressive strain (NC100)266. (ii) The effects of neonatal handling can vary between strains and housing systems. In one study, handling involved placing the entire litter in an opaque plastic beaker for 60 seconds once every 48 hours from day three postpartum until weaning at 21 days266. Handled NC100 mice had reduced corticosterone levels compared with handled NC900 mice and non handled controls. Handled mice of both strains showed an upregulation in dopamine receptors, with the effect increased in grouphoused males. DBA/2 pups removed from their nest, put in a container and replaced back in the nest from day 1 to 24 had significantly reduced survival time following intraperitoneal inoculation of leukaemia cells267. However, there were significant differences between handled and nonhandled BALB/c pups when a similar protocol was used268.

(iii) Regular handling of neonates may lead to habituation. Male CD1 mice removed from their cage, weighed and injected with saline from days 2 to
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 65

19 of age showed increased latencies in nociception tests at 35 days of age when compared with nonhandled controls263. At days 80 and 140, an increase in body weight was noted. (iv) Handling of mouse pups can influence neural development, immune parameters and behaviour. Neonatal mice removed from their home cage and exposed to clean, unfamiliar bedding in the absence of their mother for 15 minutes daily for the first two weeks of life demonstrated increased exploratory behaviour and less fearfulness compared to control mice exposed to home cage bedding in the absence of their mother269. CD1 mice handled for fifteen minutes daily from postnatal days 2 to 14 inclusive exhibited increased nerve growth factor levels and did not respond to an anxiolytic drug (chlordiazepoxide) when confronted with acute, novel stress270. Effects may be delayed. For example, C3H/St pups handled daily from birth to weaning showed no differences in splenicB and Tcell proliferative mitogen responses at day 21, however they exhibited enhanced humoral and cellmediated immunity as adults271. Earlyweaning may lead to increased anxiety and aggression in mice272. Male and female BALB/c mice weaned early (at 14 days as opposed to 21 days) had higher levels of anxiety when compared with controls weaned at 21 days273. Early weaned males sustained more fight wounds when regrouped after isolation when compared with controls.

(v)

Recommendations 3.4.2.1Investigators must be aware that handling of neonates can have a long term impactonthewelfareofanimalsthatpersiststhroughouttheirlives. 3.4.2.2Handling of neonates should only be performed where necessary and must be performed consistently across a subpopulation or population of mice to minimiseexperimentalvariability. 3.4.2.3Whereneonatesarehandled,handlingmustbeperformedquietlyandgently. 3.4.2.4Earlyweaningofmice(priorto21daysofage)shouldonlybeperformedwith permissionfromtheAnimalEthicsCommittee.

3.4.3Routinehusbandryprocedures
Principles (i) Routine husbandry procedures can impact significantly on welfare and physiological parameters of mice. (ii) The event of a person entering the room, even without handling animals, increased heart rate and body temperature in individuallyhoused male C57BL/6N mice, as measured by radio telemetry274. After twelve days of habituation, heart rate values were lower, but still significantly increased compared with heartrate values taken before a person entered the room. The heart rate appeared to rise most when investigators first entered the room each morning. Conditioning or repeated handling of mice, with or without forewarning via an acoustic stimulus, reduced the increase in heart

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 66

rate associated with handling over a period of twelve days, particularly when animals were handled in the afternoon. (iii) Witness effects (stress induced by animals witnessing other animals being subjected to procedures including euthanasia) have been well documented in rats275, however few studies have documented an affect in mice. Tuli et al276 found that mice present in the room when other mice were bled and killed did not exhibit a significant difference in corticosterone levels, or spleen or adrenal gland weight than controls. However, mice in this study may have had an adaptive response and investigators conceded there was not enough evidence to conclude the absence of a witness effect. In another study, grouphoused female C57BL/6 mice were captured, restrained and decapitated successively at two minute intervals. Corticosterone levels increased by two to threefold in the fourth and fifth mice in a cage compared to the first mouse, that is from 46 minutes and 6 8 minutes after the capture of the first mouse277, suggesting a witness effect. Chesler et al., found that the first mouse tested in a 49C hot water tail withdrawal/flick test had the highest latency than others67. This may be due to a witness effect, or could be due to extended handling or exposure to a novel environment prior to testing. There is some evidence that mice in a group situation experience anticipatory anxiety. When individual male Swiss mice were removed onebyone from a group situation, the first animals to be removed did not exhibit hyperthermia while the last animals removed did278. This stressinduced hyperthermia was prevented by administration of anxiolytics, but not antidepressants, neuroleptics, antipyretics, muscle relaxants, antihypertensives or naloxone, suggesting that anxiety, possibly secondary to witness effect, is the cause of hyperthermia in these cases279. (iv) Stressful procedures performed in close proximity to, but not in view of cage mates, may be stressful to cage mates witnessing the event. Male BALB/c mice whose cage mate was weighed or restrained for one hour had an increased heart rate and core body temperature than controls280. Restraint of a cage mate was significantly more stressful than simply handling and weighing the cage mate. Some habituation to stress was observed over 14 days, but the vas deferens of witnesses had a significantly increased response to application of exogenous noradrenaline thought to be an indicator of chronic stress.

Recommendations 3.4.3.1To minimise the impact of disruptions, mice should be allowed a conditioning period to ensure that disturbances such as laboratory animal personnel entering the room do not cause undue stress. A period of seven days is recommended. 3.4.3.2Persons entering the mouse holding roomshould follow a routine as much as possible. 3.4.3.3Stressfulproceduresshouldbeconductedinisolationfromothermice.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 67

3.4.4Transport
Principles (i) Transport, whether to another laboratory or within the same facility, involves multiple stressors and may impact adversely on mice281. Aside from direct handling, which may or may not be involved, potentially stressful aspects of transport include exposure to novel environments, duration and mode of transport, exposure to temperature variation (see section 4.3 Temperature), changes in light:dark cycle (see section 4.2.2 Light Cycles), noise and vibrations (see section 4.6 Sound and Vibration), and reduced availability of food and water (see section 3.6 food and water)66, 282. (vi) Adverse effects of transport on mice have been documented. CD1 mice exposed to 2436 hours of air transport or 3638 hours of truck transport exhibited a marked increase in plasma corticosterone, levels of which remained at a high value for 48 hours283. In addition, immunologic function as detected by the foot pad test, haemagluttination assay and plaque forming assay, was depressed for 48 hours. In another study, C57BL/6J mice exposed to air and truck transportation demonstrated increased plasma corticosterone and decreased NK cell activity on arrival284. These parameters returned to control levels after 24 hours.

(vii) Longterm effects of transportinduced stress are reported. Transportation (via a combination of air and truck) suppressed reproduction in agouti and nonagouti deer mice for several weeks285. (viii) Transportation within a facility may result in adverse effects. BALB/Ola mice subjected to a short, local transportation (taken in a cage which was wrapped in a black polythene bag to an experimental room, via a ten minute walk and two minutes in lifts) had an immediate marked increase in corticosterone levels, which returned to baseline within 24 hours281. Behaviours including rearing, climbing, grooming, feeding and aggressive sexual behaviour also changed. These behaviours were largely stabilised in 24 hours, but variability in some behaviours continued over four days. (ix) When transport times are equal, truck and air transport cause a similar magnitude of stress283, 284. Lengthy or traumatic transportation events could be expected to increase the magnitude of physiological effects and potentially the time taken for these to return to baseline levels282. Transport stress may confound research if mice are used in experiments before homeostasis is restored282. In general, primary mediators of the stress response (primarily catecholamines and glucocorticoids) return to normal within 24 hours of arrival, but secondary physiological outcomes (weight loss, changes in immune parameters, endocrine function and changes in behaviour) may take longer to return to baseline levels282. Reproductive performance may take significantly longer (weeks to months) to normalise285.

(x)

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 68

(xi) Feeding and activity levels were shown to be altered significantly in the first 24 hours after transportation281. Mice should be monitored post transport to ensure they are eating and drinking sufficiently, particularly where there is a change in diet, treatment of water or method of water delivery66. Animals should be checked for any clinical manifestation of disease, or signs of trauma including fighting following transport.

(xii) It is likely that the optimal period for acclimation will vary depending on the strain of mouse used, research procedures and organ system or physiological parameters studied66. Periods of between 1 and 7 days have been recommended66. Recommendations 3.4.4.1Transportation times should be kept to a minimum. Effort should be taken to containmiceinsuchawaytominimisenoise,vibrationandextreme variation intemperature. 3.4.4.2Where possible, mice should be transported in their home cage to minimise stress. 3.4.4.3Mice should have access to food and water during transport. Precautions should be taken to prevent water spillage, for example by providing an alternatesourceofwatersuchasasterilewatergel. 3.4.4.4Following onsite transport, a minimum of 24 hours should be allowed for acclimation. 3.4.4.5Following offsite transport, a minimum acclimation period of 37 days is recommended, although longer may be required for stabilisation of behaviouralandreproductiveparameters. 3.4.4.6Mice deemed to be unwell or injured should not be transported, unless it can beestablishedthattransportdoesnotresultinadditionalpainordistress.

3.5Environmentalenrichment
Principles (ii) The term environmental enrichment is used inconsistently in scientific literature286 to describe modifications of captive animal environments. For the purposes of these Guidelines, the term environmental enrichment applies to a modification of the cage environment that seeks to enhance murine physical and psychological wellbeing by providing stimuli to meet the animals speciesspecific needs and promote speciesspecific behaviour50. When mice are deprived of the opportunity to perform speciesspecific behaviour, they may show signs of distress including but not limited to stereotypies, chronic stress or other pathological conditions (see section 3.7 Monitoring of Mice). The aim of environmental enrichment is to provide the animal with choice of activity and control over its social and spatial environment50.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 69

(iii) In some papers, the term environmental enrichment encompasses nesting material and incage shelters, while in others these are considered basic husbandry requirements. For the purposes of these Guidelines, environmental enrichment is deemed to encompass environmental modifications additional to the provision of nesting material and an incage shelter. These are addressed at length in sections 2.8 Nesting Material and 2.9 InCage Shelters respectively. (iv) It has been widely argued that standard laboratory housing compromises murine welfare4, 150, 287. In one study, female C57BL/6 mice housed in standard cages selfadministered an anxiolytic significantly more than those housed in enriched cages (supplied with tubes, chew blocks and a running wheel), suggesting that mice housed in standard cages were more anxious and/or fearful than those in an enriched environment288. In the same study, mice in enriched cages spent less time resting and performing barrelated behaviours and more time performing exploratory/locomotory behaviours289. Environmental enrichment must be carefully selected so that it does not pose risks to mice (in terms of potential to injure or exacerbate aggression); does not pose risks to staff; and does not adversely interfere with experimental outcomes (for example by increasing experimental variability and the numbers of animals required)50, 290. Environmental enrichment (in the form of provision of a nest box, nesting material, gnawing stick and PVC tube) had no effect on the mean of behavioural parameters measured in BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice when compared to their standardhoused counterparts291. Environmental enrichment may modulate the reactivity of the mouse immune system, buffering mice against episodes of acute stress. Female C57BL/6 mice exposed to longterm environmental enrichment (provision of a running wheel, nesting material, toys and incage shelters) had lower splenic proliferative responses to acute stress than their standardhoused counterparts292, such that they behaved immunologically like nonstressed mice.

(v)

(vi)

(vii) Different mouse strains respond differently to environmental enrichment protocols164, 293, 294. Thus subtle environmental changes (the provision of a cardboard roll as opposed to a plastic shelter) had a significant impact on emotionality and sensory responsiveness in some strains295. In another study, a low anxiety, exploratory strain (ICR (CD1)) made greater use of enrichment objects introduced weekly into the cage than a high anxiety strain (C57/BL6) which exhibited high levels of barclimbing293. The authors suggest that high anxiety strains may benefit from a more stable cage environment. (viii) Environmental enrichment may lead to increased aggression, particularly between males. For example, enrichment led to an increase in antagonistic encounters between male inbred CS mice296. This does not automatically translate into poor mouse welfare, as mice kept in enriched conditions in
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 70

the same study also displayed increased play behaviour relative to controls. (ix) Strains may vary in their response to environmental enrichment. Thus while CS mice exhibited increased aggression, ABG mice did not. In a study using a docile strain, male ABG mice exhibited significantly increased play behaviour and activity levels with increasing enrichment297. No differences in agonistic behaviour were noted when compared with standardhoused counterparts. Because different mouse strains express markedly different behaviour, it is important that environmental enrichment is evaluated in terms of the preference and motivation of mice to use it; the effect on mouse behaviour (notably the absence or reduction of abnormal behaviour); its facilitation of speciesspecific behaviour; and the effect on physiological parameters (for example body weight, heart rate, stressrelated hormones and immune parameters)50. Potentially negative effects are reported. For example, DBA/2 mice showed an increase in stereotypy when provided with nesting material and a Perspex tunnel than other strains (C57BL/6, CBA/Ca, BALB/c, ICR (CD1) and TO) when compared with control mice in a non enriched environment298. In the same study, environmental enrichment was associated with an increase in testosterone in aggressive strains (ICR(CD 1), TO and BALB/c)298. Effects of enrichment objects or designs may vary depending on the gender of mice and the variable studied299. Environmental enrichment may promote wider use of cagespace. For example, wildcaught mice housed in a cage with increased groundlevel complexity (small bricks scattered around the floor) emerged from protected nest sites and moved away from cage walls more often47.

(x)

(xi)

(xii) Environmental enrichment delayed the onset of Huntingtons disease in transgenic Huntingtons model R6/1 (slow onset) and R6/2 (rapid onset) mice300, 301. In the latter study, even limited environmental enrichment (provision of a cardboard tube, distribution of food pellets on the cage floor, wood shaving bedding, and four mice housed in a 120mm x 30mm cage) slowed decline in Rotarod performance despite rapid disease progression. In addition, enrichment delayed loss of cerebral volume in Huntingtons disease model mice. The findings suggest that individual housing of mice in nonenriched conditions may lead to a marked worsening of disease phenotype, at least with neurological disorders. (xiii) There is some evidence that environmental enrichment may delay progressive memory loss and cognitive decline associated with deposition of betaamyloid peptides and neuronal loss (associated with Alzhiemers disease) in mice. Male APPswe X PS1AlphaE9 mice exposed to an enriched environment (containing running wheels, coloured tunnels, toys and chewable material) from the time of weaning to the age of six months resulted in a marked reduction of betaamyloid deposition in the central nervous system compared to mice housed in standard conditions302. This may have been associated with increased exercise, as the most significant
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 71

reductions in amyloid burden were seen in enriched mice exhibiting the most physical activity. (xiv) Female C57BL/6 mice raised in an enriched environment (grouphoused in large clear plexiglass containers containing ladders, tunnels, ramps, shelves and toys, as well as visual cues such as posters, shapes and moving patterns, as opposed to those housed in opaque white cages without stimulating objects) had 18 per cent higher visual acuity than their counterparts303. The authors argue that rearing animals in the nonenriched cages did not provide sufficient exposure to high spatial frequency information to allow the visual system to achieve maximal acuity. (xv) Environmental enrichment may assist mice in coping with experimental procedures. In one study, male and female Balb/c nude mice were subjected to a surgical incision closed with a wound clip. Those provided with enrichment objects (nestlets and cardboard rolls) post surgically had a much lower incidence of clip removal (16 per cent and 0 per cent in two experiments) than their counterparts (50 per cent of whom removed wound clips)304. Furthermore, in mice provided with enrichment objects, the lag between surgery and premature clip removal was longer (23 days compared with one day), suggesting that environmental enrichment provided a distraction. (xvi) Provision of nonedible material such as cardboard or aluminium foil may reduce stress levels in mice. In one study, the presence of cardboard or aluminium foil in a novel environment elicited chewing and reduced the initial corticosterone response to the novel environment when compared with controls305. In contrast, provision of highlypalatable edible peanut butter chips evoked little chewing and had no impact on the initial (060 minutes) plasma corticosterone response. (xvii) Other documented benefits of environmental enrichment on mice include: An increase in brain weight306; Increased cortical depth for longer than isolated mice307; an increase in behavioural repertoire and reduction in stress286, 308; increased reactivity and alertness164; increased sensorimotor skills309; a reduction in fearful or anxious behaviour and increased ease of handling157, 308, 310; reduced incidence of abnormal behaviours, notably stereotypic bar biting and looping from cage floor over cage lid continuously161; a reduction in aggression between male BALB/c mice following cage cleaning311; a reduction in offensive behaviour (for example chasing) in male CD1 mice312; increased neurogenesis in the hippocampus and dentate gyrus313, and increased motor function, following stroke314, 315.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 72

(xviii) Examples of enrichment items include: Nesting material (See 2.8 Nesting Material); Incage shelters (See 2.9 Incage Shelters); Social interaction (See 3.1 The Social Environment); Structural enrichment for example climbing apparatus or running wheel; Manipulanda objects that can be moved or altered by a mouse or those which promote fine motor movements, including wooden blocks or chew toys14; Novel foods or novel food locations (See 3.6 Food and Water); Sensory enrichment (for example background noise, See 4.6 Sound and Vibration).

Figure3.5.1Cardboardrollsareaninexpensiveformofenviron mentalenrichmentthatareusedbymicebymanipulating,tunn ellingandchewing.

(xix) Provision of running wheels as a form of environmental enrichment is controversial. Mice have a strong preference for wheel running over tunnelling316. Furthermore, wheel running appeared to reduce negative changes associated with intermittent individual housing. Female BALB/c mice housed individually every second day with access to a running wheel exhibited increased locomotor activity, reduced nerve growth factor and brainderived neurotrophic factor levels in the frontal cortex and increased brainderived neurotrophic levels in the amygdala and hippocampus, as
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 73

well as increased mRNA in the hippocampus317. However, wheel running affects mouse brain development differently to other types of enrichment, potentially skewing experimental data. Thus wheel running increased proliferation of microglia in a number of superficial areas of the cortex318, but does not contribute to morphological changes in the hippocampus region CA1 and the dentate gyrus as associated with other types of enrichment319. It is difficult to determine what needs are met by running wheels but they are used when provided (see Sherwin316 for an extensive review on the subject). Recommendations 3.5.1 Miceshouldbeprovidedwithenvironmentalenrichmentinadditiontonesting materialandanincageshelter. 3.5.2 Depending on the type of enrichment and how it is implemented, environmental enrichment may be a significant source of experimental variability. It is therefore critical that environmental enrichment is applied consistentlytogroupsofmice. 3.5.3 Items that allow mice to perform each of the five following categories of behaviourshouldbeprovided: (i) socialinteraction(seeSection3.1TheSocialEnvironment) (ii) chewing/gnawing (iii) locomotion(includingclimbing,exploring,playing) (iv) resting/hiding (v) manipulating,carryingandhoardingfoodandobjects 3.5.4 Enrichmentitemscanbeprovidedonarotatingbasistoincreasetheirnovelty value. 3.5.5 When techniques are used in an effort to provide environmental enrichment for mice it is important that the success of the techniques, in terms of improving mouse welfare, is evaluated. In particular, male mice should be monitoredforincreasedaggression. 3.5.6 Spatial conditions should be generous enough to allow coping with any increasedaggressionthatmayresultfromenvironmentalenrichment.

3.6Foodandwater
Principles (i) Food and water consumption are affected by the social environment and other environmental variables including light:dark cycles320, the position of the cage on a rack321 and temperature322. Physiology also influences food and water consumption, with pregnant and lactating mice demonstrating an increased food intake320. Mice may avoid novel foods when they are initially offered323. Mice ingest most of their food during the dark period324.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 74

(ii) Mice locate food by sniffing. They typically pick up food with their mouth, move to a preferred eating location and sit on the haunches while they eat, manipulating the food with their front paws246.

(iii) A review of feeding patterns in mice fed adlibitum found that the number of meals taken in a 24 hour period varied from 2 to 50320, with some animals adopting a grazing pattern while others adopted a gorging pattern of eating, depending on the type of diet available and ease of procurement. As mice are nocturnally active, most meals (75 per cent) were consumed during the dark phase of a 12:12 light:dark cycle320. (iv) Food disappearance and weight body weight were found to be correlated with cage shelf level in one study. Female BALB/c mice housed on the top shelf of a rack removed the most food while those on the second shelf removed the least321. Food removal increased in a stepwise fashion from the seconddown to the sixth (bottom) shelf on the rack. Mice on the top shelf had the lowest weight gain while the bottom two shelves ranked next. Animals on shelves two, three and four gained the most weight. The authors speculated that this may have been due to a wastage or temperature effect. Overnutrition may lead to a high incidence of obesity and increase in tumour incidence325. Treats, which are primarily used as a motivation or environmental enrichment, should be accounted for in the overall nutrition of the animal320 Nonetheless, one study171 found that male ICR mice . offered fruitflavoured crunchy treats reduced their intake of regular food almost calorie for calorie, suggesting that these may be a useful form of enrichment in some studies. Mice require approximately 15ml/100g/day of water (approximately 5 8ml/animal/day) and 15g dry weight of food/100g/day (approximately 4 8g/animal/day)3. Food and water intake is influenced by ambient temperature. For example, increasing the ambient temperature to 2933C markedly reduced food intake326.

(v)

(vi)

(vii) Caloric restriction may result in physiological and behavioural changes in mice. For example a single, overnight fast in mice housed at 23C can induce a state of torpor, in which the core body temperature of the mouse drops below 31C326. Calorierestricted mice may show a paradoxical increase in wheelrunning and cage activity326. In another study, restriction of food promoted stereotypical behaviour in male DBA mice, manifested as repetitive, invariant cage lid climbing despite food being available on the bottom of the cage327. Interestingly, dietary restriction did not lead to stereotypies in C57BL/6 male mice, suggesting a strain effect. (viii) Mice on a calorierestricted diet must be given food of sufficiently high quality to ensure they do not suffer dietary deficiencies, for example protein deficiency or deficiency of one or more micronutrients320. Group housing of mice on calorierestricted diets may lead to uncontrolled
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 75

experimental variability due to infighting and/or unequal competition for rationed food320. (ix) Food and deprivation results in absolute loss of body weight. Smaller strains may be more vulnerable. Death occured when the percentage of body weight lost reaches 1723 per cent over a 28 hour period328. In the wild, mice forage for food, and may consume up to 200 small meals a night from 2030 food sites16. Scattering items of food around the cage rather than in fixed dispensers can encourage foraging behaviours and allow mice to adopt normal postures for eating. Food or water may contain natural and synthetic chemical compounds that have significant effects on physiologic processes, for example heavy metals, phytoestrogens (such as the isoflavone genistein) or biological contaminants such as aflatoxin329. This may lead to disease and compromise animal welfare, and/or be a source of experimental variability. Autoclavable or irradiated pellets should be used for immunodeficient or barriermaintained mice330.

