Dataset Information

Recommendations for measuring and standardizing light for laboratory mammals to improve welfare and reproducibility in animal research.

ABSTRACT: Light enables vision and exerts widespread effects on physiology and behavior, including regulating circadian rhythms, sleep, hormone synthesis, affective state, and cognitive processes. Appropriate lighting in animal facilities may support welfare and ensure that animals enter experiments in an appropriate physiological and behavioral state. Furthermore, proper consideration of light during experimentation is important both when it is explicitly employed as an independent variable and as a general feature of the environment. This Consensus View discusses metrics to use for the quantification of light appropriate for nonhuman mammals and their application to improve animal welfare and the quality of animal research. It provides methods for measuring these metrics, practical guidance for their implementation in husbandry and experimentation, and quantitative guidance on appropriate light exposure for laboratory mammals. The guidance provided has the potential to improve data quality and contribute to reduction and refinement, helping to ensure more ethical animal use.

SUBMITTER: Lucas RJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10931507 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Recommendations for measuring and standardizing light for laboratory mammals to improve welfare and reproducibility in animal research.

Lucas Robert J RJ Allen Annette E AE Brainard George C GC Brown Timothy M TM Dauchy Robert T RT Didikoglu Altug A Do Michael Tri H MTH Gaskill Brianna N BN Hattar Samer S Hawkins Penny P Hut Roelof A RA McDowell Richard J RJ Nelson Randy J RJ Prins Jan-Bas JB Schmidt Tiffany M TM Takahashi Joseph S JS Verma Vandana V Voikar Vootele V Wells Sara S Peirson Stuart N SN

PLoS biology 20240312 3

Light enables vision and exerts widespread effects on physiology and behavior, including regulating circadian rhythms, sleep, hormone synthesis, affective state, and cognitive processes. Appropriate lighting in animal facilities may support welfare and ensure that animals enter experiments in an appropriate physiological and behavioral state. Furthermore, proper consideration of light during experimentation is important both when it is explicitly employed as an independent variable and as a gene ...[more]

PMID: 38470868

Similar Datasets

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

Project description:Laboratory animal personnel may experience significant stress from working with animals in scientific research. Workplace stress can be assessed by evaluating professional quality of life, which is comprised of compassion fatigue (i.e., burnout and secondary traumatic stress) and compassion satisfaction. This research aimed to explore the associations between risk factors and professional quality of life in laboratory animal personnel. In a cross-sectional, convenience sample design, laboratory animal personnel were recruited from widespread online promotion. A total of 801 personnel in the United States or Canada completed an online survey regarding professional quality of life, social support, euthanasia, enrichment, stress/pain levels, and human-animal interactions. Participants worked in a wide range of settings (e.g., industry, academia), research types (e.g., basic, applied, regulatory), species (e.g., non-human primates, mice), and roles (e.g., animal caretaker, veterinarian). Data were analyzed using general linear models. Personnel who reported higher compassion fatigue also reported lower social support, higher animal stress/pain, higher desire to implement more enrichment, and less control over performing euthanasia (p's < 0.05). Higher burnout was associated with less diverse/frequent enrichment, using physical euthanasia methods, and longer working hours. Higher secondary traumatic stress was associated with more relationship-promoting human-animal interactions (e.g., naming animals) and working as a trainers (p's < 0.05). Higher compassion satisfaction was associated with higher social support, less animal stress/pain, and more human-animal interactions (p's < 0.05). Surprisingly, neither personnel's primary animal type (e.g., non-human primates, mice) nor frequency of euthanasia (e.g., daily, monthly) were associated with professional quality of life (p's > 0.05). Our findings show that the professional quality of life of laboratory animal personnel is associated with several factors. Personnel reporting poorer professional quality of life also reported less social support, higher animal stress/pain, less enrichment diversity/frequency and wished they could provide more enrichment, using physical euthanasia, and less control over performing euthanasia. Poorer professional quality of life was also seen in personnel working as trainers, at universities, and longer hours. This study contributes important empirical data that may provide guidance for developing interventions (e.g., improved social support, decreased animal stress, increased animal enrichment diversity/frequency, greater control over euthanasia) to improve laboratory animal personnel's professional quality of life.

Project description:Reducing meat consumption may improve human health, curb environmental damage, and limit the large-scale suffering of animals raised in factory farms. Most attention to reducing consumption has focused on restructuring environments where foods are chosen or on making health or environmental appeals. However, psychological theory suggests that interventions appealing to animal welfare concerns might operate on distinct, potent pathways. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions. We searched eight academic databases and extensively searched grey literature. We meta-analyzed 100 studies assessing interventions designed to reduce meat consumption or purchase by mentioning or portraying farm animals, that measured behavioral or self-reported outcomes related to meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions, and that had a control condition. The interventions consistently reduced meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions at least in the short term with meaningfully large effects (meta-analytic mean risk ratio [RR] = 1.22; 95% CI: [1.13, 1.33]). We estimated that a large majority of population effect sizes (71%; 95% CI: [59%, 80%]) were stronger than RR = 1.1 and that few were in the unintended direction. Via meta-regression, we identified some specific characteristics of studies and interventions that were associated with effect size. Risk-of-bias assessments identified both methodological strengths and limitations of this literature; however, results did not differ meaningfully in sensitivity analyses retaining only studies at the lowest risk of bias. Evidence of publication bias was not apparent. In conclusion, animal welfare interventions preliminarily appear effective in these typically short-term studies of primarily self-reported outcomes. Future research should use direct behavioral outcomes that minimize the potential for social desirability bias and are measured over long-term follow-up.

Project description:Chickens are the world's most widely used farm animal and have a significant genetic diversity. In the current study, we investigated three strains for their suitability as dual-purpose chickens, with a focus on the fattening ability and welfare of the cockerels: 1. layer cockerels (Lohmann Brown, LB, n = 714); 2. cockerels of a dual-purpose hybrid (Lohmann Dual, LD, n = 844); and 3. cockerels of a native breed (Rhinelander, RL, n = 458). Chicks were raised under identical conditions and marked individually to compare focus and random sampling methods for weighing birds weekly. Because chicks of dual-purpose origins are usually raised mixed-sex, cockerels and pullets were weighed and observed together until sexes the were identifiable at week 10 of their life. During the 10th to 20th week of life, investigations were continued on 100 cockerels per genotype. Key figures for growth performance, such as feed conversion ratio (FCR) and European production efficiency factor (EPEF), were also calculated at weekly intervals. LD cockerels showed considerable growth performance (p < 0.001 compared to LB, RL, 2 kg at 9 weeks), whereas LB reached a live weight of 2 kg at 13 weeks and RL at 15 weeks of age. Genotype-dependent differences were also evident, with favorable FCR and EPEF for LD, intermediate for LB, and unfavorable for RL (all p < 0.001). The results of the FCR and EPEF suggest that cockerels should be slaughtered around week 8 of life, although only the carcass of the LD might be marketable. Thus, the optimal time of slaughter based on production parameters such as FCR and EPEF is different from the time when the animal reaches a marketable 2 kg live weight. Animal-based welfare indicators revealed that the RL are not adapted to production environments, including those that are extensive. Further research aimed at adapted feed management, including better FCR, and animals adapted to the respective production environments is necessary to improve alternative poultry production in the future.

Dataset Information

Recommendations for measuring and standardizing light for laboratory mammals to improve welfare and reproducibility in animal research.

Publications

Recommendations for measuring and standardizing light for laboratory mammals to improve welfare and reproducibility in animal research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets