4.6 Article

Evidence-based severity assessment: Impact of repeated versus single open-field testing on welfare in C57BL/6J mice

Journal

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 336, Issue -, Pages 261-268

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2017.08.029

Keywords

Animal welfare; Severity assessment; Open-field test; Repeated testing; Refinement; Behavioral tests

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [RI 2488/3-1, SFB/TRR58]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

According to current guidelines on animal experiments, a prospective assessment of the severity of each procedure is mandatory. However, so far, the classification of procedures into different severity categories mainly relies on theoretic considerations, since it is not entirely clear which of the various procedures compromise the welfare of animals, or, to what extent. Against this background, a systematic empirical investigation of the impact of each procedure, including behavioral testing, seems essential. Therefore, the present study was designed to elucidate the effects of repeated versus single testing on mouse welfare, using one of the most commonly used paradigms for behavioral phenotyping in behavioral neuroscience, the open-field test. In an independent groups design, laboratory mice (Mus muscu/us f. domestica) experienced either repeated, single, or no open-field testing procedures that are assigned to different severity categories. Interestingly, testing experiences did not affect fecal corticosterone metabolites, body weights, elevated plus-maze or home cage behavior differentially. Thus, with respect to the assessed endocrinological, physical, and behavioral outcome measures, no signs of compromised welfare could be detected in mice that were tested in the open-field repeatedly, once, or, not at all. These findings challenge current classification guidelines and may, furthermore, stimulate systematic research on the severity of single procedures involving living animals

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available