(x)

(xi)

(xii) Mice must have access to potable, uncontaminated drinking water ad libitum. Water may be treated to reduce microbial contamination, but any potential physiological effects of treatment should be evaluated by investigators330. (xiii) Water delivery systems may leak, particularly when cages are moved during cleaning or transport. This can result in flooding or wet bedding which may in turn alter the microclimate of the cage. Both situations are potentially lethal, particularly for neonates331. Similarly, water delivery systems may malfunction, or become plugged with nesting or bedding material331 preventing access to an adequate supply of water. (xiv) Mice have a high water turnover and small body size. Therefore weight loss is an important sign of dehydration in mice320. (xv) Some strains of mice do not adapt to particular water delivery systems and subsequently become dehydrated330. (xvi) Like all rodents mice have a strong motivation to chew246. This behaviour is not restricted to food items, and may extend to objects that can be reached through the cage bars. This may lead to damaged incisors, which can become caught, broken or misaligned246. It is important to ensure that no objects are inadvertently left within chewing range of the cage. Recommendations 3.6.1 Foodandfreshwatershouldbeprovidedad libitumunlessspecialpermission has been obtainedfrom theAnimalEthics Committeeof the institution to vary thisregime 3.6.2 Anutritionallyadequatedietshouldbeprovidedformice.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 76

3.6.3 Where treats are fed, these should be accounted for in the overall ration of micetoavoidobesity. 3.6.4 Food and water should be free of contaminants unless these are part of the study. Autoclaved or irradiated pellets should be used for immunodeficient or barriermaintainedmice. 3.6.5 Food must be stored in a clean, dry, verminfree, wellventilated area to reducetheriskofpostpurchasecontamination. 3.6.6 Water delivery systems should be checked daily to ensure proper function. Care must be taken to ensure water delivery systems do not leak, particularly when cages are moved during cleaning or transport. Where practical, mice should be provided with an elevated or suspended dry refuge area in case of flooding. 3.6.7 To minimise the risk of crosscontamination, it should be ensured that water bottlesarenotinterchangedbetweengroupsofmice. 3.6.8 Itshouldbeensuredthatmiceareabletousewaterdeliverysystems. 3.6.9 Food may be scattered throughout the cage as a form of environmental enrichment(seesection3.5EnvironmentalEnrichment).

3.7Monitoringofmice
Principles i) Mice are affected by their living conditions, including their physical environment, their social environment and their interaction with humans. When assessing the responses of mice to their living conditions, assessment of physiological and behavioural parameters are useful. Negative trends in these parameters, such as loss of body weight, failure to reproduce and changed behaviour patterns may indicate that mice are distressed and failing to cope with their environment. ii) The wellbeing of prey species including mice can be difficult to assess due to instinctive masking of signs of physical compromise or injury332, 333. In addition the speed with which mice move, their small body size, propensity for burrowing and nocturnal activity compound this difficulty333. Recognition of signs of pain or distress requires sufficient time for observation of an animal or group of animals. As mice are nocturnal the full range of wakehour behaviours are best observed at night using minimal illumination (see Section 4.2.1 Light intensity). It may be necessary to observe mice in such a way that they are unaware of the presence of an observer, for example by using a camera or recording device334. Mice should be monitored for signs of pain. As defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or

iii)

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 77

potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage335. Pain is a subjective experience that we can detect in animals that exhibit a behavioural response to pain. According to the Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA), all mammals including mice may be assumed to perceive and experience pain and remember situations associated with pain sensations336. Alternatively, pain has been defined as an aversive sensory experience that elicits protective motor actions, results in learned avoidance, and may modify species specific traits of behaviour, including social behaviour.337 Pain is a source of variance in experimental results due to a range of biochemical responses (e.g. neurotransmitter, hormonal) elicited. Animals in pain are therefore poor research subjects. iv) Behavioural changes may give an early indication of pain or that something is wrong with a mousess wellbeing. Changes that are subtle and nonspecific should not be overlooked333. Signs of pain, discomfort and/or distress in the mouse include but are not limited to: reduction in faecal/urine output; reduction in food/water intake; abnormal gait; vocalisation; rubbing, scratching or chewing at a surgical site or wound; reluctance to move; restlessness; pacing; hunched posture; unusual sleeping position (for example stretched out on one side); social withdrawal; headpressing; poor grooming/rough hair coat; piloerection; weight loss; increased or laboured respiration (may manifest as open mouth breathing, pronounced chest movements); porphyrin discharge; blood or saliva in bedding; or change in behavioural repertoire246, 330, 333, 338 . Other signs include alterations in core body temperature and heart rate; increased faecal glucocorticoid levels; reduced interaction with conspecifics; reduced exploratory and grooming behaviours65; reduced use of nesting material; irritation at injection sites; ptyalism (excessive salivation) and grinding teeth332, 338. Mice experiencing pain may attempt to bite when handled333. Vocalisation may indicate acute pain, but its absence in the face of a painful stimulus should not be interpreted as absence of pain or distress339. Changes in nest building behaviour have been reported to be sensitive early indicators of distress or illness in mice. Thus male HsdHan:NMRI mice not treated with analgesia following exploratory laparotomy damaged their nests, and failed to build proper nests for up to two days following surgery190. In some instances investigators could not identify a nest, or found several fragmentary nests at different locations in the cage. In contrast, mice treated with analgesics built normal nests within the first day and did not engage in nest destroying behaviour. Barbering defined as the plucking of fur or whiskers from cage mates or oneself340 is a common form of abnormal repetitive behaviour in mice which may be related to environmental factors such as cage design, cage location, relationships between cagemates and the presence of other barbers in the cage341. Lesions tend to be larger than those inflicted by aggressive encounters (which may be as small as 13mm in diameter); nonpruritic (notitchy); not inflamed; and with no surrounding scarring or

v)

vi)

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 78

scabbing. Barbered mice may be functionally abnormal as whisker trimming can alter anatomy and function of the barrel cortex, reducing the ability of the mouse to discriminate between textures or control balance, and altering whisking patterns16, 342, 343. While the underlying reasons for barbering are poorly understood342, they may be triggered by husbandry factors. Mice housed in steel cages were 1.82 times more likely to barber than mice housed in plastic cages341, although barbering was more severe overall in plastic cages (3 per cent of body area versus 2.4 per cent in steel cages). Mice housed entirely with siblings were 3.66 times more likely to barber than mice housed entirely with nonsiblings. This may signify frustration as mice normally disperse at puberty, the age that barbering behaviour tends to appear. Some strains are more likely to barber than others340. Provision of environmental enrichment reduced the incidence of barbering in one study344. vii) Stereotypic behaviours are repetitive, unvarying actions with no apparent goal or function100, 345 which may be induced by frustration, attempts to cope and/or central nervous system dysfunction345. In mice, stereotypic behaviours include bar mouthing or gnawing, jumping up and down at the cage wall, backflipping, somersaulting, circling and cagetop twirling346. While one survey found a positive correlation between the incidence of cage climbing and stereotypic behaviour94, climbing on the cage bars and lid are not stereotypic behaviours per se and thwarting this behaviour may lead to anxiety in some strains101. It is estimated that 50 per cent of mice in research and breeding establishments exhibit some form of stereotypic behaviour347. Stereotypic behaviours are often associated with environmental restriction and their incidence may be reduced in an enriched environment348. They may therefore indicate poor welfare. For example, bar chewing may reflect escape attempts and may provide a behavioural indication of the animals perception of its cage environment349. Some mouse strains are more likely to develop stereotypies than others, with more active strains at a higher risk94, 346. Other risk factors include premature or sudden weaning, lack of shelter and inability to explore cues (for example olfactory cues from adjacent cages) in the surrounding environment346. Over time, stereotypies tend to increase in frequency and duration while becoming increasingly fixed in form and orientation346. Perhaps more of a concern is the fact that these behaviours may persist even in the absence of initiating factors, suggesting changes at a neural level346. Mice exhibiting stereotypic behaviours may therefore be poor research subjects.

viii) Investigators should be familiar with strain and/or transgenemediated health conditions including tumour growth, hair loss, degenerative joint disease, diabetes, respiratory tract disorders and intestinal obstruction so that they can be diagnosed and treated in a timely manner57. ix) One of the most useful methods of monitoring experimental mice is the adoption of an objective scoring system332, 350, 351. To ensure consistency, score sheets should be filled out by the same staff each time. Scoring parameters should be adjusted to take into account the specific

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 79

characteristics of a strain, particularly where transgenic mice are concerned352, and particular clinical signs that may be expected during an experiment350. If score sheets are used these should be regularly reviewed to detect subtle changes332. x) It is important to bear in mind that individual mice vary in their response to pain or stressors, and that this response is influenced by genetic factors, previous experience, age and physiological state353. The NHMRC has produced Guidelines on the Assessment and Alleviation of Pain and Distress in Research Animals which can aid investigators in developing protocols for assessing, minimising and monitoring pain and distress during studies353.

xi)

Recommendations 3.7.1 Welfaremonitoringofmiceviabehaviouralobservationshouldbecarried out in addition to monitoring for physical health. Investigators should be familiar with strain and/or transgenemediated health conditions so that they can be diagnosedandtreatedinatimelymanner. 3.7.2 Monitoring should be carried out when a person with whom the mice are familiar is present. It should be ensured that there are sufficient, properly trainedstaffandresourcestomonitormiceeffectively. 3.7.3 In the monitoring and investigation of health issues (such as growth rate, reproductive performance and disease) the effects of housing conditions shouldbetakenintoaccount. 3.7.4 Animal carers should be familiar with the normal physical appearance and behaviour of mice and of the individuals within a group and note any deviationsfromthenorm,includinganimalsthatdonotmovearoundthecage normally. Mice that give cause for concern may need to be removed from the group. 3.7.5 In particular, mice should be monitored for signs of bullying including fight wounds, barbering or loss of body condition secondary to denial of access to foodorwater. 3.7.6 Sick mice (unless part of a study) should be examined and diagnosed by a veterinarian and any animals that die unexpectedly should routinely be submittedforpostmortemanddiagnosis. 3.7.7 Records and score sheets should be reviewed regularly to detect trends and subtlechanges.

4.0EnvironmentalVariables
4.1General
Principles
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 80

(i) Good animal husbandry involves maintaining animal health and welfare by meeting physiological as well as behavioural needs. Management of environmental variables such as light, temperature, humidity, air quality and ventilation and noise levels plays a significant role in achieving these ends. If not controlled, environmental variables may confound and compromise experimental data, resulting in the unnecessary use of more animals.

4.2Light
Principles (i) Light intensity, wavelength and periodicity (light:dark cycles) impact on the behaviour, physiology and reproductive parameters of mammalian species329. 4.2.1Lightintensityandwavelength Principles (i) Light intensity can influence the behaviour of mice, as well as progression of eye pathology and reproductive parameters. (ii) Mice in the wild are typically nocturnal and generally avoid brightly lit areas. Behavioural tests for anxiety, such as open field exploration, the elevated plus maze and light:dark tests are predicated on this aversion of mice to brightly illuminated areas354, 355. Thus in one study, 400 lux illumination in a white cage area was aversive to C57BL/6, DBA2 and albino BKW mice, and inhibited exploratory behaviour356.

(iii) Light intensity decreases with the square of the distance of its source, hence intracage illumination is influenced by the position of a cage within a particular room and rack329. Intracage light intensity can vary by over 80fold in transparent plastic cages on racks on shelves (from 3lux at the bottom to 250 lux at the top)357. Even within a single cage light intensity can vary as much as 20fold (7140lux), with intracage variability lowest in cages farthest from the light source. (iv) Phototoxic retinopathy can occur in a variety of species, but is most commonly reported in laboratory rodents329. The extent of photoreceptor damage is affected by light intensity, photoperiod duration, temperature, activity levels during the light phase, light levels under which an animal was raised, age, hormone status and albinism329. Albino mice are particularly sensitive to lightinduced photoreceptor degeneration, with some albino strains more susceptible than others. Extremely high light exposure of around 2010 lux for 1824 months caused retinal atrophy in 20 per cent of exposed BALB/c mice358. In another study, seven different albino strains were exposed to constant fluorescent light at 12651430 lux for three weeks prior to histological examination of the eyes. All exhibited photoreceptor degeneration359. Studies have shown a relationship between cage shelflevel and retinal atrophy, presumably caused by differences in lighting intensity. In one chronic study, 19.7 per cent of mice on the top shelf of a rack had retinal

(v)

(vi)

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 81

atrophy when sacrificed at 24 months, as compared to 0.2 per cent of animals on lower shelves. By 33 months, retinal atrophy was present in 30.2 per cent of mice on the top shelf, compared with 12 per cent on the shelf immediately below it and 0.7 per cent on lower shelves358. Light induced complications may be reduced by utilising racks with shaded tops1, or rotating the position of a cage within the rack, shelf and room357. (vii) Light intensity influenced the oestrus cycle, including duration of vaginal cornification and time periods between vaginal cornification, in outbred albino (LACA) mice360, as well as pigmented C57BL/10 and cogenic albino C57BL/10 mice361. (viii) Reproductive efficiency of wild mice is reduced under highintensity lighting. Both laboratory (CF1) and wild mice bred equally well under a lighting intensity of 1020lux362. However, at a lighting intensity of 1000lux productivity especially litter size of wild mice decreased significantly while that of laboratory mice was not affected. In addition, body weight was depressed in wild mice with increasing light intensity. (ix) Reproductive efficacy of laboratory mice is reduced under highintensity lighting. In one study, inbred laboratory mice housed at a cage lighting level of 500lux demonstrated a 50 per cent preweaning mortality rate, compared with only 5 per cent losses at a level of five lux363. Brighter illumination was associated with poor maternal behaviour, inadequate nest building and pups being scattered throughout the cage. Light intensity influenced wallleaving behaviour in inbred strains of mice, with significant increases in both wallleaving and cagecrossing behaviour in C57BL/6J, C3H/HeJ and BALB/cJ mice under low illumination (a 25W clear bulb, shielded by a paper towel and suspended 172.7cm above the centre of the open field) as compared to high illumination (a 100W clear bulb suspended 116.8cm above the centre of the field)95. In addition, there was a significant reduction in defecation and urination under low illumination. Tests of avoidance behaviour in rats showed that albino rats avoided light intensities as low as 25 lux and pigmented rats as low as 60lux364. The authors concluded that because the rats were motivated to leave a warm nest to avoid these light intensities, exposure to these intensities caused distress. Similar studies are yet to be conducted for mice.

(x)

(xi)

(xii) Uncovered halogen quartz lamps are carcinogenic to mice. Almost 100 per cent of hairless SKH1 albino, MF1/Ola/Hsd albino and C3H/Tif pigmented mice exposed to uncovered halogen lamps for 12 hours a day at an luminance level of 10,000lux developed multiple skin tumours with a short latency period365. Groups exposed to lower levels of luminance (e.g. 3,333 and 1000 lux) developed tumours with a longer latency. In contrast, none of the control mice developed spontaneous skin tumours. Additionally, when a silica glass cover was interposed between the lamps and the mice, no exposed mice developed spontaneous skin tumours.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 82

(xiii) Different colours generated by fluorescent lights may have different effects on mice. For example, black UV light was associated with increased body weight in male and female Ha:(ICR) mice, compared to blue, cool and fullspectrum lights366. Light colour affected the weight of the pituitary, adrenals, kidneys and prostate in male mice and the adrenals, thyroid and pineal glands in females. (xiv) The eyes of mice are sensitive to green, blue and near ultraviolet light but have limited ability to detect light in the red range of the spectra367, 368. Humans have greater red vision than mice due to fact that two of our three retinal cones are sensitive to red. Red light can therefore be used to observe mice with minimal disturbance during the dark phase. (xv) Sodium lighting, a bichromatic light with both wavelengths in the human field but at the margin of murine vision, may be a suitable alternative369. Light emitted from sodium lamps is orange to yellow, and humans perceive it as brighter than it actually is. 18W low pressure sodium lamps, with an average lumen output of 1650 to 1800, did not disturb the nocturnal activities of a variety of mouse strains within a facility369. (xvi) Although mice should not be exposed to high light intensity, staff in animal rooms need enough light to perform tasks. One study concluded that 210 lux at working height is sufficient for health and performance of technicians, but would be the minimum under which they should be expected to work for any length of time370. Recommendations 4.2.1.1Lighting within cages during the light phase should be maintained at a luminance below the threshold of aversion for mice. For most pigmented strains this is below 60lux and for albino strains it is below 25lux. To enable staff to perform tasks in mouse rooms it may be necessary to increase the lightingto210luxatworkingheight. 4.2.1.2Light intensity can be reduced by using recessed lighting consoles in the ceiling with fluorescent lights of about 2536 watt and a low spectralintensity (wavelength). This can be achieved by using a low colour number, e.g. colour 33tubes. 4.2.1.3Shading should be provided over the top shelves of racks and cages and racks should be positioned in a way that protects mice in the top cages from overhead lights and provides more uniform light levels between cages on differentshelves. 4.2.1.4Lighting should be diffuse and uniform to avoid glare, heat clusters and fluctuatinglightingconditionsforindividualcages. 4.2.1.5Ifhalogenlightingisused,asilicaglasscovermustbeinterposedbetweenthe bulbandmicetominimisegenotoxicandcarcinogeniceffects.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 83

4.2.1.6If mice are observed during the dark phase red or sodium lamps should be usedtominimiseanydisruptiontotheirnocturnalactivities. 4.2.2LightCycles Principles (i) The circadian clock drives 24 hour variations in a range of physiological and behavioural parameters in mammals, including mice371. For example, processes that regulate growth, metabolic, endocrine, and immunological parameters in mice are affected by circadian rhythms372, 373. Circadian rhythms are predominantly synchronised by the environmental light:dark cycle374 and the visual perception of light375. (ii) Exposure to constant light, as may occur with a faulty light clock or timer, may be stressful for mice. Male BALB/cAnNCr1BR mice exposed to continuous light for a week had increased urine cortisone:creatinine ratios, and demonstrated a shorter latency to their first agonistic encounter when compared with controls376. In addition, these mice had increased weight, despite eating and drinking less than controls. However effects may vary significantly in different strains and even in mice of different gender. Female transgenic growth hormone mice exposed to continuous light over a lifetime grew faster, lived longer and had increased production efficiency than those exposed to a 12:12 light cycle377. Exposure to constant light appeared to reduce proviral DNA in male BALB/cH2k mice inoculated with murine leukaemia virus378. Constant light delayed onset of sexual maturity, reduced the rate of weight gain and was associated with irregular activity patterns in female ICR/Alb mice when compared with controls379.

(iii) The continual process of renewal of retinal photoreceptors (rods and cones) is influenced by the light:dark cycle. This may explain why lack of a dark cycle is a causative factor in retinal degeneration of laboratory rodents including mice. (iv) Continuous darkness was associated with an increase in severity of arthritis in DBA/1 mice380, although it was also associated with a decrease in aggression between male sea:ddy mice381. Changes in light:dark cycles are stressful for mice. For example, male BALB/cJ, CBA/J and C57BL/10J mice subjected to reversal of the light:dark cycle every four days for 76 days then every two days for an additional 54 days had increased circulating plasma corticosterone and decreased barbiturate sleeping time compared to controls382. Lengthening (16:16 L:D)) or shortening (5:5 L:D) the cycle led to increased locomotor activity and corticosterone in male ICR mice374. Expanding cycles beyond a 24 hour period may influence food intake and locomotor activity372. Advancing the onset of the light cycle by eight hours every second day modified the expression of molecular clock genes and genes involved in carcinogenesis and tumour progression, accelerating tumour growth383. In the same study, altering meal times to coincide with the onset of light and darkness helped reduce this effect.

(v)

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 84

(vi) Mice may require a long period to adapt to changes in light cycles. Male Balb/c, C57BL/6 and CB6 mice subjected to a sudden shift in the light:dark regime (from lights on from 0800 to 2000hrs with half light from 07300800 and again at 1930 to 2000hrs (the LD regime) to the reverse, that is, lights on from 2000 to 0800 (the DL regime) demonstrated significant variation in immune parameters between strains, even after five weeks373. Daily mean thymic indices and weights, as well as splenic index and weight, were significantly higher in LD mice than their DL counterparts. In addition, the mean daily number of peritoneal leucocytes was significantly lower in LD mice. CB6 mice kept under DL conditions gained more body weight than CB6 and other (Balb/c and C57BL) LD mice.

(vii) While information about the impact of light contamination during the dark cycle on mice is sparse, rat studies suggest that light leaks can have a profound impact on experimental data. For example, minimal light leaks of 0.2lux during an otherwise uninterrupted dark phase inhibited rat melatonin secretion, increasing the rate of tumour growth and lipid uptake384. (viii) Flickering light has been shown to be a potent stressor in rats. In one study, exposure to 80 Lux of flickering light for 30 minutes was associated with elevated serum corticosterone and other biochemical markers of stress385. Whilst there are no equivalent studies in mice, studies referenced above indicate that mice are sensitive to changes in light and may therefore experience stress when exposed to flickering light. Recommendations 4.2.2.1A seminatural light cycle of 12:12 or 10:14 hours light:dark is suggested. Variations in the light:dark cycle to mimic seasonal change could be considered. 4.2.2.2The use of dimmers in mouse rooms is suggested to allow the creation of twilightperiodsbetweenthelightanddarkcycles. 4.2.2.3Cycles may be disturbed if lighting clocks or timers malfunction. Clocks and timers should be checked regularly. In the event of a disturbance mice should be allowed an additional acclimation/habituation period, as disruption to the lightcycleisasourceofexperimentalvariability. 4.2.2.4Care should be taken to prevent light leaks in animal rooms during the dark phase. 4.2.2.5Lightsshouldbecheckedforflickeringandanyflickeringrectified.

4.3Temperature
Principles (i) The thermal biology of the laboratory mouse has been extensively investigated386391. The ambient temperature at which laboratory mice are

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 85

kept can affect metabolism, cardiovascular function, motor activity, growth and development, body and organ weights, consumption of food and water, haematology and serological parameters, susceptibility to toxins, immunocompetence, reproduction, sleep depth, and behaviour in 2, relation to cohabitants 326, 386, 388, 389, 391, 392. (ii) Incage temperature is influenced by factors including, but not limited to, cage design and construction, the position of a cage within a rack and a room, the position of the cage within the flow of air, ventilation rate, presence and type of bedding and/or nesting materials and stocking density. For example, heat dissipates rapidly from cages constructed with a wire mesh floor.

(iii) Mice maintain their core body temperature by a range of mechanisms including varying metabolic rate, shivering, nonshivering thermogenesis393 increased physical activity391, grooming (spreading , saliva on fur for evaporative heat loss) and thermotropism including huddling with cohabitants225, 388. Thermal preferences may vary between single and grouphoused mice390, 393. Mice may create habitats with a desirable microclimate by burrowing or nesting390. (iv) Huddling allows grouphoused mice to reduce cold stress by thermoregulating as one larger animal with a smaller surface area, thus less heat loss, than that of the total number of mice393. Even at a housing temperature of 28C, thermogenic activity of brown adipose tissue was greater in singly housed mice than those housed in pairs or groups of six393. Male MAfSp mice deprived of the opportunity to huddle with cage mates consumed significantly more food than their counterparts who were allowed to huddle225. Unlike rats, which select an ambient temperature below their thermoneutral zone, mice select an ambient temperature consistent with minimal metabolic expenditure387, 389. Decreasing the ambient temperature below the thermoneutral zone is associated with an elevation in metabolic rate, while increasing the ambient temperature above the thermoneutral zone is associated with an increase in evaporative water loss387. A review of studies of laboratory mice found that they have a thermoneutral zone ranging from 26 to 34C388. Strain differences (for example hairless strains that may have a thermoneutral zone at higher ambient temperatures) may account for this large range390. Mice kept at lower temperatures may therefore be subjected to varying degrees of cold 389 stress .

(v)

(vi)

(vii) One study showed that as the ambient temperature decreased from 30C to 26C, heart rate, mean blood pressure, pulse pressure and metabolic rate as measured by radiotelemetry increased391. Even small (a few degrees Celsius), incremental changes in ambient temperature between this range can lead to significantly higher blood pressure, heart rate and metabolic rate. Because of their higher surface area to bodyweight ratio, mice are
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 86

approximately twice as sensitive to changes in ambient temperature than rats kept in the same conditions391. Mice housed at 23C consume more calories than those housed between 29 and 33C) and contract their heart approximately 150 times more each minute, or 200,000 extra beats per day, than those housed between 29 and 33C326. For these reasons researchers must pay particular attention to the effects of ambient temperature during studies of cardiovascular function in mice.

Figure 4.3.1 Hairless strains may have a thermoneutral zone at higher ambient temperaturesthantheirfurredcounterparts.

(viii) Ambient temperature influences sleep under normal conditions, as well as following sleep deprivation and influenza infection. Thus under baseline conditions, adult male C57BL/6J mice spent more time in slowwave sleep at 30C compared with those kept at 26C2. Additionally, mice kept at 26C spent more time in rapid eye movement sleep than those kept at 22C. Mice infected with influenza displayed hypothermia, reduced locomotor activity and increased slow wave sleep at 22C. These effects were increased at 26C but attenuated at 30C. The findings demonstrate that data collected from mice housed at different temperatures may vary depending on the interaction between the ambient temperature and the condition of the animal. (ix) In one study the optimal ambient temperature for reproduction, growth and development of JCLICR mice housed in acrylic cages with wood shavings for bedding ranged from 2026C386. Further studies are needed to determine whether behavioural thermal preferences correspond with optimal ambient temperature for reproduction389, 394.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 87

(x) Variations in environmental temperature outside the compensatory capacity for mice will affect reproductive performance with decreased litter size, increased embryonic deaths and impaired growth, and cause significant variation in food and water intake and haematological and biochemical parameters. JCLICR mice housed in acrylic cages with wood shavings for bedding at temperatures above 28C demonstrated decreased delivery rate, litter size and weaning rate compared with mice housed in similar conditions with an ambient temperature between 12 and 26C386. Mice exposed to high ambient temperature (34C and 35.5C) demonstrated increased water intake, decreased food intake, weight loss392, 395 and corresponding reduction in the weight of individual organs392. Male ddY mice exposed to an ambient temperature of 38.5C and relative humidity of 85 per cent for 60 minutes each day for a fortnight demonstrated an increased packed cell volume, and increased levels of corticosterone and vasopressin in the blood395. The humoral immune response to sendai virus antigen was suppressed, suggesting reduced resistance to infection392.

(xi)

(xii) Exposure to a high ambient temperature may lead to frank infertility, as well as subtle effects on fertilisation, embryo growth and embryo development396. Male C57BL and CBA mice exposed to a microclimate of 36C for two twelvehour periods on successive days were less likely to fertilise females397. Of the mated females that did become pregnant, litter size was reduced. Furthermore, in in vitro tests a smaller proportion of oocytes were fertilised by spermatozoa from heat exposed males, and fewer spermatozoa penetrated the ova. Exposure of pregnant mice to temperatures of 43C for one to twenty hours led to high maternal mortality, abortion and/or foetal resorption398. (xiii) JCLICR mice housed in acrylic cages with woodshavings for bedding exposed to a low ambient temperature (12C) demonstrated decreased delivery rates, decreased body weight, reduced water intake, and increased heart, liver, kidney and lung weight than mice housed between 20 and 26C386. (xiv) When exposed to a thermal gradient, the selection of ambient temperature by both single and group housed CD1 mice demonstrated a circadian rhythm389, 391 with relatively warm temperatures selected during the middle of the light phase corresponding with minimal motor activity389. (xv) When exposed to a thermal gradient, singlehoused aged CD1 mice (11 months old) selected higher ambient temperatures (1.0C warmer during the light phase and 1.5C during the dark phase) than grouphoused mice389, possibly due to reduced ability to compensate for lower ambient temperature by huddling with cohabitants or increasing motor activity. It should be noted that these tests were conducted while mice were on a wiremesh floor. Mice housed on wire mesh floors prefer and may require higher ambient temperatures than mice house in plastic cages with or Adult female BALB/cBYJIco, hairless without bedding75.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 88

Crl:SKH2(hr/hr)BR and C57BL/6JIco preferred a combination of wire mesh flooring and a high temperature (28C). However, when the temperature of the wiremesh floored cage was 24C, all strains preferred a cage with bedding and a temperature of 21C. (xvi) Gestating and lactating dams have reduced thermoregulatory ability, as thermoregulatory responses are compromised postconception to meet the metabolic and nutritional needs of foetuses/pups388. (xvii) Type and volume of bedding material can have a significant impact on thermoregulation. Female CD1 mice provided with 710cm of deep wood shavings was associated with a significantly higher (1C) core body temperature during the day than mice provided with a thin layer of shavings or chips 390. Mice housed with bedding material that does not allow burrowing may therefore exhibit increased thermoregulatory lability. (xviii) Mice generate heat within a cage. The temperature inside a cage may be several degrees higher than room temperature. For example, cages housing groups of four male C57BL/6J mice were two to three degrees higher that the room399. (xix) Under laboratory conditions, the ability of mice to control their environmental temperature has been largely replaced by external systems under human control. Where possible, strategies which enable mice to regulate or choose their microclimate, such as the provision of nesting or bedding materials and incage shelters, should be provided. Recommendations 4.3.1 A room temperature range for mouse housing between 20 and 26C is recommended. Consideration of the strain of mice used (for example hairless or obese strains) and procedures that may disrupt thermoregulatory ability (forexampleanaesthesia,viralinoculation)shouldbetakenintoaccount. 4.3.2 Significant fluctuations in temperature should be avoided. In particular, ambient temperature must be carefully controlled where cardiovascular parametersandsleepareassessed. 4.3.3 Mice should be provided with nesting and bedding materials and an incage shelter to allow them to select an appropriate microclimate, particularly for sleeping. 4.3.4 Special attention should be given to those circumstances where the mouses thermoregulatory ability is altered or compromised. Cage temperature for lactating mice and pups up to three weeks of age should be at the higher end oftherecommendedrange(2426C). 4.3.5 Ambient temperature should be monitored within the cage and at various points within the room to monitor variation so as to optimally manage the microenvironment.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 89

4.3.6 Adjusting the ambient temperature may be a potential approach to promoting recuperation following sleep deprivation and mitigating the effects of viral infection.FormoreinformationseeJhaveriet al2.

4.4Humidity
Principles (i) Relative humidity is important to the health and wellbeing of laboratory mice as it influences their capacity to thermoregulate as well as playing a role in the transmission of pathogens400, 401. Evaporative heat loss is essential for core body temperature homeostasis in mice329. Environmental temperature and humidity act together on the ability of mice to thermoregulate400. (ii) The type of housing, stocking density and husbandry practices can significantly alter intracage humidity. For example, the relative humidity in polycarbonate cages was higher (53.2 +/ 9.6 per cent) than in stainless steel wire mesh cages (50.1 +/11 per cent)113.

(iii) Low humidity (15.5+/3.8 per cent) was associated with alterations in tear secretion, goblet cell density and susceptibility to dryeye related ocular surface clinical signs including increase in corneal fluorescein staining402. The study indicated varying susceptibility among different strains, with C57BL/6 mice showing a 47 per cent reduction in tear secretion compared with a 26 per cent reduction in BALB/c strains. Low relative humidity is associated with ringtail in rats and mice401 11. Low relative humidity (25 per cent) combined with low ambient temperature (16C) was also associated with the development of ringtail in a colony of Swiss albino mice403. Relative humidity of 10 per cent was associated with increased contact hypersensitivity to 2,4,6trinitrochlorobenzene in C57BL/6 mice than those exposed to a relative humidity of 80 per cent404. Housing mice at a relative humidity of below 40 per cent adversely affected survival to weaning and growth rates401. Low humidity can lead to dehydration in young mice401, 405. (iv) High humidity can enhance the proliferation of bacteria and ammonia production in cages406, 407, placing mice at greater risk of infection. High relative humidity prevents desiccation of urine and faeces, resulting in proliferation of ureasepositive bacteria and subsequent production of ammonia408. In one study, ammonia was produced at approximately three times the rate in housing at a relative humidity of 7580 per cent than in housing at a relative humidity of 3035 per cent when tested five days after the last bedding change406. Survival of young mice to weaning tends to be better at higher levels of humidity. As many as 79.8 per cent of young housed at a relative humidity of 70 per cent survived to weaning, as compared to 56.1 per cent at 40 per cent relative humidity401. The difference was statistically significant.

(v)

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 90

(vi) In a previous review of guidelines for the housing of rodents in scientific institutions around the world, a relative humidity of 55 per cent +/ 15 per cent was widely agreed upon409.

Recommendations 4.4.1 A relative ambient humidity at the level of mouse cages of 55 per cent +/15 percent(4070)isrecommendedforadultmice. 4.4.2 A relative ambient humidity at the level of mouse cages of 5070% is recommendedforyoungmicepriortoweaning.

4.5Airqualityandventilation
Principles (i) A single mouse breathes approximately 35 litres of air per day considerably more than the amount of food and water they consume put together400. Air quality and composition is therefore important for the wellbeing of the animal and experimental outcomes. (ii) Air can contain particles and/or volatile substances that can irritate and damage the respiratory system, skin or mucous membranes, or be absorbed and cause systemic effects329. The level of exposure to these contaminants in the environment can have a major impact on mouse health400, 405 and will be influenced by the relative humidity in which this occurs, the turbulence of air within the cage, the presence or absence of drafts, species and strain of animal used, stocking density, and sanitation405.

(iii) Air quality is largely affected by the concentration of microorganisms, dust particles and noxious gases, in particular ammonia and carbon dioxide. Ventilation within an animal room is affected by the type of supply air diffuser used, its orientation, air temperature and moisture content; room ventilation rate; location and number of exhausts; room pressurisation; rack configuration and cage density and room dimensions410. (iv) Ammonia is formed by ureaseproducing bacteria or bedding which contains heatlabile ureaseactivating enzymes which convert the urea present in faeces and urine into ammonia329. High intracage humidity increases ammonia levels411. Ammonia is a potent irritant to the mucous membranes of the eyes, skin and respiratory tract408. It can cause changes including a reduction in the number of cilia on respiratory epithelial cells, hyperplasia of respiratory epithelial cells, as well as formation of glandular crypts in respiratory and olfactory epithelium329. These changes reduce the efficacy of respiratory tract defence mechanisms, rendering mice more vulnerable to pathogens. One study suggested that elevated intracage ammonia levels may impair embryo production in superovulated mice412. There is no agreement in the literature on exposure limits of mice to ammonia. Many investigators assume that concentrations of over 25ppm are harmful in mice because lung pathology has been reported in rats

(v)

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 91

exposed to ammonia levels above 25ppm413, 414, however the rats were inoculated with respiratory tract pathogen mycoplasma prior to exposure to environmental ammonia. Published data showing adverse outcomes may have been confounded with underlying infectious agents such as mycoplasma and sendai virus134. The threshold limit value for human exposure is 25ppm over a 40 hour week415, however there is significant species variation in tolerance to ammonia. While humans cannot safely tolerate ammonia concentrations of 100ppm for over one hour416, mice did not indicate aversion nor show signs of respiratory tract irritation at 500ppm416, 417. In another study, female BALB/c/Bkl mice exhibited no clear aversion to a chamber containing 4, 30, 56 or 110ppm of atmospheric ammonia for a period of two days418. (vi) Studies of chronic ammonia exposure in mice are difficult to compare due to variation in mouse strain and nature of exposure to ammonia (static level versus progressive buildup)407. It is possible that mice can be exposed to ammonia levels above 25ppm418, and may be exposed to such levels within days of cage cleaning419. C57BL/6J mice exposed to levels exceeding 25ppm of ammonia had histologically normal nasal passages and eyeballs71.

(vii) Some cleaning products, particularly disinfectants, contain ammonia. (viii) Carbon dioxide is a respiratory and cardiovascular stimulant with the potential to act as an asphyxiant by displacing oxygen408. (ix) Other volatile chemicals such as those associated with bedding material can also result in physiological alterations in mice (see Section 2.7 Bedding). Air quality, air flow, temperature and humidity can differ significantly between the macroenvironment and the microenvironment depending on room and cage ventilation systems406, 420, depending on bedding type, cage cleaning frequency, stocking density and ventilation rate418. Adequate ventilation of the macroenvironment (the mouse room) does not equate to adequate ventilation of the microenvironment (the cage)329, 399, particularly where filtertops are used on cages. In one study, increasing room ventilation above 5 air changes per hour did not improve ventilation of the cage microenvironment and had the negative consequence of lowering room relative humidity to 22 per cent399. Mice generate a considerable heat load which creates a thermal updraft in the room. In filtertopped cages, the heat load of the animals is the principal factor driving intracage ventilation. In one study, occupied mouse cages generated at least 10 air changes per hour in an unventilated room.

(x)

(xi)

(xii) The position of a cage in a rack, and the position of the rack in respect of an air source, affects cage ventilation. In one study, the middle cage on the top row of a rack directly below an air diffuser had significantly higher
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 92

ventilation than all other cages on that rack399. Cages on the bottom of the rack had the lowest ventilation rates. In this study, increasing the room ventilation rate increased intracage ventilation for cages on the top row of a rack, however ventilation of cages on middle and bottom shelves did not change as ventilation in the room changed from 020 air changes per hour. (xiii) Exhausts located closer to ground level ventilate cages slightly better than ceiling or highlevel exhausts when cages are placed parallel to the walls410. Low level exhausts reduce relative humidity and ammonia generation rate because air temperature is higher. Recommendations 4.5.1 The number of room air changes per hour needs to be adjusted to keep air quality and humidity at acceptable levels within cages. Roomventilation rates of1520ACHmaybeneeded . 4.5.2 Racks should be positioned in a room so as to optimise air exchange and avoidanimalsbeingexposedtodraughts. 4.5.3 Air quality, air flow, temperature and humidity should be measured both in theroomandwithincages. 4.5.4 Exhausts should be installed close to ground level when cages are placed paralleltowalls. 4.5.5 Intracageammonialevelsshouldbekeptat25ppmorbelow.

4.5.2Staticisolatorcagesandfiltertops
Principles (i) Static isolator or filtertopped cages have been used to maintain specific pathogen free mice329, 421. They result in containment at cage level and may protect the cage environment and mice from microbial contamination, reducing airborne infections and diseases like neonatal diarrhoea. Unlike traditional open cages with wire lids, static isolator or filtertopped cages decrease spillage of contaminated food and bedding (potential fomites) into the cage from surrounding cages422. (ii) In one study, there was an increase in growth rate over a seven day period in female Tac:(SW)fBR mice housed in static isolator cages compared to those housed in standard cages despite no significant differences in food or water consumption423. This may be due to a variation in activity levels, which were not measured in this study. When compared with mice housed in cages on ventilated racks, mice housed in static isolator cages had lower body weight gain and lower water consumption420.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 93

Figure4.5.2.1Exampleofastaticisolatorcage.

(iii)

Studies have shown that static isolator or filtertopped cages reduce intracage ventilation, leading to accumulation of gaseous pollutants, in particular ammonia (NH3) and carbon dioxide (CO2)329, 408, 420. Carbon dioxide concentrations of up to 4000ppm higher than those found in the macroenvironment have been reported424. This effect increased with an increase in cage population. As the population of female RFMfICR/UnWg mice in three different filtertopped cages doubled, intracage carbon dioxide levels rose by 1.52 times, while the concentration of ammonia increased exponentially422. Relative humidity is higher in static isolator cages when compared with cages without microisolator or filter tops411, 423 , or with ventilated cages420, 421 . This is due to decreased water vapour transfer, which occurs primarily through diffusion through the filter421. In one study, relative humidity was 20 per cent higher in cages with microisolator tops compared to those without411. Ammonia production rates increase significantly in a higher humidity environment 410 (see section 4.4 Humidity). Humidity, and therefore ammonia concentrations, in both cages and rooms can be reduced by increasing the temperature of supply air. Raising supply air temperature from 18.8C to 22C at 15ACH raises the room temperature approximately 3C and intracage temperature by 2.7C, reducing ammonia concentrations by up to 50 per cent410. When compared with individually ventilated cages, static cages had higher relative humidity, higher levels of ammonia and higher levels of carbon

(iv)

(v)

(vi)
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 94

dioxide420. With increasing mouse population density these cages can become unlivable3. Recommendations 4.5.2.1Staticisolatorcagesmustbecleanedonceaweektoavoidexcessiveammonia andcarbondioxidelevels. 4.5.2.2Supply air temperature should be maintained at 22 degrees, and room ventilationat15ACH,tominimiseammoniaconcentration. 4.5.2.3The population density of mice in static isolator cages should be kept to a minimum.

4.5.3Individuallyventilatedcages
Principles (i) Individually ventilated cage systems increase ventilation rates and improve intracage air quality by supplying conditioned air directly into the cage408, whilst maintaining mice in a separate microbiological unit425. A number of systems provide highefficiencyparticulateair (HEPA) filtration. Other advantages of individually ventilated cages include that intracage ventilation is independent of cage location within the macroenvironment; the ability to maintain low intracage ammonia and carbon dioxide concentrations; the ability to maintain a dry environment; the ability to increase cage density and reduce allergens and odours in the animal room426. Forced ventilation reduced intracage humidity, as well as reducing incage build up of ammonia and carbon dioxide407, 408, 421. In a comparison of static isolator cages with ventilated systems, all ventilated systems had significantly lower ammonia accumulation compared with static isolators408.

Figure4.5.3.1Exampleofindividuallyventilatedcages.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 95

Figure4.5.3.2Exampleofindividuallyventilatedcages.

Figure4.5.3.3Exampleofindividuallyventilatedcages.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions
Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682
Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink:
http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 96

Figure4.5.3.3Exampleofindividuallyventilatedcages.

(ii)

There are a variety of cage ventilation systems available. The method of air supply and exhaust from the cage and rack will influence air velocity and airflow patterns within the cage407. Ventilation rates vary from 25 to 120 air changes per hour and can be maintained with either positive or negative intracage pressure427. When individually ventilated cages are under positive pressure, particulate matter may spill into the macroenvironment, exposing personnel. Taking into account heat load, odour and macroenvironment particulate concentration, the ideal setup involves individually ventilated caging under negative pressure with all air exhausted out of the room via a heating, ventilation and airconditioning (HVAC) system427.

(iii) Relative humidity levels in ventilated cages tend to be lower than those in static microisolator cages, however they may not be as low as relative humidity in open air cages or the macroenvironment421. The amount of moisture that can be absorbed by air passing through the cage is dependent on the volume and temperature of the air. Sources of moisture within the cage, including animals, soiled bedding and water bottles exceed the capacity of air to remove the moisture as it passes through the cage421. In contrast, traditional openair cages have minimal impediment to vapour transfer from the cage microenvironment to the macroenvironment. Intracage humidity in ventilated cages is thus affected by air exchange or ventilation rate420. (iv) Temperature in cages of pairmated C57BL/6J mice decreased with increasing ventilation, although temperature in cages of triomated animals had no clear trends407.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 97

(v) Ventilation can be controlled by setting the rate for number of air changes per hour (ACH). In a study of the microenvironment of different populations of C57BL/6J mice with different ventilation rates and varied frequency of bedding changes, ammonia concentration remained <25ppm for 30, 60, 80 and 100 ACH in cages housing adult males when bedding was changed weekly426. Ammonia concentration remained <25ppm for 100 ACH when bedding was changed fortnightly. When frequency of bedding changes was reduced to fortnightly, 60 ACH was sufficient for cages housing adult males. 100 ACH was necessary for cages housing breeding trios (two female and one male adult) and pups. In cages with a relative humidity exceeding 61 per cent, and a biomass of at least 200g (3 adult mice and 9 pups), ammonia concentrations exceeded 150ppm. When the frequency of bedding changes for breeding animals was reduced to fortnightly, mean ammonia concentrations were 25ppm for 100ACH and 50ppm for 30 and 60 ACH. Carbon dioxide concentrations increased as bedding grew soiled. The authors speculate that this effect may be due to the release of carbon dioxide as bacteria broke down faecal material in soiled cages. In a further study, the authors found that a regime of 30 ACH and weekly cage cleaning led to ammonia concentrations higher than those of mice living in microisolator cages407. Additionally, preweaning mortality was higher at 30 ACH than 60 or 100 ACH. Weanling weight was lower at 100 ACH when compared with 3060 ACH, and pup mortality was increased when cages were changed weekly. The authors concluded that 60 ACH is optimum for mouse health and reproduction. Another study confirmed that longer periods between cage changing required an increase in ACH to maintain a lower ammonia level428. This study demonstrated that 20 ACH led to increased ammonia levels regardless of bedding type, when compared with 6080 ACH. The author concluded that weekly cage changes would be required at 20 ACH. High intracage ventilation could induce chronic stress or heat loss. The housing of male C57BL/6 mice in forcedair ventilated cages lead to reduced serum corticosterone levels and a suppressed delayedtype hypersensitivity reaction when compared to counterparts housed in static cages429. They also gained less weight than their counterparts, suggesting a chronic stress response.

(vi)

(vii) The provision of nesting material (see Section 2.8 Nesting Material) and/or an incage shelter (see Section 2.9 Incage shelters) may offset some of the effects outlined in vi. Female outbred Crl:CD1(ICR) mice housed in individually ventilated cages with 70 ACH under positive pressure preferred nest boxes located on the floor of the cage, where the ventilation rate was lower430. Interestingly, use of a cagelid mounted nest box closer to the ventilation source increased with time. (viii) Individually ventilated cage systems or racks generate significantly more noise than background room levels. In a 1996 study, noise level at lower Hz values was significantly higher in ventilated cage systems, while at higher Hz values noise levels were significantly lower within cages for most systems408. While investigators concluded that noise levels produced
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 98

at the Hz levels measured probably had little impact on the female Tac:(SW)FBR mice in the study, the measuring device did not allow for quantification of noise levels over 16kHz. It is thus possible that some ventilated systems studied produced noise at higher frequencies that could adversely affect mice. (ix) External acoustic stimuli are attenuated with mice housed in individually ventilated cage systems. Male C3H mice housed in individually ventilated cages had reduced startle thresholds when compared with controls102. The authors speculate that these mice may react more sensitively to acoustic stimuli because they have been raised in an acoustically attenuated environment, and that the response may indicate anxiety. This effect was strain specific, and did not occur in male B6J mice housed in the same conditions. Housing of male C3H and B6J mice in individually ventilated cages was associated with a reduction in activity and an increase in anxietyrelated behaviours102. In addition, B6J mice had reduced latency to grooming. Ventilation systems can impact on reproductive parameters. When the effect of individually ventilated versus static isolator and open racks on the breeding performance of DBA/2 mice was investigated, fewer mouse pups were born in individually ventilated cages431. Individually ventilated cage housed mice had their first litters later, and had a higher abortion rate, than those housed in static isolator or open cages.

