Return to flip book view

Message Vol 24 No 1 April 2025ISSN 2752-3918Official Journal of the Institute of Animal Technology and European Federation of Animal TechnologistsIAT JournalAnimal Technology and Welfarel ABTA 2025 prize winning poster understanding and mitigating male mouse aggressionl Geko husbandryl Rat cage topper l Final Congress 2024 posters

Tel: +44 (0)1293 827940 Email: sales@lbs-biotech.comwww.lbs-biotech.com

1TECH-2-TECH The development and use of a cage-topper to enhance rat welfare Vikki Neville, Louise Phelon, Chris Handley, Michael Mendl and Elizabeth PaulCaptive husbandry of the Bynoe’s Gecko (Heteronotia binoei) Gary Martinic and Kieran BurnsWhy, how, what happened next: an introduction to scientific writingJasmine BarleyPOSTERSAndrew Blake Tribute Award 2025Understanding and mitigating male mouse aggression Tamara Baker, Sofia Ostman, Birgit Edwaldsson, Kate Shenton, Sally Robinson, Dawn Atherton-Kemp, Robbie McLaren-Jones, Diana Pao, Therese Edstrom, Amy Cantrell, Amir Hussain, Sara Albery Lansdotter and Natalie Kelley Congress 2024 postersTracking ‘tails’: refining motor activity monitoring in rats and mice Rhian ReadingImplementing refinement in the EAE mouse model Sara KuncovaA method to improve the housing of breeding rats used to produce pups for tissue Kally Booth, Joanne King, James Stephen and Ngaire DennisonVol 24 No 1 April 2025Editorial Diane Hazlehurst, Chair of the Editorial BoardDaily health checking of laboratory animals survey – Institute of Animal Technology Animal Welfare Group Diane Hazlehurst, Carmen Abela, Sylvie Mehigan, Carole Wilson, Teresa Mallia, Kally Booth, Zoe Windsor and Glyn FisherABSTRACT TRANSLATIONSEditorialJas Barley, Chair of the Editorial BoardReport of the 2019 RSPCA/UFAW RodentWelfare Group meetingChloe Stevens, Emily Finnegan, Jasmine Clarkson,Charlotte Burns, Sonia Bains, Colin Gilbert,Caroline Chadwick, Samantha Izzard, Charlotte Inman,Penny Hawkins (Secretary) and Huw GolledgeReduction of the negative effects ofmethionine on bone parameters in broilers’embryos by intra-egg injection of Vitamin B12Mohammad Naser Nazem, Shima Tasharofi,Negin Amiri and Sepideh SabzekarThe care of the Childr en’s Python(Antaresia children)Alexander Hosking and Gary MartinicFeline-assisted therapy: a promising part of animal assisted therapy (AAT)Eliska Mičková and Krityna MachovaThe care of Central and Pygmy Bearded DragonsAlexander Hosking and Gary MartinicPAPER SUMMARY TRANSLATIONSFrench, German, Italian, SpanishLOOKING BACKPhysical hazards in the laboratory animal houseR.T. CharlesThe incidence of a pathogenic strain of pseudomonas in a rabbit colonyG.R. Alpen and K. MaerzTECH-2-TECHDevelopment of a sifting cage change method for rats to improve welfareSeonagh HendersonVol 1 9 No 2 A ugust 2020CONTENTSiAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 4/8/20 10:48 Page i359649225357623944 Tel: +44 (0)1293 827940 Email: sales@lbs-biotech.comwww.lbs-biotech.com

2vOFFICERSPresidentDr Robin Lovell-Badge CBE FRSImmediate Past PresidentProfessor Sir Richard Gardner MA PhD FRSBFIAT (Hon) FRSVice-PresidentsSenga Allan MIAT RAnTech, David Anderson MRCVS,Stephen Barnett BA MSc FIAT (Hon) CBiol FRSBRAnTech, Miles Carroll PhD, Paul Flecknell MA Vet MBPhD DLAS DipLECVA MRCVS FIAT (Hon), PennyHawkins PhD BSc, Wendy Jarrett MA, Judy MacArthur-Clark CBE BVMS DLAS FRSB DVMS (h.c.) DipECLAMFRAgS DipACLAM MRCVS, Fiona McEwen BSc BVM&SMSc MRCVS, Tim Morris BVetMed PhD DipACLAMDipECLAM CBiol FRSB CertLAS MRCVS, Clive PageOBE PhD BSc, Jan-Bas Prins PhD MSc, Vicky RobinsonCBE BSc PhD, Paul Sanders MIAT RAnTech, DavidSpillane FIAT, Gail Thompson RLATG, RobertWeichbrod PhD RLATGLife MembersKen Applebee OBE FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech,Charlie Chambers MIAT RAnTech, Roger Francis MScFIAT RAnTech, Pete Gerson MSc FIAT RAnTech,Cathy Godfrey FIAT RAnTech, John Gregor y BSc (Hons)FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech, Patrick Hayes FIAT DipBARAnTech, Robert Kemp FIAT (Hon) RAnTech,Phil Ruddock MIAT RAnTech, Ted Wills FIAT (Hon)RAnTechHonorary MembersMark Gardiner MIAT RAnTech, Sarah Lane MSc FIAT,Sue McHugh BSc FIAT, Norman Mortell BA (Hons)MIAT RAnTech, Wendy Steel BSc (Hons) FIATMembers of CouncilMatthew Bilton, Kally Booth, Steven Cubitt,Simon Cumming, Haley Daniels, Glyn Fisher,Nicky Gent, Alan Graham, Linda Horan, Sam Jameson,Elaine Kirkum, Adele Kitching, Theresa Langford,Sylvie Mehigan, Steve Owen, Alan Palmer, AllanThornhill, John Waters, Lynda Westall, Carole Wilson,Adrian WoodhouseCouncil OfficersChair: Linda Horan BSc (Hons) MIAT RAnTechVice Chair: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechHonorary Secretary:Simon Cumming BSc FIAT RAnTechHonorary Treasurer: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechChair of Board of Educational Policy:Steven Cubitt MSc FIAT RAnTechChair Registration & Accreditation Board:Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechATW Editor: Jas Barley MSc FIAT RAnTechBulletin Editor: Carole Wilson BSc MIATATW/Bulletin Editorial Board:IAT REPRESENTATIVESAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 4/2/21 13:19 Page vvOFFICERSPresidentDr Robin Lovell-Badge CBE FRSImmediate Past PresidentProfessor Sir Richar d Gardner MA PhD FRSBFIAT (Hon) FRSVice-PresidentsSenga Allan MIAT RAnTech, David Anderson MRCVS,Stephen Barnett BA MSc FIAT (Hon) CBiol FRSBRAnTech, Miles Carroll PhD, Paul Flecknell MA Vet MBPhD DLAS DipLECVA MRCVS FIAT (Hon), PennyHawkins PhD BSc, Wendy Jarrett MA, Judy MacArthur-Clark CBE BVMS DLAS FRSB DVMS (h.c.) DipECLAMFRAgS DipACLAM MRCVS, Fiona McEwen BSc BVM&SMSc MRCVS, Tim Morris BVetMed PhD DipACLAMDipECLAM CBiol FRSB CertLAS MRCVS, Clive PageOBE PhD BSc, Jan-Bas Prins PhD MSc, Vicky RobinsonCBE BSc PhD, Paul Sanders MIAT RAnTech, DavidSpillane FIAT, Gail Thompson RLATG, RobertWeichbrod PhD RLATGLife MembersKen Applebee OBE FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech,Charlie Chambers MIAT RAnTech, Roger Francis MScFIAT RAnTech, Pete Gerson MSc FIAT RAnTech,Cathy Godfrey FIAT RAnTech, John Gregor y BSc (Hons)FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech, Patrick Hayes FIAT DipBARAnTech, Robert Kemp FIAT (Hon) RAnTech,Phil Ruddock MIAT RAnTech, Ted Wills FIAT (Hon)RAnTechHonorary MembersMark Gardiner MIAT RAnTech, Sarah Lane MSc FIAT,Sue McHugh BSc FIAT, Norman Mortell BA (Hons)MIAT RAnTech, Wendy Steel BSc (Hons) FIATMembers of CouncilMatthew Bilton, Kally Booth, Steven Cubitt,Simon Cumming, Haley Daniels, Glyn Fisher,Nicky Gent, Alan Graham, Linda Horan, Sam Jameson,Elaine Kirkum, Adele Kitching, Theresa Langford,Sylvie Mehigan, Steve Owen, Alan Palmer, AllanThornhill, John Waters, Lynda Westall, Carole Wilson,Adrian WoodhouseCouncil OfficersChair: Linda Horan BSc (Hons) MIAT RAnTechVice Chair: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechHonorary Secretary:Simon Cumming BSc FIAT RAnTechHonorary Treasurer: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechChair of Board of Educational Policy:Steven Cubitt MSc FIAT RAnTechChair Registration & Accreditation Board:Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechATW Editor: Jas Barley MSc FIAT RAnTechBulletin Editor: Carole Wilson BSc MIATATW/Bulletin Editorial Board:IAT REPRESENTATIVESAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 4/2/21 13:19 Page vA guide for junior technicians: the importance of giving the correct amount of nesting in a mouse IVC and the benefits of an enriched cage Lauren Pitcher and Amber StringerEnhancing precision in mouse intravenous tail vein injection using veinlite Mike MitchellErgonomics within an in vivo facility Robert McLeary and Robert Or visSequani’s environmental footprint Reece ReadingPup numbers weaned are higher in backcrossed colonies of genetically altered mice than non-backcrossed colonies Ross Colquhoun, Samantha Traill, Catherine Gillan, Kally Booth, Ngaire Dennison and Gail GilmourAssessing pain in models of rheumatoid arthritis Kally Booth, Ngaire Dennison, Samuel Singleton, Meriam Nefla, Simon Arthur and Tim Hales The 3Rs’ committee at Imperial College London Andrew Greenan and Bonnie GlenPOSTER PRESENTATIONSAssessing pain in models of Rheumatoid ArthritisSamuel Singleton, Meriam Nefla, Ngaire Dennison, Simon Arthur and Tim HalesRefinements to health monitoringHannah Jones and Rebecca KingBiosecurity risks and the pre-implantation embryo; lessons from the mouseJean Cozzi, Mendy Verrier and Jimmy MancipEnvironmental enrichment for a small colony of ratsNick Blackburn, Gemma Cronshaw and Mike MitchellOestr us checking – increasing productivity and embracing the 3RsSamantha Hoskins and Jack BrownUsing habituation to reduce str ess for rats being transported short distancesSarah TaylorShining a light on rearing pigmentless ZebrafishJacqueline Glover, Thom Berriman, Dimitra Mantzor ou, William Havelange,Sam Berry and Bruno Correia da SilvaThe jacket with pulling power – a novel approach to early stage evaluationof magnetic nanoparticlesAlison Ritchie, James Dixon, Phil Clarke and Anna GrabowskaiiCONTENTSIndex to AdvertisersABPI ..................................................................x,xi LBS ..................................................................iiAS-ET ...............................................................OBC Somni Scientific ................................................ivDatesand Ltd......................................................IFC Special Diets Services .....................................viiiInstitute of Animal Technology ...............................vii Tecniplast UK Ltd .............................................xiiIPS Product Supplies Ltd.....................................IBCAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page ii69717577657984

3vOFFICERSPresidentDr Robin Lovell-Badge CBE FRSImmediate Past PresidentProfessor Sir Richar d Gardner MA PhD FRSBFIAT (Hon) FRSVice-PresidentsSenga Allan MIAT RAnTech, David Anderson MRCVS,Stephen Barnett BA MSc FIAT (Hon) CBiol FRSBRAnTech, Miles Carroll PhD, Paul Flecknell MA Vet MBPhD DLAS DipLECVA MRCVS FIAT (Hon), PennyHawkins PhD BSc, Wendy Jarrett MA, Judy MacArthur-Clark CBE BVMS DLAS FRSB DVMS (h.c.) DipECLAMFRAgS DipACLAM MRCVS, Fiona McEwen BSc BVM&SMSc MRCVS, Tim Morris BVetMed PhD DipACLAMDipECLAM CBiol FRSB CertLAS MRCVS, Clive PageOBE PhD BSc, Jan-Bas Prins PhD MSc, Vicky RobinsonCBE BSc PhD, Paul Sanders MIAT RAnTech, DavidSpillane FIAT, Gail Thompson RLATG, RobertWeichbrod PhD RLATGLife MembersKen Applebee OBE FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech,Charlie Chambers MIAT RAnTech, Roger Francis MScFIAT RAnTech, Pete Gerson MSc FIAT RAnTech,Cathy Godfrey FIAT RAnTech, John Gregor y BSc (Hons)FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech, Patrick Hayes FIAT DipBARAnTech, Robert Kemp FIAT (Hon) RAnTech,Phil Ruddock MIAT RAnTech, Ted Wills FIAT (Hon)RAnTechHonorary MembersMark Gardiner MIAT RAnTech, Sarah Lane MSc FIAT,Sue McHugh BSc FIAT, Norman Mortell BA (Hons)MIAT RAnTech, Wendy Steel BSc (Hons) FIATMembers of CouncilMatthew Bilton, Kally Booth, Steven Cubitt,Simon Cumming, Haley Daniels, Glyn Fisher,Nicky Gent, Alan Graham, Linda Horan, Sam Jameson,Elaine Kirkum, Adele Kitching, Theresa Langford,Sylvie Mehigan, Steve Owen, Alan Palmer, AllanThornhill, John Waters, Lynda Westall, Carole Wilson,Adrian WoodhouseCouncil OfficersChair: Linda Horan BSc (Hons) MIAT RAnTechVice Chair: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechHonorary Secretary:Simon Cumming BSc FIAT RAnTechHonorary Treasurer: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechChair of Board of Educational Policy:Steven Cubitt MSc FIAT RAnTechChair Registration & Accreditation Board:Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechATW Editor: Jas Barley MSc FIAT RAnTechBulletin Editor: Carole Wilson BSc MIATATW/Bulletin Editorial Board:IAT REPRESENTATIVESAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 4/2/21 13:19 Page vvOFFICERSPresidentDr Robin Lovell-Badge CBE FRSImmediate Past PresidentProfessor Sir Richar d Gardner MA PhD FRSBFIAT (Hon) FRSVice-PresidentsSenga Allan MIAT RAnTech, David Anderson MRCVS,Stephen Barnett BA MSc FIAT (Hon) CBiol FRSBRAnTech, Miles Carroll PhD, Paul Flecknell MA Vet MBPhD DLAS DipLECVA MRCVS FIAT (Hon), PennyHawkins PhD BSc, Wendy Jarrett MA, Judy MacArthur-Clark CBE BVMS DLAS FRSB DVMS (h.c.) DipECLAMFRAgS DipACLAM MRCVS, Fiona McEwen BSc BVM&SMSc MRCVS, Tim Morris BVetMed PhD DipACLAMDipECLAM CBiol FRSB CertLAS MRCVS, Clive PageOBE PhD BSc, Jan-Bas Prins PhD MSc, Vicky RobinsonCBE BSc PhD, Paul Sanders MIAT RAnTech, DavidSpillane FIAT, Gail Thompson RLATG, RobertWeichbrod PhD RLATGLife MembersKen Applebee OBE FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech,Charlie Chambers MIAT RAnTech, Roger Francis MScFIAT RAnTech, Pete Gerson MSc FIAT RAnTech,Cathy Godfrey FIAT RAnTech, John Gregor y BSc (Hons)FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech, Patrick Hayes FIAT DipBARAnTech, Robert Kemp FIAT (Hon) RAnTech,Phil Ruddock MIAT RAnTech, Ted Wills FIAT (Hon)RAnTechHonorary MembersMark Gardiner MIAT RAnTech, Sarah Lane MSc FIAT,Sue McHugh BSc FIAT, Norman Mortell BA (Hons)MIAT RAnTech, Wendy Steel BSc (Hons) FIATMembers of CouncilMatthew Bilton, Kally Booth, Steven Cubitt,Simon Cumming, Haley Daniels, Glyn Fisher,Nicky Gent, Alan Graham, Linda Horan, Sam Jameson,Elaine Kirkum, Adele Kitching, Theresa Langford,Sylvie Mehigan, Steve Owen, Alan Palmer, AllanThornhill, John Waters, Lynda Westall, Carole Wilson,Adrian WoodhouseCouncil OfficersChair: Linda Horan BSc (Hons) MIAT RAnTechVice Chair: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechHonorary Secretary:Simon Cumming BSc FIAT RAnTechHonorary Treasurer: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechChair of Board of Educational Policy:Steven Cubitt MSc FIAT RAnTechChair Registration & Accreditation Board:Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechATW Editor: Jas Barley MSc FIAT RAnTechBulletin Editor: Carole Wilson BSc MIATATW/Bulletin Editorial Board:IAT REPRESENTATIVESAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 4/2/21 13:19 Page vCouncil OfficersChair: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechVice Chair: Robin Labesse MIAT RAnTechHonorary Secretary: Haley Daniels MBA MSc CIPD RAnTechHonorary Treasurer: Sam Jameson MIAT RAnTechChair of Board of Educational Policy: Tina O’Mahony (interim chair) MIAT RAnTechChair Registration & Accreditation Board: Simon Cumming BSc FIAT RAnTech ATW Editor: Diane Hazlehurst MIAT RAnTechBulletin Editor: Carole Wilson BSc MIATATW/Bulletin Editorial Board: Diane Hazlehurst (Chair), Carole Wilson, Lynda Westall, Carmen Abela Branch Liaison Officer: Lynda Westall BSc FIAT RAnTech DMSEFAT Representatives:Glyn Fisher, Robin Labesse, Toby SandersWebsite Coordinator: Allan Thornhill FIAT RAnTechWebsite Support: Sam JamesonAnimal Welfare Group:Carmen Abela (Chair), Kally Booth, Diane Hazlehurst, Sylvie Mehigan, Carole WilsonBoard of Educational Policy:Tina O’Mahony (interim Chair), Adele Kitching (Secretary), Richard Berks, Diane Hazlehurst, Theresa LangfordCommunications Group:Adrian Woodhouse (Chair) Carmen Abela, Kally Booth, Sam Jameson, Theresa Langford, Sylvie Mehigan, Toby Sanders, Allan Thornhill, Lynda WestallVice-PresidentsSenga Allan MIAT RAnTech, David Anderson MRCVS, Miles Carroll PhD, Penny Hawkins PhD BSc, Wendy Jarrett MA, Judy MacArthur-Clark CBE BVMS DLAS FRSB DVMS (h.c.) DipACLAM DipELAM CBiol FRSB CertLAS MRCVS, Fiona McEwen BSc BVMOS MSc MRCVS, Tim Morris BVetMed PhD DipACLAM DipECLAM CBiol FRSB CertLAS MRCVS, Clive Page OBE PhD BSc, Jan-Bas Prins PhD MSc, Sally Robinson MA PhD, Vicky Robinson CBE BSc PhD, David Spillane FIAT, Gail Thompson RLATG, Robert Weichbrod PhD RLATGLife MembersKen Applebee OBE FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech, Jas Barley MSc FIAT RAnTech, Charlie Chambers MIAT RAnTech, Elaine Kirkum MIAT RAnTech MIScT, Roger Francis MSc FIAT RAnTech, Pete Gerson MSc FIAT RAnTech, Cathy Godfrey FIAT RAnTech, John Gregory BSc (Hons) FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech, Patrick Hayes FIAT DipBA RAnTech, Robert Kemp FIAT (Hon), Phil Ruddock MIAT RAnTech, Ted Wills FIAT (Hon) RAnTechHonorary MembersAndy Domone MIAT, Kate Heath FIAT RAnTech, Martin Heath MSc FRSB FIAT FIScT RAnTech, Stuart Mackrell FIAT RAnTech, Steve Owen FIAT RAnTech, Sarah Reed FIAT RAnTech, John Waters MIAT RAnTech, Pete Willan DMS FInstMgt MIAT RAnTech Members of CouncilCarmen Abela, Richard Berks, Kally Booth, Simon Cumming, Haley Daniels, Glyn Fisher, Alan Graham, Diane Hazlehurst, Linda Horan, Sam Jameson, Adele Kitching, Robin Labesse, Theresa Langford, Sylvie Mehigan, Tina O’Mahony, Emma Owen, Claire Pearce, Toby Sanders, Allan Thornhill, Lynda Westall, Carole Wilson, Adrian WoodhouseFront cover credit: Scott Lighterness

