Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T06:59:27.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Housing condition and nesting experience do not affect the Time to Integrate to Nest Test (TINT)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

ML Rock ,
AZ Karas ,
MS Gallo ,
K Pritchett-Corning  and
BN Gaskill
ML Rock*
Affiliation:
Tufts University Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, 200 Westboro Road, North Grafton, MA, USA
AZ Karas
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Sciences, Tufts University Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, 200 Westboro Road, North Grafton, MA, USA
MS Gallo
Affiliation:
Tufts University Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, 200 Westboro Road, North Grafton, MA, USA
K Pritchett-Corning
Affiliation:
Charles River, 251 Ballardvale Street, Wilmington, MA 01887, USA Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
BN Gaskill
Affiliation:
Charles River, 251 Ballardvale Street, Wilmington, MA 01887, USA Purdue University, 625 Harrison St, West Lafayette, IN 47906, USA
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: meaganrock@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Managing and assessing well-being in laboratory mice (Mus musculus) is both challenging and necessary. Assessments intended to detect negative welfare states in mice are usually performed via observation of animals in the home cage, but a substantial amount of time and skill may be required to detect subtle behavioural changes. The Time to Integrate to Nest Test (TINT) is a simple, cageside assessment tool that identifies the presence or absence of a highly motivated normal behaviour in mice. The test is conducted by adding a small amount of new nesting material to a mouse cage. A positive outcome is achieved when this new material is integrated into the home nest within 10 min. This study examined whether housing condition or nesting experience affects TINT outcome. Single or group housing did not influence the TINT outcome, but a significant difference in latency to integration was found; singly housed mice took longer than group-housed mice to integrate TINT substrate. Mice which were raised naïve to nesting material had no significant delays when tested. However, experience with the TINT procedure showed increased speed to incorporate the testing substrate, indicating that previous experience to the paradigm prior to experimental testing may be necessary. These findings help to define the expected outcomes of the TINT, better positioning it for use as an assessment tool in varied research settings.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourhusbandrymicenest buildingstress
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , November 2014 , pp. 381 - 385
Copyright
© 2014 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ader, DN, Johnson, SB, Huang, SW and Riley, WJ 1991 Group-size, cage shelf level, and emotionality in nonobese diabetic mice. Impact on onset and incidence of IDDM. Psychosomatic Medicine 53:313–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006842-199105000-00005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bult, A and Lynch, CB 1997 Nesting and fitness: lifetime repro-ductive success in house mice bidirectionally selected for ther-moregulatory nest-building behavior. Behavior Genetics 27: 231–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025610130282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council, NR 2011 Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Deacon, RMJ, Croucher, A and Rawlins, JNP 2002 Hippocampal cytotoxic lesion effects on species-typical behav-iours in mice. Behavioural Brain Research 132: 203–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4328(01)00401-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flecknell, PA 1994 Refinement of animal use: assessment and alleviation of pain and distress. Laboratory Animals 28: 222–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/002367794780681660CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaskill, BN, Gordon, CJ, Pajor, EA, Lucas, JR, Davis, JK and Garner, JP 2013 Impact of nesting material on mouse body tem-perature and physiology. Physiology & Behavior 110: 87–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.12.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafen, A and Hails, R 2002 Modern Statistics for the Life Sciences. Oxford University Press: Oxford, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Gross, AN-M, Engel, AKJ and Würbel, H 2011 Simply a nest? Effects of different enrichments on stereotypic and anxiety-relat-ed behaviour in mice. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 134: 239–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.06.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, P 2002 Recognizing and assessing pain, suffering and distress in laboratory animals: a survey of current practice in the UK with recommendations. Laboratory Animals 36: 378–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/002367702320389044CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hess, SE, Rohr, S, Dufour, BD, Gaskill, BN, Pajor, EA and Garner, JP 2008 Home improvement: C57BL/6J mice given more naturalistic nesting materials make better nests. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 47: 25–31Google ScholarPubMed
Jirkof, P, Fleischmann, T, Cesarovic, N, Rettich, A, Vogel, J and Arras, M 2013 Assessment of postsurgical distress and pain in laboratory mice by nest complexity scoring. Laboratory Animals (London) 47: 157–161Google ScholarPubMed
Kuang, H, Mei, B, Cui, Z, Lin, L and Tsien, JZ 2010 A novel behavioral paradigm for assessing the concept of nests in mice. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 189: 169–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.03.025CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Latham, N and Mason, G 2004 From house mouse to mouse house: the behavioural biology of free-living Mus musculus and its implications in the laboratory. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86:261–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.02.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, CT 1972 Development of nest-building behavior in inbred mice. Journal of General Psychology 87: 13Google Scholar
Lynch, CB 1981 Genetic correlation between 2 types of nesting in Mus musculus: direct and indirect selection. Behavior Genetics 11:267–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01065463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, CB and Hegmann, JP 1972 Genetic differences influencing behavioral temperature regulation in small mammals I. Nesting by Mus musculus. Behavior Genetics 2: 43–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01066733CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matsumiya, LC, Sorge, RE, Sotocinal, SG, Tabaka, JM, Wieskopf, JS, Zaloum, A, King, OD and Mogil, JS 2012 Using the mouse grimace scale to reevaluate the efficacy of postoperative analgesics in laboratory mice. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 51: 42–49Google ScholarPubMed
Pham, TM, Hagman, B, Codita, A, Van Loo, PLP, Strommer, L and Baumans, V 2010 Housing environment influences the need for pain relief during post-operative recovery in mice. Physiology & Behavior 99: 663–668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2010.01.038CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rock, ML, Karas, AZ, Rodríguez, KBG, Gallo, M, Pritchett-Corning, KR and Gaskill, BN 2014 Time to integrate to nest test: a species specific indicator of pain in mice. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 53: 24–28Google Scholar
Sherwin, CM 2003 Social context affects the motivation of labo-ratory mice, Mus musculus, to gain access to resources. Animal Behaviour 66: 649–655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spani, D, Arras, M, Konig, B and Rulicke, T 2003 Higher heart rate of laboratory mice housed individually vs in pairs. Laboratory Animals 37: 54–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/002367703762226692CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stasiak, KL, Maul, D, French, E, Hellyer, PW and Vandewoude, S 2003 Species-specific assessment of pain in laboratory animals. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 42: 13–20Google ScholarPubMed
Van de Weerd, HA, Van Loo, PLP, Van Zutphen, LFM, Koolhaas, JM and Baumans, V 1997 Nesting material as envi-ronmental enrichment has no adverse effects on behavior and physiology of laboratory mice. Physiology & Behavior 62: 1019–1028. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(97)00232-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Loo, PLP, Kuin, N, Sommer, R, Avsaroglu, H, Pham, T and Baumans, V 2007 Impact of ‘living apart together’ on post-operative recovery of mice compared with social and individual housing. Laboratory Animals 41: 441–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/002367707782314328Google Scholar
Van Loo, PLP, Van de Weerd, HA, Van Zutphen, LFM and Baumans, V 2004 Preference for social contact versus environ-mental enrichment in male laboratory mice. Laboratory Animals 38:178–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/002367704322968867Google Scholar