(x)

(xi)

(xii) Other disadvantages of individually ventilated caging systems include substantial cost for purchase, operation and maintenance408. These systems require an uninterrupted power source to ensure constant air supply. Some systems may be difficult to manipulate and clean408. . Recommendations 4.5.3.1For rooms holding individually ventilated cages, usually five ACH will be sufficienttomaintainroomairquality. 4.5.3.2Ideally, ventilatedsystemsshouldbesetupsothatindividualcagesareunder negative pressure with all air exhaust entering out of the room via a heating, ventilationandairconditioningsystem. 4.5.3.3For individually ventilated cages housing nongravid adult mice, a ventilation rateof60ACHisrecommendedifcagesarechangedfortnightly. 4.5.3.4For individually ventilated cages housing breeding trios and/or pups, a ventilation rate of 60100 ACH is recommended. Cages should be changed fortnightly. 4.5.3.5It is imperative that nesting material and an incage shelter are provided in ventilatedcages.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 99

4.5.3.6Cleaning regimes should be managed to maintain ammonia levels within a cagebelow25ppm. 4.5.3.7Investigatorsshouldbeawareofthepotentialimpactofindividuallyventilated cages on the emotionality and behaviour of particular mouse strains. For example, different systems may produce different levels of noise, some of whichmaybeaversiveorharmfultomice. 4.5.3.8As air supply can be interrupted by power failure, installation of an airflow controller in the supply air duct (positive pressure) or exhaust duct (negative pressure),whichisconnectedtoanalarmsystem,isrecommended3.

4.6Soundandvibrations
Principles (i) There are sounds in animal rooms which may have negative effects on mice, including sounds which cannot be detected by the human ear. (ii) The range of frequencies audible to mice at a standard sound intensity of 60 decibels (dB) is from 2300Hz to 85,500Hz38. The range of good hearing (frequencies audible at 10dB) is affected by the size and position of the external ear or pinna38, which may vary between strains.

(iii) Mice produce ultrasonic (above 20,000Hz) vocalisations39, 339 and are therefore probably sensitive to high sound frequencies which cannot be detected by humans (ultrasound). (iv) Sound can have a negative impact on behavioural patterns and physiologic responses in mice and is used as a stressor in animal studies432434. Environmental sounds in laboratory facilities can alter endocrine, reproductive and cardiovascular function, alter sleep/wake cycles and mask interspecies communication433. High levels of sound may predispose some strains of mice to audiogenic seizures435, 436 or may induce hearing loss and/or damage to the auditory apparatus436. Loud sounds may mask or hinder communication between mice4, 329. They may also trigger cannibalism in does437. Other examples of the effects of audiogenic stress in mice include: Significantly decreased pregnancy rate in CF1 mice exposed to loud sounds in both pre and post implantation period438; Embryocytotoxicity in CF1S mice439 and embryolethality in CF1 mice438; Decreased fertilisation, increased embryonic mortality and reduced embryo size in SWt/Dt mice440, 441; foetal intrauterine growth retardation in Jcl:ICR mice442; abortion in CBA/J mice260; teratogenic effects including cranial haematoma, dwarfed hind limbs tail defects441 in Swiss Webster mice and cleft palate, polydactylia and encephalocele in ddN mice443;
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 100

reduced weight gain in CF#1 weanlings435; a twofold increase in waterintake and failure to eat in old (2024 months) C57BL/6J mice444; Reduction in eosinophils in ddN mice443; An increase in activity and aggression during sound or noise stress in C57BL/6J mice444; A reduction in exploratory activity during sound or noise stress in male and female Jax A mice, with an increase in general activity immediately following sound or noise stress445; Increased face and genital washing and body grooming445; Increased weight of adrenal glands with increased width of the fasiculate zone445; alteration of free oxygen radical production by alveolar macrophages in old C57BL/6J mice (2024 months) and peritoneal macrophages in young C57BL/6J mice (911 weeks)444; A reduction in the splenic lymphocyte population and increased plasma cortisone levels in adult female C57BL/6 mice after acute exposure446. Sound and vibrations within animal facilities may therefore adversely impact the welfare of mice, and may also be a source of variance in data436. (v) Ultrasound can be produced by equipment commonly found in laboratories, including temperature regulating devices, electronic equipment including computer monitors, video recording equipment and telephones, cage cleaning equipment and vacuum hoses as well as running water and squeaky door hinges, chairs or trolley wheels447. If unaccounted for, this can have a detrimental effect on experimental outcomes. Acute and chronic exposure to loud sounds may impact differently on mouse physiological parameters. For example, female C57/BL6 mice exposed to acute, unpredictable sound periods over one week decreased the splenic lymphocyte population and increased plasma corticosterone concentration relative to controls, while after four weeks no effects were found446.

(vi)

(vii) Human activity within the facility can generate irregular, loud sounds, for example the banging of a metal cage top onto a bench. These sounds generate a large amount of energy spread across a range of frequencies448, and may also lead to audiogenic stress and associated adverse effects. For example, seizure susceptibility of weanlings was prolonged when they were exposed to extraneous sounds including hammering metal or barking dogs435. Sounds produced by using an electric drill and banging a garbage tin lid resulted in 90 per cent incidence of seizures in sensitised mice, compared with the 7 per cent expected incidence. The proximity of animal housing to construction sites may have significant, negative effects435, 449.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 101

(viii) Events susceptible to disruption by external auditory stressors such as construction or fireworks should be rescheduled as data may be invalidated by the use of highly stressed mice449. (ix) Routine monitoring of environmental sound and vibrations in laboratories may provide important information about changes that may affect animal welfare and experimental outcomes. Certain strains of mice are genetically predisposed to auditory dysfunction. For example, C57B1/6 and CD1 mice suffer earlyonset hearing loss450 which can be exacerbated by environmental sounds436. Genderassociated hearing loss has been observed in B6 mice, with female mice older than six months exhibiting measurably more extensive hearing loss than males of the same age and strain436. Other inbred strains may exhibit degrees of hearing loss. An extensive list of known affected strains is available on the Jackson Laboratorys Hereditary Hearing Impairment In Mice website at www.jax.org/hmr/index.html These strains may be more sensitive to environmental sounds and therefore more likely to suffer from audiogenic stress. Furthermore, if auditory problems are not taken into account, behavioural assessment (for example response to an auditory stimulus) of these animals may be flawed436. Artificial background sound, for example a radio, piped music, a white noise generator or white noise incidentally arising from an airconditioning system, may be of some benefit in reducing the impact of sudden sounds, however there is no scientific evidence for this449.

(x)

(xi)

(xii) The use of music is controversial. It has been suggested that constant background sound, in the form of radio music at a volume of 85dB, may blunt the startle effect and reduce overall excitability in mice. However, mice continued to freeze or flee when exposed to a loud sound, irrespective of background music451. In another study, music reduced the suppressive effects of stress on immune parameters in male BALB/c mice434. In this study, mice exposed to audiogenic stress (100dB daily for 5 seconds/minute during a one or three hour period, over eight days) had reduced thymus, spleen and peripheral blood lymphocytes as well as a reduction in total thymus weight, compared with controls. These adverse effects were partially reversed in mice exposed to <40dB classical music for five hours the following day. Exposure to music decreased the stress related increase of plasma ACTH concentrations. In addition, music stimulated Tcell proliferation in unstressed mice. Exposure of Std:ddY mice to classical music at 6575dB during the perinatal period (gestation day 14 to 60 days old) improved performance and reduced the incidence of errors in a maze task452. Musicexposed mice had reduced levels of brain derived neurotrophic factor, and increased levels of tyrosine kinase receptor B and its target protein kinase 1 (PDK1). However, it may be difficult to assess adverse effects as music is a diffuse medium that is difficult for animals to avoid449. Care should be taken to avoid excessive volume. Furthermore, the above studies did not control for the effect of music on animal handlers. It has been suggested that mice may indirectly
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 102

benefit from a radio if it has enrichment value for humans4, 449. Investigators should note that the benefits of exposure to classical music may not apply to other forms of music, for example popular music on the radio. Recommendations 4.6.1 Investigators should familiarise themselves with the hearing range and any potentialauditorydysfunctionofthestrainofmicebeingused. 4.6.2 Sources of sound including ultrasound should be considered when assessing soundlevelstowhichmiceareexposed.Environmentalnoisemaybeasource of variance which may confound results, necessitating the use of additional experimental animals. Computers, or any other equipment likely to emit high frequency ultrasound, should not be used in rooms where mice are housed. If the use of such equipment is unavoidable then measures, such as packing the equipment in polystyrene foamplating, should be taken to dampen ultrasonic noises. 4.6.3 Sound measuring equipment including soundlevel meters, condenser microphones, attenuators, amplifiers, weighting and filter networks must be capable of detecting sounds in the range of frequencies appropriate to the species/strainbeingused. 4.6.4 Because of the potential for adverse effects, unnecessary sounds or noise should be eliminated from facilities in which mice are kept. In particular, avoidsudden,loudsounds. 4.6.5 Individually ventilated cages and racks should be checked for vibration and vibrationinanimalrooms,especiallyofcages,shouldbeeliminated. 4.6.6 Due to the vibrations created, placing motorised equipment on bench tops withcagesshouldbeavoided.

4.7Cleaning
Principles (i) Cleaning involves two components: handling (see section 3.4 Effects of Handling and Human Activity), and cleaning of cages. Cage cleaning and cage changing can be stressful for mice336. Cleaning may disrupt odour cues, expose mice to foreign odours and precipitate aggression. Cleaning may be complete or partial (only substrate/bedding is refreshed). (ii) When given a preference between soiled or clean cages, grouphoused mice preferred clean cages while individually housed mice did not demonstrate any preference453.

(iii) Frequent cage cleaning may adversely affect mice. Daily cage changing depressed weight gain by an average of 20 per cent in individually housed male and female NMRI:Cpb mice, compared to control mice handled but replaced into an unchanged cage454. The growthinhibiting effect
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 103

disappeared in males after one week, whilst it persisted for at least a week in females. In another study, pup mortality was higher in individually ventilated cages changed every seven days, compared with cages changed at 14 or 21 days407. (iv) Aggression among male mice peaks after disturbances such as cage cleaning28, 238. In one study, partial cage cleaning (replacing sawdust) stimulated increased aggression frequency and duration in male CFLP mice19, as compared with mice transferred to completely clean cages. Disturbing, but not refreshing, the substrate did not have a significant effect on the relative aggressive response. However, when nesting material was transferred to the clean cage, male BALB/cAnNCrIBR exhibited lower levels of aggression than controls who received new nesting material28. Interestingly, transfer of bedding material (sawdust) containing urine and faeces intensified aggression, leading to fighting. The different results may reflect strain differences, or the fact that mice in the first study were not provided with nesting material of any kind. The provision of nesting material itself reduces aggression (see Section 2.8 Nesting Material). Exposure to soiled bedding of mice of a different strain during cage cleaning may increase aggression. Male C57BL/6 mice exposed to urine scent of a different strain exhibited increased competitive aggression towards their cagemates455. The provision of an environmental enrichment object (a glass bottle) significantly reduced post cage cleaning aggression in BALB/c mice311. However, this reduction was reversed when the soiled object was transferred into a clean cage.

(v)

(vi)

(vii) Individually ventilated cages require less frequent cleaning. The frequency of cage cleaning was reduced to once every 14 or 21 days without adversely affecting weanling weight, growth, plasma corticosterone concentration, immune function, breeder mortality and breeder productivity in breeding pairs and trios of C57BL/6J mice407. See Section 4.5.3 Air quality and ventilation individually ventilated cages). Recommendations 4.7.1 The need for changing bedding depends on the type and amount of bedding used and air quality. Frequency of bedding changeswill also be influenced by stocking rates, ventilation system, strains of mice used and particular disease conditions (for example, diabetes). As a guide, bedding is commonly replaced aboutonceaweek. 4.7.2 Cleaning regimes should be managed to maintain ammonia levels within a cagebelow25ppm. 4.7.3 Nesting material should be transferred from the old to the new cage during cleaningtominimiseaggression.Note,beddingmaterialsoiledwithurineand
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 104

faeces should not be transferred to clean cages as this may exacerbate aggression. 4.7.4 Care should be taken to avoid contamination of cages with scents from different mouse strains. Cages should be cleaned thoroughly and steps taken to ensure soiled bedding or nesting material cannot fall into other cages. In addition,stepsshouldbetakentoensurethatmalemicearenotexposedtothe urineofothermalemicewhentemporarilyremovedfromtheirsocialgroups. 4.7.5 Plastic cages and bottles should bewashed in hot (6066C) soft water with a manufacturerrecommended detergent solution. All residue must be removed priortoautoclavingasthismaybebakedontothecage.

4.8Monitoringofenvironmentalvariables
Principles (i) Animal rooms in scientific institutions are technologically dependent and therefore vulnerable in the event of power failure or equipment breakdown1. Environmental variables including lighting, temperature, humidity, air quality and ventilation, sound and vibrations should be maintained within limits compatible with the wellbeing and good health of mice. To ensure this occurs, environmental variables in mouse rooms require regular monitoring. (ii) Temperature and humidity of mouse rooms should be checked daily.

(iii) At the cage level, temperature, humidity and air quality are affected by the system controlling the air supply to each room, or in the case of individually ventilated cages, the air supply to each cage.

Recommendations 4.8.1 Mouse rooms should have temperature and humidity readings displayed in a positionwherestaffcaneasilyseethem. 4.8.2 Regardless of centralised computer systems regulating the general environmental conditions, it is still essential to check these variables regularly in the roomtoindicateconditionsatthecagelevel. 4.8.3 Sensors should be fitted to monitor and report malfunctions in ventilation, temperatureandhumiditycontrolona24hourbasis,withautomaticalarmactivation and alerting of appropriate staff so that any unexpected variations can be identified andcorrected. 4.8.4 On a larger scale, facilities must be equipped to detect hazards such as fire or entryofunauthorisedpersons. 4.8.5Careshouldbetakenthattheoperationofanalarmcausesminimaldisturbance tomice1(seeSection 4.6 Sound and Vibration)
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 105

5.0Records
5.1Identification
Principles Clause 4.7.1 of the AustralianCodeofPracticefortheCareandUseofAnimals forScientificPurposes states in part:
Animals must be identifiable, whether individually or in groups. Where possible, animals should be identified by the attachment of a label to the cage, container, pen, yard or paddock where they are kept. Otherwise, identification of individual animals may require a physical mark such as a tattoo, neckband, individual tag, or electronic numbering device such as a microchipThe method chosen should be the most appropriate for the species and project and result in the least pain and distress to the animal.

(ii) Ideally methods of identification should not be painful, not cause adverse reactions, not be uncomfortable and not likely to catch, tear out or be damaged by conspecifics. For example, earpunch identification may be obliterated within weeks due to wound healing and/or trauma from intermouse aggression3. (iii) Tail tattooing resulted in transient increase in fluctuating asymmetry (a measure of developmental instability) in pups456. Furthermore, mice subjected to tail tattooing had traces of ink in their faeces for several days following the procedure. Whilst a toxic effect of the ink on fluctuating asymmetry was not ruled out by the study, it is possible that the mice groomed the tail excessively following the procedure in response to pain. Ear tattooing may not be practical in mice, particularly juveniles or smaller strains where there is a risk of incomplete marking457. (iv) Amputation of a 2.5cm section of the tail resulted in long term (at least five weeks) thermal and mechanical hyperalgesia in the remaining part of the tail as well as the hind paw in four to sixweekold male C57BL/6j and C57BL/6NHsd mice458. When a smaller (2.5mm) section of the tail was amputated, mice exhibited a transient reduction in climbing behaviour456. (vi) Swabbing tails with 70 per cent isopropyl alcohol to remove excess surface oil prior to marking was found to extend the life of surgical skin marker identification to ten days459. Recommendations 5.1.1 Where it is necessary to individually identify mice, the least invasive method that is compatiblewiththeuseofmiceshouldbeused. 5.1.2 Nontoxic dyes and permanent markers may be used on the fur and tail. These methods ofidentificationusuallyneedtobereplacedeverytendays.Swabbingthetailwith70 per cent isopropyl alcohol prior to marking is recommended to extend the life of markeridentification. 5.1.3Furclippingmaybeusedbutneedstobecarriedoutfrequently. 5.1.4Subcutaneousmicrochipping,tattooingandearnotchingmaybeusedwherepermanent identification is necessary. Note there is some transitory pain associated with
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 106

applying these forms of identification. Anaesthesia or sedation and analgesia should beusedinapplyingtattoosandearnotches. 5.1.5Toeandtailtipamputationarepainfulproceduresandshouldnotbeused.

5.2Cagelabels
Principle i) The Australian Code of Practice specifies that animals must be identifiable either individually or in groups (clause 4.7.1).

Recommendations 5.2.1 All cages should have labels attached to them that provide the following information, or cross reference to a central record in the same room containingthisinformation: *Mouseidentification(strain,sex,numberofmice;) *Age(dateofbirth)oflittersorofindividualmice; *Nameandapprovalnumberofprojectinwhichmicearebeingused; *Name,locationandcontactnumbersofthechiefinvestigator/teacherand,if applicable,otherinvestigators/teachersusingmice * Name, location and contact details of staff associated with the housing and careofthemice. *Treatments/procedures.

5.3Records
Principles ii) Thorough record keeping is an essential adjunct to good observation. Accurate production data may indicate the presence of deleterious genes, or other early changes in the health status of a mouse colony or colonies that might otherwise go undetected. ARRP Guideline 16: Supervision of Animal Supply by Animal Ethics Committees details the types of records required, and information that must be provided to the AEC on animal breeding activities.

iii)

Requirements 5.3.1 To assist in the monitoring and management of mouse breeding colonies, regular reports must be made to the Animal Ethics Committee, for review, on thefertility,fecundity,morbidityandmortalityofallmousebreedingcolonies. Reports should be submitted every six months, but may be required more frequently if deemed necessary by the Animal Ethics Committee. For further information refer to ARRP Guideline 16: Supervision of Animal Supply by AnimalEthicsCommittees. 5.3.2 Section 4.5.8 Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals For Scientific Purposes states that the person in charge must maintain adequate records to allow effective management of the breeding stock including the detection of the origin and spread of disease. Records should include:
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 107

(i) the source, care, allocation, movement between locations, use and fateofallanimals; (ii)detailsofanydiseases; (iii) the fertility, fecundity, morbidity and mortality in breeding colonies;and (iv) the health status, genetic constitution and physical environment of theanimals.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 108

6.0Additionalresources

Bradley Bays T; Lightfoot T and Mayer J (2006) Exotic Pet Behaviour: Birds, Reptiles and Small Mammals. Elsevier, St Louis MO provides information about normal and abnormal behaviour of mice and other species kept in captivity. Designed for a petowners but contains useful information for laboratory staff. Brown PA and HoostratenMiller (2004) Principles of aseptic rodent survival surgery: general training in rodent survival surgery Part I. In Laboratory Animal Medicine and Management, JD Reuter and MA Suckow (eds). International Veterinary Information Service, Ithica NY (www.ivis.org) online document incorporating images and Quicktime videos illustrating techniques, as well as providing guidelines and instruction for those performing aseptic rodent survival surgeries. Brown PA and HoostratenMiller (2004) Principles of aseptic rodent survival surgery: general training in rodent survival surgery Part II. In Laboratory Animal Medicine and Management, JD Reuter and MA Suckow (eds). International Veterinary Information Service, Ithica NY (www.ivis.org) as above. Fox JG; Anderson LC; Loew FM and Quimby FW (eds.) (2002) Laboratory Animal Medicine, second edition. San Diego, Academic Press (Elsevier Science) provides an extensive chapter on Biology and Diseases of Mice, as well as excellent chapters on Transgenic and Knockout Mice and Selected Zoonoses. Jennings M; Batchelor GR; Brain PF; Dick A; Elliot H; Francis RJ; Hubrecht RC; Hurst JL; Morton DB; Peters AG; Raymond R; Sales GD; Sherwin CM and West C (1998) Refining rodent husbandry: the mouse. Report of the Rodent Refinement Working Party. LaboratoryAnimals 32:233259. Hedrich H (ed.)(2004) The Laboratory Mouse. London: Elsevier a comprehensive textbook covering the history, development, genetics, biology, pathophysiology and husbandry of laboratory mice. Poole, TB (ed.) (1999) The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals, 7th edition. London: Blackwell Publishing contains species specific information on requirements of laboratory animals including mice. Reinhardt V and A (eds.) (2002) Comfortable Quarters for Laboratory Animals, 9th edition. Animal Welfare Institute Washington DC. Available online at http://www.awionline.org/pubs/cq02/cqindex.html contains a chapter by Chris Sherwin on mice in research institutions, as well as chapters on other species. Richardson VCG (2003) Diseases of Small Domestic Rodents, 2nd edition. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford UK provides a general overview of pet rodent husbandry. Scott DW, Miller WH, Grifften CE (2001). Muller & Kirks Small Animal Dermatology, Philadelphia: W.B.Saunders contains an extensive, illustrated chapter on dermatoses of pet rodents, rabbits and ferrets.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 109

Silverman J, Suckow MA, Murthy S (eds)(2000) TheIACUCHandbook, Boca Raton, CRC Press provides a question and answer format for common problems faced by institutional animal care and use committees. Whilst written for North American based investigators some of the information is useful to Australian investigators.