4BRANCH SECRETARIES 2022Cambridge: Tony Davidge cambridgebranch@iat.org.ukEdinburgh: Kery-Anne Lavin-Thomson edinburghbranch@iat.org.ukHuntingdon, Suffolk & Nor folk: Jo Martin hssbranch@iat.org.ukIreland: Lisa Watson irelandbranch@iat.org.ukLondon: Rebecca Towns londonbranch@iat.org.ukMidlands: Ian Fielding midlandsbranch@iat.org.ukNorth East England: Zoe Smith and John Bland northeastbranch@iat.org.ukNorth West: Nicky Windows cheshirebranch@iat.org.ukOxford: Adam Truby oxfordbranch@iat.org.ukSurrey, Hampshire & Sussex: Francesca Whitmore shsbranch@iat.org.ukWest Middlesex: Josefine Woodley westmiddxbranch@iat.org.ukWales & Wes t: Rhys Perry waleswestbranch@iat.org.ukWest of Scotland: Joanne King westscotlandbranch@iat.org.ukIAT OFFICERS M AY BECONTACTED VIA:IAT Administrator:admin@iat.org.ukOR VIA THE IAT WEBSITE AT :www.iat.org.ukOR THE REGISTERED OFFICE:5 South Parade, Summertown,Oxford OX2 7JLAdvertisement Managers:PRC Associates LtdEmail: mail@prcassoc.co.ukAlthough every effort is made to ensure that no inaccurate or misleading data, opinion or statement appear in thejournal, the Institute of Animal Technology wish to expound that the data and opinions appearing in the articles,poster presentations and advertisements in ATW are the responsibility of the contributor and advertiser concerned.Accordingly the IAT, Editor and their agents, accept no liability whatsoever for the consequences of any suchinaccurate or misleading data, opinion, statement or advertisement being published. Furthermore the opinionsexpressed in the journal do not necessarily reflect those of the Editor or the Institute of Animal Technology.© 2025 Institute of Animal TechnologyAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without permission from the publisher.CPD Officer: Alan Palmer MIAT RAnTechRegistration and Accreditation Board:Glyn Fisher (Chair), John Gregor y,Cathy Godfrey, Kathy Ryder (Home Office),Stuart StevensonObserver: Ngaire Dennison (LAVA)Congress Committee:Alan Graham (Chair), Haley Daniels, Adele Kitching,Allan Thornhill, John WatersDiversity Officer:Haley Daniels MBA MSc MIAT RAnTech CIPDUK Biosciences ASG Representative/Home Office:Alan Palmer MIAT RAnTechviAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page viRegistration and Accreditation Board:Simon Cumming (Chair), Glyn Fisher (Secretary), Linda HoranCongress Committee:Alan Graham (Chair), Haley Daniels, Adele Kitching, Claire Pearce, Allan ThornhillEquity, Diversity and Inclusion Group:Haley Daniels (Chair) MBA MSc MIAT RAnTech CIPD, Simon Cumming, Linda Horan, Emma OwenIndex to AdvertisersBRANCH SECRETARIES 2022Cambridge: Tony Davidge cambridgebranch@iat.org.ukEdinburgh: Kery-Anne Lavin-Thomson edinburghbranch@iat.org.ukHuntingdon, Suffolk & Nor folk: Jo Martin hssbranch@iat.org.ukIreland: Lisa Watson irelandbranch@iat.org.ukLondon: Rebecca Towns londonbranch@iat.org.ukMidlands: Ian Fielding midlandsbranch@iat.org.ukNorth East England: Zoe Smith and John Bland northeastbranch@iat.org.ukNorth West: Nicky Windows cheshirebranch@iat.org.ukOxford: Adam Truby oxfordbranch@iat.org.ukSurrey, Hampshire & Sussex: Francesca Whitmore shsbranch@iat.org.ukWest Middlesex: Josefine Woodley westmiddxbranch@iat.org.ukWales & Wes t: Rhys Perry waleswestbranch@iat.org.ukWest of Scotland: Joanne King westscotlandbranch@iat.org.ukIAT OFFICERS M AY BECONTAC TED VIA:IAT Administrator:admin@iat.org.ukOR VIA THE IAT WEBSITE AT :www.iat.org.ukOR THE REGISTERED OFFICE:5 South Parade, Summertown,Oxford OX2 7JLAdvertisement Managers:PRC Associates LtdEmail: mail@prcassoc.co.ukAlthough every effort is made to ensure that no inaccurate or misleading data, opinion or statement appear in thejournal, the Institute of Animal Technology wish to expound that the data and opinions appearing in the articles,poster presentations and advertisements in ATW are the responsibility of the contributor and advertiser concerned.Accordingly the IAT, Editor and their agents, accept no liability whatsoever for the consequences of any suchinaccurate or misleading data, opinion, statement or advertisement being published. Furthermore the opinionsexpressed in the journal do not necessarily reflect those of the Editor or the Institute of Animal Technology.© 2025 Institute of Animal TechnologyAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without permission from the publisher.CPD Officer: Alan Palmer MIAT RAnTechRegistration and Accreditation Board:Glyn Fisher (Chair), John Gregor y,Cathy Godfrey, Kathy Ryder (Home Office),Stuart StevensonObserver: Ngaire Dennison (LAVA)Congress Committee:Alan Graham (Chair), Haley Daniels, Adele Kitching,Allan Thornhill, John WatersDiversity Officer:Haley Daniels MBA MSc MIAT RAnTech CIPDUK Biosciences ASG Representative/Home Office:Alan Palmer MIAT RAnTechviAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page viAAALAC International .......................................67Avid plc ..........................................................34European Federation of Animal Technologists...... 5Institute of Animal Technology..............48, 83, OBCIPS Product Supplies Ltd ................................IBCLBS Serving Biotechnology Ltd .........................IFCPlexx BV............................................................. 68Tecniplast UK Ltd ..............................................8BRANCH SECRETARIES 2025Berkshire and Wiltshire: Cheryl Yalden berkshirewiltshirebranch@iat.org.ukCambridge: Tony Davidge cambridgebranch@iat.org.ukEdinburgh: Kerry Lavin-Thomson edinburghbranch@iat.org.ukHuntingdon, Suffolk & Norfolk (HNS): Joanna Owen hssbranch@iat.org.ukIreland: Lisa Watson irelandbranch@iat.org.ukLondon: Louise Fisher londonbranch@iat.org.ukMidlands: Alison Richie midlandsbranch@iat.org.ukNorth East England: John Bland & Zoe Smith northeastbranch@iat.org.uk North West: Emma Owen cheshirebranch@iat.org.ukOxford: Adam Truby oxfordbranch@iat.org.ukSurrey, Hampshire & Sussex (SHS): Francesca Whitmore shsbranch@iat.org.ukWest Middlesex: Hannah Easter westmiddxbranch@iat.org.ukWest of Scotland: Nicola Munroe westscotlandbranch@iat.org.uk

5KATY (Finland)Koe-elainhoitajien ja alan tyontekijoiden yhdistysIAT (UK)Institute of Animal Technologywww.iat.orgDALAS (Netherlands)Dutch Association of Laboratory Animal Scienceinfo@dalas.nlBCLAS (Belgium)Belgian Council for Laboratory Animal Sciencewww.bclas.orgIGTp (Germany)Interessergemeinschaft der Tierpfleger und des technischen Personalswww.IGTp.orgAFSTAL (France)Association Française de Science et Technique de l’Animal de Laboratoirewww.afstal.comSECAL (Spain)Sociedad Espanola par alas Ciencias del Animal de Laboratoriowww.secal.esEuropean Federationof Animal Technologists Education Representation with Law Makers Career Support Resources Support Network info@efat.orgHistory:The concept of EFAT came from a meeting held in The Netherlands during the 1980s.A group of very enthusiastic Dutch technicians suggested an idea to have a universal manual that could cover all Animal Technicians working with laboratory animals across Europe.This seemingly simple idea turned out to be a lot more complicated than it first appeared.A major breakthrough happened in 1992 when EFAT was recognised by the European Commission. From that date, technicians throughout Europe have had a representation on many expert working groups and given very practical advice that eventually helped shape the Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.Present:The role of EFAT is to: Promote the harmonisation of education and training for European Animal Technologists and establish the highest standards of laboratory animal care and welfare by exchanging information and ideas via meetings, study groups, publications and all other appropriate means of communication. Establish and maintain formal lines of communication with international and governmental regulatory and competent authorities and other organisations concerned with laboratory animal technology, care and welfare. Establish EFAT as the consultative specialist federation for laboratory animal technology within Europe.Future:Membership of EFAT is open to laboratory animal technology associations from the Member States of the European Union and Council of Europe.With your help, let’s grow EFAT’s representation and support network.Please contact: info@efat.org to get involved

6Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareEditorialJas BarleyChair of the Editorial BoardLooking back over issues of the Journal through its various identities, one thing is apparent and that is the contribution thatoverseas authors have made to the content. Topics have varied from dealing with exotic species, lack of sophisticated equipment,different attitudes to everyday problems, staff training and education and disease outbreaks. However, the resolute that has beenconstant throughout, despite the differences across the world, is the love and concern for the animals being cared for.Many include interesting photographs but I unfortunately am unable to use them as the quality of images is so poor whenrepr oduced, to the extent in some cases, they become worthless.Obviously, things have changed over seven decades and the technology described in contributions from overseas is less differentfrom what we use in the UK. This issue welcomes contributions from Australia, the Czech Republic and Iran as well, of coursefrom the UK. Since ATW became an Open Access publication and is being published electronically, it is enjoying a wider audienceand is attracting more contributions than usual. Not all are relevant to our profession, but knowledge is transferable so whatseems ‘off beat’ today may become useful in the future. However, as Editor I will always strive to maintain the quality of ourpublications and the usefulness to our readers.In this issue we include the RSPCA 2019 Rodent and Rabbit Welfare group meeting repor t. The 26th meeting that the RSPCA haveorganised focussed on ‘sentience, positive welfare and psychological well being’. The report contains contributions from 11presenters as well as notes on the interactive discussion session on sentience that closed the meeting.A paper from Iran, a first as far as I can see for the Journal, on reducing the negative effects of methionine on bone parametersin broilers’ embryos may seem of little relevance but it offers a better understanding of how methionine affects bone structurewhich is important to most species. Similarly, Feline Assisted Therapy as described by the team at the University of Life SciencesPrague does not appear to fall into the realms of Animal Technology but it gives us a better understanding of how animals can havea positive effect on some people, which in the current situation may be of significant benefit to a wider population. Our final paperfrom the team at Western Sydney University, details the care of the Children’ Python and two species of Bearded Dragons. Notperhaps the run of the mill laboratory animals but just as important to many Animal Technologists globally as mice and rats. If youkeep reptiles at home or know of someone who is contemplating one as a pet these papers make useful reference documents. Wealso offer two papers from previous issues of the Journal which were very different in appearance and content than today’s Journalof Animal Technology and Welfare and not only because of the change of title. Issues were printed in black and white and in the veryearly days were produced by hand. The paper from France on Physical Hazards in the laboratory animal house will bring back manymemories for some of the older technicians, myself included, but not necessarily good ones. The use of ether as an anaestheticwhich I know is still used in some countries where resources are limited, for human surgery, presented a very real danger to bothanimals and staff. Disease in laboratory animal units was often a recur ring problem, bacterial infections such as Pseudomonas asdescribed in the reprint of the article were still presenting Animal Technologists with problems as late as the end of the 1980s. Whenimporting animals and tissues from overseas it is important to realise that they may be carrying disease not seen in the UK forseveral decades. In r ecent times, Ectromelia was introduced into a unit in the USA via antibodies produced overseas. Precautionsmust be taken until such time as you are sure that the animals and tissues are clear of any underlying infections.We are also able to offer in this issue an inter esting Tech-2-Tech article by Seonagh Henderson of the University of Glasgow, ona novel technique of cage cleaning which has a positive effect on the welfare of laboratory rats. Finally, we included several postersprepared for AST2020 but sadly at the moment r emain unpresented.Thanks again to all of our authors, past and present, both internationally and here in the UK. There would not have been 70 yearsof the Journal without you. Here is to the next seven decades and beyond.THE INSTITUTE OF ANIMAL TECHNOLOGYETHICAL STATEMENT“In the conduct of their Professional duties, Animal Technologists have a moral and legalobligation, at all times, to promote and safeguard the welfare of animals in their care,recognising that good laboratory animal welfare is an essential component of goodlaboratory animal technology and science.The Institute recognises and supports the application of the principles of the 3Rs(Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) in all areas of animal research.”ixAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page ixIn this edition of the Animal Technology and Welfare Journal we have included the results from the Institute of Animal Technology’s (IAT) Animal Welfare Group (AWG) recent survey around the daily health checking of laboratory animals. The survey was publicised in issues of the IAT Bulletin and the monthly IAT e-Newsletter, sent to members electronically. The AWG are keen to establish how different facilities check their animals daily and to share the findings. We have published the 2025 Andrew Blake Tribute Award prize winning poster titled ‘Understanding and mitigating male mouse aggression’ which discusses the challenges and solutions related to aggression in male mice. Group housing is essential for social animals like mice but it can lead to severe aggression, causing pain, injury and even death. Historically, male mice have been treated the same as female mice, but understanding the triggers of aggression has led to the implementation of specific housing and handling regimes for male mice.The paper highlights the necessity of using male mice in studies especially for certain models like prostate cancer. A global working group was formed to identify aggression triggers and strategies to mitigate them. By recognising the signs of a harmonious cage and understanding the subtle signs of aggression, interventions can be made before animals need to be euthanised. The new regimes have significantly reduced overt aggression and ensured more harmonious social interactions, reducing the number of animals that needed to be separated from up to 31% to less than 1% in nude mice.Included are two Tech-2-Tech papers, the first one is titled ‘The development and use of a cage-topper to enhance rat welfare’ which discusses the design and implementation of a cage topper to improve the welfare of rats used in scientific research. This cage topper can be added to a standard rat cage to provide additional space and complexity at a low cost. This highlights the benefits of larger, more complex housing for rats which can improve their welfare compared to standard conventional cages. The cage topper provides extra space for rats to rear fully and includes a removable red-tinted suspended nest box for added complexity. Several studies were conducted with the cage topper and it was found to be valuable for enhancing rat welfare and studying their behaviour. The second paper provides an in-depth look at the Bynoe’s Gecko, a species of lizard endemic to Australia. It covers various aspects of the gecko’s life, including its geographic range, habitat, health, housing, diet, feeding, reproduction and regulations for keeping them as pets.Included is the last batch of IAT Congress 2024 posters to read. The poster titled ‘Implementing refinement in the EAE mouse model discusses the use of the experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) mouse model to induce inflammation in the central nervous system, which is commonly used to study human multiple sclerosis (MS) and other demyelinating diseases. The poster highlights the potential severe suffering EditorialDiane HazlehurstChair of the Editorial Board Editor’s email: atweditor@iat.org.uk Animal Technology and Welfare April 2025

7August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareEditorialJas BarleyChair of the Editorial BoardLooking back over issues of the Journal through its various identities, one thing is apparent and that is the contribution thatoverseas authors have made to the content. Topics have varied from dealing with exotic species, lack of sophisticated equipment,different attitudes to everyday problems, staff training and education and disease outbreaks. However, the resolute that has beenconstant throughout, despite the differences across the world, is the love and concern for the animals being cared for.Many include interesting photographs but I unfortunately am unable to use them as the quality of images is so poor whenrepr oduced, to the extent in some cases, they become worthless.Obviously, things have changed over seven decades and the technology described in contributions from overseas is less differentfrom what we use in the UK. This issue welcomes contributions from Australia, the Czech Republic and Iran as well, of coursefrom the UK. Since ATW became an Open Access publication and is being published electronically, it is enjoying a wider audienceand is attracting more contributions than usual. Not all are relevant to our profession, but knowledge is transferable so whatseems ‘off beat’ today may become useful in the future. However, as Editor I will always strive to maintain the quality of ourpublications and the usefulness to our readers.In this issue we include the RSPCA 2019 Rodent and Rabbit Welfare group meeting repor t. The 26th meeting that the RSPCA haveorganised focussed on ‘sentience, positive welfare and psychological well being’. The report contains contributions from 11presenters as well as notes on the interactive discussion session on sentience that closed the meeting.A paper from Iran, a first as far as I can see for the Journal, on reducing the negative effects of methionine on bone parametersin broilers’ embryos may seem of little relevance but it offers a better understanding of how methionine affects bone structurewhich is important to most species. Similarly, Feline Assisted Therapy as described by the team at the University of Life SciencesPrague does not appear to fall into the realms of Animal Technology but it gives us a better understanding of how animals can havea positive effect on some people, which in the current situation may be of significant benefit to a wider population. Our final paperfrom the team at Western Sydney University, details the care of the Children’ Python and two species of Bearded Dragons. Notperhaps the run of the mill laboratory animals but just as important to many Animal Technologists globally as mice and rats. If youkeep reptiles at home or know of someone who is contemplating one as a pet these papers make useful reference documents. Wealso offer two papers from previous issues of the Journal which were very different in appearance and content than today’s Journalof Animal Technology and Welfare and not only because of the change of title. Issues were printed in black and white and in the veryearly days were produced by hand. The paper from France on Physical Hazards in the laboratory animal house will bring back manymemories for some of the older technicians, myself included, but not necessarily good ones. The use of ether as an anaestheticwhich I know is still used in some countries where resources are limited, for human surgery, presented a very real danger to bothanimals and staff. Disease in laboratory animal units was often a recur ring problem, bacterial infections such as Pseudomonas asdescribed in the reprint of the article were still presenting Animal Technologists with problems as late as the end of the 1980s. Whenimporting animals and tissues from overseas it is important to realise that they may be carrying disease not seen in the UK forseveral decades. In r ecent times, Ectromelia was introduced into a unit in the USA via antibodies produced overseas. Precautionsmust be taken until such time as you are sure that the animals and tissues are clear of any underlying infections.We are also able to offer in this issue an inter esting Tech-2-Tech article by Seonagh Henderson of the University of Glasgow, ona novel technique of cage cleaning which has a positive effect on the welfare of laboratory rats. Finally, we included several postersprepared for AST2020 but sadly at the moment remain unpresented.Thanks again to all of our authors, past and present, both internationally and here in the UK. There would not have been 70 yearsof the Journal without you. Here is to the next seven decades and beyond.THE INSTITUTE OF ANIMAL TECHNOLOGYETHICAL STATEMENT“In the conduct of their Professional duties, Animal Technologists have a moral and legalobligation, at all times, to promote and safeguard the welfare of animals in their care,recognising that good laboratory animal welfare is an essential component of goodlaboratory animal technology and science.The Institute recognises and supports the application of the principles of the 3Rs(Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) in all areas of animal research.”ixAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page ixEditorialthat EAE can cause in mice including clinical signs such as ulcerated wounds, tail paralysis and limb paralysis. The welfare of the animals is emphasised, with special husbandry needs including careful handling, care and housing adaptations, daily scoring and recognising humane endpoints. The paper provides an overview of refinements to minimise animal pain and discomfort.The August issue of ATW will comprise of IAT Congress 2025 posters. We always welcome new articles and posters which contribute to the promotion of improvements made for Animal Welfare and Technology from around the world as well as the UK.There is opportunity for the person who the journal’s editorial board feel has produced the outstanding article over the past 12 months to attend IAT Congress as the Majorie Whittingham (Sandiford) journal prize winner. The Tech-2-Tech paper which is deemed the best by the editorial board receives a prize too, donated by AS-ET.When writing for the journal it is important to ensure that we have the original references cited and that they are still applicable before your work is submitted for publication. It is also important to provide original photographs or to ensure that you have permission to include photographs of others, which must be referenced as well.Remember that our journal can be used as sources of references for both your independent learning and as your IAT ‘educational’ journal to gather the great ideas that people come up with to improve the Health and Welfare of the animals in our care.We are here to provide you with the opportunity to publish your work completely free of charge, as we are always looking for new material for ATW processing on Animal Welfare and the 3Rs. The assistance the ATW editorial board provides you with will turn your ideas and concepts into realities.