Additional information as well as guidelines on the housing of dogs, rabbits, rats andguineapigs in scientific institutions can be viewed at www.animalethics.org.au Newcastle University in the UK hosts a website which provides multimedia tutorials on assessing the health and welfare of laboratory animals at www.ahwla.org.uk The American Association of Laboratory Animal Science provides a free, online course on mouse biomethodology, Working with the Laboratory Mouse. Visit www.aalaslearninglibrary.org. Note that the course contains some material that does not apply to investigators based in Australia. The Mouse Genome Database (MGD), as well as additional information on the genetics, genomics and biology of the laboratory mouse, can be found at www.informatics.jax.org

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 110

7.0References

1. EuropeCo.AppendixAoftheEuropeanConventionfortheProtectionof VertebrateAnimalsUsedforExperimentalandOtherScientificPurposes (ETSNo.123).Cons123(2006)3ed;2006. JhaveriKA,TrammellRA,TothLA.Effectofenvironmental temperatureonsleep,locomotoractivity,corebodytemperatureand immuneresponsesofC57BL/6Jmice.BrainBehavImmun.Oct 2007;21(7):975987. HedrichHJ,MossmannH,NicklasW.HousingandMaintenance.In: HedrichHJ,BullockG,eds.TheLaboratoryMousw.Vol1.London: Elsevier;2004:395408. JenningsM,BatchelorGR,BrainPF,etal.Refiningrodenthusbandry: themouse.ReportoftheRodentRefinementWorkingParty.LabAnim. Jul1998;32(3):233259. WellsDJ,PlayleLC,EnserWEJ,etal.Assessingthewelfareofgenetically alteredmice:fullreportofGAmousewelfareassessmentworkinggroup April20062006. DennisMB,Jr.Welfareissuesofgeneticallymodifiedanimals.IlarJ. 2002;43(2):100109. FIshbeinEA.Whatpricemice?JournaloftheAmericanMedical Association.2001;285(7):939941. RussellW,BurchR,1959ThePrinciplesofHumaneExperimental Technique.Methuen&Co.:LondonU.ThePrinciplesofHumane ExperimentalTechnique.London,UK:Methuen&Co.;1959. ChanceRA,RussellWMS.Thebenefitsofgivingexperimentalanimals thebestpossibleenvironment.In:ReinhardtV,ed.ComfortableQuarters forLaboratoryAnimals.Washington:AnimalWelfareInstitute;1997:12 14. JaegerJ,TongH,DenysC.TheageoftheMusRattusdivergencetime. AcademiedesSciences.1986;302(Series11,no14):917922. JacobyO,FoxJG,DavissonM.Biologyanddiseasesofmice.In:FoxJG, AndersonLC,LoewFM,QuimbyFW,eds.LaboratoryAnimalMedicine. Seconded.SanDiego:AcademicPress(ElsevierScience);2002. YoshikiA,MoriwakiK.Mousephenomeresearch:implicationsofgenetic background.IlarJ.2006;47(2):94102. SluyterF,OortmerssenGAv.Amouseisnotjustamouse.Animal Welfare.2000;9(2):193205. HutchinsonE,AveryA,VandewoudeS.Environmentalenrichmentfor laboratoryrodents.IlarJ.2005;46(2):148161. GuenetJ,BonhommeF.Originofthelaboratorymouseandrelated species.In:HedrichHJ,BullockG,eds.TheLaboratoryMouse.Vol1. London:Elsevier;2004:315. LathamN,MasonG.Fromhousemousetomousehouse:thebehavioural biologyoffreelivingMusmusculusanditsimplicationsinthelaboratory. AppliedAnimalBehaviourScience.2004;86:261289. BrainP,ParmigianiS.Variationinaggressivenessinhousemouse populations.BiologicalJournaloftheLinneanSociety.1990;41:257269.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7. 8.

9.

10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15.

16.

17.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 111

18. OlssonIA,WestlundK.Morethannumbersmatter:theeffectofsocial factorsonbehaviourandwelfareoflaboratoryrodentsandnonhuman primates.AppliedAnimalBehaviourScience.2007;103:229254. GrayS,HurstJL.Theeffectsofcagecleaningonaggressionwithin groupsofmalelaboratorymice.AnimalBehaviour.1995;49:821826. BronsonFH.Thereproductiveecologyofthehousemouse.QRevBiol. Sep1979;54(3):265299. WilkinsonGS,MillerBakerAE.Communalnestingamonggenetically similarhousemice.Ethology.1988;77(2):103114. BisazzaA.Hereditarydifferencesinsocialbehaviourofmalemice(Mus musculusL.).Boll.Zool.1982;49(207211). OlssonIA,NevisonCM,PattersonKaneEG,SherwinCM,vandeWeerd HA,WurbelH.Understandingbehaviour:therelevanceofethological approachesinlaboratoryanimalscience.AppliedAnimalBehaviour Science.2003;81:245264. HurstJL.Makingsenseofscents:reducingaggressionanduncontrolled variationinlaboratorymice.NC3RS.2005:18. HurstJL,PayneCE,NevisonCM,etal.Individualrecognitioninmice mediatedbymajorurinaryproteins.Nature.Dec62001;414(6864):631 634. NevisonCM,ArmstrongS,BeynonRJ,HumphriesRE,HurstJL.The ownershipsignatureinmousescentmarksisinvolatile.ProcBiolSci.Sep 222003;270(1527):19571963. HarringtonJE.Recognitionfoterritorialboundariesbyolfactorycuesin mice(MusmusculusL.).ZTierpsychol.Jul1976;41(3):295306. LooPLPv,KruitwagenCLJJ,ZutphenLFMv,KoolhaasJM,Baumans V.Modulationofaggressioninmalemice:influenceofcagecleaning regimeandscentmarks.AnimalWelfare.2000;9(3):281295. BarnardCJ,HurstJL,AldhousP.Ofmiceandkin:thefunctional significanceofkinbiasinsocialbehaviour.Biol.Rev.1991;66:379430. JonesRB,NowellNW.Aversiveandaggressionpromotingpropertiesof urinefromdominantandsubordinatemalemice.Anim.Learn.Behav. 1973;1:207210. VandenberghJG.Pheromonesandmammalianreproduction.In:Knobil E,NeillJD,eds.ThePhysiologyofReproduction.Seconded.NewYork: RavenPress;1994:343359. GrantEC,MackintoshJH.Acomparisonofthesocialposturesofsome commonlaboratoryrodents.Behaviour1963;21:246259. LooPLPv,ZutphenLFMv,BaumansV.Malemanagement:copingwith aggressionproblemsinmalelaboratorymice.LaboratoryAnimals. 2003;37(4):300313. KoyamaS.Primereffectsbyconspecificodorsinhousemice:anew perspectiveinthestudyofprimereffectsonreproductiveactivities.Horm Behav.Sep2004;46(3):303310. WhittenWK.Modificationoftheoestruscycleofthemousebyexternal stimuliassociatedwiththemale:changesintheoestruscycledetermined byvaginalsmears.JournalofEndocrinology.1958;13:307313. BruceHM.Anexteroceptiveblocktopregnancyinthemouse.Nature. 1959;184:105.

19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

24. 25.

26.

27. 28.

29. 30.

31.

32. 33.

34.

35.

36.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 112

37. NevisonCM,BarnardCJ,BeynonRJ,HurstJL.Theconsequencesof inbreedingforrecognisingcompetitors.TheRoyalSociety.2000;267:687 694. HeffnerHE,HeffnerRS.Hearingrangesoflaboratoryanimals.JAm AssocLabAnimSci.Jan2007;46(1):2022. PortforsCV.Typesandfunctionsofultrasonicvocalizationsin laboratoryratsandmice.(Specialissue:Noiseinanimalfacilities:whyit matters.).JournaloftheAmericanAssociationforLaboratoryAnimal Science.2007;46(1):2834. EhretG.Auditoryprocessingandperceptionofultrasoundinhousemice. In:EwartJP,CapranicaRR,IngleDJ,eds.AdvancesinVertebrate Neuroethology.NewYork:PlenumPress;1983:911918. EhretG.Infantrodentultrasounds:agatetotheunderstandingofsound communication.BehaviourGenetics.2005;35:1929. BranchiI,SantucciD,VitaleA,AllevaE.Ultrasonicvocalizationsby infantlaboratorymice:apreliminaryspectrographiccharacterization underdifferentconditions.DevPsychobiol.Nov1998;33(3):249256. HaackB,MarklH,EhretG.Soundcommunicationbetweenparentsand offspring.In:WillottJF,ed.TheAuditoryPsychobiologyoftheMouse. Springfield,IL:Thomas;1983:5797. KaltwisserM,SchitzlerH.Echolocationsignalsconfirmedinrats.Z. Saugetierkd.1981;46:394295. JacobsGH,NeitzJ,DeeganJF,2nd.Retinalreceptorsinrodents maximallysensitivetoultravioletlight.Nature.Oct17 1991;353(6345):655656. SimonP,DupuisR,CostentinJ.Thigmotaxisasanindexofanxietyin mice.Influenceofdopaminergictransmissions.BehavBrainRes.Mar31 1994;61(1):5964. JensenSP,GraySJ,HurstJL.Howdoeshabitatstructureaffectactivity anduseofspaceamonghousemice?AnimalBehaviour.2003;66:239250. SuckowMA,DannemanP,BraytonC.TheLaboratoryMouse.Boca Raton:CRCPress;2001. BrainP.Rodents.InternationalWorkshopintheAccommodationof LaboratoryAnimalsinAccordancewithAnimalWelfareRequirements. Berlin;1995. BaumansV.Environmentalenrichmentforlaboratoryrodentsand rabbits:requirementsofrodents,rabbits,andresearch.IlarJ. 2005;46(2):162170. GovernmentA.AnimalWelfareCommitteeGuidelinesfortheGeneration, Breeding,CareandUseofGeneticallyModifiedandClonedAnimalsfor ScientificPurposes.Canberra:NationalHealthandMedicalResearch Council;2007. BrownMJ,MurrayKA.Phenotypingofgeneticallyengineeredmice: humane,ethical,environmental,andhusbandryissues.IlarJ. 2006;47(2):118123. BuehrM,HjorthJP,HansenAK,SandoeP.Geneticallymodified laboratoryanimalswhatwelfareproblemsdotheyface?JApplAnim WelfSci.2003;6(4):319338. ThonR,LassenJ,HansenAK,JegstrupIM,RitskesHoitingaM.Welfare evaluationofgeneticallymodifiedmiceaninventorystudyofreportsto

38. 39.

40.

41. 42.

43.

44. 45.

46.

47. 48. 49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 113

theDanishAnimalExperimentsInspectorate.ScandinavianJournalof LaboratoryAnimalScience.2002;29(1):4553. WilsonSG,MogilJS.Measuringpaininthe(knockout)mouse:big challengesinasmallmammal.BehavBrainRes.Nov12001;125(12):65 73. PooleTB.Welfareconsiderationswithregardtotransgenicanimals. AnimalWelfare.1995;4:8185. MonasterskyGM,GeistfeldJG.Transgenicandknockoutmice.In:Fox JG,AndersonLC,LoewFM,QuimbyFW,eds.LaboratoryAnimal Medicine.Seconded.SanDiego:AcademicPress(ElsevierScience);2002. GentN.Astudyinrefininghusbandrytechniquesfortheinhouse breedingofratsandmice.AnimalTechnologyandWelfare.2006;5(1):38. WhishawIQ,MetzGA,KolbB,PellisSM.Acceleratednervoussystem developmentcontributestobehavioralefficiencyinthelaboratorymouse: abehavioralreviewandtheoreticalproposal.DevPsychobiol.Nov 2001;39(3):151170. CookMN,BolivarVJ,McFadyenMP,FlahertyL.Behavioraldifferences among129substrains:implicationsforknockoutandtransgenicmice. BehavNeurosci.Aug2002;116(4):600611. LeschKP.Geneticalterationsofthemurineserotonergicgenepathway: theneurodevelopmentalbasisofanxiety.HandbExpPharmacol. 2005(169):71112. MullerMB,UhrM,HolsboerF,KeckME.Hypothalamicpituitary adrenocorticalsystemandmooddisorders:highlightsfrommutantmice. Neuroendocrinology.Jan2004;79(1):112. MiczekKA,MaxsonSC,FishEW,FaccidomoS.Aggressivebehavioral phenotypesinmice.BehavBrainRes.Nov12001;125(12):167181. MasonG.Straindifferencesincagestereotypiesoflaboratorymice.In: MasonG,RushenJ,eds.Stereotypicanimalbehaviour:fundamentalsand applicationstowelfare.Vol1.Seconded.Cambridge,MA:CABI;2006. vanLooPL,EverseLA,BernsenMR,etal.Analgesicsinmiceusedin cancerresearch:reductionofdiscomfort?LabAnim.Oct1997;31(4):318 325. ConourLA,MurrayKA,BrownMJ.Preparationofanimalsfor researchissuestoconsiderforrodentsandrabbits.IlarJ. 2006;47(4):283293. CheslerEJ,WilsonSG,LariviereWR,RodriguezZasSL,MogilJS. Influencesoflaboratoryenvironmentonbehavior.NatNeurosci.Nov 2002;5(11):11011102. CheslerEJ,WilsonSG,LariviereWR,RodriguezZasSL,MogilJS. Identificationandrankingofgeneticandlaboratoryenvironmentfactors influencingabehavioraltrait,thermalnociception,viacomputational analysisofalargedataarchive.NeurosciBiobehavRev.Dec 2002;26(8):907923. FoltzC,CarboneL,DeLongD,etal.Considerationsfordetermining optimalmousecagingdensity.LabAnim(NY).Nov2007;36(10):4049. EuropeCo.CouncilDirective86/609/EEC:OJL358,18.12.1986aslast amendedbyDirective200610/EC.AppendixII.

55.

56. 57.

58. 59.

60.

61.

62.

63. 64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69. 70.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 114

71. SmithAL,MabusSL,StockwellJD,MuirC.Effectsofhousingdensity andcagefloorspaceonC57BL/6Jmice.CompMed.Dec2004;54(6):656 663. SmithAL,MabusSL,MuirC,WooY.Effectsofhousingdensityand cagefloorspaceonthreestrainsofyoungadultinbredmice.CompMed. Aug2005;55(4):368376. NationalResearchCouncil(NRC).Guideforthecareanduseof laboratoryanimals.WashingtonDC:NationalAcademyPress;1996. SherwinCM.Preferencesoflaboratorymiceforcharacteristicsofsoiling sites.AnimalWelfare.1996;5:283288. BlomHJM,VandeWeerdHA,HoogervorstMJC,etal.Preferencesfor cagetemperatureinlaboratorymiceasinfluencedbythetypeofcage flooring.In:BlomHJM,ed.EvaluationofHousingConditionsfor LaboratoryMiceandRats:theuseofpreferencetestsforstudyingchoice behaviourNetherlands:UniversityofUtrecht;1993. WallaceME.Somethoughtsonthelaboratorycagedesignprocess.IntJ StudAnimProb.1982;3(3):234242. RoseM.Animalbehaviourandthecareandmanagementoflaboratory animals.AnimalWelfareConference.Taipei,Taiwan;1996. SteyermarkAC,MuellerPJ.Cagesizeaffectsfeedingandenergeticsof captiverodents.PhysiologicalandBiochemicalZoology.2002;75(2):209 213. GonderJC,LaberK.Arenewedlookatlaboratoryrodenthousingand management.ILARJournal.2007;48(1):2936. McGloneJJ,AndersonDL,NormanRL.Floorspaceneedsforlaboratory mice:BALB/cJmalesorfemalesinsolidbottomcageswithbedding. ContempTopLabAnimSci.May2001;40(3):2125. BenharE.Productivityofinbredmice:influenceoffloorareaofthecage. Z.Versuchstierk.Bd.1969;11(S):234237. DavidsonLP,ChedesterAL,ColeMN.Effectsofcagedensityon behaviorinyoungadultmice.CompMed.Aug2007;57(4):355359. ForsythNY,KendallLV,YoungGS,MenchJA.Effectsofcagesizeand environmentalenrichmentonorganweightandleukocytedistributionin C57BL/6,BALB/candCD1mice.57thAnnualAALASMeeting.Salt LakeCity,UT;2006. FullwoodS,HicksTA,BrownJC,NormanRL,McGloneJJ.FloorSpace NeedsforLaboratoryMice:C56BL/6MalesinSolidbottomCageswith Bedding.IlarJ.Dec1998;39(1):2936. McMahonK,HaistC,DyskoR.Breedingcolonyhousing:Acomparison oftwocagesizes..AmericanAssociationforLaboratoryAnimalScience 56thNationalMeetingOfficialProgram:127:ContemporaryTopcs 44(4)p91;2005. ManosevitzM,PryorJB.Cagesizeasafactorinenvironmental enrichment.JournalofComparativeandPhysiologicalPsychology. 1975;89(6):648654. O'MalleyJ,DambrosiaJM,DavisJA.Effectofhousingdensityon reproductiveparametersandcorticosteronelevelsinnursingmice. JournaloftheAmericanAssociationforLaboratoryAnimalScience. 2008;47(2):915.

72.

73. 74. 75.

76. 77. 78.

79. 80.

81. 82. 83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 115

88. 89. 90. 91. 92. PetersA,FestingM.Populationdensityandgrowthrateinlaboratory mice.LabAnim.Jul1990;24(3):273279. SherwinCM.Themotivationofgrouphousedlaboratorymice,Mus musculus,foradditionalspace.AnimalBehaviour.2004;67:711717. SherwinCM.Behaviouraldemandfunctionsofcagedlaboratorymicefor additionalspace.AnimalBehaviour.1997;53:6774. SherwinCM.Themotivationofgrouphousedlaboratorymicetoleavean enrichedlaboratorycage.AnimalBehaviour.2006;73:2935. LooPLPv,MolJA,KoolhaasJM,ZutphenBFMv,BaumansV. Modulationofaggressioninmalemice:influenceofgroupsizeandcage size.Physiology&Behavior.2001;72(5):675683. WhitakerJ,MoySS,SavilleBR,etal.Theeffectofcagesizeon reproductiveperformanceandbehaviorofC57BL/6mice.LabAnim (NY).Nov2007;36(10):3239. LeachMC,MainDCJ.AnassessmentoflaboratorymousewelfareinUK animalunits.AnimalWelfare.2008;17:171187. RossS,KesslerC,NagyZM,ScottJP.Effectsofilluminationonwall leavingbehaviorandactivityinthreeinbredmousestrains.JComp PhysiolPsychol.Oct1966;62(2):338340. ButtnerD.Climbingonthecagelid,aregularcomponentoflocomotor activityinthemouse.JExpAnimSci.1991;34(56):165169. WeerdHAvd,LooPLPv,ZutphenLFMv,KoolhaasJM,BaumansV. Preferencesfornestboxesasenvironmentalenrichmentforlaboratory mice.AnimalWelfare.1998;7(1):1125. WeerdHAvd,LooPLPv,ZutphenLFMv,KoolhaasJM,BaumansV. Strengthofpreferencefornestingmaterialasenvironmentalenrichment forlaboratorymice.AppliedAnimalBehaviourScience.1998;55(3/4):369 382. WurbelH,StauffacherM,VonHolstD.Stereotypiesoflaboratorymice quantitativeandqualitativedescriptionoftheontogenyof'wiregnawing' and'jumping'inZur:ICRandZur:ICRnu.Ethology.1996;102(371385). WurbelH,StauffacherM.Preventionofstereotypyinlaboratorymice: effectsonstressphysiologyandbehaviour.PhysiolBehav.Jun 1996;59(6):11631170. PietropaoloS,MintzM,FeldonJ,YeeBK.Thebehavioralsequela followingthepreventionofhomecagegridclimbingactivityinC57BL/6 mice.BehavNeurosci.Apr2007;121(2):345355. KallnikM,ElvertR,EhrhardtN,etal.ImpactofIVChousingon emotionalityandfearlearninginmaleC3HeB/FeJandC57BL/6Jmice. MammGenome.Mar2007;18(3):173186. BaumansV,StafleuFR,BouwJ.Testinghousingsystemformicethe valueofapreferencetest.ZVersuchstierkd.1987;29(12):914. WallaceME.Thebreeding,inbreedingandmanagementofwildmice. SymposiumoftheZoologicalSociety,London.1981;47:183204. LeppanenPK,EwaldsKvistSB,SelanderRK.Miceselectivelybredfor openfieldthigmotaxis:lifespanandstabilityoftheselectiontrait.JGen Psychol.Apr2005;132(2):187204. KoehlerKE,VoightRC,ThomasS,etal.BPAandPlasticLabAnimal CagesWhendisasterstrikesrethinkingcagingmaterials.LabAnim (NY).2003;32(4).

93.

94. 95.

96. 97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103. 104. 105.

106.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 116

107. HuntPA,KoehlerKE,SusiarjoM,etal.Bisphenolaexposurecauses meioticaneuploidyinthefemalemouse.CurrBiol.Apr12003;13(7):546 553. 108. HowdeshellKL,PetermanPH,JudyBM,etal.BisphenolAisreleased fromusedpolycarbonateanimalcagesintowateratroomtemperature. EnvironmentalHealthPerspectives.2003;DepartmentofHealthand HumanServices,ResearchTrianglePark,USA(2003.111:9):11801187. 109. DemorotskiD.Selectingplasticanimalcages.ALNEurope.2008;1(2):24 26. 110. PorterG,LanePetterW,HorneN.Acomparisonbetweentransparent andopaquecagesforbreedingmice.J.Anim.Tech.Ass.1963;13:8486. 111. CzarnomskaA,WezykJ.Theeffectofsomeexternalenvironmental factorsontheindexofproductivity,Q,invariousinbredmousestrains. [Polish].ZwierzetaLaboratoryjne.1974;10(2):1824. 112. HastingsIM,HillWG.Theeffectofcagetypeonmurinebody composition.MouseGenome.1993;91(2):329330. 113. DePassLR,WeilCS,BallantyneB,etal.Influenceofhousingconditions formiceontheresultsofadermaloncogenicitybioassay.FundamAppl Toxicol.Nov1986;7(4):601608. 114. SherwinCM,GlenEF.Cagecolourpreferencesandeffectsofhomecage colouronanxietyinlaboratorymice.AnimalBehaviour.2003;66:1085 1092. 115. BlomHJ,VanTintelenG,VanVorstenboschCJ,BaumansV,Beynen AC.Preferencesofmiceandratsfortypesofbeddingmaterial.LabAnim. Jul1996;30(3):234244. 116. WatsonDS.Evaluationofinanimateobjectsoncommonlymonitored variablesinpreclinicalsafetystudiesformiceandrats.LabAnimSci. Aug1993;43(4):378380. 117. SmithGD,HoffmanWP,LeeEM,YoungJK.Improvingthe environmentofmicebyusingsyntheticgauzepads.ContempTopLab AnimSci.Nov2000;39(6):5153. 118. RaoGN,CrockettPW.Effectofdietandhousingongrowth,body weight,survivalandtumorincidencesofB6C3F1miceinchronicstudies. ToxicolPathol.MarApr2003;31(2):243250. 119. TabataH,IkegamiH,KariyaK.Comparisonofagerelatedperipheral nervechangesinmicehousedineitherplasticcageswithsawdustcovered solidflooringorwiremeshfloorcages.ExpAnim.Apr2000;49(2):147 151. 120. EverittJL,RossPW,DavisTW.Urologicsyndromeassociatedwithwire caginginAKRmice.LaboratoryAnimalScience.1988;38(5):609611. 121. MarquesdeAraujoS,CardosoMA.Alaboratorycageforfosternursing newbornmice.BrazilianJournalofMedicalandBiologicalResearch. 1999;32:319321. 122. AdamsN,BoiceR.Mouse(Mus)burrows:effectsofage,strainand domestication.AnimalLearning&Behaviour.1981;9(1):140144. 123. SherwinCM.Studiesonthemotivationforburrowingbylaboratory mice.AppliedAnimalBehaviourScience.2004;88:343358. 124. WardGE,DeMilleD.Environmentalenrichmentforlaboratorymice (Musmusculus).AnimalTechnology.1991;42:149156.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 117

125. SherwinCM.Laboratorymicepersistingainingaccesstoresources:a methodofassessingtheimportanceofenvironmentalfeatures.Applied AnimalBehaviourScience.1996;48:203214. 126. HobbsBA,KozubalW,NebiarFF.Evaluationofobjectsfor environmentalenrichmentofmice.ContempTopLabAnimSci.May 1997;36(3):6971. 127. WirthH.Criteriafortheevaluationoflaboratoryanimalbedding.Lab Anim.Apr1983;17(2):8184. 128. MulderJB.Beddingpreferencesofpregnantlaboratoryrearedmice. BehaviourResearchMethodsandInstrumentation.1975;7(1):2122. 129. AgoA,GondaT,TakechiM,TakeuchiT,KawakamiK.Preferencesfor paperbeddingmaterialofthelaboratorymice.ExperimentalAnimals. 2002;51(2):157161. 130. KawakamiK,ShimosakiS,TonguM,etal.Evaluationofbeddingand nestingmaterialsforlaboratorymicebypreferencetests.ExpAnim.Oct 2007;56(5):363368. 131. IturrianWB,FinkGB.Comparisonofbeddingmaterial:habitat preferenceofpregnantmiceandreproductiveperformance.Laboratory AnimalCare.1968;18(2):160164. 132. LawtonS,TaylorV,PerksV.Evaluationoffivebeddingtypesonmale nudemousehealthandaggression.AnimalTechnologyandWelfare. 2006;5(3):163164. 133. HastingsJS.LongtermuseofVermiculite.JournaloftheInstituteof AnimalTechnicians.1967;18(4):184190. 134. SmithE,StockwellJD,SchweitzerI,LangleySH,SmithAL.Evaluation ofcagemicroenvironmentofmicehousedonvarioustypesofbedding materials.ContemporaryTopicsinLaboratoryAnimalScience. 2004;43(4):1217. 135. PotgieterFJ,WilkePI.Laboratoryanimalbedding:areviewof specificationsandrequirements.JSAfrVetAssoc.Sep1991;62(3):143 146. 136. PickJR,LittleJM.EffectofTypeofBeddingMaterialonThresholdsof PentylenetetrazolConvulsionsinMice.LabAnimCare.Feb1965;15:29 33. 137. VessellES.Inductionofdrugmetabolisingenzymesinlivermicrosomes ofmiceandratsbysoftwoodbedding.Science.1967;157:10571058. 138. WadeAE,HollJE,HilliardCC,MoltonE,GreeneFE.Alterationofdrug metabolisminratsandmicebyanenvironmentofcedarwood. Pharmacology.May1968;1(5):317328. 139. SabineJR.Exposuretoanenvironmentcontainingthearomaticred cedar,Juniperusvirginiana:procarcinogenic,enzymeinducingand insecticidaleffects.Toxicology.Nov1975;5(2):221235. 140. CunliffeBeamerTL,FreemanLC,MyersDD.Barbituratesleeptimein miceexposedtoautoclavedorunautoclavedwoodbeddings.LabAnim Sci.Dec1981;31(6):672675. 141. TorronenR,PelkonenKH,KarenlampiS.Enzymeinducingand cytotoxiceffectsofwoodbasedmaterialsusedasbeddingforlaboratory animals.Comparisonbyacellculturestudy.LifeSciences. 1989;45(6):559565.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 118

142. NielsenJB,AndersenO,SvendsenP.HepaticOdeethylaseactivityin miceondifferenttypesofbedding.ZVersuchstierkd.1986;28(12):6975. 143. FergusonHC.Effectofredcedarchipbeddingonhexobarbitaland pentobarbitalsleeptime.JournalofPharmaceuticalSciences.Received April1819661966;55(10):11421143. 144. FujiiK,JaffeH,EpsteinS.Factorsinfluencingthehexobarbitalsleeping timeandzoxazolamineparalysistimeinmice.ToxicologyandApplied Pharmacology.1968;13:431438. 145. PotgieterFJ,TorronenR,WilkePI.Theinvitroenzymeinducingand cytotoxicpropertiesofSouthAfricanlaboratoryanimalcontactbedding andnestingmaterials.LabAnim.Apr1995;29(2):163171. 146. PelkonenKH,HanninenOO.Cytotoxicityandbiotransformation inducingactivityofrodentbeddings:aglobalsurveyusingtheHepa1 assay.Toxicology.Sep261997;122(12):7380. 147. KarenlampiS,TorrenonR.InductionofcytochromeP450IA1inmouse hepatomacellsasashorttermbioassay.ATLA,AlternativestoLaboratory Animals.1990;17:158162. 148. BrainP.Understandingthebehaviourofferalspeciesmayfacilitate designofoptimallivingconditionsforcommonlaboratoryrodents. AnimalTechnology1992;43:99105. 149. SherwinCM.Observationsontheprevalenceofnestbuildinginnon breedingTOstrainmiceandtheiruseoftwonestingmaterials.Lab Anim.Apr1997;31(2):125132. 150. OlssonIA,DahlbornK.Improvinghousingconditionsforlaboratory mice:areviewof"environmentalenrichment".LabAnim.Jul 2002;36(3):243270. 151. RoperTJ.Nestingmaterialasareinforcerforfemalemice.Animal Behaviour.1973;21:733740. 152. RoperTJ.Diurnalrhythmsinthenestbuildingbehaviouroffemalemice. Behaviour.1975;52Pt12:95103. 153. RoperTJ.Nestmaterialandfoodasreinforcersforfixedratio respondinginmice.LearningandMotivation.1975;6:327343. 154. RoperTJ.Selfsustainingactivitiesandreinforcementinthenestbuilding behaviourofmice.Behaviour1975;59:4057. 155. SherwinCM,NicolCJ.Changesinmealpatterningbymicemeasurethe costimposedbynaturalobstacles.AppliedAnimalBehaviourScience. 1995;43:291300. 156. SherwinCM.PreferencesofindividuallyhousedTOstrainlaboratory miceforloosesubstrateortubesforsleeping.LabAnim.Jul 1996;30(3):245251. 157. VandeWeerdHA,VanLooPL,VanZutphenLF,KoolhaasJM, BaumansV.Nestingmaterialasenvironmentalenrichmenthasno adverseeffectsonbehaviorandphysiologyoflaboratorymice.Physiol Behav.Nov1997;62(5):10191028. 158. ArmstrongKR,ClarkTR,PetersonMR.UseofCornHuskNesting MaterialtoReduceAggressioninCagedMice.ContempTopLabAnim Sci.Jul1998;37(4):6466. 159. VandeWeerdHA,VanLooPL,VanZutphenLF,KoolhaasJM, BaumansV.Preferencesfornestingmaterialasenvironmental enrichmentforlaboratorymice.LabAnim.Apr1997;31(2):133143.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 119

160. PorterG,LanePetterW.Theprovisionofsterilebeddingandnesting materialswiththeireffectsonbreedingmice.JournalofAnimalTech. Ass.1965;16:58. 161. KeyD.Environmentalenrichmentoptionsforlaboratoryratsandmice. LabAnim(NY).Feb2004;33(2):3944. 162. LooPLPv,MeerEvd,KruitwagenCLJJ,KoolhaasJM,ZutphenLFMv, BaumansV.Longtermeffectsofhusbandryproceduresonstressrelated parametersinmalemiceoftwostrains.LaboratoryAnimals. 2004;38(2):169177. 163. DahlbornK,vangilsBAA,VandeWeerdHA,EvdJ,BaumannsV. Evaluationoflongtermenvironmentalenrichmentinthemouse. ScandinavianJournalofLaboratoryAnimalScience.1996;23:97106. 164. vandeWeerdHA,BaumansV,KoolhaasJM,vanZutphenLF.Strain specificbehaviouralresponsetoenvironmentalenrichmentinthemouse. JExpAnimSci.Aug1994;36(45):117127. 165. LooPLPv,WeerdHAvd,ZutphenLFMv,BaumansV.Preferencefor socialcontactversusenvironmentalenrichmentinmalelaboratorymice. LaboratoryAnimals.2004;38(2):178188. 166. LooPLPv,BlomHJM,MeijerMK,BaumansV.Assessmentoftheuseof twocommerciallyavailableenvironmentalenrichmentsbylaboratory micebypreferencetesting.LaboratoryAnimals.2005;39(1):5867. 167. VanOortmerssenGA.Biologicalsignificance,geneticsandevolutionary originofvariabilityinbehaviourwithinandbetweeninbredstrainsof mice(Musmusculus).Abehaviourgeneticstudy.Behaviour. 1971;38(1):192. 168. VanLooPLP,VanderMeerE,KruitwagenCL,KoolhaasJM,Van ZutphenLF,BaumansV.Strainspecificaggressivebehaviourofmale micesubmittedtodifferenthusbandryprocedures.AggressiveBehaviour. 2003;29:6980. 169. KalisteEK,MeringSM,HuuskonenHK.Environmentalmodification andagonisticbehaviorinNIH/Smalemice:nestingmaterialenhances fightingbutshelterspreventit.CompMed.Jun2006;56(3):202208. 170. BazillePG,WaldenSD,KoniarBL,GuntherR.Commercialcotton nestingmaterialasapredisposingfactorforconjunctivitisinathymic nudemice.LabAnim(NY).May2001;30(5):4042. 171. RobertsonKL,RowlandNE.Effectoftwotypesofenvironmental enrichmentforsinglyhousedmiceonfoodintakeandweightgain.Lab Anim(NY).Oct2005;34(9):2932. 172. BarnardCJ,BehnkeJM,SewellJ.Environmentalenrichment, immunocompetence,andresistancetoBabesiamicrotiinmalemice. PhysiolBehav.Nov1996;60(5):12231231. 173. BuhotAversengM.Nestboxchoiceinthelaboratorymouse:preferences fornestboxesdifferingindesign(sizeand/orshape)andcomposition. BehaviouralProcesses.1981;6:337384. 174. MoonsCP,VanWieleP,OdbergFO.Toenrichornottoenrich: providingshelterdoesnotcomplicatehandlingoflaboratorymice. ContempTopLabAnimSci.Jul2004;43(4):1821. 175. ChamoveAS.Cagedesignreducesemotionalityinmice.LabAnim.Jul 1989;23(3):215219.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 120

176. LeachMC,AmbroseN,BowellVJ,MortonDB.Thedevelopmentofa novelformofmousecageenrichment.JournalofAppliedAnimalWelfare Science.2000;3(2):8191. 177. HaemischA,VossT,GartnerK.Effectsofenvironmentalenrichmenton aggressivebehavior,dominancehierarchies,andendocrinestatesinmale DBA/2Jmice.PhysiolBehav.Nov1994;56(5):10411048. 178. HaemischA,GartnerK.Thecagedesignaffectsintermaleaggressionin smallgroupsofmalelaboratorymice:strainspecificconsequenceson socialorganization,andendocrineactivationsintwoinbredstrains (DBA/2JandCBA/J).JExpAnimSci.Aug1994;36(45):101116. 179. WeerdHAvd,LooPLPv,ZutphenLFMv,KoolhaasJM,BaumansV. Preferencesfornestingmaterialasenvironmentalenrichmentfor laboratorymice.LaboratoryAnimals.1997;31(2):133143. 180. BergmannP,MilitzerK,ButtnerD.Environmentalenrichmentand aggressivebehaviour:influenceonbodyweightandbodyfatinmale inbredHLGmice.JournalofExperimentalAnimalScience.1994;37(69 78). 181. EmondM,FaubertS,PerkinsM.Socialconflictreductionprogramfor malemice.ContempTopLabAnimSci.Sep2003;42(5):2426. 182. VanLooPL,VandeWeerdHA,VanZutphenLF,BaumansV. Preferenceforsocialcontactversusenvironmentalenrichmentinmale laboratorymice.LabAnim.Apr2004;38(2):178188. 183. LooPLPv,GrootACd,ZutphenBFMv,BaumansV.Domalemiceprefer oravoideachother'scompany?Influenceofhierarchy,kinship,and familiarity.JournalofAppliedAnimalWelfareScience.2001;4(2):91103. 184. PieperJO,ForesterDC,ElmerGI.Miceshowstraindifferencesinsocial affiliation.Implicationsforopenfieldbehavior.AnnNYAcadSci.Jan15 1997;807:552555. 185. VanLooPL,VanZutphenLF,BaumansV.Malemanagement:Coping withaggressionproblemsinmalelaboratorymice.LabAnim.Oct 2003;37(4):300313. 186. ParmigianiS,PalanzaP,RogersJ,FerrariPF.Selection,evolutionof behaviorandanimalmodelsinbehavioralneuroscience.Neurosci BiobehavRev.Nov1999;23(7):957969. 187. AntonAH,SchwartzRP,KramerS.Catecholaminesandbehaviorin isolatedandgroupedmice.JPsychiatrRes.Dec1968;6(3):211220. 188. GrimmMS,EmermanJT,WeinbergJ.Effectsofsocialhousingcondition andbehaviorongrowthoftheShionogimousemammarycarcinoma. PhysiolBehav.AprMay1996;59(45):633642. 189. SpaniD,ArrasM,KonigB,RulickeT.Higherheartrateoflaboratory micehousedindividuallyvsinpairs.LabAnim.Jan2003;37(1):5462. 190. ArrasM,RettichA,CinelliP,KasermannHP,BurkiK.Assessmentof postlaparotomypaininlaboratorymicebytelemetricrecordingofheart rateandheartratevariability.BMCVetRes.2007;3:16. 191. AndradeML,KamalKBH,BrainPF.Effectsofpositiveandnegative fightingexperienceonbehaviour.In:BrainPF,MainardiD,Parmigiani S,eds.HouseMouseAggression.Chur:HarwoodAcademicPublishers; 1989:223232. 192. BartolomucciA,PalanzaP,ParmigianiS.Grouphousedmice:arethey reallystressed?EthologyEcology&Evolution.2002;14:341350.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 121

193. DoolittleDP,WilsonSP,GiesekingD.Effectofcagingvariablesonbody weightandweightgaininmice.LabAnimSci.Aug1976;26(4):556561. 194. BartolomucciA,ChirieleisonA,GioiosaL,CeresiniG,ParmigianiS, PalanzaP.Ageatgroupformationaltersbehaviorandphysiologyinmale butnotfemaleCD1mice.PhysiolBehav.Sep152004;82(23):425434. 195. PengX,LangCM,DrozdowiczCK,OhlssonWilhelmBM.Effectofcage populationdensityonplasmacorticosteroneandperipherallymphocyte populationsoflaboratorymice.LaboratoryAnimals.1989;23:302306. 196. SchuhrB.Socialstructureandplasmacorticosteronelevelinfemale albinomice.Physiology&Behavior.1987;40:689693. 197. LaberK.Effectsofhousingdensityonweightgain,immunefunction, behaviourandplasmacorticosteroneconcentrationsinBALB/cand C57BL/6mice.JournaloftheAmericanAssociationforLaboratoryAnimal Science.2008;47(2):1623. 198. ChristianJJ,WilliamsonHO.Effectofcrowdingonexperimental granulomaformationinmice.Proc.Soc.Exp.Biol.Med.1958;99:385387. 199. LinAH,CastleCK,MelchiorGW,MarottiKR.Theeffectofpopulation densityonthedevelopmentofexperimentalatherosclerosisinfemale mice.Atherosclerosis.May1995;115(1):8588. 200. BellRW,MillerCE,OrdyJM,RolstenC.Effectsofpopulationdensity andlivingspaceuponneuroanatomy,neurochemistry,andbehaviorin theC57B110mouse.JCompPhysiolPsychol.May1971;75(2):258263. 201. LesEP.Adiseaserelatedtocagepopulationdensity:taillesionsof C3H/HeJmice.LaboratoryAnimalScience.1972;22(1):5660. 202. O'BoyleM.Ratsandmicetogether:thepredatorynatureoftherat's mousekillingresponse.PsycholBull.Apr1974;81(4):261269. 203. vanHemelPE.Ratsandmicetogether:theaggressivenatureofmouse killingbyrats.PsycholBull.May1975;82(3):456462. 204. YangM,AugustssonH,MarkhamCM,etal.Theratexposuretest:a modelofmousedefensivebehaviors.PhysiolBehav.May2004;81(3):465 473. 205. D'ArbeM,EinsteinR,LavidisNA.Stressfulanimalhousingconditions andtheirpotentialeffectonsympatheticneurotransmissioninmice.AmJ PhysiolRegulIntegrCompPhysiol.May2002;282(5):R14221428. 206. CalvoTorrentA,BrainPF,MartinezM.Effectofpredatorystresson sucroseintakeandbehaviorontheplusmazeinmalemice.Physiol Behav.Aug1999;67(2):189196. 207. AnismanH,HayleyS,KellyO,BorowskiT,MetaliZ.Psychogenic, neurogenicandsystemicstressoreffectsonplasmacorticosteroneand behaviour:mousestraindependentoutcomes.BehaviouralNeuroscience. 20012001;115(2):443454. 208. LuZW,SongC,RavindranAV,MeraliZ,AnismanH.Influenceofa psychogenicandaneurogenicstressoronseveralindicesofimmune functioningindifferentstrainsofmice.BrainBehavImmun.Mar 1998;12(1):722. 209. RoyV,BelzungC,DelarueC,ChapillonP.Environmentalenrichmentin BALB/cmice:effectsinclassicaltestsofanxietyandexposuretoa predatoryodor.PhysiolBehav.Oct2001;74(3):313320.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 122

210. ZhangJ,SunL,BruceKE,NovotnyMV.Chronicexposureofcatodor enhancesaggression,urinaryattractivenessandsexpheromonesofmice. JournalofEthology.2008;26:279286. 211. BrainP.Whatdoesindividualhousingmeantoamouse?LifeSci.Jan15 1975;16(2):187200. 212. BaerH.Longtermisolationstressanditseffectsondrugresponsein rodents.LaboratoryAnimalScience.1971;21(3):341349. 213. KrohnTC,SorensonDB,OttesonJL,HansenAK.Theeffectsof individualhousingonmiceandrats:areview.AnimalWelfare. 2006;15:343352. 214. ValzelliL.The"isolationsyndrome"inmice.Psychopharmacologia.Aug 31973;31(4):305320. 215. HilakiviLA,OtaM,ListerRG.Effectofisolationonbrainmonoamines andthebehaviorofmiceintestsofexploration,locomotion,anxietyand behavioral'despair'.PharmacolBiochemBehav.Jun1989;33(2):371374. 216. BentonD,BrainPF.Behavioralandadrenocorticalreactivityinfemale micefollowingindividualorgrouphousing.DevPsychobiol.Mar 1981;14(2):101107. 217. NabertDR,TolbertRK,HochmanMH,JardimCM,FoxDB,Wagner GC.Targetbitingbehaviourofindividuallyandgrouphousedmiceand rats.AggressiveBehaviour.1983;9:315318. 218. PalanzaP,GioiosaL,ParmigianiS.Socialstressinmice:gender differencesandeffectsofestrouscycleandsocialdominance.Physiol Behav.Jun2001;73(3):411420. 219. RiittinenML,LindroosF,KimanenA,etal.Impoverishedrearing conditionsincreasestressinducedirritabilityinmice.DevPsychobiol. Mar1986;19(2):105111. 220. ZhouRH,TsutsumiK,NakanoS.Effectsofisolationhousingandtiming ofdrugadministrationontheophyllinekineticsinmice.JpnJPharmacol. Nov1992;60(3):287289. 221. ZetlerG,BaumannGH.Pharmacokineticsandeffectsofhaloperidolin theisolatedmouse.Pharmacology.1985;31(6):318327. 222. HuntC,HamblyC.Faecalcorticosteroneconcentrationsindicatethat separatelyhousedmalemicearenotmorestressedthangrouphoused males.Physiology&Behavior.2006;87(3):519526. 223. KingJT,LeeYC,VisscherMB.Singleversusmultiplecageoccupancy andconvulsionfrequencyinC3Hmice.ProcSocExpBiolMed.Apr 1955;88(4):661663. 224. VanLooPL,KuinN,SommerR,AvsarogluH,PhamT,BaumansV. Impactof'livingaparttogether'onpostoperativerecoveryofmice comparedwithsocialandindividualhousing.LabAnim.Oct 2007;41(4):441455. 225. PrychodkoW.Effectofaggregationoflaboratorymice(Musmusculus) onfoodintakeatdifferenttemperatures.Ecology.1958;39(3). 226. HasemanJK,BourbinaJ,EustisSL.Effectofindividualhousingand otherexperimentaldesignfactorsontumorincidenceinB6C3F1mice. FundamApplToxicol.Jul1994;23(1):4452. 227. VoikarV,PolusA,VasarE,RauvalaH.Longtermindividualhousingin C57BL/6JandDBA/2mice:assessmentofbehavioralconsequences. GenesBrainBehav.Jun2005;4(4):240252.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 123

228. BartolomucciA,PalanzaP,SacerdoteP,etal.Individualhousinginduces alteredimmunoendocrineresponsestopsychologicalstressinmalemice. Psychoneuroendocrinology.May2003;28(4):540558. 229. KarpJD,MoynihanJA,AderR.Effectsofdifferentialhousingonthe primaryandsecondaryantibodyresponsesofmaleC57BL/6andBALB/c mice.BrainBehavImmun.Dec1993;7(4):326333. 230. KarpJD,CohenN,MoynihanJA.Quantitativedifferencesininterleukin 2andinterleukin4productionbyantigenstimulatedsplenocytesfrom individuallyandgrouphousedmice.LifeSci.1994;55(10):789795. 231. RabinBS,SalvinSB.Effectofdifferentialhousingandtimeonimmune reactivitytosheeperythrocytesandCandida.BrainBehavImmun.Sep 1987;1(3):267275. 232. ShanksN,RentonC,ZalcmanS,AnismanH.Influenceofchangefrom groupedtoindividualhousingonaTcelldependentimmuneresponsein mice:antagonismbydiazepam.PharmacolBiochemBehav.Mar 1994;47(3):497502. 233. PetittoJM,LysleDT,GariepyJL,LewisMH.Associationofgenetic differencesinsocialbehaviorandcellularimmuneresponsiveness:effects ofsocialexperience.BrainBehavImmun.Jun1994;8(2):111122. 234. RowseGJ,WeinbergJ,EmermanJT.Roleofnaturalkillercellsin psychosocialstressorinducedchangesinmousemammarytumorgrowth. CancerRes.Feb11995;55(3):617622. 235. SklarLS,AnismanH.Socialstressinfluencestumorgrowth.Psychosom Med.May1980;42(3):347365. 236. MeijerMK,KramerK,RemieR,SpruijtBM,vanZutphenLFM, baumannsV.Theeffectofroutineexperimentalprocedureson physiologicalparametersinmicekeptunderdifferenthusbandry conditions.AnimalWelfare.2006;15:3138. 237. NagyTR,KrzywanskiD,LiJ,MelethS,DesmondR.Effectofgroupvs. singlehousingonphenotypicvarianceinC57BL/6Jmice.ObesRes.May 2002;10(5):412415. 238. BolamS.MultiplehousingofmaleCD1micefortoxicologicalstudies. AnimalTechnologyandWelfare.2005;4(8687.). 239. RettichA,KasermannHP,PelczarP,BurkiK,ArrasM.The physiologicalandbehavioralimpactofsensorycontactamongunfamiliar adultmiceinthelaboratory.JApplAnimWelfSci.2006;9(4):277288. 240. KerrLR,GrimmMS,SilvaWA,WeinbergJ,EmermanJT.Effectsof socialhousingconditionontheresponseoftheShionogimousemammary carcinoma(SC115)tochemotherapy.CancerRes.Mar15 1997;57(6):11241128. 241. HoffmanGoetzL,SimpsonJR,ArumugamY.Impactofchangesin housingconditiononmousenaturalkillercellactivity.PhysiolBehav. Mar1991;49(3):657660. 242. EdwardsEA,RaheRH,StephensPM,HenryJP.Antibodyresponseto bovineserumalbumininmice:theefffectsofpsychosocialenvironmental change.ProcSocExpBiolMed.Sep1980;164(4):478481. 243. SherwinCM.Mirrorsaspotentialenvironmentalenrichmentfor individuallyhousedlaboratorymice.AppliedAnimalBehaviourScience. 2004;87:95103.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 124