NEW FOR OLDTRADE IN.SAVE MORE.STAY SUSTAINABLE.ARIA CHANGE STATIONS Promotion ends 31 July 2025UPGRADE THE SMART WAY2025 PROMOTIONwww.tecniplast.it/uk | info@tecniplastuk.com | 0345 050 4556BIOSAFETY CABINETSAIR HANDLING UNITS

9August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareApril 2025 Animal Technology and WelfareThe Animal Welfare Group (AWG) is a subcommittee of the Institute of Animal Technology (IAT). We created this survey as we wanted to understand how different establishments perform the fundamental task of the daily health checking to the animals in their care. – How many cages/tanks/pens of animals is the ideal number to check daily, including weekends?– How often throughout the day are animals checked?– What is checked daily e.g. a full body check and a count to ensure the number matches the details on the label?We follow the provision of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA)1 across the UK and EU Directive 2010/63/EU2 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. Under Guidance on the operation of ASPA under 3.13.9 Animal care and accommodation it states “the health and wellbeing of all protected animals and the environmental conditions in all areas of the establishment where protected animals are kept are checked at least daily by a competent person [Standard Condition 4]” also under section 8.8.2 NACWO role and responsibilities “establish a system to ensure that a competent person sees and checks every animal kept in an approved holding area at least once daily”.Directive 86/609Article 5(c) The environmental conditions in which experimental animals are bred, kept or used must be checked daily.(d) The wellbeing and state of health of experimental animals shall be observed by a competent person to prevent pain or avoidable suffering, distress or lasting harm.Directive 2010/63Article 33Care and accommodation1. Member States shall, as far as the care and accommodation of animals is concerned, ensure that:(a) all animals are provided with accommodation, an environment, food, water and care which are appropriate to their health and well-being(b) any restrictions on the extent to which an animal can satisfy its physiological and ethological needs are kept to a minimum(c) the environmental conditions in which animals are bred, kept or used are checked daily(d) arrangements are made to ensure that any defect or avoidable pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm discovered is eliminated as quickly as possible; and(e) animals are transported under appropriate conditions2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that the care and accommodation standards set out in Annex III are applied from the dates provided for therein.3. Member States may allow exemptions from the requirements of paragraph 1(a) or paragraph 2 for scientific, animal-welfare or animal-health reasons.The IAT has more than 2,000 members who hold different roles, including those who have retired who still engage with the IAT. We thank those who have responded for their support to this anonymous survey.This survey reports all answers as selected. Some responses may be incorrect, such as inconsistencies in the PEL holder role responses: three people claimed this Daily health checking of laboratory animals – IAT Animal Welfare Group surveyDIANE HAZLEHURST, CARMEN ABELA, SYLVIE MEHIGAN, CAROLE WILSON, TERESA MALLIA, KALLY BOOTH, ZOE WINDSOR and GLYN FISHERIAT Animal Welfare GroupCoespondence: awg@iat.org.uk

10Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020position in one question but only one responded to another. The percentage figures in the tables reflect only those who answered the questions, excluding non-respondents.We hope that you can consider the various methods of working against your own, possibly review and evaluate the questions and answers which may lead to discussions within your establishments. Section 1: Daily health checking of laboratory animalsAbout you:Please complete the following information about you.Question 1It is worth noting that the Animal Technician role is crucial within the industry, encompassing a wide range of responsibilities from daily animal care to overseeing complex research projects. This role’s predominance in the responses reflects its fundamental importance and prevalence within the field. The diversity in other mentioned roles underscores the multidisciplinary nature of the industry, with each role contributing uniquely to the overall goals and advancements in Animal Welfare and research.Question 3How many years have you been working with laboratory animals? Responses Number less than 1 year 2.94% 4 up to 3 years 11.76% 16 up to 5 years 7.35% 10 up to 10 years 16.91% 23 up to 15 years 12.50% 17 up to 20 years 24.26% 33 more than 25 years 24.26% 33 Answered 136 Skipped 0All 136 participants responded to this question.Skipped: NoneRespondent experience:− More than 25 years: 24.26% (33 respondents).− Four respondents had less than one year of experience.Question 2What is your job role?133 people answered this question and 3 people did not.There was a variety of different roles mentioned ranging from trainee Animal Technician to director and PEL holder. The Animal Technician role had the highest number of responses, with 65 people ranging from trainee to senior positions. What IAT educational qualifications do you hold?Responses Number None 19.26% 26 Certificate 6.67% 9 Membership 16.30% 22 Fellowship 5.19% 7 Level 2 20.74% 28 Level 3 17.04% 23 Level 4 3.70% 5 Level 5 3.70% 5Level 6 2.22% 3RAnTech 5.19% 7Answered 135 Skipped 1In this question which asked about IAT educational qualifications, 135 participants answered, leaving one person who did not respond. The qualifications ranged from none (19%) to various levels, with the highest number holding Level 2 qualifications (21%).Question 4Are you a named person?Responses Number Yes 45.59% 62 No 54.41% 74 Answered 136 Skipped 062 people who have contributed to this survey hold Named Person roles.This question revealed that 46% of respondents were Named Persons, while 54% were not.Daily health checking of laboratory animals IAT Animal Welfare Group survey

11August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDaily health checking of laboratory animals IAT Animal Welfare Group surveyThe most frequently held role was the NACWO, followed by the NTCO. One individual held two roles.Section 2: Your facilityPlease complete the following information about your facility. Question 7What role(s) do you hold?Responses Number NACWO 76.12% 51 NTCO 29.85% 20 NIO 11.94% 8 HOLC 13.43% 9 NVS 2.99% 2 PEL 4.48% 3 Answered 67 Skipped 69Question 5Question 6Most respondents hold a PIL, with fewer holding a PPL and only one holding a PEL. Summary of section 1The survey included questions about respondents’ experience, job roles, educational qualifications and the types of checks they perform.– Experience: respondents had varying levels of experience, with 24.26% having more than 25 years of experience.– Job roles: most respondents were Animal Technicians, highlighting the importance of this role in the industry.– Educational qualifications: respondents held various IAT qualifications, with Level 2 being the most common.– Named Persons: 45.59% of respondents were named persons, holding roles such as NACWO, NTCO, NIO, HOLC, NVS, and PEL.– Licences: most respondents held a Personal Licence (PIL), with fewer holding Project Licences (PPL) and Establishment Licences (PEL).Which Licences / authorisations do you hold?Responses Number Establishment Licence (PEL)0.85% 1 Project Licence / Project Authorisation (PPL)6.84% 8 Personal Licence / Individual Authorisation (PIL)98.29% 115 Answered 117 Skipped 19What type of facility do you work in?Responses Number Full barrier 22.48% 29 SPF 34.11% 44 SOPF 13.18% 17 Conventional 33.33% 43 Containment 20.16% 26 Breeding 53.49% 69 Experimental 54.26% 70POLE 0.00% 0Other (please specify) 3.88% 5Answered 129 Skipped 7Seven respondents skipped this question. Most work at experimental facilities, followed by breeding facilities.Other:– Work at multiple units and office-based– Aquatics– Combination, contract research– Wildlife– Fish facilityQuestion 8What type of cages/ pens/tanks do you work with?Responses Number Open cage to the environment35.88% 47 IVC 84.73% 111 Flexible Film Isolator 12.98% 17 Pen 12.98% 17 Field 0.76% 1 Tank 19.08% 25 River 0.00% 0Lake 0.00% 0Other (please specify) 7.63% 10Answered 131 Skipped 5The majority of respondents reported that their animals were housed in Individually Ventilated Cages (IVCs).

12Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Other types of housing included:– Scanner– Container– Open playpen for rats– Isocages– Biocontainment cages– Bird flight cages– Aviary– Scantaner– Rigid body isolator– Floor-housed animals, where the room serves as the cageThe majority of people work with genetically altered animals.Summary of section 2: Your facilityThe survey gathered information about the types of facilities respondents work in, the types of cages/pens/ tanks they use and the species of laboratory animals they care for.– Facility types: the majority of respondents work in experimental (54.26%) and breeding (53.49%) facilities. Other facility types include full barrier (22.48%), SPF (34.11%), SOPF (13.18%), conventional (33.33%) and containment (20.16%). A small percentage (3.88%) specified other types such as aquatics, wildlife and fish facilities.– Housing types: most respondents reported that their animals were housed in individually ventilated cages (IVCs) (84.73%). Other housing types included open cages to the environment (35.88%), flexible film isolators (12.98%), pens (12.98%), tanks (19.08%) and other specified types such as scanners, containers and bird flight cages.– Species: mice were the most cared-for species (89.31%), followed by rats (35.88%) and fish (17.56%). Other species included livestock, rabbits, guinea pigs, pigs, sheep, chickens, mole rats, frogs, hamsters, gerbils, toads, xenopus, birds, dogs, mini pigs, non-human primates, squirrels, ferrets and turkeys.– Genetically altered (GA) animals: The majority of respondents (85.38%) work with genetically altered animals.Other species:– Livestock– Rabbits– Guinea Pigs– Pigs– Sheep– Chickens– Mole Rats– Frogs– Hamsters– Gerbils– Toads– Xenopus– Birds– Dogs– Mini Pigs– NHP (Non-Human Primates)– Squirrel– Ferrets– TurkeysThis comprehensive list of various other species was included which accounted for 21% of respondents.Question 9What species of laboratory animals do you most care for?Responses Number Mice 89.31% 117 Rats 35.88% 47 Fish 17.56% 23 Other (please specify) 21.37% 28Answered 131 Skipped 5Do you work with GA animals?Responses Number Yes 85.38% 111 No 14.62% 19 Answered 130 Skipped 6Question 10Daily health checking of laboratory animals IAT Animal Welfare Group survey

13August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDaily health checking of laboratory animals IAT Animal Welfare Group surveyThe survey asked respondents about the average number of cages, pens, or tanks of animals they check daily (Y number of cages). − The highest number checked daily was 2000, while the lowest number checked was 0. − On average, respondents checked 344 cages daily. − Thirty respondents skipped this question as they do not check animals as part of their daily routine. − 20 respondents checked between 400 to 500 cages.− 65 people checked up to 399 cages. − 5 people checked between 500 to 700 cages per day. − 6 respondents checked 1000 or more, with one checking 2000 and another 1650, which are extremely high (X number of people). − One person does not check any animals as this is not their role and possibly the 30 who did not respond to this question.Section 3: Health checkingPlease complete the following information about your health checking routine. Question 11What is the average number of cages/pens/tanks of animals you check daily?SECTION 3 HEALTH CHECKING Please complete the following information about your health checking routine. Question 11 What is the average number of cages/pens/tanks of animals you check daily? The survey asked respondents about the average number of cages, pens, or tanks of animals they check daily (Y number of cages). − The highest number checked daily was 2000, while the lowest number checked was 0. − On average, respondents checked 344 cages daily. − Thirty respondents skipped this question as they do not check animals as part of their daily routine. − 20 respondents checked between 400 to 500 cages − 65 people checked up to 399 cages. − 5 people checked between 500 to 700 cages per day. − 6 respondents checked 1000 or more, with one checking 2000, and another 1650, which are extremely high (X number of people). − One person does not check any animals as this is not their role and possibly the 30 who did not respond to this question. 050010001500200025000 20 40 60 80 100 120RESPONDENTS FEEDBACKY Number of cages checked X Number of respondents checking Question 12How much time do you spend daily health checking your animals?The survey asked respondents about the amount of time they spend daily health checking their animals. The responses varied considerably, with the most time spent being 4 hours and the least time being just a few seconds. The most common response times were:1 hour and 2 hours, each with twelve respondents. Other responses included:− 2 minutes − 1½ hours− 5 to 7 minutes per animal− 3 hoursOn average, the response time was approximately 83.3 minutes.

14Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Other:− I check animals as required by Animal Technicians at any time.− Animals are checked twice daily: a main check in the morning and a quick check in the afternoon.− Animals in specific studies may be checked up to 5 times or more each day.− Morning and afternoon.− We have 3 checks – AM, PM and late PM (water bottles checked after academics).Most respondents (57%) check their animals in the morning, with some checking morning and afternoon. 28 people skipped this question.Question 13What time of day do you health check your animals as ASPA requires laboratory animals to be checked daily by a competent person?Responses Number Morning 57.41% 62 Afternoon 0.93% 1 Both 38.89% 42 Other (please specify) 2.78% 3Answered 108 Skipped 28Summary of section 3: Health checkingThe survey asked respondents about their daily health checking routines for laboratory animals. The findings are as follows:Average number of cages/pens/tanks checked daily− The highest number checked daily was 2000, − The lowest number checked was rather lower. − On average, respondents checked 344 cages daily. − 30 respondents skipped this question as they do not check animals as part of their daily routine. − 20 respondents checked between 400 to 500 cages.− 65 people checked up to 399 cages. − 5 people checked between 500 to 700 cages per day. − 6 respondents checked 1000 or more, − 1 checking 2000.− 1 checking 1650.Time spent on health checks: The responses varied significantly, with the most time spent being four hours and the least time being just a few seconds. The most common response times were one hour and two hours, each with twelve respondents. Other responses included two minutes, one and a half hours, five to seven minutes per animal and three hours. On average, the response time was approximately 83.3 minutes. Time of day for health checks: − Most respondents (57.41%) check their animals in the morning, with some checking both morning and afternoon. A small percentage (0.93%) check in the afternoon only.− Frequency of health checks: Most individuals (57.94%) monitor their animals’ health once daily, while 36.45% check twice a day. A small percentage (4.67%) check three times a day.Section 4: Experimental animals’ health checkDuring your daily and weekly regime, can you identify the different types of animal checks you perform on experimental animals.Question 14How many times per day will you health check your animals?Responses Number 1 57.94% 62 2 36.45% 39 3 4.67% 5 4 0.00% 05 0.00% 0More than 5, please explain why0.93% 1Answered 107 Skipped 29− Most individuals (58%) monitor their animals’ health once daily − 36% check twice a day− One respondent indicated checking their animals more than five times per day due to experimental procedures, generally checking twice daily.Do you remove each cage/tank from the rack and count and check each animal?Responses Number Daily 72.00% 72 Weekly 21.00% 21 Other (please specify) 18.00% 18Answered 100 Skipped 36Question 15Daily health checking of laboratory animals IAT Animal Welfare Group survey

15August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDaily health checking of laboratory animals IAT Animal Welfare Group surveyOther (please specify):− Minimise disturbance to cages if animals are clearly visible.− Morning checks should be conducted.− Checks should be performed twice daily.− Experimental animals should be routinely monitored twice a day.− Tanks and cages must remain stationary.− Birds in cages require daily counts, while birds in flights do not.− Rodents should be checked weekly; fish should be checked monthly.− Mice require daily monitoring.− If there is a welfare concern or a particular condition, the cage will be removed and opened for a full assessment. Animals should be counted whenever a cage is opened for any reason.− Tank changes should occur biweekly.− Fish tanks are to be removed as necessary and routinely on a 3-week rotation. Rodent cages require visual off rack checks twice daily and lid removal checks twice weekly.− Researchers are responsible for checking their experimental animals.− CCTV should be used for monitoring wild animals.− For germ-free work, cage checks should be conducted twice a day.− Cages should be pulled out for inspection but not tanks.− Lift the cage card and inspect unless a more thorough check is required, in which case the cage should be removed and examined on the bench.Other:− Conduct PM checks regularly.− Perform thorough checks twice daily if necessary.− Always remove cages from the rack to inspect mice.− Conduct daily health checks for sick animals. However, counting fish and birds may not always be feasible.− Remove every cage from the rack on the experimental floor.− Inspect rodents weekly and fish monthly.Check the animals inside the cage/tank whilst on the rack and count each animal?Responses Number Daily 86.32% 82 Weekly 7.37% 7 Other (please specify) 13.68% 13Answered 95 Skipped 41Question 15− Ensure full visibility of the animal during inspection.− Check animals daily but count only during tank changes.− Take all cages from the rack and open them only at cage changing unless there is an issue.− Inspect rodents daily and fish as required, counting them during cleaning rotations or when needed for breeding/experimental purposes.− Researchers are responsible for checking their experimental animals.− Note that it is necessary to remove cages to see all specimens.− Do not count the animals while they are on the rack.Complete a tip of nose/jaw to end of tail (full health check) of each animal when changing cages/tanks/pens and do a head count to count the animals on other days?Responses Number Yes 87.88% 87 No 12.12% 12 Answered 99 Skipped 37Question 17The majority complete a full health check when changing the animal’s environment and count each animal on the other days. 37 respondents did not answer this question.Do you complete a full health check each day?Responses Number Yes 35.64% 36 No 64.36% 65 Answered 101 Skipped 35Question 1864% of respondents did not perform a daily full health check of each animal, and 35 people skipped this question.

16Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Summary of section 4: Experimental animals’ health checkThe survey asked respondents about their daily and weekly health checking routines for experimental animals. The findings are as follows:− Daily checks: 72% of respondents remove each cage/ tank from the rack and count and check each animal daily.− Weekly checks: 21% of respondents perform these checks weekly.− Other checks: 18% specified other routines, such as minimising disturbance to cages if animals are clearly visible, conducting morning checks, performing checks twice daily, and using CCTV for monitoring wild animals.− Counting animals on the Rack: 86.32% of respondents check the animals inside the cage/tank whilst on the rack and count each animal daily. 7.37% perform these checks weekly and 13.68% specified other routines.− Full health checks: 87.88% of respondents complete a full health check of each animal when changing cages/tanks/pens and do a head count on other days. 12.12% do not perform full health checks.− Daily full health checks: 35.64% of respondents complete a full health check each day, while 64.36% do not.Section 5: Stock animals health checksPlease can you identify the different types of animal health checks you perform on stock animals.Other:− Each cage is observed in situ, with randomly selected cages being removed and inspected.− Inspections occur during cleaning and while checking for litters.− When necessary, avoid disturbing animals if they are already fully visible.− Conducted during the morning check.− Not applicable for certain species or housing (e.g. fish and birds).− Weekly inspections for rodents, monthly for fish.Do you remove each cage/tank from the rack and count and check each animal?Responses Number Daily 58.42% 59 Weekly 33.66% 34 Other (please specify) 15.84% 16Answered 101 Skipped 35Question 19− Typically performed several times a week, depending on workload.− Twice daily checks.− Daily inspections for mice.− Every animal is checked daily within the cage and always counted during cleaning or whenever a cage is opened. Any issues that arise necessitate a full inspection of the cage.− Biweekly inspections during tank changes.− Twice weekly inspections for rodents, as required, and on a rotational schedule for fish cleaning.− Daily CCTV monitoring.− Germ-free cages are checked twice daily; SPF IVCs are checked weekly.− Pull out each cage, not tank.Many individuals remove each cage or tank from the racks to conduct their daily health inspections. However, 34% of individuals only remove them from the rack on a weekly basis.Other:− PM check.− We always remove the cage from the rack to examine our mice, conducting a thorough 360-degree inspection.− Animal counts are completed where possible, although it can be challenging with fish and birds.− Rodents are checked weekly, while fish are checked monthly.− Animals are inspected when they are fully visible.− Biweekly checks are performed during tank changes.− All cages are removed from the rack and only opened during cage changes unless an issue is identified.− Rodents and fish are monitored twice daily, except for fish counting.− Inspections are conducted on weekends.− Every cage is lifted off the rack for daily inspections but is not opened unless necessary.− We do not count the animals while they are on the rack.Animals are monitored both on the rack and off the rack by evaluating the numbers and percentages; however, 39 respondents did not answer this question.Check the animals inside the cage/tank whilst on the rack and count each animal?Responses Number Daily 82.47% 80 Weekly 12.37% 12 Other (please specify) 13.40% 13Answered 97 Skipped 39Question 20Daily health checking of laboratory animals IAT Animal Welfare Group survey

17August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDaily health checking of laboratory animals IAT Animal Welfare Group surveyComplete a tip of nose/jaw to end of tail (full health check) of each animal when changing cages/tanks/pens and do a head count to count the animals on other days?Responses Number Yes 88.66% 86 No 11.34% 11 Answered 97 Skipped 39Question 21Most respondents conduct a comprehensive health check on their animals when changing environments. Animals are counted on other days and 39 respondents did not answer this question.Full health check each day?Responses Number Yes 32.00% 32 No 68.00% 68 Answered 100 Skipped 36Question 22Most individuals, 68%, do not conduct a comprehensive health assessment daily. Additionally, 36 respondents chose not to answer this question.Summary of section 5: Stock animals health checksThe survey asked respondents about their health checking routines for stock animals. The findings are as follows:− Daily checks: 58.42% of respondents remove each cage/tank from the rack and count and check each animal daily.− Weekly checks: 33.66% of respondents perform these checks weekly.− Other checks: 15.84% specified other routines, such as observing each cage in situ, conducting inspections during cleaning, avoiding disturbing animals if they are fully visible and using CCTV for monitoring.− Counting animals on the rack: 82.47% of respondents check the animals inside the cage/tank whilst on the rack and count each animal daily. 12.37% perform these checks weekly and 13.40% specified other routines.− Full health checks: 88.66% of respondents complete a full health check of each animal when changing cages/tanks/pens and do a head count on other days. 11.34% do not perform full health checks.− Daily full health checks: 32.00% of respondents complete a full health check each day, while 68.00% do not.Section 6: Stock animals health checksPlease answer below if you have any other requirements for health checks?Do you count each animal to ensure it matches the number of animals on the cage label?Responses Number Yes 96.94% 95 No 3.06% 3 Answered 98 Skipped 38Question 2338 respondents did not answer this question; however a considerable number do count all their animals to ensure they match the details written on the label.Do you have a protocol to follow when you find a sick animal that needs attention?Responses Number Yes 98.98% 97 No 1.02% 1 Answered 98 Skipped 38Question 24The hope was that 100% of respondents had a protocol within their establishment to provide support and advice on their procedure of when an animal is found sick that needs attention. 38 respondents had skipped this question.

18Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Yes, please explain why: − More cages to check increases pressure.− Only AM check due to minimal staffing and reduced hours.− Time restrictions; only paid for a set number of hours.− Weekend health checks are observational as cages remain in the racking system.− Health checks are quicker and visual rather than thorough.− Fewer staff means faster checks with more cages per person.− Checks include food, enrichment, leaks and dead animals.− No overtime pay leads to rushed checks and higher error rates.− Additional duties with limited time.− AM and PM checks exist but weekend PM checks are earlier.− Visual checks only unless specified by a user.− Basic checks such as counting animals and ensuring food/water presence on weekends.Unfortunately 38 respondents skipped this question and 12% raised the concerns highlighted above.− “As managers, we emphasise that daily checks are crucial, but at times, this value is not consistently upheld.”− Weekend checks raise concerns, as data shows differences in the number of animals found dead or the number of births recorded depending on the day of the week.− Weekend pay models, such as flat-rate payments regardless of hours worked, can pressure staff to complete checks quickly.− Animal weighing is done weekly or monthly according to PPL protocols. Study animals may be weighed more frequently depending on the procedures involved.− In cases requiring post-surgery monitoring, weighing can be performed daily, significantly increasing morning check times.− Experimental mice undergo daily in-hand checks and are weighed at least twice a week.− Checking and weighing frequency is tailored to individual mice, with red health cards indicating daily checks and green health cards specifying checks on particular days.− Animals on health cards are checked daily and health status is updated.− Infected animals are weighed daily. Body condition scores are assessed monthly and weekly for study/aged animals.− Experimental animals receive thorough health checks daily, sometimes multiple times a day, depending on expected adverse effects. Stock animals have health checks in the morning, with temperature, humidity, food and water checked in the evening before leaving the unit.− The level of inspection vs. examination for health checks depends on various factors, including age, physiological state and experimental procedures, and should be guided by specific recommendations.− Birds in flights and fish in tanks are checked in 3D environments where precise counting is not feasible.− Animals showing no physical health issues might still be weighed daily to monitor weight changes.− Transparent fish tanks allow visual checks without removing the animals.− Some animals undergoing surgery or procedures like irradiation may also be opened and checked on weekends, depending on the procedure specifics.− All animals are checked once daily, with full health checks conducted weekly. Stock animals are weighed weekly, while experimental animals’ weighing schedules vary based on protocol needs.− There is an increase in the number of cages checked per technician during weekends.− Health check procedures are determined by the expected adverse effects of experiments and post-operative requirements, necessitating tailored approaches.− Animals are weighed for researchers.− Routine breeding occurs at least four times a year to reduce reproductive health risks in stock animals.Do you health check animals differently during weekends and bank holidays to your normal daily check Monday to Friday?Responses Number Yes 87.76% 86 No 12.24% 12 Answered 98 Skipped 38Question 25Is there anything else you would like to include which you feel will benefit this survey e.g. weighing animals?Number Answered 39 Skipped 97 Question 26− Livestock are weighed either monthly or weekly. − Animals are weighed weekly from weaning age.− Weights are recorded.− Animals undergo health checks when being weighed.− “An average of 20 seconds per cage is spent on daily checks, including dealing with sick mice. Some head count models do not adequately account for the time required for daily checks.”Daily health checking of laboratory animals IAT Animal Welfare Group survey

19August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDaily health checking of laboratory animals IAT Animal Welfare Group survey− Each animal room has specific checks based on the species and study protocols.− Experimental animals receive full health checks daily as needed.− Sick and post-surgery animals may be checked multiple times daily, with cages potentially opened for additional water and diet checks in the evening.− Health concerns requiring treatment are documented and progress is monitored via photos.− Specimens are weighed on M, W, and F if requested with weighing continuing for 3-7 days post-surgery or after colonoscopies.− Specific experimental animals have varying requirements, such as twice-daily checks or daily/weekly weighing.− Some animals are weighed weekly, others daily.− Post-op recovery mice are checked daily and weighed for three consecutive days before returning to experimental rooms.− Additional procedural work may occur on weekends requiring careful time management due to time-bound tasks.− Checks are performed in the morning and afternoon. Morning checks are for health; afternoon checks ensure bottles and food are adequate. No afternoon checks are done on weekends.− Weights are taken as per ERF and PPL requirements unless clinical signs indicate concern.− Weighing and tumour measurement are part of the daily health check.− Animals under health observation are checked multiple times throughout the day, depending on the type of observation.− Stock animals are not routinely weighed but sick animals are weighed daily until recovered. Animals under PPLs are weighed daily, serving as a humane endpoint.− Unwell, heavily pregnant, or post-surgery animals are checked several times a day.− Animals are not weighed regularly unless required by experimental conditions. When cages are not changed weekly, animals may not receive a full weekly health check.97 people skipped this question and thus it is assumed that the questions and their answers covered their working practices at their establishments. 39 respondents provided additional information and their comments are highlighted above.Summary of section 6: Other checksThe survey asked respondents about additional requirements for health checks. The findings are as follows:− Counting animals: 96.94% of respondents count each animal to ensure it matches the number on the cage label, while 3.06% do not.− Protocol for sick animals: 98.98% of respondents have a protocol to follow when they find a sick animal that needs attention but 1.02% do not.− Weekend and holiday checks: 87.76% of respondents do not health check animals differently during weekends and bank holidays compared to normal daily checks from Monday to Friday. However, 12.24% do, citing reasons such as increased pressure due to more cages to check, minimal staffing, reduced hours, time restrictions and additional duties.− Additional comments: Respondents provided various additional comments, including concerns about rushed weekend checks, the importance of weighing animals and the need for thorough health checks. Some mentioned that livestock are weighed either monthly or weekly and animals are weighed weekly from weaning age. Weights are recorded and animals undergo health checks when being weighed.Key findings of the survey:1. Experience: Respondents had varying levels of experience, with 24.26% having more than 25 years of experience.2. Job roles: The majority of respondents were Animal Technicians.3. Educational qualifications: Respondents held various IAT qualifications, with Level 2 being the most common.4. Named persons: 45.59% of respondents were named persons, holding roles such as NACWO, NTCO, NIO, HOLC, NVS, and PEL.5. Licences: Most respondents held a Personal Licence (PIL), with fewer holding Project Licences (PPL) and Establishment Licences (PEL).6. Facilities and housing: The majority of respondents work in experimental and breeding facilities, with Individually Ventilated Cages (IVCs) being the most common housing type.7. Species: Mice were the most cared-for species, followed by rats and fish.8. Health check frequency: Most respondents check their animals once daily, with some checking twice a day.9. Time spent on health checks: The average number of cages checked daily was 344 and the average time spent on health checks was approximately 83.3 minutes.10. Timing of health checks: The majority of respondents perform health checks in the morning, with some checking both morning and afternoon.

20Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Main concerns raised by respondents1. Rushed weekend checks: Respondents expressed concerns about feeling rushed to perform weekend checks due to minimal staffing, reduced hours and additional duties. This can lead to less thorough checks and a higher potential for errors.2. Time constraints: Time restrictions and the pressure to complete checks quickly, especially during weekends, were highlighted as significant concerns. Some respondents mentioned that they are only paid for a set number of hours, which affects the quality of health checks.3. Staffing limitations: Most respondents (87.76%) do not change their health check protocols during weekends and holidays, leading to concerns about thoroughness due to staffing limitations.4. Additional duties: Respondents noted that additional duties and limited time during weekends and holidays can impact the quality of health checks.Overall, these concerns highlight the challenges faced by respondents in maintaining thorough and consistent health checks for laboratory animals, especially during weekends and bank holidays.Suggested solutions to address the concerns raised:1. Enhanced weekend staffing: Increasing staffing levels during weekends and holidays can help alleviate the pressure on technicians and ensure thorough health checks. This may involve hiring additional staff or adjusting schedules to provide adequate coverage.2. Extended check times: Allowing more time for health checks, especially during weekends, can improve the quality of checks and reduce errors. This may require adjusting pay models to compensate staff for the additional time spent on checks.3. Additional training: Providing training to technicians on efficient health checking practices can help them manage their time better and perform thorough checks even under time constraints.4. Use of technology: Implementing technology such as CCTV for monitoring animals can help reduce the need for physical checks and provide continuous observation, especially for animals in 3D environments like flights and pens.5. Regular weighing: Incorporating regular weighing of animals into health check protocols can help monitor their health more effectively. This is particularly important for experimental animals and those recovering from surgery.Summary of findingsThe document presents the findings of a survey conducted by the Institute of Animal Technology (IAT) Animal Welfare Group, aimed at understanding daily health checking practices for laboratory animals across various establishments.The survey was designed to assess how different institutions perform daily health checks on laboratory animals, in compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and EU Directive 2010/63/E. Out of over 2,000 IAT members, 136 participated, providing insights into their roles, experience, and qualifications related to animal care.The survey revealed variability in the number of cages checked daily, with some respondents reporting checks on up to 2000 cages, while others checked fewer than 400. Most respondents indicated they check animals once daily (58%), with a significant number (36%) checking twice a day. A vast majority (98.98%) reported having protocols for handling sick animals, although only 35.64% perform full health checks daily.The majority (87.76%) do not change their health check protocols during weekends and holidays, leading to concerns about thoroughness due to staffing limitations. An overwhelming majority (96.94%) count animals to ensure they match cage labels, reflecting a commitment to accurate record-keeping. Respondents highlighted the importance of weighing animals and expressed concerns about time constraints affecting the quality of health checks, especially during weekends.Considerations and moving forward:Respondents work at different speeds and this should be considered when planning workloads and weekend duties. One respondent indicated that they did not have a protocol at their establishment for handling sick animals and 38 respondents skipped this question, most of the respondents do have a system in place which helps towards promoting a good Culture of Care for their animals but not all are working directly at the cage front on a daily basis but they should be aware of their establishments process on how to care for sick animals. Daily health checking of laboratory animals IAT Animal Welfare Group survey

21August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDaily health checking of laboratory animals IAT Animal Welfare Group surveyThe following steps based on the survey results is to:1. Understand if animals are physically handled and checked or visually looked at daily and if this changes during weekends and bank holidays.2. Understand the different types of protocol that establishments follow for the handling of sick animals.3. IAT Animal Welfare Group to produce guidance on good practice for the daily health checking of laboratory animals. References1 Guidance on the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Animals in Science Regulation Unit - GOV.UK2 European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Regulation - 2019/1010 - EN - EUR-Lex

22Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020PAPER SUMMARY TRANSLATIONSCONTENU DE LA REVUEContrôle sanitaire quotidien des animaux de laboratoire - Enquête du Groupe du bien-être animal de l’IAT DIANE HAZLEHURST, CARMEN ABELA, SYLVIE MEHIGAN, CAROLE WILSON, TERESA MALLIA, KALLY BOOTH, ZOE WINDSOR ET GLYN FISHERGroupe du bien-être animal de l’IATCorrespondance: awg@iat.org.uk Résumé Le Groupe du bien-être animal (AWG) est un sous-comité de l'Institut de technologie animale (IAT). Nous avons créé cette enquête car nous voulions comprendre comment les différents établissements effectuent le bilan de santé quotidien des animaux dont ils ont la charge, une tâche fondamentale. – Quel est le nombre de cages/aquariums/enclos d'animaux idéal à vérifier quotidiennement, y compris le week-end?– À quelle fréquence les animaux sont-ils contrôlés tout au long de la journée?– Qu'est-ce qui est vérifié quotidiennement, par exemple un contrôle complet du corps et un comptage pour s'assurer que le nombre correspond aux détails de l'étiquette?Nous respectons les dispositions de la loi sur les animaux (procédures scientifiques) de 1986 (ASPA)1 au Royaume-Uni et la directive 2010/63/eu2 de l'UE sur la protection des animaux utilisés à des fins scientifiques. En vertu de l'ASPA, les animaux protégés doivent faire l'objet d'un contrôle sanitaire par une personne compétente au moins une fois par jour. ★ ★ ★Animal Technology and Welfare April 2025

23August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePaper Summary TranslationsL'affiche lauréate du prix Andrew Blake Tribute Award 2025 intitulée « Comprendre et atténuer l'agressivité de la souris masculine » TAMARA BAKER1, SOFIA OSTMAN2, BIRGIT EDWALDSSON3, KATE SHENTON2, SALLY ROBINSON2, DAWN ATHERTON – KEMP1, ROBBIE MCLAREN-JONES2, DIANA PAO5, THERESE EDSTROM3, AMY CANTRELL2, AMIR HUSSAIN4, SARA ALBERY LANSDOTTER3 ET NATALIE KELLEY5 1 AstraZeneca Cambridge, Royaume-Uni2 AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Royaume-Uni3 AstraZeneca Gothenburg, Suède4 AstraZeneca Gaithesburg, États-Unis5 AstraZeneca Boston, États-UnisCorrespondance: tamara.baker@astrazeneca.comRésumé Ce document traite des défis et des solutions liés à l'agressivité des souris mâles. Le logement en groupe est essentiel pour les animaux sociaux comme les souris, mais il peut entraîner une agression sévère, provoquant de la douleur, des blessures voire la mort des animaux. Historiquement, les souris mâles ont été traitées de la même manière que les souris femelles, mais la compréhension des déclencheurs de l'agression a conduit à la mise en œuvre de régimes spécifiques de logement et de manipulation pour les souris mâles.L'article souligne la nécessité d'utiliser des souris mâles dans les études, en particulier pour certains modèles comme le cancer de la prostate. Un groupe de travail mondial a été formé pour identifier les déclencheurs d'agression et les stratégies visant à les atténuer.★ ★ ★Développement et utilisation d'un compartiment supplémentaire monté sur les cages pour améliorer le bien-être du rat VIKKI NEVILLE1, LOUISE PHELON2, CHRIS HANDLEY2, MICHAEL MENDL1 ET ELIZABETH PAUL11 Bristol Veterinary School, Bristol, BS40 5DU2 Animal Services Unit, Université de Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1QUCorrespondance: vikki.neville@bristol.ac.ukRésumé Cet article traite de la conception et de la mise en œuvre d'un compartiment supplémentaire monté sur les cages pour améliorer le bien-être des rats utilisés dans la recherche scientifique. Ces compartiments supplémentaires peuvent être montés sur les cages de rats standard pour leur fournir plus d'espace et de la complexité à faible coût. Cet article met en évidence les avantages d’un logement plus grand et plus complexe pour les rats afin d’améliorer leur bien-être par rapport aux cages conventionnelles standard. Le compartiment supplémentaire monté sur la cage offre un espace en plus permettant aux rats de se redresser entièrement et comprend un nichoir suspendu amovible teinté en rouge qui ajoute de la complexité. Les quelques études qui ont été menées sur ces compartiments supplémentaires montés sur les cages ont révélé son utilité pour améliorer le bien-être des rats et étudier leur comportement.★ ★ ★

24Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Paper Summary TranslationsÉlevage captif du Gecko de Bynoe (Heteronotia binoei)GARY MARTINIC ET KIERAN BURNSK1 Reptile and Mammal Facility, Environment & Animal Sciences, Western Sydney University, AustralieCorrespondance: g.martinic@westernsydney.edu.au Résumé Cet article fournit un aperçu approfondi du Gecko de Bynoe, une espèce de lézard endémique d’Australie. Il couvre divers aspects de la vie du gecko, notamment son aire de répartition géographique, son habitat, sa santé, son logement, son alimentation, sa reproduction et les règlements qui s’appliquent pour le garder comme animal de compagnie. ★ ★ ★Mise en œuvre du raffinement dans le modèle de souris EAESARA KUNCOVAThe Francis Crick InstituteCorrespondance: sara.kuncova@crick.ac.uk Résumé Cette affiche traite de l'utilisation du modèle expérimental murin de l'encéphalomyélite auto-immune (EAE) pour induire l'inflammation du système nerveux central, qui est couramment utilisé pour étudier la sclérose en plaques (SEP) humaine ainsi que d'autres maladies démyélinisantes. L'article met en évidence les souffrances graves potentielles que l'EAE peut causer chez les souris, notamment les signes cliniques tels que les plaies ulcérées, la paralysie de la queue et la paralysie des membres. Le bien-être des animaux est mis en avant à travers les besoins particuliers en matière d’élevage, notamment une manipulation soigneuse, des adaptations en matière de soins et d’hébergement, une notation quotidienne et la reconnaissance de critères d’évaluation humains. L'article fournit un aperçu des améliorations nécessaires pour minimiser la douleur et l'inconfort des animaux. ★ ★ ★

25August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePaper Summary TranslationsINHALTVERZEICHNISUmfrage der IAT Animal Welfare Group zur täglichen Gesundheitskontrolle von LabortierenDIANE HAZLEHURST, CARMEN ABELA, SYLVIE MEHIGAN, CAROLE WILSON, TERESA MALLIA, KALLY BOOTH, ZOE WINDSOR UND GLYN FISHER IAT Animal Welfare GroupKorrespondenz: awg@iat.org.uk Einleitung Die Animal Welfare Group (AWG) ist ein Unterausschuss des Institute of Animal Technology (IAT). Zweck unserer Umfrage war es, Aufschluss darüber zu gewinnen, wie verschiedene Einrichtungen die grundlegende Aufgabe der täglichen Gesundheitskontrolle der ihnen anvertrauten Tiere durchführen.– Wie viele Käfige/Behälter/Gehege mit Tieren sollten idealerweise täglich kontrolliert werden, auch an Wochenenden?– Wie oft werden die Tiere im Laufe des Tages kontrolliert?– Was wird täglich kontrolliert, z. B. eine Ganzkörperkontrolle und eine Zählung, um sicherzustellen, dass die Anzahl mit den Angaben auf dem Etikett übereinstimmt?Wir befolgen im Vereinigten Königreich die Bestimmungen des Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA)1 und der EU-Richtlinie 2010/63/EU2 zum Schutz von für wissenschaftliche Zwecke verwendeten Tieren. Gemäß ASPA müssen geschützte Tiere mindestens einmal täglich von einer qualifiziertenPerson auf ihren Gesundheitszustand untersucht werden. ★ ★ ★

26Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Paper Summary TranslationsDas mit dem Andrew Blake Tribute Award 2025 ausgezeichnete Poster trägt den Titel „Understanding and mitigating male mouse aggression“ (Aggression bei männlichen Mäusen verstehen und eindämmen) TAMARA BAKER1, SOFIA OSTMAN2, BIRGIT EDWALDSSON3, KATE SHENTON2, SALLY ROBINSON2, DAWN ATHERTON – KEMP1, ROBBIE MCLAREN-JONES2, DIANA PAO5, THERESE EDSTROM3, AMY CANTRELL2, AMIR HUSSAIN4, SARA ALBERY LANSDOTTER3 UND NATALIE KELLEY5 1 AstraZeneca Cambridge, Vereinigtes Königreich2 AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Vereinigtes Königreich3 AstraZeneca Göteborg, Schweden,4 AstraZeneca Gaithesburg, USA5 AstraZeneca Boston, USAKorrespondenz: tamara.baker@astrazeneca.comEinleitung Das Poster erörtert die Herausforderungen und Lösungen im Zusammenhang mit Aggression bei männlichen Mäusen. Die Gruppenhaltung ist für soziale Tiere wie Mäuse unerlässlich, kann aber zu schwerer Aggression führen, die Schmerzen, Verletzungen und sogar den Tod verursacht. In der Vergangenheit wurden männliche Mäuse genauso behandelt wie weibliche Mäuse, doch das Verständnis der Auslöser von Aggression hat zur Einführung spezifischer Unterbringungs- und Handhabungsregelungen für männliche Mäuse geführt.Diese Arbeit verdeutlicht die Notwendigkeit, männliche Mäuse in Studien zu verwenden, insbesondere für bestimmte Modelle wie Prostatakrebs. Es wurde eine globale Arbeitsgruppe gebildet, um Aggressionsauslöser und Strategien zu deren Eindämmung zu ermitteln.★ ★ ★Entwicklung und Einsatz eines Käfigaufsatzes zur Verbesserung des Wohlergehens von RattenVIKKI NEVILLE1, LOUISE PHELON2, CHRIS HANDLEY2, MICHAEL MENDL1 UND ELIZABETH PAUL11 Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford, BS40 5DU2 Animals Services Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1QUKorrespondenz: vikki.neville@bristol.ac.ukEinleitung In diesem Artikel geht es um den Entwurf und die Umsetzung eines Käfigaufsatzes zur Verbesserung des Wohlergehens von Ratten in der wissenschaftlichen Forschung. Dieser Käfigaufsatz kann einen Standard-Rattenkäfig ergänzen, um mehr Platz und Komplexität zu geringen Kosten zu bieten. Dies verdeutlicht die Vorteile einer größeren, komplexeren Unterbringung von Ratten, mit der ihr Wohlergehen im Vergleich zu herkömmlichen Standardkäfigen verbessert werden kann. Der Käfigaufsatz bietet den Ratten zusätzlichen Platz, damit sie sich vollständig aufrichten können. Er enthält zudem einen abnehmbaren, rot getönten, aufgehängten Nistkasten für zusätzliche Komplexität. In mehreren mit dem Käfigaufsatz durchgeführten Studien wurde festgestellt, dass dieser für die Verbesserung des Wohlergehens von Ratten und die Untersuchung ihres Verhaltens von Nutzen ist.★ ★ ★