244. BolderCA,BlomHJM.Environmentalenrichmentinrodentmetabolism cages;effectsonanimalsandresults;2000. 245. ClaassenV.Neglectedfactorsinpharmacologyandneuroscienceresearch: biopharmaceutics,animalcharacteristics,maintenance,testingconditions. Vol12.Amsterdam;NewYork:Elsevier;1994. 246. EvansEI.Smallrodentbehaviour:mice,rats,gerbilsandhamsters.In: BradleyBaysT,LightfootT,MayerJ,eds.ExoticPetBehaviour:Birds, ReptilesandSmallMammals.StLouis,MO:Elsevier;2006:239261. 247. KramerK,vanAckerSA,VossHP,GrimbergenJA,vanderVijghWJ, BastA.Useoftelemetrytorecordelectrocardiogramandheartratein freelymovingmice.JPharmacolToxicolMethods.Dec1993;30(4):209 215. 248. ClementJG,MillsP,BrockwayB.Useoftelemetrytorecordbody temperatureandactivityinmice.JPharmacolMethods.1989;21(2):129 140. 249. VanderHeydenJA,ZethofTJ,OlivierB.Stressinducedhyperthermia insinglyhousedmice.PhysiolBehav.Sep1997;62(3):463470. 250. TabataH,KitamuraT,NagamatsuN.Comparisonofeffectsofrestraint, cagetransportation,anaesthesiaandrepeatedbleedingonplasmaglucose levelsbetweenmiceandrats.LabAnim.Apr1998;32(2):143148. 251. RyabininAE,WangY,FinnDA.DifferentlevelsofFosimmunoreactivity afterrepeatedhandlingandinjectionstressintwoinbredstrainsofmice. PharmacologyBiochemistryandBehaviour.1999;63(1):143151. 252. IrwinJ,AhluwaliaP,ZacharkoRM,AnismanH.Centralnorepinephrine andplasmacorticosteronefollowingacuteandchronicstressors: influenceofsocialisolationandhandling.PharmacolBiochemBehav.Apr 1986;24(4):11511154. 253. BrennanTJ,SeeleyWW,KilgardM,SchreinerCE,TecottLH.Sound inducedseizuresinserotonin5HT2creceptormutantmice.NatGenet. Aug1997;16(4):387390. 254. SmolenskyM,HalbergF,HarterJ,HsiB,NelsonW.Higher corticosteronevaluesatafixedsingletimepointinserumfrommice trainedbypriorhandling.Chronobiologica.1978;5(1):113. 255. HaleKD,WeigentDA,GauthierDK,HiramotoRN,GhantaVK. Cytokineandhormoneprofilesinmicesubjectedtohandlingcombined withrectaltemperaturemeasurementstressandhandlingonlystress.Life Sci.Feb142003;72(13):14951508. 256. MoynihanJ,KootaD,BrennerG,CohenN,AderR.Repeated intraperitonealinjectionsofsalineattenuatetheantibodyresponsetoa subsequentintraperitonealinjectionofantigen.BrainBehavImmun.Mar 1989;3(1):9096. 257. MoynihanJ,BrennerG,KootaD,BrenemanS,ConenN,AderR.The effectsofhandlingonantibodyproduction,mitogenresponses,spleencell number,andlymphocytesubpopulations.LifeSci.1990;46(26):19371944. 258. MoynihanJA,BrennerGJ,AderR,CohenN.Theeffectsofhandling adultmiceonimmunologicallyrelevantprocesses.AnnNYAcadSci.Apr 151992;650:262267. 259. WieboldJL,StanfieldPH,BeckerWC,HillersJK.Theeffectofrestraint stressinearlypregnancyinmice.JReprodFertil.Sep1986;78(1):185192.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 125

260. ClarkDA,BanwattD,ChaouatG.Stresstriggeredabortioninmice preventedbyalloimmunization.AmJReprodImmunol.Apr 1993;29(3):141147. 261. LinBB,LaiC,ChangK.Effectsofhumanelementonefficiencyoffood utilityinmice.NutritionResearch.1996;16(9):15551562. 262. WahlstenD,MettenP,CrabbeJC.Aratingscaleforwildnessandeaseof handlinglaboratorymice:resultsfor21inbredstrainstestedintwo laboratories.Genes,BrainandBehaviour.2003;2:7179. 263. DAmoreA,MazzucchelliA,LoizzoA.LongTermChangesInducedby NeonatalHandlingintheNociceptiveThresholdandBodyWeightin Mice.Physiology&Behavior.1995;57(6):11951197. 264. LiuD,DiorioJ,TannenbaumB,etal.Maternalcare,hippocampal glucocorticoidreceptors,andhypothalamicpituitaryadrenalresponses tostress.Science.Sep121997;277(5332):16591662. 265. SmothermanWP.Motherinfantinteractionandthemodulationof pituitaryadrenalactivityinratpupsafterearlystimulation.Dev Psychobiol.May1983;16(3):169176. 266. GariepyJL,RodriguizRM,JonesBC.Handling,geneticandhousing effectsonthemousestresssystem,dopaminefunction,andbehavior. PharmacolBiochemBehav.Aug2002;73(1):717. 267. LevineS,CohenC,LeakeCD.Differentialsurvivaltoleukaemiaasa functionofinfantilestimulationinDBA/2mice.Proc.Soc.Exp.Biol.Med. 1959;120:5354. 268. LaBarbaRC.Experimentalandenvironmentalfactorsincancer.A reviewofresearchwithanimals.PsychosomMed.MayJun 1970;32(3):259276. 269. CabibS,PuglisiAllegraS,D'AmatoFR.Effectsofpostnatalstresson dopaminemesolimbicsystemresponsestoaversiveexperiencesinadult life.BrainRes.Feb261993;604(12):232239. 270. CirulliF,CaponeF,BonsignoreLT,AloeL,AllevaE.Earlybehavioural enrichmentintheformofhandlingrendersmousepupsunresponsiveto anxiolyticdrugsandincreasesNGFlevelsinthehippocampus.Behav BrainRes.Mar282007;178(2):208215. 271. LownBA,DutkaME.Earlyhandlingenhancesmitogenresponsesof spleniccellsinadultC3Hmice.BrainBehavImmun.Dec1987;1(4):356 360. 272. KikusuiT,NakamuraK,KakumaY,MoriY.Earlyweaningaugments neuroendocrinestressresponsesinmice.BehavBrainRes.Nov25 2006;175(1):96103. 273. KikusuiT,TakeuchiY,MoriY.Earlyweaninginducesanxietyand aggressioninadultmice.PhysiolBehav.Mar2004;81(1):3742. 274. KramerK,vandeWeerdHA,MulderA,etal.Effectofconditioningon theincreaseofheartrateandbodytemperatureprovokedbyhandlingin themouse.ATLA,AlternativestoLaboratoryAnimals.2004;1:177181. 275. BalcombeJP,BarnardND,SanduskyC.Laboratoryroutinescause animalstress.ContempTopLabAnimSci.Nov2004;43(6):4251. 276. TuliJS,SmithJA,MortonDB.Corticosterone,adrenalandspleenweight inmiceaftertailbleeding,anditseffectonnearbyanimals.LabAnim. Jan1995;29(1):9095.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 126

277. KuglerJ,LangeKW,KalveramKT.Influenceofbleedingorderon plasmacorticosteroneconcentrationinthemouse.ExpClinEndocrinol.. 1988;91(2):241243. 278. BorsiniF,LecciA,VolterraG,MeliA.Amodeltomeasureanticipatory anxietyinmice?Psychopharmacology(Berl).1989;98(2):207211. 279. LecciA,BorsiniF,VolterraG,MeliA.Pharmacologicalvalidationofa novelanimalmodelofanticipatoryanxietyinmice.Psychopharmacology (Berl).1990;101(2):255261. 280. GilmoreAJ,BillingRL,EinsteinR.Theeffectsonheartrateand temperatureofmiceandvasdeferensresponsestonoradrenalinewhen theircagematesaresubjectedtodailyrestraintstress.LabAnim.Apr 2008;42(2):140148. 281. TuliJS,SmithJA,MortonDB.Stressmeasurementsinmiceafter transportation.LabAnim.Apr1995;29(2):132138. 282. ObernierJA,BaldwinRL.Establishinganappropriateperiodof acclimatizationfollowingtransportationoflaboratoryanimals.IlarJ. 2006;47(4):364369. 283. LandiMS,KreiderJW,LangCM,BullockLP.Effectsofshippingonthe immunefunctioninmice.AmJVetRes.Sep1982;43(9):16541657. 284. AguilaHN,PakesSP,LaiWC,LuYS.Theeffectoftransportationstress onsplenicnaturalkillercellactivityinC57BL/6Jmice.LabAnimSci. Apr1988;38(2):148151. 285. HayssenV.Effectoftransatlantictransportonreproductionofagouti andnonagoutideermice,Peromyscusmaniculatus.LabAnim.Jan 1998;32(1):5564. 286. NewberryRC.Environmentalenrichment:increasingthebiological relevanceofcaptiveenvironments.AppliedAnimalBehaviourScience. 1995;44:229243. 287. SherwinCM.Theinfluencesofstandardlaboratorycagesonrodentsand thevalidityofresearchdata.AnimalWelfare.2004;13:S915. 288. SherwinCM,OlssonIA.Housingconditionsaffectselfadministrationof anxiolyticbylaboratorymice.AnimalWelfare.2004;13:3338. 289. OlssonIA,SherwinCM.Behaviouroflaboratorymiceindifferent housingconditionswhenallowedtoselfadministerananxiolytic.Lab Anim.Oct2006;40(4):392399. 290. BayneK.Potentialforunintendedconsequencesofenvironmental enrichmentforlaboratoryanimalsandresearchresults.IlarJ. 2005;46(2):129139. 291. AugustssonH,vandeWeerdHA,KruitwagenCL,BaumansV.Effectof enrichmentonvariationandresultsinthelight/darktest.LabAnim.Oct 2003;37(4):328340. 292. KingstonSG,HoffmanGoetzL.Effectofenvironmentalenrichmentand housingdensityonimmunesystemreactivitytoacuteexercisestress. PhysiolBehav.Jul1996;60(1):145150. 293. NicolCJ,BrocklebankS,MendlM,SherwinCM.Atargetedapproachto developingenvironmentalenrichmentfortwostrainsoflaboratorymice. AppliedAnimalBehaviourScience.1June20072007;110:341353. 294. TsaiPP,PachowskyU,StelzerHD,HackbarthH.Impactof environmentalenrichmentinmice.1:effectofhousingconditionsonbody
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 127

weight,organweightsandhaematologyindifferentstrains.LabAnim. Oct2002;36(4):411419. TucciV,LadHV,ParkerA,PolleyS,BrownSD,NolanPM.Gene environmentinteractionsdifferentiallyaffectmousestrainbehavioral parameters.MammGenome.Nov2006;17(11):11131120. MarashiV,BarnekowA,OssendorfE,SachserN.Effectsofdifferent formsofenvironmentalenrichmentonbehavioral,endocrinological,and immunologicalparametersinmalemice.HormBehav.Feb 2003;43(2):281292. MarashiV,BarnekowA,SachserN.Effectsofenvironmentalenrichment onmalesofadocileinbredstrainofmice.PhysiolBehav.Oct15 2004;82(5):765776. NevisonCM,HurstJL,BarnardCJ.Strainspecificeffectsofcage enrichmentinmalelaboratorymice(Musmusculus).AnimalWelfare. 1999;8:361379. TsaiPP,StelzerHD,HedrichHJ,HackbarthH.Aretheeffectsof differentenrichmentdesignsonthephysiologyandbehaviourofDBA/2 miceconsistent?LabAnim.Oct2003;37(4):314327. vanDellenA,BlakemoreC,DeaconR,YorkD,HannanAJ.Delayingthe onsetofHuntington'sinmice.Nature.Apr132000;404(6779):721722. HocklyE,CorderyPM,WoodmanB,etal.Environmentalenrichment slowsdiseaseprogressioninR6/2Huntington'sdiseasemice.AnnNeurol. Feb2002;51(2):235242. LazarovO,RobinsonJ,TangYP,etal.Environmentalenrichment reducesAbetalevelsandamyloiddepositionintransgenicmice.Cell.Mar 112005;120(5):701713. PruskyGT,ReidelC,DouglasRM.Environmentalenrichmentfrom birthenhancesvisualacuitybutnotplacelearninginmice.BehavBrain Res.Sep2000;114(12):1115. CovielloMcLaughlinG,StarrSJ.Rodentenrichmentdevices:evaluation ofpreferenceandefficacy.ContempTopLabAnimSci.1997;36(6):6668. HennessyMB,FoyT.Nonediblematerialelicitschewingandreducesthe plasmacorticosteroneresponseduringnoveltyexposureinmice.Behav Neurosci.Apr1987;101(2):237245. HendersonND.Brainweightincreasesresultingfromenvironmental enrichment:adirectionaldominanceinmice.Science.Aug21 1970;169(947):776778. CumminsRA,LiveseyPJ,BellJA.Corticaldepthchangesinenriched andisolatedmice.DevPsychobiol.May1982;15(3):187195. VandeWeerdHA,AarsenEL,MulderA,KruitwagenCL,Hendriksen CF,BaumansV.Effectsofenvironmentalenrichmentformice:variation inexperimentalresults.JApplAnimWelfSci.2002;5(2):87109. PriorH,SachserN.Effectsofenrichedhousingenvironmentonthe behaviourofyoungmaleandfemalemiceinfourexploratorytasks. JournalofExperimentalAnimalScience.1994;37(5768). BarnardCJ,BehnkeJM,SewellJ.Socialbehaviourandsusceptibilityto infectioninhousemice(Musmusculus):effectsofgroupsize,aggressive behaviourandstatusrelatedhormonalresponsespriortoinfectionon resistancetoBabesiamicroti.Parasitology.Jun1994;108(Pt5):487496.

295.

296.

297.

298.

299.

300. 301.

302.

303.

304. 305.

306.

307. 308.

309.

310.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 128

311. AmbroseN,MortonDB.Theuseofcageenrichmenttoreducemale mouseaggression.JournalofAppliedAnimalWelfareScience. 2000;3(2):117125. 312. PietropaoloS,BranchiI,CirulliF,ChiarottiF,AloeL,AllevaE.Long termeffectsoftheperiadolescentenvironmentonexploratoryactivity andaggressivebehaviourinmice:socialversusphysicalenrichment. PhysiolBehav.May2004;81(3):443453. 313. KempermannG,KuhnHG,GageFH.Morehippocampalneuronsin adultmicelivinginanenrichedenvironment.Nature.Apr3 1997;386(6624):493495. 314. NygrenJ,WielochT.Enrichedenvironmentenhancesrecoveryofmotor functionafterfocalischemiainmice,anddownregulatesthetranscription factorNGFIA.JCerebBloodFlowMetab.Dec2005;25(12):16251633. 315. NygrenJ,WielochT,PesicJ,BrundinP,DeierborgT.Enriched environmentattenuatescellgenesisinsubventricularzoneafterfocal ischemiainmiceanddecreasesmigrationofnewborncellstothe striatum.Stroke.Nov2006;37(11):28242829. 316. SherwinCM.Voluntarywheelrunning:areviewandnovel interpretation.AnimBehav.Jul1998;56(1):1127. 317. ZhuSW,PhamTM,AbergE,etal.Neurotrophinlevelsandbehaviourin BALB/cmice:impactofintermittentexposuretoindividualhousingand wheelrunning.BehavBrainRes.Feb152006;167(1):18. 318. EhningerD,KempermannG.Regionaleffectsofwheelrunningand environmentalenrichmentoncellgenesisandmicrogliaproliferationin theadultmurineneocortex.CerebCortex.Aug2003;13(8):845851. 319. FahertyCJ,KerleyD,SmeyneRJ.AGolgiCoxmorphologicalanalysisof neuronalchangesinducedbyenvironmentalenrichment.BrainResDev BrainRes.Mar142003;141(12):5561. 320. RowlandNE.Foodorfluidrestrictionincommonlaboratoryanimals: balancingwelfareconsiderationswithscientificinquiry.CompMed.Apr 2007;57(2):149160. 321. GreenmanDL,BryantP,KodellRL,SheldonW.Relationshipofmouse bodyweightandfoodconsumption/wastagetocageshelflevel.LabAnim Sci.Dec1983;33(6):555558. 322. WeiheWH.Theeffectsonanimalsofchangesinambienttemperature andhumidity.In:McSheehyT,ed.ControloftheAnimalHouse Environment.London:LaboratoryAnimals,Ltd;1976:4050. 323. FileSE.Factorscontrollingmeasuresofanxietyandresponsestonovelty inthemouse.BehavBrainRes.Nov12001;125(12):151157. 324. RitskesHoitingaM.NutritionofLaboratoryMice.In:HedrichHJ, BullockG,eds.TheLaboratoryMouse.Vol1.London:Elsevier;2004:463 479. 325. TuckerMJ.Nutritionanimportantfactor.In:WelfareUFfA,ed. StandardsinLaboratoryAnimalManagement.Hertforshire,UK: UniversitiesFederationforAnimalWelfare;1984. 326. OvertonJM,WilliamsTD.Behaviouralandphysiologicresponsesto caloricrestrictioninmice.Physiology&Behavior.2004;81:749754. 327. CabibS,BonaventuraN.Parallelstraindependentsusceptibilityto environmentallyinducedstereotypiesandstressinducedbehavioral sensitizationinmice.PhysiolBehav.Apr1997;61(4):499506.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 129

328. WallaceME.Effectsofstressduetodeprivationandtransportin differentgenotypesofhousemouse.LaboratoryAnimals.1976;10:335347. 329. LipmanNS,PerkinsSE.Factorsthatmayaffectanimalresearch.In:Fox JG,AndersonLC,LoewFM,QuimbyFW,eds.LaboratoryAnimal Medicine.Seconded.SanDiego:AcademicPress(ElsevierScience);2002. 330. AmericanAssociationforLaboratoryAnimalScience.LaboratoryMouse Handbook.1ed.Memphis:AmericanAssociationforLaboratoryAnimal Science;2006. 331. BarleyJB,AshleyCherryKA,GarderJP,etal.Waterleakageinrodent cages:adiscussionbytheLaboratoryAnimalRefinementand EnrichmentForum.AnimalTechnologyandWelfare.2004;3:111114. 332. HawkinsP.Assessingpain,sufferinganddistressinlaboratoryanimals: anRSPCAsurveyofcurrentpracticeintheUK.AnimalWelfare. 2003;12:517522. 333. MayerJ.Useofbehaviouranalysistorecognisepaininsmallmammals. LabAnim(NY).2007;36(6):4348. 334. FlecknellPA,SilvermanJ.PainandDistress.In:SilvermanJ,Suckow MA,MurthyS,eds.TheIACUCHandbook.BocaRaton:CRCPress; 2000. 335. (IASP)IAftSoP.http://www.iasp pain.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=General_Resource_Links&Templat e=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=3058#Pain.Accessed10April, 2007. 336. BaumansV,BrainP,BrugereH,ClausingP,JeneskogT,PerrettaG. Painanddistressinlaboratoryrodentsandlagomorphs.Laboratory Animals.1994;28:97112. 337. ZimmermanM.Neurologicalconceptsofpain,itsassessmentand therapy.In:BrommB,ed.NeurophysiologicalCorrelatesofPain. Amsterdam:Elsevier;1984. 338. LeachMC,ThorntonPD,MainDCJ.Identificationofappropriate measuresfortheassessmentoflaboratorymousewelfare.Animal Welfare.2008;17:161170. 339. WilliamsWO,RiskinDK,MottAK.Ultrasonicsoundasanindicatorof acutepaininlaboratorymice.JAmAssocLabAnimSci.Jan 2008;47(1):810. 340. GarnerJP,WeiskerSM,DufourB,MenchJA.Barbering(furand whiskertrimming)bylaboratorymiceasamodelofhuman trichotillomaniaandobsessivecompulsivespectrumdisorders. ComparativeMedicine.2004;54(2):216224. 341. GarnerJP,DufourB,GreggLE,WeiskerSM,MenchJA.Socialand husbandryfactorsaffectingtheprevalenceandseverityofbarbering (whiskertrimming)bylaboratorymice.AppliedAnimalBehaviour Science.2004;89:263282. 342. SarnaJR,DyckRH,WhishawIQ.TheDalilaeffect:C57BL6micebarber whiskersbyplucking.BehavBrainRes.Feb2000;108(1):3945. 343. KalueffAV,MinasyanA,KeisalaT,ShahZH,TuohimaaP.Hair barberinginmice:implicationsforneurobehaviouralresearch.Behav Processes.Jan102006;71(1):815. 344. DeLucaAM.Environmentalenrichment:doesitreducebarberingin mice?AnimalWelfareInformationCenterNewsletter.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 130

1997;8(2):http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/newsletter/v5n3(accessedMay1, 2007). MasonG.Stereotypicbehaviourincaptiveanimals:fundamentalsand implicationsforwelfareandbeyond.In:MasonG,RushenJ,eds. StereotypicAnimalBehaviour:FundamentalsandApplicationstoWelfare, 2ndedition.2ed:CABI;2006. WurbelH.Themotivationalbasisofcagedrodents'stereotypies.In: MasonG,RushenJ,eds.StereotypicAnimalBehaviour:Fundamentals andApplicationstoWelfare,2ndedition.2ed:CABI;2006. RushenJ,MasonG.Adecadeormore'sprogressinunderstanding stereotypicbehaviour.In:MasonG,RushenJ,eds.StereotypicAnimal Behaviour:FundamentalsandApplicationstoWelfare,2ndedition.2ed: CABI;2006. LewisMH,TanimuraY,LeeLW,BodfishJW.Animalmodelsof restrictedrepetitivebehaviorinautism.BehavBrainRes.Jan10 2007;176(1):6674. LewisRS,HurstJL.Theassessmentofbarchewingasanescape behaviourinlaboratorymice.AnimalWelfare.2004;13:1925. MortonDB,AmbroseN,LeachMC,KellyJ,PoirerG.Adverseeffects recognitionandassessment,andhumaneendpoints.In:BallsM,van ZellerAM,HalderM,eds.ProgressintheReduction,Refinementand ReplacementofAnimalExperimentation:ElsevierScience;2000. StasiakKL,MaulD,FrenchE,HellyerPW,VandeWoudeS.Species specificassessmentofpaininlaboratoryanimals.ContempTopLabAnim Sci.Jul2003;42(4):1320. vanderMeerM,RollsA,BaumansV,OlivierB,vanZutphenLF.Useof scoresheetsforwelfareassessmentoftransgenicmice.LabAnim.Oct 2001;35(4):379389. NHMRCNHaMRC.GuidelinestoPromotetheWellbeingofAnimalsUsed forScientificPurposes:TheAssessmentandAlleviationofPainand DistressinResearchAnimals.Canberra:AustralianGovernment;2008. ClementY,ChapouthierG.Biologicalbasesofanxiety.Neurosci BiobehavRev.Sep1998;22(5):623633. HascoetM,BourinM,DhonnchadhaBA.Themouselightdark paradigm:areview.ProgNeuropsychopharmacolBiolPsychiatry.Jan 2001;25(1):141166. CostallB,JonesBJ,KellyME,NaylorRJ,TomkinsDM.Explorationof miceinablackandwhitetestbox:validationasamodelofanxiety. PharmacolBiochemBehav.Mar1989;32(3):777785. WeiheWH,SchidlowJ,StrittmatterJ.Theeffectoflightintensityonthe breedinganddevelopmentofratsandgoldenhamsters.IntJBiometeorol. Jun1969;13(1):6979. GreenmanDL,BryantP,KodellRL,SheldonW.Influenceofcageshelf levelonretinalatrophyinmice.LabAnimSci.Aug1982;32(4):353356. LaVailMM,GorrinGM,RepaciMA.Straindifferencesinsensitivityto lightinducedphotoreceptordegenerationinalbinomice.CurrEyeRes. Jun1987;6(6):825834. CloughG.LightintensityinfluencestheoestrouscycleofLACAmice.In: WelfareUFfA,ed.StandardsinLaboratoryAnimalManagement. Hertfordshire:UniversitiesFederationforAnimalWelfare;1984.