27August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePaper Summary TranslationsHaltung des Kaktusgeckos (Heteronotia binoei) in GefangenschaftGARY MARTINIC UND KIERAN BURNSK1 Reptile and Mammal Facility, Environment & Animal Sciences, Western Sydney University, AustralienKorrespondenz: g.martinic@westernsydney.edu.au Einleitung Diese Arbeit befasst sich eingehend mit dem Bynoe’s Gecko, einer in Australien endemischen Eidechsenart. Es werden verschiedene Aspekte des Lebens des Geckos behandelt, darunter sein geografisches Verbreitungsgebiet, Lebensraum, Gesundheit, Unterbringung, Ernährung, Fortpflanzung und Vorschriften für seine Haltung als Haustier. ★ ★ ★Umsetzung der Verbesserung im EAE-MausmodellSARA KUNCOVAThe Francis Crick InstituteKorrespondenz: sara.kuncova@crick.ac.uk Einleitung In diesem Poster wird die Verwendung des Mausmodells der experimentellen autoimmunen Enzephalomyelitis (EAE) zur Auslösung von Entzündungen im zentralen Nervensystem erörtert, die üblicherweise zur Untersuchung der Multiplen Sklerose (MS) und anderer demyelinisierender Erkrankungen beim Menschen dient. Die Arbeit verdeutlicht das potenzielle schwere Leiden, das die EAE bei Mäusen verursachen kann, einschließlich klinischer Anzeichen wie eitrige Wunden sowie Schwanz- und Gliederlähmung. Unter besonderer Betonung des Wohlergehens der Tiere wird auf die speziellen, an die Haltung gestellten Anforderungen verwiesen, einschließlich sorgfältiger Handhabung, Pflege und Anpassung der Unterbringung, tägliches Scoring und Erkennung humaner Endpunkte. Die Arbeit gibt einen Überblick über Verbesserungen zur Minimierung von Leid und Belastung der Tiere.★ ★ ★

28Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Paper Summary TranslationsINDICE DELLA REVISTAControlli medici giornalieri per animali da laboratorio: sondaggio dell'Animal Welfare Group (IAT)DIANE HAZLEHURST, CARMEN ABELA, SYLVIE MEHIGAN, CAROLE WILSON, TERESA MALLIA, KALLY BOOTH, ZOE WINDSOR E GLYN FISHER IAT Animal Welfare GroupCorrispondenza: awg@iat.org.uk Introduzione L'Animal Welfare Group (AWG) è una sottocommissione dell'Institute of Animal Technology (IAT). L'obiettivo di questo sondaggio è comprendere le modalità impiegate da strutture diverse per eseguire i controlli medici giornalieri degli animali sotto la loro cura, un compito di importanza fondamentale.– Idealmente, quante gabbie/vasche/box di animali si dovrebbero controllare giornalmente, compresi i fine settimana?– Con che frequenza vengono controllati gli animali nel corso dell'intera giornata?– Cosa comportano i controlli giornalieri (ad es. un controllo completo del corpo e un conteggio per verificare che il numero corrisponda ai dettagli riportati sull'etichetta)?Rispettiamo le disposizioni della legge inglese Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA)1 a livello britannico e la Direttiva Ue 2010/63/Ue2 sulla tutela degli animali utilizzati per scopi scientifici. L'ASPA impone che una persona competente sottoponga gli animali tutelati a controlli medici almeno una volta al giorno. ★ ★ ★

29August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePaper Summary Translations"Comprensione e mitigazione dell'aggressività del topo maschio": poster vincitore del premio Andrew Blake Tribute Award 2025 TAMARA BAKER1, SOFIA OSTMAN2, BIRGIT EDWALDSSON3, KATE SHENTON2, SALLY ROBINSON2, DAWN ATHERTON – KEMP1, ROBBIE MCLAREN-JONES2, DIANA PAO5, THERESE EDSTROM3, AMY CANTRELL2, AMIR HUSSAIN4, SARA ALBERY LANSDOTTER3 E NATALIE KELLEY5 1 AstraZeneca Cambridge, Regno Unito2 AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Regno Unito3 AstraZeneca Gotenburgo, Svezia4 AstraZeneca Gaithesburg, Stati Uniti5 AstraZeneca Boston, Stati UnitiCorrispondenza: tamara.baker@astrazeneca.comIntroduzione Questo articolo affronta le sfide e le soluzioni relative all'aggressività nei topi maschi. Una stabulazione in gruppo è fondamentale per animali sociali come i topi, ma può scatenare una grave aggressività, causando dolore, lesioni e persino la morte. Storicamente, i topi maschi sono stati trattati come i topi femmina, ma la comprensione dei fattori scatenanti dell'aggressività è risultata nell'uso di alloggiamenti e regimi di trattamento specifici per i topi maschi.La relazione mette in evidenza la necessità di utilizzare topi maschi negli studi, soprattutto per certi modelli, come il tumore alla prostata. È stato formato, quindi, un gruppo di lavoro internazionale per identificare i fattori scatenanti dell'aggressività e le relative strategie di mitigazione.★ ★ ★Sviluppo e uso di box d'ampliamento per gabbia per il miglioramento del benessere dei ratti VIKKI NEVILLE1, LOUISE PHELON2, CHRIS HANDLEY2, MICHAEL MENDL1 E ELIZABETH PAUL11 Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford, BS40 5DU2 Animals Services Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1QUCorrispondenza: vikki.neville@bristol.ac.ukIntroduzione Questo articolo discute la progettazione e l'utilizzo di un box d'ampliamento per gabbia al fine di migliorare il benessere dei ratti usati nella ricerca scientifica. Il box può essere aggiunto a una gabbia per ratti standard per offrire ulteriore spazio e complessità a basso costo. Questa scelta evidenzia i benefici di alloggiamenti per ratti più grandi e complessi, che possono migliorare il loro benessere rispetto alle gabbie convenzionali standard. Il box d'ampliamento fornisce maggior spazio per consentire ai ratti di sollevarsi completamente sulle zampe posteriori e include una cassetta nido sospesa rimovibile dalle sfumature rosse per accrescere la complessità. I vari studi condotti con il box d'ampliamento hanno confermato la sua utilità per il miglioramento del benessere dei ratti e per lo studio del loro comportamento. ★ ★ ★

30Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Paper Summary TranslationsAllevamento in cattività del Geco di Bynoe (Heteronotia binoei)GARY MARTINIC E KIERAN BURNSK1 Reptile and Mammal Facility, Environment & Animal Sciences, Western Sydney University, AustraliaCorrispondenza: g.martinic@westernsydney.edu.au Introduzione Questo articolo presenta un'analisi approfondita del Geco di Bynoe, una specie di lucertola endemica dell'Australia. Tratta vari aspetti della vita del geco, tra cui distribuzione geografica, habitat, salute, stabulazione, dieta, nutrizione, riproduzione e normative per tenerlo come animale domestico.★ ★ ★Implementazione del perfezionamento nel modello murino EAESARA KUNCOVAThe Francis Crick InstituteCorrispondenza: sara.kuncova@crick.ac.uk Introduzione Questo poster esplora l'uso del modello murino Encefalomielite Autoimmune Sperimentale (EAE) per indurre l'infiammazione nel sistema nervoso centrale, comunemente utilizzato per studiare la sclerosi multipla (SM) negli uomini e altre malattie demielinizzanti. La relazione mette in evidenza le potenziali grandi sofferenze causate dal modello EAE nei topi, compresi segni clinici quali le ferite ulcerate, la paralisi della coda e la paralisi degli arti. L'enfasi si pone sul benessere degli animali, evidenziato da necessità di allevamento speciali, quali un trattamento attento, adattamento delle cure e degli alloggiamenti, valutazione giornaliera e riconoscimento degli endpoint non crudeli. La relazione fornisce una panoramica dei perfezionamenti da attuare per ridurre al minimo il dolore e il disagio.★ ★ ★

31August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePaper Summary TranslationsINDICE DE LA REVISTAEncuesta del Grupo de Bienestar Animal del IAT sobre el control de salud diario de los animales de laboratorioDIANE HAZLEHURST, CARMEN ABELA, SYLVIE MEHIGAN, CAROLE WILSON, TERESA MALLIA, KALLY BOOTH, ZOE WINDSOR Y GLYN FISHER Grupo de Bienestar Animal del IATCorreo electrónico: awg@iat.org.uk Resumen El Grupo de Bienestar Animal (AWG) es un subcomité del Institute of Animal technology (IAT). Creamos esta encuesta porque queríamos entender cómo diferentes instituciones realizan la tarea fundamental del control de salud diario de los animales a su cargo. – ¿Cuántas jaulas/tanques/recintos para animales es el número ideal para revisar diariamente, incluidos los fines de semana?– ¿Con qué frecuencia a lo largo del día se revisa a los animales?– ¿Qué se comprueba diariamente, por ejemplo, una revisión de todo el cuerpo y un recuento para asegurarse de que el número coincide con los datos de la etiqueta?Seguimos las disposiciones de la Ley de Animales (Procedimientos Científicos) de 1986 (ASPA)1 en todo el Reino Unido y la Directiva 2010/63/UE2 de la UE sobre la protección de los animales utilizados para fines científicos. Bajo la ASPA, es un requisito que una persona competente revise la salud de los animales protegidos al menos una vez al día. ★ ★ ★

32Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Paper Summary TranslationsPóster ganador del premio Andrew Blake Tribute Award 2025 titulado «Comprender y mitigar la agresión en los ratones machos» TAMARA BAKER1, SOFIA OSTMAN2, BIRGIT EDWALDSSON3, KATE SHENTON2, SALLY ROBINSON2, DAWN ATHERTON – KEMP1, ROBBIE MCLAREN-JONES2, DIANA PAO5, THERESE EDSTROM3, AMY CANTRELL2, AMIR HUSSAIN4, SARA ALBERY LANSDOTTER3 Y NATALIE KELLEY5 1 AstraZeneca Cambridge, Reino Unido2 AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Reino Unido3 AstraZeneca Gotemburgo, Suecia4 AstraZeneca Gaithesburg, Estados Unidos5 AstraZeneca Boston, Estados UnidosCorreo electrónico: tamara.baker@astrazeneca.comResumen En este póster se discuten los retos y soluciones relacionados con la agresividad en ratones macho. El alojamiento en grupo es esencial para animales sociales como los ratones, pero puede provocar agresiones graves, causando dolor, lesiones e incluso la muerte. Históricamente, los ratones macho han recibido el mismo trato que las hembras, pero comprender qué factores desencadenan la agresividad ha permitido aplicar regímenes de alojamiento y manipulación específicos para ratones macho.El artículo destaca la necesidad de utilizar ratones machos en diferentes estudios, especialmente para ciertos modelos como el cáncer de próstata. Se formó un grupo de trabajo a nivel global para identificar los factores desencadenantes de la agresión y las diferentes estrategias para mitigarlos.★ ★ ★Desarrollo y uso de una extensión de jaula para mejorar el bienestar de las ratasVIKKI NEVILLE1, LOUISE PHELON2, CHRIS HANDLEY2, MICHAEL MENDL1 Y ELIZABETH PAUL11 Facultad de Veterinaria de Bristol, Universidad de Bristol, Langford, BS40 5DU2 Unidad de Servicios para Animales, Universidad de Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1QUCorreo electrónico: vikki.neville@bristol.ac.ukResumen En este artículo se analiza el diseño y la implementación de una extensión de jaula con el fin de mejorar el bienestar de las ratas utilizadas en la investigación científica. Esta extensión de jaula puede añadirse a una jaula para ratas estándar a fin de proporcionar espacio adicional y complejidad con un bajo coste. Esto pone de manifiesto las ventajas de un recinto para ratas más grande y complejo, que puede mejorar su bienestar en comparación con las jaulas estándares convencionales. La extensión de jaula proporciona espacio adicional para que las ratas puedan incorporarse completamente e incluye una caja nido suspendida con tono rojo extraíble para añadir complejidad. Se realizaron varios estudios con la extensión de jaula y se comprobó su utilidad a la hora de mejorar el bienestar de las ratas y estudiar su comportamiento. ★ ★ ★

33August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePaper Summary TranslationsCría en cautividad del geco de Bynoe (Heteronotia binoei)GARY MARTINIC Y KIERAN BURNSInstalación K1 de Reptiles y Mamíferos, Ciencias Ambientales y Animales, Universidad de Western Sydney, Australia.Correo electrónico: g.martinic@westernsydney.edu.au Resumen En este artículo se ofrece una visión en profundidad del geco de Bynoe, una especie de lagarto endémica de Australia. Abarca diversos aspectos de la vida del geco, como su área de distribución geográfica, hábitat, salud, cobijo, dieta, alimentación, reproducción y normativa para tenerlos como mascotas.★ ★ ★Implementación de mejoras en el modelo de EAE en ratónSARA KUNCOVAThe Francis Crick InstituteCorreo electrónico: sara.kuncova@crick.ac.uk Resumen Este póster analiza el uso del modelo de encefalomielitis autoinmune experimental (EAE) en ratón para inducir inflamación en el sistema nervioso central, el cual se utiliza comúnmente para estudiar la esclerosis múltiple (EM) humana y otras enfermedades desmielinizantes. El artículo destaca el grave sufrimiento potencial que la EAE puede causar en los ratones, incluidos signos clínicos como heridas ulceradas, parálisis de la cola y de las extremidades. Se destaca el bienestar de los animales, con necesidades especiales de manejo que incluyen un manejo cuidadoso, adaptaciones en el alojamiento y cuidado, puntuación diaria y el reconocimiento de variables de valoración compasivas. El artículo ofrece una visión general de las mejoras para minimizar el dolor y el malestar de los animales.★ ★ ★

35August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAbstractThe welfare of rats used in scientific research is an important concern. Recent studies show that larger, more complex housing improves rat welfare compared to standard conventional cages. However there are typically both practical and financial constraints to implementing this. We developed a cage topper that can be added to a standard rat cage to provide additional space and complexity and that can be built in-house at a low cost. Here, we introduce the design of this cage topper and discuss its utility from the perspective of a researcher, a named animal care and welfare officer (NACWO)/lead technician, and a named veterinary surgeon (NVS). We concluded that while the cage topper is likely to provide a welfare benefit that more research is needed to assess if there are any adverse effects of the cage topper on animal health and biosecurity. At present the cage topper may be most useful to enhance to welfare of rats who are healthy who would otherwise be housed in non-individually ventilated cages (IVCs) conventional cages. IntroductionConventional housing for laboratory rats, such as that stipulated by the minimum standards outlined in the United Kingdom (UK) Home Office Code of Practice for Housing Animals used in Scientific Procedures 49Haven’t the time to write a paper but want to have something published? Then read on!This section offers readers the opportunity to submit informal contributions about anyaspects of Animal Technology. Comments, observations, descriptions of new or refinedtechniques, new products or equipment, old products or equipment adapted to new use,any subject that may be useful to technicians in other institutions. Submissions can bepresented as technical notes and do not need to be structured and can be as short or aslong as is necessary. Accompanying illustrations and/or photos should be high resolution.NB. Descriptions of new products or equipment submitted by manufacturers are welcomebut should be a factual account of the product. However, the Editorial Board gives nowarranty as to the accuracy or fitness for purpose of the product.What 3Rs idea have you developed?EMMA FILBYMira Building, University of Cambridge, University Biomedical Services,Charles Babbage Road, Cambridge CB3 0FSCorrespondence: emma.filby@admin.cam.ac.ukBased on an ar ticle written for the National Centre for the 3RsApril 2020 Animal Technology and We lfareTECH-2-TECHBackgroundEmma was invited to write an article as a 3Rschampion in NC3Rs ‘Tech 3Rs’ Issue 5, November2019.Here is her response describing how she has used anautomated system to reduce how frequently mousecage bedding is changed without compromisingcleanliness.IntroductionOur unit opened in 2017, during the procurement ofnew equipment we had the opportunity to purchase adigital ventilated rack system from Tecniplast UK. Thecages are referred to as the Digitally Ventilated Cage orDVC. This system uses the data collected by sensorsbelow the cage to flag when to clean out based on thechange in an electromagnetic signal. To have thisfunctionality we first needed to cr eate an algorithmduring a learning phase.The learning phase: devising analgorithmWe held a meeting to agree what warranted a cage basechange based on pictures to avoid being subjective. Wereferred to the Home Office Codes of Practice for thehousing and care of animals bred, supplied or used forscientific purposes (HOCoP) for advice on husbandr ypractices to set our criteria, balancing hygiene and theimportance of olfactory cues to rodents and their needfor control over their environment.1We started the trial, noting when the cage reached thepoint it required a base change. We assessed airquality, what proportion of the cage base was wet andwhether the animals still had c hoice over theirenvironment and their ability to show spatial separationof different behaviours such as nesting and excretion,for example their nest was free of faeces. During the‘learning phase’ we asked our Named VeterinarySurgeon (NVS) and Home Office inspector (HOI) tocheck that they agreed with our assessment.APRIL_1-628207435_4-628196990.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 06:51 Page 49TECH-2-TECHThe development and use of a cage-topper to enhance rat welfareVIKKI NEVILLE1, LOUISE PHELON2, CHRIS HANDLEY2, MICHAEL MENDL1 and ELIZABETH PAUL11 Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford BS40 5DU2 Animals Services Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1QUCorrespondence: vikki.neville@bristol.ac.uk April 2025 Animal Technology and Welfare

36Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020(henceforth referred to as ‘Code of Practice’), can lead to compromised health and welfare. A 2022 meta-analysis found that conventional housing exacerbated disease severity, increased mortality rates and increased anxiety and depression (according to existing rodent models of those disorders) relative to enhanced housing in laboratory rodents.1 There is some evidence that the lack of opportunity for adult rats to rear in conventional housing can lead to stiffness and postural stress.2 There is a large body of research, summarised through data synthesis, on which to base improvements to the housing of laboratory rats. These have highlighted the importance of providing rats with complex spaces that include both larger and smaller areas, and multiple types of enrichment – particularly shelters.3,4,5Moreover, guidelines have been developed for the housing of rats in a pet context through expert consultation and these may provide a useful foundation for thinking about refined housing of laboratory rats.6 Importantly, the minimum recommendation for vertical and horizontal space within a pet rat cage (at least three body lengths – 80 to 120cm in both width and height, assuming four pet rats housed per cage) far exceed minimum standards for laboratory rat housing in the Code of Practice (minimum 400cm2 floor area per group housed animal, minimum height of 20cm). The pet rat recommendations also emphasise that cage complexity is necessary and state that a cage should have a minimum of two tiers. There is no requirement for tiered housing in the Code of Practice. Housing lab rats faces many constraints. There are practical constraints:− Many animals may need to be housed in a single room. − Animals need to be easily observable and accessible.− Cages need to be easy to clean. There are also financial constraints: − Cages that exceed the minimum standards are commercially available.− The cost of replacing all cages in an institution may not be financially viable. − These are commonly cited as barriers to improving housing for laboratory rats.7Our research group designed a cage topper that provides extra space for rats, including sufficient space for rearing that can be built in-house to be more cost effective. This article aims to present the cage topper design and examine its implementation and usefulness in the laboratory from the perspectives of a researcher, a named animal care and welfare officer (NACWO)/technician and a named veterinary surgeon (NVS).Cage topper designThe cage topper is designed to be placed on top of a standard cage, such that it sits on top of the cage base and the standard cage lid fits on top of the cage topper (see Figures 1 to 3). Figure 1. The cage topper prototype (placed upside down for stability).Figure 2. The cage topper in use and viewed from the front.Figure 3. The cage topper in use and viewed from the front.The development and use of a cage-topper to enhance rat welfare

37August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareThe development and use of a cage-topper to enhance rat welfareThe cage topper is stackable – several cage toppers could be added to a single standard cage although we have not tried this. This also means that cage toppers can be stacked while in storage. The cage topper has flooring across most of the base except a narrow strip (8cm) along one of the short sides. This allows a considerable amount of extra floor space (approximately 1400cm2), and the gap provides sufficient space for a rat to rear fully (maximum height between floor and lid = 40cm). To further enhance the cage topper, we added a removable red-tinted suspended nest box. The nest box has holes at both ends providing access and has a projecting edge that provides a mezzanine platform for the rats between the floor of the standard cage and the floor of the cage topper. The cage topper therefore provides additional complexity, with multiple areas for the rats (i.e. top level, bottom level, and within suspended nest box) that are of different widths and heights. The prototype cage topper is made using acrylic, with comb joints and acrylic glue used to connect individual pieces of acrylic. The cage topper was built by the University of Bristol Science Workshop based on a design provided by three of the authors. Building the cage topper in-house meant that costs could be minimised (£55 per cage topper in May 2024).DiscussionResearcher perspectiveWe have now conducted five separate studies in which we have housed rats in cages that have been extended using the cage topper, with a total of 120 rats having been housed in these cages (104 males and 16 females, all were same-sex pair-housed). In four of those studies, removal of the cage topper for a period of one to three weeks was used as a manipulation designed to induce a poorer welfare state so that we could study potential novel measure of rat welfare. One of these studies has been published and provides evidence that temporary removal of the cage topper has a significant impact on rat behaviour.8 The cage topper has therefore been highly valuable both for enhancing the welfare of rats and for studying the welfare of rats. From a practical perspective, the cage toppers do increase the total weight of the cage and so removing cages from the shelving has been more difficult. Even so, the weight of the cage has not been prohibitive for our team. The initial stages of handling habituation were more time consuming because the cage topper often had to be removed to handle rats. However, over a period of a few weeks the majority of rats learnt to move to the top of the cage to be handled such that removing rats from the cage for handling or research purposes did not seem any more laborious or time-consuming than with standard cages. NACWO/technical perspectiveWhen these toppers were first introduced the main areas of concern were the additional time it would take to clean the cage and the additional weight these toppers would add to the cage. It was found that once the technicians had adjusted to the weight of the cages, the time to undertake the cleaning was not adversely affected. By having both the new and old cage side by side, the rats would usually just climb straight into the new cage which resulted in some savings on time as the technicians were not required to catch the rats.Working with these toppers, the following benefits have been observed:– The technicians were still able to observe the rats daily.– With the toppers giving extra height and space at the front of the cage allowed the rats to stretch fully. – With an increased space it provided the rats with multiple places to sleep. These have been a benefit to the rats’ welfare. The rats love having the extra space allowing them to stretch, climb and play.The only negatives are that it is difficult to properly clean the red tinted box and the edging of the cage itself is delicate making the edging vulnerable to breakages. If these changes/improvements could be made these would be good addition to the standard rat cage.NVS perspectiveAs an NVS, biosecurity, Welfare and Animal Health are my top priorities. We know that more than 95% of a laboratory rat’s life is spent in their home cage, so improving space can have significant welfare improvements but often higher welfare cage alternatives and enrichments come with a concession of increased biosecurity risks or increased risk of injury. Working with these cage toppers, there were a number of concerns I had:– The cage topper adapts conventional caging which has poor biosecurity control, an adaptation for an IVC would be preferable but would come with its own set of challenges and problems.– Maintaining biosecurity and ensuring thorough cleaning: although the cage topper can go through the cage wash, it is difficult to clean corners (particularly in red house) which poses a risk for disease transfer.– Rats were often observed playing by hanging to the top shelf or play fighting over the ledge. However, although they were often seen falling to the bottom level often onto their backs rather than their hindlimbs no injuries were noted in any studies which have used this design and I was not made aware of a higher incidence of fighting.

38Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020– Whilst we did not see increased fighting incidences, the ability to remove the topper and fit two cages in the same space would be useful in case pairs need to be separated into singly housed animals due to injury/disease.– It is not clear whether airflow within the cage is affected causing an increase in ammonia levels in the more enclosed lower portion which may adversely affect rodent health. We were unable to determine this during the trial.– We do not use environmental swabbing in our facility but it would be worth considering whether there is a suitable location within the expanded cage to collect swab samples.– We did not receive reports of increased aggression/biting during any of the trials but it would be useful to assess whether bites are more likely because of the increased difficulty of retrieving animals from the topper leading to a greater risk of zoonotic diseases.Conclusions and future directionsThe clearest benefit of these cages is the extra space and cage complexity that they afford the rats. This is achieved at a very low-cost compared to more spacious alternatives to standard caging that are commercially available. The cage toppers do not overall affect staff’s ability to observe or handle rats and therefore they do not require more time or labour than use of a standard cage alone. From a welfare and cost perspective, these cage toppers are beneficial. However, the current design of the cage could be improved. A moulded cage topper would likely be more durable than one made from glued acrylic sheets. This would undoubtedly impact the cost though. Omission of the suspended red box would also be preferable for easier cleaning and accordingly improved biosecurity. Ideally, this would be replaced by another form of enrichment that would provide shelter and a step between the two levels (although we have noted that both male and female rats can move between the top and bottom levels without a ledge). Alternatively, an easily removable red box could be designed with some thought to allow simple disassembly of the cage topper for cleaning purposes.There also remain a number of questions around the potential impact of these cage toppers on animal health and biosecurity. While during our studies we did not note any increase in injuries, diseases, or biting relative to animals housed without a cage topper, it would be useful to assess this formally and objectively before ruling it out as a potential concern. We also do not have any data on airflow or ammonia levels within the cage when these cage toppers are used. In sum, the cage topper may be most useful to enhance the welfare of healthy rats who would otherwise be housed in non-IVC conventional cages. Until more research has been conducted to address potential health and biosecurity concerns, we would not recommend that these cage toppers are used for infirm, immunocompromised, or specific pathogen-free (SPF) rats. AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to Paul Chappell and the team at the University of Bristol Science Faculty Workshop for building the cage toppers. We are also grateful to many colleagues whose feedback on the cage toppers have informed our opinion on their utility, including: Nick Cherbanich, Dr Molly Davidson, Emily Finnegan, Dr Carole Fureix, Dr Sarah Kappel and Martin Taylor. This work was supported by the following UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) grants and studentships: BB/M009122/1 (studentship to Molly Davidson supervised by VN, MM, and ESP); BB/T008741/1(studentship to Nick Cherbanich supervised by VN, MM, and ESP); BB/X009696/1 (PI: VN); BB/T002654/1 (PI: MM); BB/X014673/1 (PI: MM). References1 Cait, J., Cait, A., Scott, R.W., Winder, C.B., Mason, G.J. Conventional laboratory housing increases morbidity and mortality in research rodents: results of a meta-analysis. BMC biology. 2022 Dec; 20:15.2 Makowska, I.J., Weary, D.M. The importance of burrowing, climbing and standing upright for laboratory rats. Royal Society open science. 2016 Jun 29; 3(6): 160136.3 Neville, V., Lind J., Mendl, E., Cozma, N.E., Paul, E.S., Mendl, M. A mapping review of refinements to laboratory rat housing and husbandry. Lab Animal. 2023 Mar; 52(3):63-74.4 Cait, J., Winder, C.B., Mason, G.J. How much ‘enrichment’ is enough for laboratory rodents? A systematic review and meta-analysis re-assessing the impact of well-resourced cages on morbidity and mortality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2024 Jul 26: 106361.5 Patterson-Kane, E.G. Enrichment of laboratory caging for rats: a review. Animal Welfare. 2004 Feb; 13(S1): S209-14.6 Neville, V., Hunter, K., Benato, L., Mendl, M., Paul, E.S. Developing guidelines for pet rat housing through expert consultation. Veterinary Record. 2023 Feb; 192(3):e1839.7 Mazhary, H., Hawkins, P. Applying the 3Rs: A case study on evidence and perceptions relating to rat cage height in the UK. Animals. 2019 Dec 9;9(12):1104.8 Neville, V., Finnegan, E., Paul, E.S., Davidson, M., Dayan, P., Mendl, M. You are How You Eat: Foraging Behavior as a Potential Novel Marker of Rat Affective State. Affective Science. 2024 Sep; 5(3):232-45.The development and use of a cage-topper to enhance rat welfare

39August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareApril 2025 Animal Technology and WelfareGeographic rangeHeteronotia binoei is the scientific name for the Bynoe’s gecko (Figure 1) which is a species of lizard that belongs to the family Gekkonidae. It is a slender long-tailed species which grows to a total length (including the tail) of 11-12cm (Figure 4). It was named after the British naturalist Benjamin Bynoe (1803-1865) who worked with Charles Darwin aboard the Beagle, which was a British naval vessel.1 The Bynoe’s gecko is covered in small scales which appear to be rough but are soft to the touch. They are endemic to Australia and found in each of the mainland states except the Australian Capital Territory and not in the humid parts of the southeast and southwest. However, it is also found on the west coast islands including Barrow Island.HabitatBynoe’s geckos live in many different habitats most commonly in woodlands, grasslands and disturbed surroundings. Each of these environments are open and dry but they also reside in tropical rainforests, central deserts and coastal sand dunes. Being a terrestrial species, it often shelters under all types of ground cover Captive husbandry of the Bynoe’s Gecko (Heteronotia binoei)GARY MARTINIC and KIERAN BURNSK1 Reptile and Mammal Facility, Environment & Animal Sciences, Western Sydney University, AustraliaCorrespondence: g.martinic@westernsydney.edu.auFigure 1. Full view of the Bynoe’s gecko perching on top of eucalypt bark inside its terrarium enclosure.

40Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020including leaves, logs, stumps, termite mounds, loose bark at the base of trees and other animal burrows. It is the most abundant reptile found in many arid areas of Australia.2 In the wild the Bynoe’s gecko is active from dusk and through the night when they will hunt small insect prey. Almost exclusively terrestrial, they have poorly developed lamellae (sticky toe pads) and instead have slim toes which end in strong claws. They are unable to climb smooth surfaces like grass. These lizards have a large head with large eyes but they lack eyelids and their eyes are covered with transparent scales. Colours vary and can include combinations of yellow, beige, cream, black and white, with most found with at least two of these colours. They also have blotches, spots, stripes or speckles that may cover the gecko. Geckos have well-developed vocal cords and so can produce a wide array of calls.HealthHealthy animals are quite active and they like to crawl around their enclosure moving and exploring it effortlessly, particularly foraging through rotting wood in search of prey. Healthy geckos should have bright clear eyes and a thick tail. They will commonly flick out their tongue. They are often seen in their enclosure relaxing in a warm spot. They must have regular access to drinking water and access to a humid area. Geckos should be approached slowly as they will react quickly when you touch them and will bite if distressed. They can become habituated to handling when performed correctly and gently. They are docile animals and are relatively easy to tame and care for. This is one of the reasons they tend to be popular reptiles as pets. Bynoe’s geckos in captivity have a lifespan of around 10 years or more. Animals exhibiting signs of imminent sloughing (dullness of skin or opaque eyes) can be either aggressive or withdrawn and may refuse feeds.HousingThe live specimen that we cared for at the university was a Bynoe’s gecko female which was housed in a glass aquarium (Figure 2). The dimensions of her enclosure were 610mm (long) x 310mm (deep) x 350mm (high).The substrate was washed red sand and strips of eucalypt tree bark for the Gecko to shelter under (Figure 3).In the captive husbandry situation a basking lamp with a lamp guard surround is on for 10 to 12 hours per day. At night time, the lighting is turned off and the enclosure is in darkness. This is achieved using individual electronic light timer switches. The temperature range that the gecko is housed was between 28 to 32˚C and the relative humidity was between 30 to 40%. It is important to monitor humidity by using a digital hygrometer. Having a humid hide is strongly recommended for geckos the same as it is to regularly mist the enclosure by a light spraying of water 2 to 3 times per week. This simulates the conditions of early morning dew that would be found in the wild. Geckos will often lick off the water droplets from the walls of the enclosure. However, spraying geckos directly is not recommended and it can cause stress to some lizard species such as the Leopard Gecko (Lepidodactylus ugubris). It is important to note that the use of spring water sold in bottles is the best source as it is consistent in quality and is not treated with chlorines and chloramines.Figure 2. Glass aquarium.Figure 3. Overhead view of the glass aquarium enclosure showing the white-water bowl, the red sand substrate and the strips of eucalypt wood bark. Leaves were added as enclosure enrichment and for places to shelter underneath.Captive husbandry of the Bynoe’s Gecko (Heteronotia binoei)

41August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareCaptive husbandry of the Bynoe’s Gecko (Heteronotia binoei)Enclosure conditionsSpot checks or weekly substrate change must be conducted prior to offering food to the gecko to prevent the ingestion of waste products. This also removes the necessity to manage the animals after feeding. Enclosure temperatureEnsure the enclosure is within the appropriate documented temperature range. This may involve replacing any heat lamps that are no longer functioning. Ensure the power to the globe is off before and during replacement. Geckos that are too cool may have a reduced feeding response.HandlingPre-handling hygiene is important and handlers must wash from fingertips to the mid-forearm with a cleaning agent and warm water before handling lizards. This practice ensures foreign particles are not spread to the lizards or into their enclosures. This process should be completed between the handling of separate lizards to reduce the risk of cross contamination. At the end of the handling session, hands and forearms must be washed again.When handling lizards, care must be taken to prevent any injuries to both the handler and lizard. Small lizards can be fragile and careless handling may result in limbs or other body parts becoming injured. Lizards are to be picked up carefully and placed into the hands, making sure to support the lizards’ whole body. Never lift a gecko by the tail. A small amount of pressure should be placed on the lizard’s body to ensure it will not jump from the hands, thereby potentially injuring itself. Geckos have delicate skin and do not tolerate handling particularly well. Avoid handling geckos where possible. Care must be taken when removing them from their enclosure for cleaning. When releasing the lizard back into its enclosure, a minimal amount of pressure should be applied to ensure the lizard does not escape during the process. This pressure is applied until both hands and feet of the lizard contact the floor of the enclosure, at which point the handler should release their grip.Diet and feeding Insectivorous lizards, such as the Bynoe’s gecko are housed in the university’s K1 Reptile Facility. Adults are fed twice weekly on live insects, e.g. crickets and their larvae. Live prey should not be larger than the width of the lizard’s head. Otherwise it may result in a potential choking hazard. Their head size should be relative to throat size. The jaw force of the gecko should be sufficient to crush prey, chew and swallow prey items. A variety of insects should be offered at each feeding period. Usually, only one type is fed at a time and only offer as many insects as will be eaten in 2 to 3 hours and then remove any uneaten insects.• small crickets • small grasshoppers • flies • wood roaches• mealworms• small arthropods In the wild Bynoe’s geckos will even prey on smaller lizards. They move about very quickly and are often successful hunters. They occasionally climb trees or around rocks to source their prey. All types of Insect feed must be nutrient loaded by feeding the insects a decent quality diet before feeding them to lizards. Insects must be thoroughly dusted with a calcium reptile supplement immediately prior to offering them to the lizards.The calcium powder is sprinkled over the insect’s body until each insect is covered in a fine white powder. Excess powder will not stick to the insects and will remain in the bottom of the container. Insects can then be decanted from the container into the enclosure. There is no need to place them into a feeding bowl, however mealworms may be fed in this manner.Importantly only offer as many insects as will be eaten within a few hours and remove uneaten food as they will only eat live prey and dead insects can spoil and become a health hazard. When required, modify future feeding levels. An appropriate quantity of insects should be removed from their breeding colonies and placed in plastic containers rimmed with Fluon to prevent insects from escaping. Pre-feeding animal inspection and feeding recordsCheck the feeding record prior to feeding to ensure that the animals you intend to feed are due to be fed and ensure that they are fed an appropriate quantity and type of food. There are exceptions to feeding i.e. adult lizards will usually hibernate and feeding should cease in early to the middle of April depending on the species. Sometimes food refusal will start earlier than this.Adequate enclosure temperatures must be maintained between 30 to 32˚C with a relative humidity set at between 30 to 40% during the feeding period and during the winter period. A cool spot is left in the corner of the enclosure at night. Food preparation and offeringAll food items, including insects should be smaller than the space between the lizard’s eyes. All insects used for feeding must be fed a nutritious diet to ensure the nutrients are passed on to the lizard. Remove the required quantity of food items from the fridge/freezer and prepare it for feeding.

42Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Post-feeding observationsIndividual lizards should be checked post-feeding to ensure that food has been consumed. Uneaten food must be removed and must not be re-frozen or re-used. This is because dead insects break down and can become a breeding ground for bacteria, thereby constituting a health hazard for the gecko The outcomes of each feeding must be noted in the record book. Food disposalUneaten food is to be removed daily. Insects should be disposed of into a lined rubbish bin and disposed of in the biological waste bins. Feed dishes are to be washed thoroughly with hot water and dishwashing liquid (and allowed to air dry) once the feed has been consumed or the day following the feed at the latest.Reproduction Being a parthenogenic species (animals which do not need a male to reproduce) the whole population is female and each female can lay eggs without the presence of a male. In the wild, males have been recorded but the captive population is entirely female. These lizards reproduce by parthenogenesis (asexual cloning), or in other words, females can produce a genetic clone of themselves. However, in some areas of the Australian arid zone both parthenogenic and sexual variants of Heteronotia binoei can occur. The Bynoe’s gecko reaches sexual maturity anywhere between 1 to 3 years, and females lay eggs throughout September to January. When eggs are laid, they are soft-shelled (Figure 4) but they become hardened when exposed to the air.Their normal breeding season is between July and September as most lizards are in their optimum breeding condition. Laid eggs are usually deposited under rocks, inside burrows, inside logs and they are also laid in the ground and covered by dirt. Only 1 clutch is produced by each female per year. It is reported that parthenogenic geckos have a 30% lower fecundity than their sexual progenitors, when measured by laboratory conditions.3 Although Bynoe’s geckos prefer to live alone they can also be a communal species and can thrive in small groups. When well fed, they will show little interest in babies and/or smaller individuals thereby allowing eggs to safely hatch in a communal enclosure.Figure 4. Two Bynoe’s Gecko eggs sitting partly submerged within the sand substrate.Figure 5. The mother Bynoe’s Gecko with her head slightly protruding forward from under some Eucalypt bark.Regulations and licencing. In the state of New South Wales, one must hold a Reptile Keepers Licence issued by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (of NSW) to keep these reptiles as pets and a Scientific Licence to conduct research work. This work has been made possible under Scientific Licence no. SL100342, held by Gary Martinic and issued by the National Parks & Wildlife Service of NSW. The procedures described were governed by the Western Sydney University Animal Care and Ethics Committee. The use of animals described had conformed with the conditions of approval of the NSW Animal Research Captive husbandry of the Bynoe’s Gecko (Heteronotia binoei)

43August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareCaptive husbandry of the Bynoe’s Gecko (Heteronotia binoei)Act 1985 and the joint National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)/Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)/Australian Agricultural Council Code of Practice for the Care of Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, 8th edition, 2013.AcknowledgementsI would like to thank Alex Hoskings and Kieran Burns for their dedicated work as Animal Technicians within the K1 Animal Facility.References1 Beolens, B., Watkins, M. & Grayson, M. (2011). The Eponym Dictionary of Reptiles. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 296 pp. (Heteronotia binoei, p. 45).2 Wilson, S., & Swan, G. (2006). A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia, 2nd edn. Sydney: New Holland Publishers pp.512.3 Kearney, M. & Shine, R. (2005) Lower fecundity in parthenogenetic geckos then sexual relatives in the Australia arid zone. J Evol Biol May; 18(3): 609-18.

44Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Animal Technology and Welfare April 2025How, why, what happened next: an introduction to scientific writingJASMINE BARLEYInstitute of Animal Technology, 5 South Parade, Summertown, Oxford OX2 7JL UK Correspondence: atweditor@iat.org.uk Based on a workshop presented at both the IAT Virtual Congress 2021 and F2F Congress 2022Introduction Scientific writing and writing about science, does not come naturally to most people but it is a skill, some would say an art, that can be learnt. From deciding on your audience through to checking the proofs, this article will cover the fundamentals of an Animal Technologist’s first ventures in scientific reporting. Scientific writing takes many forms, from posters, reports, articles and formal scientific papers amongst others and all have a different format and purpose. All are distinctive in style which needs to be precise, succinct and logical. What is the difference between scientific writing and writing about science? Scientific writing involves writing for scientists and technologists who can be expected to have some familiarity with the topic under discussion (although some may be novices). Writing about science is concerned with explaining science to a non-science/technology audience. Most of this article is dedicated to scientific writing but Animal Technologists do have to write for the general public from time to time so it is sensible to start with that.Writing about scienceIn my experience this is science journalism, you do not necessarily need to be a journalist but you do need to understand how publications work and know your subject inside out and back to front. There is nothing worse than to read something in the popular press that is inaccurate and patronising. The style of writing required is usually Informal but may be formal.The aim is to explain science in terms a lay person will understand – something that many scientists find difficult (you only have to listen to or read some of the reporting of the COVID-19 pandemic to appreciate this). The Institute of Animal Technology (IAT) regularly produces communications in the category of writing about science. This was particularly important at the height of the animal rights campaign, there were many articles in the press, magazines, etc., for and against the use of animals in medical research. Many from the anti-vivisection lobby repeated ill-informed ideas about how animals were used and the degree of suffering animals underwent, which meant that it became vital to be able to explain to the general public what animal research meant for animals and people, particularly to children and young people. Resources were provided to teachers in an attempt to redress the balance, an example of this was the IAT bespoke website called Medical Micky which not only explained about research but also provided animal care articles. The information included in Medical Micky was provided by Animal Technologists – producing it was a massive learning curve for those involved as not only did they have to understand their subject but also understand how to write clearly in non-technical language and to be politically correct e.g. not to refer to mum and dad, as a reader may be a member of a single parent family or where the family includes same sex parents. Scientific writing Writing for a scientific audience usually comes at the end of an extensive period of study, experimental work and thought which starts with an idea or observation. It is important to discuss the idea with more experienced colleagues as they can provide advice on how to proceed and they may know if the idea has been tried before.