345.

346.

347.

348.

349. 350.

351.

352.

353.

354. 355.

356.

357.

358. 359.

360.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 131

361. DonnellyH,SaibabaP.Lightintensityandtheoestrouscycleinalbino andnormallypigmentedmice.LabAnim.Oct1993;27(4):385390. 362. BronsonFH.Lightintensityandreproductioninwildanddomestichouse mice.BiolReprod.Aug1979;21(1):235239. 363. PorterG,LanePetterW,HorneN.Effectsofstronglightonbreeding mice.JournalofAnimalTech.Ass.1963;14:117119. 364. SchlingmanFS,DeRijkHLM,PerebloomWJ,RemieR.Avoidanceasa behaviouralparameterinthedeterminationofdistressagainstalbinoand pigmentedratsatvariouslightintensities.AnimalTechnology. 1993;44(2):8796. 365. D'AgostiniF,DeFloraS.Potentcarcinogenicityofuncoveredhalogen lampsinhairlessmice.CancerRes.Oct11994;54(19):50815085. 366. SaltarelliCG,CoppolaCP.Influenceofvisiblelightonorganweightsof mice.LabAnimSci.Jun1979;29(3):319322. 367. SunH,MackeJP,NathansJ.Mechanismsofspectraltuninginthemouse greenconepigment.ProcNatlAcadSciUSA.Aug51997;94(16):8860 8865. 368. LyubarskyAL,FalsiniB,PennesiME,ValentiniP,PughEN,Jr.UVand midwavesensitiveconedrivenretinalresponsesofthemouse:apossible phenotypeforcoexpressionofconephotopigments.JNeurosci.Jan1 1999;19(1):442455. 369. McLennanIS,TaylorJeffsJ.Theuseofsodiumlampstobrightly illuminatemousehousesduringtheirdarkphases.LaboratoryAnimals. 2004;38(4):384392. 370. SchlingmanFS,DeRijkHLM,PerebloomWJ,RemieR.Lightintensity inanimalroomsandcagesinrelationtothecareandmanagementof albinorats.AnimalTechnology.1993;44(2):97107. 371. LucasRJ,FreedmanMS,LupiD,MunozM,DavidGrayZK,FosterRG. Identifyingthephotoreceptiveinputstothemammaliancircadiansystem usingtransgenicandretinallydegeneratemice.BehavBrainRes.Nov1 2001;125(12):97102. 372. CampuzanoA,CambrasT,VilaplanaJ,CanalMM,CarullaM,Diez NogueraA.Periodlengthofthelightdarkcycleinfluencesthegrowth rateandfoodintakeinmice.PhysiolBehav.Nov1999;67(5):791797. 373. KolaczkowskaE,ChadzinskaM,SeljelidR,PlytyczB.Straindifferences insomeimmuneparameterscanbeobscuredbycircadianvariationsand laboratoryroutines:studiesofmaleC57BL/6J,Balb/candCB6F1mice. LaboratoryAnimalsLtd.2000;35:91100. 374. JiangZ,LiuY,WanC,etal.Differentlightdarkcyclesaffectgrowth rateandfoodintakeofmice.BiologicalRhythmResearch.2006;37(1):11 19. 375. BellhornRW.Lightingintheanimalenvironment.LabAnimSci.Apr 1980;30(2Pt2):440450. 376. VanderMeerE,VanLooPL,BaumansV.Shorttermeffectsofa disturbedlightdarkcycleandenvironmentalenrichmentonaggression andstressrelatedparametersinmalemice.LabAnim.Oct 2004;38(4):376383. 377. PerreaultML,RolloCD.Transgenicgrowthhormonemiceexposedto lifetimeconstantillumination:genderspecificeffects.CanadianJournalof Zoology.2004;82(6):950965.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 132

378. McEachronDL,TumasKM,BlankKJ,PrystowskyMB.Environmental lightingalterstheinfectionprocessinananimalmodelofAIDS. PharmacolBiochemBehav.Aug1995;51(4):947952. 379. DrickamerLC.Daylengthandsexualmaturationinfemalehousemice. DevPsychobiol.Nov1975;8(6):561570. 380. HanssonI,HolmdahlR,MattssonR.Constantdarknessenhances autoimmunitytotypeIIcollagenandexaggeratesdevelopmentof collageninducedarthritisinDBA/1mice.JNeuroimmunol.Apr 1990;27(1):7984. 381. KoutokuT,NakanishiT,TakagiT,etal.Effectofenvironmentallighting onaggressiveandanxiousbehaviourinmalemice.JournalofApplied AnimalResearch.2003;23:6574. 382. SakellarisPC,PetersonA,GoodwinA,WingetCM,VernikosDanellisJ. Responseofmicetorepeatedphotoperiodshifts:susceptibilitytostress andbarbiturates.ProcSocExpBiolMed.Jul1975;149(3):677680. 383. FilipskiE,InnominatoPF,WuM,etal.Effectsoflightandfood schedulesonliverandtumormolecularclocksinmice.JNatlCancerInst. Apr62005;97(7):507517. 384. DauchyRT,SauerLA,BlaskDE,VaughanGM.Lightcontamination duringthedarkphasein"photoperiodicallycontrolled"animalrooms: effectontumorgrowthandmetabolisminrats.LabAnimSci.Oct 1997;47(5):511518. 385. LalithaR,SuthanthirarajanN,NamasivayamA.Effectofflickeringlight stressoncertainbiochemicalparametersinrats.IndianJPhysiol Pharmacol.JulSep1988;32(3):182186. 386. YamauchiC,FujitaS,ObaraT,UedaT.Effectsofroomtemperatureon reproduction,bodyandorganweights,foodandwaterintakes,and hematologyinmice.ExperimentalAnimal.Jan1983;32(1):111. 387. GordonCJ.Relationshipbetweenautonomicandbehavioral thermoregulationinthemouse.PhysiolBehav.May1985;34(5):687690. 388. GordonCJ.TemperatureRegulationinLaboratoryRodents.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress;1993. 389. GordonCJ,BeckerP,AliJS.Behavioralthermoregulatoryresponsesof singleandgrouphousedmice.PhysiolBehav.Nov151998;65(2):255262. 390. GordonCJ.Effectofcagebeddingontemperatureregulationand metabolismofgrouphousedfemalemice.CompMed.Feb2004;54(1):63 68. 391. SwoapSJ,OvertonJM,GarberG.Effectofambienttemperatureon cardiovascularparametersinratsandmice:acomparativeapproach.Am JPhysiolRegulIntegrCompPhysiol.Aug2004;287(2):R391396. 392. YamamotoS,AndoM,SuzukiE.Hightemperatureeffectsonantibody responsetoviralantigeninmice.ExpAnim.Jan1999;48(1):914. 393. HimmsHagenJ,VillemureC.Numberofmicepercageinfluences uncouplingproteincontentofbrownadiposetissue.Proceedingsofthe SocietyforExperimentalBiologyandMedicine.1992;200:502506. 394. GordonCJ.Personalcommunication.In:FawcettA,ed;2007. 395. HarakaiN,TomoganeK,MiyamotoM,ShimadaK,OnoderaS,Tashiro S.Dynamicresponsetoacuteheatstressbetween34degreescelciusand 38.5degreescelcius,andcharacteristicsofheatstressresponseinmice. Biol.Pharm.Bull.2003;26(5):701708.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 133

396. SetchellBP,EkpeG,ZuppJL,SuraniMA.Transientretardationin embryogrowthinnormalfemalemicemadepregnantbymaleswhose testeshadbeenheated.HumReprod.Feb1998;13(2):342347. 397. YaeramJ,SetchellBP,MaddocksS.Effectofheatstressonthefertilityof malemiceinvivoandinvitro.ReprodFertilDev.2006;18(6):647653. 398. EdwardsMJ.Congenitaldefectsduetohyperthermia.Advancesin VeterinaryScienceandComparativeMedicine.1978;22:2952. 399. ReebCK,JonesRB,BeargDW,BedigianH,PaigenB.ImpactofRoom VentilationRatesonMouseCageVentilationandMicroenvironment. ContempTopLabAnimSci.Jan1997;36(1):7479. 400. CloughG.Environmentaleffectsonanimalsusedinbiomedicalresearch. BiologicalReview.1982;57:487523. 401. DonnellyH.Effectsofhumidityonbreedingsuccessinlaboratorymice. LaboratoryAnimalWelfareResearch:Rodents.Proceedingsofa symposiumorganizedbytheUniversitiesFederationforAnimalWelfare, heldatRoyalHollowayandBedfordNewCollege,UniversityofLondon, Egham,Surrey,UK,22April,1988.PottersBar,UK:Universities FederationforAnimalWelfare;1989:1724. 402. BarabinoS,RolandoM,ChenL,DanaMR.Exposuretoadry environmentinducesstrainspecificresponsesinmice.ExpEyeRes.May 2007;84(5):973977. 403. RautCG,GengajeBB.Ringtailinmice.IndianVeterinaryJournal. 1998;75(10):920921. 404. HosoiJ,HariyaT,DendaM,TsuchiyaT.Regulationofthecutaneous allergicreactionbyhumidity.ContactDermatitis.Feb2000;42(2):8184. 405. HesslerJR,LearySL.Designandmanagementofanimalfacilities.In: FoxJG,AndersonLC,LoewFM,QuimbyFW,eds.LaboratoryAnimal Medicine.Seconded.SanDiego:AcademicPress(ElsevierScience);2002. 406. MermarzadehF.VentilationDesignHandbookonAnimalResearch FacilitiesUsingStaticMicroisolators.Bestheda,Maryland:National InstitutesofHealth,DivisionofEngineeringSciences;1998. 407. ReebWhitakerCK,PaigenB,BeamerWG,etal.Theimpactofreduced frequencyofcagechangesonthehealthofmicehousedinventilated cages.LabAnim.Jan2001;35(1):5873. 408. PerkinsSE,LipmanNS.Evaluationofmicroenvironmentalconditions andnoisegenerationinthreeindividuallyventilatedrodentcaging systemsandstaticisolatorcages.ContempTopLabAnimSci.Mar 1996;35(2):6165. 409. CloughG.Suggestedguidelinesforthehousingandhusbandryofrodents foragingstudies.NeurobiologyofAging.1991;12(6):653658. 410. MemarzadehF.VentilationDesignHandbookonAnimalResearch FacilitiesUsingStaticMicroisolators.Bestheda,Maryland:National InstitutesofHealth,DivisionofEngineeringSciences;1998. 411. CorningBF,LipmanNS.Acomparisonofrodentcagingsystemsbased onmicroenvironmentalparameters.LabAnimSci.Oct1991;41(5):498 503. 412. BernardRS,RichardsonME,DiehlJR,BridgesWC.Theinfluenceof husbandryschedulesonthenumberofembryoscollectedfrom superovulatedmice.ContempTopLabAnimSci.Jul2000;39(4):1315.
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 134

413. BrodersonJR,LindseyJR,CrawfordJE.Theroleofenvironmental ammoniainrespiratorymycoplasmosisofrats.AmJPathol.Oct 1976;85(1):115130. 414. SchoebTR,DavidsonMK,LindseyJR.Intracageammoniapromotes growthofMycoplasmapulmonisintherespiratorytractofrats.Infect Immun.Oct1982;38(1):212217. 415. GambleMR,CloughG.Ammoniabuildupinanimalboxesanditseffect onrattrachealepithelium.LabAnim.Apr1976;10(2):93104. 416. StudierEH,BeckLR,LindeborgRG.Toleranceandinitialmetabolic responsetoammoniaintoxicationinselectedbatsandrodents.J Mammal.Nov1967;48(4):564572. 417. WoodRW.Behavioralevaluationofsensoryirritationevokedby ammonia.ToxicolApplPharmacol.Aug1979;50(1):157162. 418. GreenAR,WathesCM,DemmersTG,ClarkJM,XinH.Development andapplicationofanovelenvironmentalpreferencechamberfor assessingresponsesoflaboratorymicetoatmosphericammonia.JAm AssocLabAnimSci.Mar2008;47(2):4956. 419. EveleighJR.Murinecagedensity:cageammonialevelsduringthe reproductiveperformanceofaninbredstrainandtwooutbredstocksof monogamousbreedingpairsofmice.LabAnim.Apr1993;27(2):156160. 420. MemarzadehF,HarrisonPC,RiskowskiGL,HenzeT.Comparisonof environmentandmiceinstaticandmechanicallyventilatedisolatorcages withdifferentairvelocitiesandventilationdesigns.ContempTopLab AnimSci.Jan2004;43(1):1420. 421. LipmanNS,CorningBF,CoiroMA,Sr.Theeffectsofintracage ventilationonmicroenvironmentalconditionsinfiltertopcages.Lab Anim.Jul1992;26(3):206210. 422. SerranoLJ.Carbondioxideandammoniainmousecages:effectofcage covers,population,andactivity.LabAnimSci.Feb1971;21(1):7585. 423. BaerLA,CorbinBJ,VasquesMF,GrindelandRE.Effectsoftheuseof microisolatortopsoncagemicroenvironmentandgrowthrateofmice. LaboratoryAnimalScience.1997;47(3):327329. 424. PerkinsSE,LipmanNS.Characterizationandquantificationof microenvironmentalcontaminantsinisolatorcageswithavarietyof contactbeddings.ContempTopLabAnimSci.May1995;34(3):9398. 425. BrielmeierM,MahabirE,NeedhamJR,LenggerC,WilhelmP,Schmidt J.Microbiologicalmonitoringoflaboratorymiceandbiocontainmentin individuallyventilatedcages:afieldstudy.LabAnim.Jul2006;40(3):247 260. 426. ReebC,JonesR,BeargD,BediganH,MyersD,PaigenB. MicroenvironmentinVentilatedAnimalCageswithDifferingVentilation Rates,MicePopulations,andFrequencyofBeddingChanges.Contemp TopLabAnimSci.Mar1998;37(2):4349. 427. LanghamGL,HoytRF,JohnsonTE.Particulatematterinanimalrooms housingmiceinmicroisolationcaging.JAmAssocLabAnimSci.Nov 2006;45(6):4448. 428. CrudenJ.AcomparisonofvariousIVCsystems:thecomfortofthe mouse.AnimalTechnologyandWelfare.2007;December2007:93115. 429. NeighGN,BowerSL,KormanB,NelsonRJ.Housingenvironmentalters delayedtypehypersensitivityandcorticosteroneconcentrationsof
ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 135

individuallyhousedmaleC57BL/6mice.AnimalWelfare.2005 2005;14:249257. KostomitsopoulosNG,ParonisE,AlexakosP,BalafasE,vanLooP, BaumansV.Theinfluenceofthelocationofanestboxinanindividually ventilatedcageonthepreferenceofmicetouseit.JApplAnimWelfSci. 2007;10(2):111121. TsaiPP,OppermannD,StelzerHD,MahlerM,HackbarthH.Theeffects ofdifferentracksystemsonthebreedingperformanceofDBA/2mice. LabAnim.Jan2003;37(1):4453. GambleMR.Soundanditssignificanceforlaboratoryanimals.BiolRev CambPhilosSoc.Aug1982;57(Pt3):395421. TurnerJG,BauerCA,RybakLP.Noiseinanimalfacilities:whyit matters.JAmAssocLabAnimSci.Jan2007;46(1):1013. NunezMJ,ManaP,LinaresD,etal.Music,immunityandcancer.Life Sci.Jul192002;71(9):10471057. IturrianWB,FinkGB.Effectofnoiseintheanimalhouseonseizure susceptibilityandgrowthinmice.LaboratoryAnimalCare. 1968;18(5):557560. WillottJF.Factorsaffectinghearinginmice,rats,andotherlaboratory animals.(Specialissue:Noiseinanimalfacilities:whyitmatters.). JournaloftheAmericanAssociationforLaboratoryAnimalScience. 2007;46(1):2327. RichardsonVCG.Diseasesofsmalldomesticrodents.Malden,MA: BlackwellPublishers;2003. NawrotPS,CookRO,StaplesRE.Embryotoxicityofvariousnoise stimuliinthemouse.Teratology.1980;22:279289. KimmelCA,CookRO,StapesRE.Teratogenicpotentialofnoiseinmice andrats.ToxicologyandAppliedPharmacology.1976;36:239245. ZakemHB,AllistonCW.Theeffectsofnoiselevelandelevatedambient temperaturesuponselectedreproductivetraitsinfemaleSwissWebster mice.LabAnimSci.Jun1974;24(3):469475. WardCO,BarlettaMA,KayeT.Teratogeniceffectsofaudiogenicstress inalbinomice.JPharmSci.Nov1970;59(11):16611662. HaqueSF,IzumiS,AikawaH,etal.Anesthesiaandacousticstress inducedintrauterinegrowthretardationinmice.JReprodDev.Apr 2004;50(2):185190. IshiiH,YokoboriK.Experimentalstudiesofteratogenicactivityofnoise stimulation.1960:153167. deWazieresB,HarragaS,SpehnerV,etal.Effectofanauditorystress onperitonealandalveolarcellsinC57BL/6Jmiceofadvancedage. Luminescence.JulAug2000;15(4):233237. AnthonyA,AckermanE,LloydJA.Noisestressinlaboratoryrodents.I. Behaviouralandendocrineresponseofmice,ratsandguineapigs. JournaloftheAcousticalSocietyofAmerica.1959;31(11):14301437. KuglerJ,KalveramKT,LangeKW.Acute,notchronic,exposureto unpredictablenoiseperiodsaffectsspleniclymphocytesandplasma corticosteroneinthemouse.IntJNeurosci.Apr1990;51(34):233234. SalesGD,MilliganSR,KhirnykhK.Soucesofsoundinthelaboratory animalenvironment:asurveyofthesoundsproducedbyproceduresand equipment.AnimalWelfare.1999;8:97115.

430.

431.

432. 433. 434. 435.

436.

437. 438. 439. 440.

441. 442.

443. 444.

445.

446.

447.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au

Animal Research Review Panel 136

448. HughesLF.Thefundamentalsofsoundanditsmeasurement.JAmAssoc LabAnimSci.Jan2007;46(1):1419. 449. PattersonKaneEG,FarnworthMJ.Noiseexposure,music,andanimals inthelaboratory:acommentarybasedonLaboratoryAnimal RefinementandEnrichmentForum(LAREF)discussions.JApplAnim WelfSci.2006;9(4):327332. 450. NaffKA,RivaCM,CraigSL,GrayKN.Noiseproducedbyvacuuming exceedsthehearingthresholdsofC57Bl/6andCD1mice.(Specialissue: Noiseinanimalfacilities:whyitmatters.).JournaloftheAmerican AssociationforLaboratoryAnimalScience.2007;46(1):5257. 451. VanLooPLP.Musicformice:doesitaffectbehaviourandphysiology? TelemetryWorkshop,FELASAMeeting.Nantes,France;2004. 452. ChikahisaS,SeiH,MorishimaM,etal.Exposuretomusicinthe perinatalperiodenhanceslearningperformanceandaltersBDNF/TrkB signalinginmiceasadults.BehavBrainRes.May152006;169(2):312319. 453. BlomHJM,BaumannsV,vanVorstenbochCJAHV,vanZutphenLFM, BeynenAC.Preferencetestswithrodentstoassesshousingconditions. AnimalWelfare.1993;2:8187. 454. BeynenAC,vanTintelenG.Dailychangeofcagedepressesmassgainin mice.ZVersuchstierkd.1990;33:106107. 455. LaceyJC,BeynonRJ,HurstJL.Theimportanceofexposuretoother malescentsindeterminingcompetitivebehaviouramonginbredmale mice.AppliedAnimalBehaviourScience.2007;104(12):130142. 456. SorensonDB,StubC,ElvangJensenH,etal.Theimpactoftailtip amputationandinktattooonC57BL/6JBomTacmice.Laboratory Animals.2007;41:1929. 457. LindnerE,FuellingO.Markingmethodsinsmallmammals:eartattooas analternativetotoeclipping.JournalofZoologyLondon.2002;256:159 163. 458. ZhuoM.NMDAreceptordependentlongtermhyperalgesiaaftertail amputationinmice.EurJPharmacol.May221998;349(23):211220. 459. SmuldersH,HeathK.Mouseidentificationforpreclinicaltoxicology studies:areview.AnimalTechnologyandWelfare.2006;5(3):153155.

8.0Acknowledgments
Document preparation by Dr Anne Fawcett (Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries). Significant research and comment from Professor Margaret Rose (South Eastern and Illawarra Area Health Service) is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks is also extended to Dr Malcolm France for allowing photography of aspects of mouse husbandry. The information contained in this document is based on knowledge and understanding at the time of writing August 2008. However, because of advances in knowledge, users are reminded of the need to ensure that information upon which they rely is up to date and to check currency of the information with the appropriate officer of New South Wales Department of Primary Industries or the users independent adviser.

ARRP Guideline 22: Guidelines for the Housing of Mice in Scientific Institutions Animal Welfare Branch, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange NSW 2800. Ph (02) 6391 3682 Fax (02) 6391 3570 or Sydney Office Ph (02) 9872 0571 Fax (02) 9871 6938 Animal Ethics Infolink: http://www.animalethics.org.au