45August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePlanning the StudyAt an early stage it is important to carry out a literature search for reports of closely related studies already published. A good source of these articles is PubMed, a free to use database that contains 32 million citations (references) for biomedical literature mainly from MEDLINE (a more detailed database), life science journals and online books. The citations may include links to the full text content from PubMed Central and publisher websites. People working in scientific institutes will probably have access to other databases and library resources who will be able to obtain any articles that are required. Scientific literature is being published all the time so it is important to keep checking for articles throughout the study and to keep accurate records of them to include in the reference section of your written report.After reviewing the literature the study itself can be planned. All experimental studies will take time and most will cost money so permission will need to be gained to go further. This process will be helped if a detailed proposal is submitted stating the aim of the study, why it is necessary, how it will be carried out and benefits that will accrue from it. Before planning the study it is necessary to read the PREPARE guidelines (Planning Research and Experimental Procedures on Animals: Recommendations for Excellence (see submissions at www.atwjournal.com).1 This will ensure the study will be meaningful and avoid animals being wasted. It will also help when writing the report as following the guidelines will ensure all the required data for the various elements of the paper have been collected.As well as the PREPARE guidelines1 it is useful to read the NC3Rs Animal Research Reporting on in Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines (https://arriveguidelines.org).2 Although these are more relevant to writing the report it is good practice to be aware of them at the planning stage to ensure all relevant information needed for the report is recorded during the study.Accurate records of the study must be kept, including details of what does not work as well as that what does. Notes of observations should be kept as the project proceeds and results must be recorded accurately so that statistics can be carried out and tables, graphs, charts, etc., can be produced.It is important to back up computer data in at least two different places every day so that if something unforeseen happens the data is safe and efforts have not been wasted – this is the voice of experience writing! Starting to Write the ReportUsually each journal will have its own set of Instructions to Authors (see www.atwjournal.com) and articles generally have to conform to these instructions. However not all papers will contain every element of the instructions for example some ATW papers do not relate to experimental situations for example those about management, health and safety etc., so possibly will have no method or results section. If in doubt the editor should be contacted for guidance.As has been said before being familiar with the ARRIVE guidelines is important.2 Adherence to these guidelines ensures transparent and thorough reporting. This enables readers and reviewers to scrutinise the research adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour and reproduce the methods or findings. The guidelines contain a useful checklist for ensuring all the elements of accurate reporting of studies are included. When writing a manuscript, the checklist can be used as an aide memoire to ensure that the manuscript contains all relevant information.Being familiar with the journal the article will be published in will make the writing process easier. In the IAT Journal Animal Technology and Welfare (ATW) papers, articles and posters that have won prizes are good guides as to what is expected. The scientific report about identifying mice from the team at the Royal Veterinary College, which was a winner of the Marjorie Whittingham Journal Article Prize (2019) is recommended.3Divisions in a scientific paperAbstract/Summary Although published papers usually start with an abstract it is in fact written last. They should be relatively short, around one or two paragraphs and should provide a brief outline of what the paper is about without regurgitating chunks of the paper. At the end of the abstract you should provide key words, usually a maximum of 6, which can be used by someone searching for papers on a particular subject or species. For example, key words for a paper on comparison of environmental enrichment in mice might be Mice, Environmental Enrichment, Bedding, Refinement, Welfare. Formal paper abstracts in ATW are translated into 4 European languages enabling non-English speakers (particularly Animal Technologists) to decide if a paper is of interest and if to go for a full translation. Why = Background/IntroductionAn introduction is a way of familiarising the reader with you work. For example, why was study undertaken and what you hoped to achieve – this can be varied, to answer a question, establishing a condition observed etc. Lerner, N. (2007) considers that the content of an introduction varies according to its purpose and the Why, how, what happened next: an introduction to scientific writing

46Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020audience.5 Avoid giving unnecessary background or repeating yourself. One of the common failures of an introduction is that it fails to focus on a clear research question or hypothesis. State which legislation you were working under if appropriate e.g. this work was carried out under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA). When study was conducted and general time frame. Do not forget to reference as you go. How = Method The Method section gives the experimental design, basically what you did and used. The method section should include animals used, source strain, age number, sex, etc., cages, cage furniture and diet fed. Timing of observations, precautions taken, etc. Give names of sources of equipment, etc. “The key to a successful Methods section is to include the right amount of detail -- too much, and it begins to sound like a laboratory manual; too little, and no one can repeat what was done.” Successful Scientific Writing, 2nd ed.5Provide enough detail for readers to be able to reproduce the work in their own facility. Results Use graphs to explain the data collected and state statistical method used (if used) e.g. Student t, ANNOVA, etc. Ask for help before you start the study as you need a statiscally viable number of animals and to collect the correct type of data.Include Observations – anything unexpected or went wrong – this is sometimes more helpful than what worked and allows other studies to avoid the pitfalls you encounteredDiscussion/conclusion Fundamentally what you have decided your results mean. Include suggestions for future work and recommendations as to how you think the study could have been improved pointing out any shortcomings. It is an opportunity to compare the results you achieved with those you expected, including consideration of unexpected results and how you might test these explanations. Acknowledgements This is where you can thank the team that helped you with the work. Only need names (given and family unless they prefer initials).References/ BibliographyCheck the referencing method the journal uses – Harvard or Vancouver are the usual systems. ATW uses the Vancouver system i.e numeric in order of appearance. References to sources such as guidelines should include the date accessed as these may change in future versions and readers will then know which version was used. Proofreading Make corrections as you go and add words that your computer does not recognise to its internal dictionary first making sure that they are spelt correctly. It will save you a lot of work in the long run. Read through the paper several times, preferably with a day in between what you think is the final draft and what will be the final draft. Read it out loud at least once, ask someone else to read it and then ask someone with experience to read it again, make any corrections and do not forget to save them and give the file a version number. Authors with a great deal of experience still follow this rule, this particular article has been read by at least 3 other people all of whom either have experience in either writing papers and articles or proof-reading. So far, we have been concerned with preparing scientific papers which report experimental studies. The next part deals with short communications featured in ATW.Tech-2-Tech articlesThese articles lend themselves to a more relaxed style of writing and are often produced from presentations for college courses, in house meetings, etc., and of course Congress posters/workshops. They are a good introduction to publishing for first time authors but not exclusively so. Subjects covered are often about practical aspects such as new systems of cage cleaning, husbandry of unusual species, observations of characteristics of strains particularly adverse effects in GA animals, challenges presented by a new role, etc. They tend to be very visual with lots of photos or graphics. Presentations can be converted into a Tech-2-Tech article as long as the notes of the narrative that accompanies the slides are kept. Usually Tech-2-Tech articles are relatively short and as a guideline are not more than 2600 words (3 pages in ATW) including pictures/graphics (each one equals 250 words) and references. However, there are no hard and fast rules as to length – submit a manuscript, it can always be edited or a longer article published. A good example of a Tech-2-Tech article is the study on cryopreservation in Zebrafish which won the AS-ET Tech-2-Tech prize.4Why, how, what happened next: an introduction to scientific writing

47August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareGeneral rules of scientific writing1. Before you start writing you must obtain permission of your employer who will probably require you to go through an internal approval. There is nothing worse than to spend time writing to find out bosses will not let you publish. Similarly if you are reporting on a finding of someone else’s study you must check with them that it is OK to publish as you may find that they are intending to use some of the data in their own paper and many journals insist that material has not been published before and is therefore original research. Most journals will require you to sign that you have authority to publish. 2. Read the Instructions to Authors before you start writing – use the ARRIVE guideline checklist or possibly develop your own including the required elements so that you do not unintentionally omit something important.2 3. Check referencing method stated in Instructions. ATW uses the Vancouver system which is numeric – citations are numbered in the order they appear in the text. 4. Set proofing language to English (UK) but some international journals will specify the language papers must use e.g. English (USA). 5. Turn on spell check but when changing spellings check that the word is being used in the correct context and double check technical language. 6. Usually report in the past tense if appropriate but not always – you may be writing about some proposed changes, etc. Use formal English grammar and punctuation. If using acronyms then the full name must be given at least once, the first time it is used with the acronym in brackets immediately afterwards e.g. Institute of Animal Technology (IAT).7. Latin terms such as in vivo or a species name e.g. Homo sapien and foreign language words are usually written in italics. 8. If you use someone else’s photograph/quote, etc., you must check about copyright and ask the copyright owner for permission to use it – they will generally say yes if you acknowledge their ownership. This is usually given in brackets after the legend. To make life easier for authors using material published in ATW, copyright is held by the IAT and anybody wanting to use it can contact the Editor and we will say yes or no – we always protect the author and will refuse permission if we feel the use of something is not appropriate. Copyright in the UK usually lapses 70 years after the death of the author so you can use a quote from a classical author such as Keats but not one by Ted Hughes unless you contacted the copyright owner. Also, product names may be Trademarked or have a registered mark in which case the symbols, superscript TM or R in a circle, that must follow the word e.g. ™ ® the first time it is used. 9. If you lack confidence about using English grammar obtain a copy of a good book on English grammar and punctuation – an Editor will help but if the English is very poor your manuscript may be sent back to you. Editors can usually recognise authors with conditons such as Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, etc., and we will help correct any errors if we can but there is no excuse for laziness. Acknowledgements My thanks goes to Stephen Barnett and Patrick Hayes for reviewing this article and providing suggestions which have greatly improved the quality of my writing. Producing issues of Animal Technology and Welfare would not be achieved without a team of reviewers and people I call on for advice and technical advice and of course all the authors who submit material for publication. Special thanks must go to PRC Associates together with the typesetters of Warwick Printing, without whom ATW would never be produced or be the quality publication I believe it to be. I must also thank all the past editors of the IAT Journal Animal Technology and Welfare who have over the last 70 years continued to produce an official publication for the Institute. I have learnt so much both as an Animal Technologist and as an Editor - even things I was not aware that I had learnt! References1 PREPARE guidelines https://norecopa.no/prepare 2 ARRIVE guidelines https://arriveguidelines.org3 Mazlan, N., Lopez-Salesanky, N. Burn, C., and Wells, D. (2014). Mouse identification methods and potential welfare issues: a survey of current practices in the UK. Animal Technology and Welfare Vol 13.1 pp1-10.4 Mantzorou, D., Berriman, T., Havelange, W., Glover, J., Berry, S., Correia de Silva, B.(2019). Sperm cryopreservation and in vitro fertilisation in Zebrafish facilities at King’s College London. Animal Technology and Welfare Vol 18.3 pp194-1985 Lerner, N. Ogren-Balkama. A Guide to Scientific Writing Neal Lerner Marilee Ogren-Balkama Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Microsoft Word - Guide_to_Scientific_Writing.doc (mit.edu)6 Matthews, J.R., Bowen, J.M., Matthews, R.W. (2000). 2nd edition. Successful Scientific Writing: A step-by-step guide for the biological and medical sciences. Cambridge University Press.Why, how, what happened next: an introduction to scientific writing

Enquiries to Congress Committee via congress@iat.org.uk Come and join us atCongress 202624th - 27th MarchWEST UK VENUEDelivering a Full Scientific Programme addressing current themes Attend the wide range of Scientific Papers and Poster DisplaysVisit one of the largest Trade Exhibitions in the UKDetails for Congress 2026 will be available on the IAT website www.iat.org.uk and published in the monthly BulletinBookings will open September 2025The largest UK event run entirely for Animal Technologists and TechniciansCongress 2026CONGRESS

49August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePOSTER PRESENTATIONS151IntroductionA hallmark symptom of rheumatoid arthritis in humansis painful swollen joints. Pain can manifest before anyinflammation is noticeable1,2as well as persist longafter inflammation has resolved.3In rodent models of arthritis, ankle or foo tpad wid th isa commonly used surroga te marker of pa in (seeFigure 1).Measur ing footpad width assumes that increasedswelling is proportional to enhanced pain. A mildarthritis phenotype in which there is minimal swellingmay therefore inaccurately reflect the extent of painand discomfort.POSTER PRESENTATIONSOriginally presented at:IAT Congress 2019Assessing pain in models ofRheumatoid ArthritisSAMUEL SINGLETON,1MERIAM NEFLA,1NGAIRE DENNISON,1SIMON ARTHUR2and TIM HALES1School of Life Sciences, Division of Cell Signalling and Immunology, University of Dundee,Dundee, DD1 5EH, UK2MRSU and Institute of Academic Anaesthesia, Division of Systems Medicine, NinewellsHospital, University of Dundee, DD1 9SY, UKCorrespondence: s.z.singleton@dundee.ac.ukAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareFigure 1. Footpad width as a surrogate measure of pain in arthritis models. Commonly used methods to assess painare footpad width (A), ankle width (B) or footpad ankle length (C).BCAAim: We aimed to determine how well pain correlated to footpad widths using the collagen antibody arthritismodel.August20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page 151SummaryGroup housing is especially important for social animals. However it can also give rise to aggression (particularly within the laboratory environment) which is one of the most serious welfare concerns in mouse husbandry. Severe fighting can lead to pain, injury and death. Historically male mice have been treated the same as female mice when handling and during husbandry procedures. Understanding the triggers of aggression has led to us implementing a specific male mouse housing and handling regime. Sex bias is a major issue in the pre-clinical setting, we cannot simply not use male mice in studies. Additionally male mice are required for certain models e.g. prostate cancer models. When using male mice often additional mice must be included to mitigate the potential loss of mice due to fighting and keep the study statistically relevant. We formed a global working group to identify the triggers of aggression e.g. behaviours seen prior to fighting occurring and have identified strategies to mitigate these triggers. We have also identified the signs of a harmonious Understanding and mitigating male mouse aggressionTAMARA BAKER1, SOFIA OSTMAN2, BIRGIT EDWALDSSON3, KATE SHENTON2, SALLY ROBINSON2, DAWN ATHERTON-KEMP1, ROBBIE McLAREN-JONES2, DIANA PAO5, THERESE EDSTROM3, AMY CANTRELL2, AMIR HUSSAIN4, SARA ALBERY LANSDOTTER3 and NATALIE KELLEY5 1 AstraZeneca Cambridge, UK2 AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, UK3 AstraZeneca Gothenburg, Sweden4 AstraZeneca Gaithesburg, USA5 AstraZeneca Boston, USA Correspondence: tamara.baker@astrazeneca.comApril 2025 Animal Technology and WelfareEnquiries to Congress Committee via congress@iat.org.uk Come and join us atCongress 202624th - 27th MarchWEST UK VENUEDelivering a Full Scientific Programme addressing current themes Attend the wide range of Scientific Papers and Poster DisplaysVisit one of the largest Trade Exhibitions in the UKDetails for Congress 2026 will be available on the IAT website www.iat.org.uk and published in the monthly BulletinBookings will open September 2025The largest UK event run entirely for Animal Technologists and TechniciansCongress 2026CONGRESS

50Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020cage, how to identify when aggression is occurring and when/how to intervene. Understanding what triggers aggression and the more subtle signs of aggression has allowed us to act before animals need to be euthanised.Using these new regimes has greatly reduced overt aggression and ensured more harmonious social interactions. This has led to a reduction in the number of animals that needed to be separated from up to 31% to less than 1% in nude mice.Triggers for aggression in the laboratory settingWild mice have an extensive area/territory that they live in. This ranges from ¾ of an acre (3035 m2) – male field mouse. 90,000 cm2 (male house mouse) they interact with other groups but can move away if aggression escalates (Figure 1).Groups interact with neighbouring groups and can live in close proximity.Laboratory mice have minimum European Union (EU) requirements of 100 cm2 per mouse with no opportunity to move away from the enclosed cage area. Utilise urinary odour cues and plantar gland odours to communicate social hierarchy. Highly developed sense of smell -1% of their DNA dedicated to olfactory receptors. They have 2 separate olfactory systems: • main olfactory system (MOS)• vomeronasal organ (VNO)Mice in laboratory research are housed in single sex groups in close proximity unlike wild mice.Environmental – assessing cage environment and using nest assessment for recognising aggressionRecognising a content cage of male mice is a combination of physical, both mouse and cage, and behavioural observations (Figure 2). • Calm, quiet cage – no vocalisations• Well-formed single nest• Mice sleeping together in one nest • Mice happy to eat, drink and groom together or in the presence of cage mates • Mice all appear well groomed and in good general condition • Bodyweight • One latrine Figure 1. Scheme showing the triggers for aggression that we have identified.Figure 2. Using nest assessment for recognising aggression.Poster PresentationsWhat are known triggers that could heighten male mouse aggression?Number of Males per CageHusbandry Cage CleaningEnvironmental EnrichmentHolding room – noise & rack positionWeaning AgeShipping groups (suppliers)Shipping/journeyStrain of MouseScent of other Males or FemalesRandomisationProcedures – particularly anything involving bloodStable hierarchy: All/vast majority of nest material in nest under house (B): well structured nest exposed when house lifted (C). All mice use nest together for sleep.Likely unrest in cage: indicated by the chaotic nature of the spread of nest material across the cage floor. (D). No/little recognisable nest. Apprears ‘messy’: no sense of organisation of cage space. Although mice may choose to sleep together very often mice sleep separately with non-dominant mice sleeping in raised tunnels (E) and on open cage floor (F) either on bedding or small scraps of nesting material. Food and water guarding is likely and bodyweight may be affected without the presence of visible fight wounds. Two defined nests (G): Dominant animal not allowing other mice/mouse to rest in their nest (usually under the house) but allowing some resources to make another nest. There is often a low level of aggression in these cages. This can both escalate or resolve so this is an observation that would indicate close watching of the mice in such cages or separation.

51August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePhysical signs of aggressionMigrating aggression – practical steps and box randomisationCleaning and equipment− Transferring nesting material at cage change. − Place nesting material and cage furniture in the same. − Rub old nesting material around the sides of the new cage to replicate the site of social hierarchy.− Operators to ensure that they consider how to reduce scent markers on their gloves between each cage.− Ensure that weigh bowls are cleaned out between cages (Figure 8). − Reduce cage changing frequency if possible. − Ensure equipment such as warming chambers are cleaned between cages. Use absorbent pads to soak up urine markers and then spray between cages. Figure 3. White hairs in coloured animals which is a sign of chronic fighting.Figure 4. Rough coat and unkempt fur.Figure 5 and 6. Hind paws showing fighting injuries – swollen hocks and missing toenails.Figure 7. Missing fur and scab wounds.Figure 8. Plantar gland oils/markers as seen on a weighing bowl.Poster Presentations

52Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Environmental enrichment Tunnels – extra tunnels can potentially alleviate aggression as each animal has their own tunnel to hide in. Hanging tunnels does seem to help as the dominant male can use this to oversee his territory or the subdominant animals can use it to escape from the dominant male. Paper twists attached to grid and wooden blocks/balls on cage floor provide relief from boredom and allow animals to manipulate structures. Help to block line of sight. Using novel enrichment items on a rotational basis such as wood blocks or wooden balls – we have observed that this gives them something new to focus on instead of fighting. Food pellets on cage floor.Other House male cages away from doors, walkways, sinks and busy areas of the room that have the most staff movement and away from the noisiest areas – i.e. cupboard doors slamming, CL2 stations alarming, bin lids shutting, etc.Using blank cages – when a cage is being monitored for fighting to prevent fighting spreading to other cages. Handling – use non aversive methods of handling such as cup or tunnel, however tunnel is best. Box randomisation has had a profound positive effect on aggression levels post-randomisation. Figure 9. Table showing difference in separations between traditional randomisation versus box randomisation.Traditional randomisation – usually mice are mixed from different cages. Box randomisation – keep mice within same cages and randomise (rando) by box (maximum 3 per cage). Our statisticians have done a fantastic job and have produced a new programme for box randomisation that we now use (Figure 9).This enables male inclusion in studies, whilst greatly improving conditions for the animals on study and for the staff responsible for mouse welfare.Study Mice N (%) involved in aggression sufficient to need separatingPre-rando Post-box randoR19120 M Nude27 (22%) 0R25100 M Nude6 (6%) 0R3839 MNude 12 (31%) 0P40130 M Nude30 (23%) 1Poster Presentations

53August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareApril 2025 Animal Technology and WelfareAbstractMotor activity monitoring is used in specialist regulatory toxicology studies to investigate test item related neurobehavioral effects.Introduction of a new video tracking software system which detects the centre point, tail base and nose tip of rodents to individually track the movement of each animal in a non-invasive way.The system was successfully validated and demonstrated it could be used within the constraints regulatory toxicology studies in both rats and mice.The data generated demonstrated that the system accurately identified the targeted parameters on the animal which aligned with the needs of the study.IntroductionA variety of regulatory rat and mouse toxicology studies for pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals and chemicals require the inclusion of neurobehavioral testing. These include water maze tests for learning, memory and motor activity monitoring which must be performed at specific times within the toxicology studies.Motor activity assessments measure parameters such as distance moved, time at rest and count of total activity to determine whether a test item has a neurobehavioral effect.The modern technology uses video capture and analysis can not only measure the required motor activity parameters but can assess additional measurements later from recordings of the same dosing and recording sessions as refinement.Tracking ‘tails’: refining motor activity monitoring in rats and miceRHIAN READINGSequani Ltd, Ledbury, UKCorrespondence: rhian.reading@sequani.comFigure 1. Legacy motor activity recording system which used beam break technology.Figure 2. Cage set up with metal grid top was unsuitable for use with data capture.Following posters originally presented at: IAT Congress 2024

54Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020AimTo develop a caging, orientation and lighting system that enabled simultaneous video capture of sufficient animals to allow efficient assessment during toxicology studies.To extend the video tracking software we already used for Morris Maze to provide robust measurements of distance travelled, time at rest and count of total activity. MethodThe Motor activity module detects contrast between the animal subject and the background.The contrast between the subject and their background was maximised by using:– 1700 x 1300 mm infrared light box (two used per recording session).– Clear plastic rodent cage bases (W 255 mm x L 475 mm x H 210 mm).– Perforated Perspex base lids with clasps (custom manufactured).– Ethernet cameras mounted above each light box.This format allowed measurement from 20 cages (1 animal per cage) simultaneously in one session.The software tracks the centre point, base of tail and nose in rodents. The software algorithm was set to measure:• total distance moved (cm)• mean velocity• cumulative duration of movement using the centre point (center-point)• cumulative duration of movement using the nose reference point (nose-point)Validation studyThis was conducted to ensure results were robust and comparable to previous methodology.3 male and 3 female Wistar Han rats and 2 male and 2 female CD-1 mice were used, which are common strains.These animals were used to define the settings, algorithms and validation.Running the experiment• one animal placed into each cage in a random order• main room lights are turned off• white noise generator (set to 75 dB +/-5) minimises impact of any sudden background noise• technologists exit the room and monitor Animal Welfare remotely from a computer in an adjoining room• data acquisition was for 1 hourFigure 3. Tracking “Tails”: Refining Motor Activity Monitoring in Rats and MiceIntroduction• A variety of regulatory rat and mouse toxicology studies for pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals and chemicals require the inclusion of neurobehavioural testing. These include water maze tests for learning, and memory and motor activity monitoring which must be performed at specific times within the toxicology studies• Motor activity assessments measure parameters such as distance moved, time at rest and count of total activity, to determine whether a test item has a neurobehavioral effect• The new technology, which uses video capture and analysis, can not only measure the required motor activity parameters but has the ability to assess additional measurements later from recordings of the same dosing and recording sessions as a refinementAim• To develop a caging, orientation and lighting system that enables simultaneous video capture of enough animals to allow efficient assessment during toxicology studies• To extend the video tracking software we already used for Morris Maze to provide robust measurements of distance travelled, time at rest and count of total activityMethod• The Motor activity module detects contrast between the animal subject and the background.• Contrast between the subject and their background was maximised by using: - 1700 x 1300mm infrared light box (two used per recording session) - Clear plastic rodent cage bases (W 255mm x L 475mm x H 210mm) - Perforated Perspex base lids with clasps (custom manufactured) - Ethernet cameras mounted above each light box • This format allowed measurement from 20 cages (1 animal per cage) simultaneously in 1 session.• The software tracks the centre point, base of tail and nose in rodents.• The software algorithm was set to measure:Total distance moved (cm)Mean velocityCumulative duration of movement using the centre point (Center-Point)Cumulative duration of movement using the nose reference point (Nose-Point)Validation study • Conducted to ensure results were robust and comparable to previous methodology• 3 male and 3 female Wistar Han rats and 2 male and 2 female CD-1 mice (strains commonly used)• Animals used to define both the settings and algorithms and validationRunning the experiment• 1 animal placed in each cage in a random order• Main room lights are turned off• White noise generator (set to 75dB +/-5) minimises impact of any sudden background noise• Technologists exit the room and monitor animal welfare remotely from a PC in an adjoining room• Data acquisition for 1 hourObtaining and analysing data • Live video tracking or by running previously recorded footage through the software• Data exported to Excel, visualised in heat maps or integrated visualisation in videoResults• The data was reported in 10-minute segments (intervals) and as a 60-minute overall count (totals)• In rats, fine tuning of the base algorithm produced robust data • In mice, some blind spots, where the mice seemed to disappear, were evident initially; altering the camera settings within the software resolved this without making changes to the physical camera set up• As a result of the increased activity generally in mice vs. rats, the file size of the captured video is notably larger (1 hr session with 20 animals is approx. 300mb in rat and 1.1gb in Mice)Templates are easily created for each species to ensure efficient and reproducible set-upAcceptance criteria were met, on the following requirements• Software was able to detect the correct anatomical features of each animal • Tracking was visibly accurate when replayed• A difference in activity levels between the start (higher activity due to novel environment) and end of the trial (lower activity due to habituation) was clearConclusion and Next Steps• We have confirmed video tracking can be used to measure motor activity at the scale necessary to be included in rodent regulatory toxicology studies• Retrospective analysis of these video files are also possible so removing the potential need to perform additional animal studies should additional parameters be needed following completion of the study, providing a significant refinement in animal welfareAbstractLegacy motor activity recording system which used beam break technology.Cage set up with metal grid top was unsuitable for use with data capture. website: www.sequani.com phone: +44 (0)1531 634121 Rhian Reading BSc (Hons) / rhian.reading@sequani.comSequani Limited Bromyard Road, Ledbury, HR8 1LH, United Kingdom• Motor activity monitoring is used in specialist regulatory toxicology studies to investigate test item related neurobehavioral effects• Introduction of a new video tracking software system which detects the centre point, tail base and nose tip of rodents to individually track the movement of each animal in a non-invasive way• The system was successfully validated and demonstrated it could be used within the constraints regulatory toxicology studies in both rats and mice• The data generated demonstrated that the system accurately identified the targeted parameters on the animal which aligned with the needs of the studyWith ThanksThank you to Nicola Wilson-Neasom, Victoria Hurlow and Hollie Blunt for sharing their wealth of expertise and Ashley Hyne for his help with the practicalities of the project.SuppliersNorth Kent Plastics, Tracksys Ltd, Noldus Ethovision XT, Charles River UK.Individual animal visualization chart shows• The distance moved (TOP PANEL for the Center-point and Nose-point)• Time moving/resting using Centre-point (MIDDLE PANEL)• Time moving/resting using Nose-point (LOWER PANEL)• Nose-point tracking picks up finer head movements• Centre-point tracking only measures whole body movementCages positioned on the light boxes.Each arena zone is defined on the software, to direct analysis for each individual animal.Camera view from directly above the empty cages on the light boxesNote the “opaque” metal clasps.Heat map showing areas animals spent the most time in during the experiment (Dark blue lower time; Red is highest time).Mouse (left) and rat (right) within the cages. Tracking nose and center of gravity can differentiate sitting, rearing and sleeping behaviors.Image of nose tracking patterns (blue) and central point tracking (red).Expected decrease in movement over time after placed in cageExpected increase in movement when nose is used vs. centre point (rat, n=6).Bespoke lids fitted to our original caging..Cages positioned on the light boxes.Bespoke lids fitted to our original caging.Camera view from directly above the empty cages on the light boxes. Note the ‘opaque’ metal clasps.Each arena zone is defined on the software, to direct analysis for each individual animal.Tracking “Tails”: Refining Motor Activity Monitoring in Rats and MiceIntroduction• A variety of regulatory rat and mouse toxicology studies for pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals and chemicals require the inclusion of neurobehavioural testing. These include water maze tests for learning, and memory and motor activity monitoring which must be performed at specific times within the toxicology studies• Motor activity assessments measure parameters such as distance moved, time at rest and count of total activity, to determine whether a test item has a neurobehavioral effect• The new technology, which uses video capture and analysis, can not only measure the required motor activity parameters but has the ability to assess additional measurements later from recordings of the same dosing and recording sessions as a refinementAim• To develop a caging, orientation and lighting system that enables simultaneous video capture of enough animals to allow efficient assessment during toxicology studies• To extend the video tracking software we already used for Morris Maze to provide robust measurements of distance travelled, time at rest and count of total activityMethod• The Motor activity module detects contrast between the animal subject and the background.• Contrast between the subject and their background was maximised by using: - 1700 x 1300mm infrared light box (two used per recording session) - Clear plastic rodent cage bases (W 255mm x L 475mm x H 210mm) - Perforated Perspex base lids with clasps (custom manufactured) - Ethernet cameras mounted above each light box • This format allowed measurement from 20 cages (1 animal per cage) simultaneously in 1 session.• The software tracks the centre point, base of tail and nose in rodents.• The software algorithm was set to measure:Total distance moved (cm)Mean velocityCumulative duration of movement using the centre point (Center-Point)Cumulative duration of movement using the nose reference point (Nose-Point)Validation study • Conducted to ensure results were robust and comparable to previous methodology• 3 male and 3 female Wistar Han rats and 2 male and 2 female CD-1 mice (strains commonly used)• Animals used to define both the settings and algorithms and validationRunning the experiment• 1 animal placed in each cage in a random order• Main room lights are turned off• White noise generator (set to 75dB +/-5) minimises impact of any sudden background noise• Technologists exit the room and monitor animal welfare remotely from a PC in an adjoining room• Data acquisition for 1 hourObtaining and analysing data • Live video tracking or by running previously recorded footage through the software• Data exported to Excel, visualised in heat maps or integrated visualisation in videoResults• The data was reported in 10-minute segments (intervals) and as a 60-minute overall count (totals)• In rats, fine tuning of the base algorithm produced robust data • In mice, some blind spots, where the mice seemed to disappear, were evident initially; altering the camera settings within the software resolved this without making changes to the physical camera set up• As a result of the increased activity generally in mice vs. rats, the file size of the captured video is notably larger (1 hr session with 20 animals is approx. 300mb in rat and 1.1gb in Mice)Templates are easily created for each species to ensure efficient and reproducible set-upAcceptance criteria were met, on the following requirements• Software was able to detect the correct anatomical features of each animal • Tracking was visibly accurate when replayed• A difference in activity levels between the start (higher activity due to novel environment) and end of the trial (lower activity due to habituation) was clearConclusion and Next Steps• We have confirmed video tracking can be used to measure motor activity at the scale necessary to be included in rodent regulatory toxicology studies• Retrospective analysis of these video files are also possible so removing the potential need to perform additional animal studies should additional parameters be needed following completion of the study, providing a significant refinement in animal welfareAbstractLegacy motor activity recording system which used beam break technology.Cage set up with metal grid top was unsuitable for use with data capture. website: www.sequani.com phone: +44 (0)1531 634121 Rhian Reading BSc (Hons) / rhian.reading@sequani.comSequani Limited Bromyard Road, Ledbury, HR8 1LH, United Kingdom• Motor activity monitoring is used in specialist regulatory toxicology studies to investigate test item related neurobehavioral effects• Introduction of a new video tracking software system which detects the centre point, tail base and nose tip of rodents to individually track the movement of each animal in a non-invasive way• The system was successfully validated and demonstrated it could be used within the constraints regulatory toxicology studies in both rats and mice• The data generated demonstrated that the system accurately identified the targeted parameters on the animal which aligned with the needs of the studyWith ThanksThank you to Nicola Wilson-Neasom, Victoria Hurlow and Hollie Blunt for sharing their wealth of expertise and Ashley Hyne for his help with the practicalities of the project.SuppliersNorth Kent Plastics, Tracksys Ltd, Noldus Ethovision XT, Charles River UK.Individual animal visualization chart shows• The distance moved (TOP PANEL for the Center-point and Nose-point)• Time moving/resting using Centre-point (MIDDLE PANEL)• Time moving/resting using Nose-point (LOWER PANEL)• Nose-point tracking picks up finer head movements• Centre-point tracking only measures whole body movementCages positioned on the light boxes.Each arena zone is defined on the software, to direct analysis for each individual animal.Camera view from directly above the empty cages on the light boxesNote the “opaque” metal clasps.Heat map showing areas animals spent the most time in during the experiment (Dark blue lower time; Red is highest time).Mouse (left) and rat (right) within the cages. Tracking nose and center of gravity can differentiate sitting, rearing and sleeping behaviors.Image of nose tracking patterns (blue) and central point tracking (red).Expected decrease in movement over time after placed in cageExpected increase in movement when nose is used vs. centre point (rat, n=6).Bespoke lids fitted to our original caging..Tracking “Tails”: Refining Motor Activity Monitoring in Rats and MiceIntroduction• A variety of regulatory rat and mouse toxicology studies for pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals and chemicals require the inclusion of neurobehavioural testing. These include water maze tests for learning, and memory and motor activity monitoring which must be performed at specific times within the toxicology studies• Motor activity assessments measure parameters such as distance moved, time at rest and count of total activity, to determine whether a test item has a neurobehavioral effect• The new technology, which uses video capture and analysis, can not only measure the required motor activity parameters but has the ability to assess additional measurements later from recordings of the same dosing and recording sessions as a refinementAim• To develop a caging, orientation and lighting system that enables simultaneous video capture of enough animals to allow efficient assessment during toxicology studies• To extend the video tracking software we already used for Morris Maze to provide robust measurements of distance travelled, time at rest and count of total activityMethod• The Motor activity module detects contrast between the animal subject and the background.• Contrast between the subject and their background was maximised by using: - 1700 x 1300mm infrared light box (two used per recording session) - Clear plastic rodent cage bases (W 255mm x L 475mm x H 210mm) - Perforated Perspex base lids with clasps (custom manufactured) - Ethernet cameras mounted above each light box • This format allowed measurement from 20 cages (1 animal per cage) simultaneously in 1 session.• The software tracks the centre point, base of tail and nose in rodents.• The software algorithm was set to measure:Total distance moved (cm)Mean velocityCumulative duration of movement using the centre point (Center-Point)Cumulative duration of movement using the nose reference point (Nose-Point)Validation study • Conducted to ensure results were robust and comparable to previous methodology• 3 male and 3 female Wistar Han rats and 2 male and 2 female CD-1 mice (strains commonly used)• Animals used to define both the settings and algorithms and validationRunning the experiment• 1 animal placed in each cage in a random order• Main room lights are turned off• White noise generator (set to 75dB +/-5) minimises impact of any sudden background noise• Technologists exit the room and monitor animal welfare remotely from a PC in an adjoining room• Data acquisition for 1 hourObtaining and analysing data • Live video tracking or by running previously recorded footage through the software• Data exported to Excel, visualised in heat maps or integrated visualisation in videoResults• The data was reported in 10-minute segments (intervals) and as a 60-minute overall count (totals)• In rats, fine tuning of the base algorithm produced robust data • In mice, some blind spots, where the mice seemed to disappear, were evident initially; altering the camera settings within the software resolved this without making changes to the physical camera set up• As a result of the increased activity generally in mice vs. rats, the file size of the captured video is notably larger (1 hr session with 20 animals is approx. 300mb in rat and 1.1gb in Mice)Templates are easily created for each species to ensure efficient and reproducible set-upAcceptance criteria were met, on the following requirements• Software was able to detect the correct anatomical features of each animal • Tracking was visibly accurate when replayed• A difference in activity levels between the start (higher activity due to novel environment) and end of the trial (lower activity due to habituation) was clearConclusion and Next Steps• We have confirmed video tracking can be used to measure motor activity at the scale necessary to be included in rodent regulatory toxicology studies• Retrospective analysis of these video files are also possible so removing the potential need to perform additional animal studies should additional parameters be needed following completion of the study, providing a significant refinement in animal welfareAbstractLegacy motor activity recording system which used beam break technology.Cage set up with metal grid top was unsuitable for use with data capture. website: www.sequani.com phone: +44 (0)1531 634121 Rhian Reading BSc (Hons) / rhian.reading@sequani.comSequani Limited Bromyard Road, Ledbury, HR8 1LH, United Kingdom• Motor activity monitoring is used in specialist regulatory toxicology studies to investigate test item related neurobehavioral effects• Introduction of a new video tracking software system which detects the centre point, tail base and nose tip of rodents to individually track the movement of each animal in a non-invasive way• The system was successfully validated and demonstrated it could be used within the constraints regulatory toxicology studies in both rats and mice• The data generated demonstrated that the system accurately identified the targeted parameters on the animal which aligned with the needs of the studyWith ThanksThank you to Nicola Wilson-Neasom, Victoria Hurlow and Hollie Blunt for sharing their wealth of expertise and Ashley Hyne for his help with the practicalities of the project.SuppliersNorth Kent Plastics, Tracksys Ltd, Noldus Ethovision XT, Charles River UK.Individual animal visualization chart shows• The distance moved (TOP PANEL for the Center-point and Nose-point)• Time moving/resting using Centre-point (MIDDLE PANEL)• Time moving/resting using Nose-point (LOWER PANEL)• Nose-point tracking picks up finer head movements• Centre-point tracking only measures whole body movementCages positioned on the light boxes.Each arena zone is defined on the software, to direct analysis for each individual animal.Camera view from directly above the empty cages on the light boxesNote the “opaque” metal clasps.Heat map showing areas animals spent the most time in during the experiment (Dark blue lower time; Red is highest time).Mouse (left) and rat (right) within the cages. Tracking nose and center of gravity can differentiate sitting, rearing and sleeping behaviors.Image of nose tracking patterns (blue) and central point tracking (red).Expected decrease in movement over time after placed in cageExpected increase in movement when nose is used vs. centre point (rat, n=6).Bespoke lids fitted to our original caging..Tracking “Tails”: Refining Motor Activity Monitoring in Rats and MiceIntroduction• A variety of regulatory rat and mouse toxicology studies for pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals and chemicals require the inclusion of neurobehavioural testing. These include water maze tests for learning, and memory and motor activity monitoring which must be performed at specific times within the toxicology studies• Motor activity assessments measure parameters such as distance moved, time at rest and count of total activity, to determine whether a test item has a neurobehavioral effect• The new technology, which uses video capture and analysis, can not only measure the required motor activity parameters but has the ability to assess additional measurements later from recordings of the same dosing and recording sessions as a refinementAim• To develop a caging, orientation and lighting system that enables simultaneous video capture of enough animals to allow efficient assessment during toxicology studies• To extend the video tracking software we already used for Morris Maze to provide robust measurements of distance travelled, time at rest and count of total activityMethod• The Motor activity module detects contrast between the animal subject and the background.• Contrast between the subject and their background was maximised by using: - 1700 x 1300mm infrared light box (two used per recording session) - Clear plastic rodent cage bases (W 255mm x L 475mm x H 210mm) - Perforated Perspex base lids with clasps (custom manufactured) - Ethernet cameras mounted above each light box • This format allowed measurement from 20 cages (1 animal per cage) simultaneously in 1 session.• The software tracks the centre point, base of tail and nose in rodents.• The software algorithm was set to measure:Total distance moved (cm)Mean velocityCumulative duration of movement using the centre point (Center-Point)Cumulative duration of movement using the nose reference point (Nose-Point)Validation study • Conducted to ensure results were robust and comparable to previous methodology• 3 male and 3 female Wistar Han rats and 2 male and 2 female CD-1 mice (strains commonly used)• Animals used to define both the settings and algorithms and validationRunning the experiment• 1 animal placed in each cage in a random order• Main room lights are turned off• White noise generator (set to 75dB +/-5) minimises impact of any sudden background noise• Technologists exit the room and monitor animal welfare remotely from a PC in an adjoining room• Data acquisition for 1 hourObtaining and analysing data • Live video tracking or by running previously recorded footage through the software• Data exported to Excel, visualised in heat maps or integrated visualisation in videoResults• The data was reported in 10-minute segments (intervals) and as a 60-minute overall count (totals)• In rats, fine tuning of the base algorithm produced robust data • In mice, some blind spots, where the mice seemed to disappear, were evident initially; altering the camera settings within the software resolved this without making changes to the physical camera set up• As a result of the increased activity generally in mice vs. rats, the file size of the captured video is notably larger (1 hr session with 20 animals is approx. 300mb in rat and 1.1gb in Mice)Templates are easily created for each species to ensure efficient and reproducible set-upAcceptance criteria were met, on the following requirements• Software was able to detect the correct anatomical features of each animal • Tracking was visibly accurate when replayed• A difference in activity levels between the start (higher activity due to novel environment) and end of the trial (lower activity due to habituation) was clearConclusion and Next Steps• We have confirmed video tracking can be used to measure motor activity at the scale necessary to be included in rodent regulatory toxicology studies• Retrospective analysis of these video files are also possible so removing the potential need to perform additional animal studies should additional parameters be needed following completion of the study, providing a significant refinement in animal welfareAbstractLegacy motor activity recording system which used beam break technology.Cage set up with metal grid top was unsuitable for use with data capture. website: www.sequani.com phone: +44 (0)1531 634121 Rhian Reading BSc (Hons) / rhian.reading@sequani.comSequani Limited Bromyard Road, Ledbury, HR8 1LH, United Kingdom• Motor activity monitoring is used in specialist regulatory toxicology studies to investigate test item related neurobehavioral effects• Introduction of a new video tracking software system which detects the centre point, tail base and nose tip of rodents to individually track the movement of each animal in a non-invasive way• The system was successfully validated and demonstrated it could be used within the constraints regulatory toxicology studies in both rats and mice• The data generated demonstrated that the system accurately identified the targeted parameters on the animal which aligned with the needs of the studyWith ThanksThank you to Nicola Wilson-Neasom, Victoria Hurlow and Hollie Blunt for sharing their wealth of expertise and Ashley Hyne for his help with the practicalities of the project.SuppliersNorth Kent Plastics, Tracksys Ltd, Noldus Ethovision XT, Charles River UK.Individual animal visualization chart shows• The distance moved (TOP PANEL for the Center-point and Nose-point)• Time moving/resting using Centre-point (MIDDLE PANEL)• Time moving/resting using Nose-point (LOWER PANEL)• Nose-point tracking picks up finer head movements• Centre-point tracking only measures whole body movementCages positioned on the light boxes.Each arena zone is defined on the software, to direct analysis for each individual animal.Camera view from directly above the empty cages on the light boxesNote the “opaque” metal clasps.Heat map showing areas animals spent the most time in during the experiment (Dark blue lower time; Red is highest time).Mouse (left) and rat (right) within the cages. Tracking nose and center of gravity can differentiate sitting, rearing and sleeping behaviors.Image of nose tracking patterns (blue) and central point tracking (red).Expected decrease in movement over time after placed in cageExpected increase in movement when nose is used vs. centre point (rat, n=6).Bespoke lids fitted to our original caging..Poster Presentations

55August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareFigure 4. Heat map showing areas animals spent the most time in during the experiment (Dark blue lower time; Red is highest time).Image of nose tracking patterns (blue) and central point tracking (red).Mouse (left) and rat (right) within the cages. Tracking nose and centre of gravity can differentiate sitting, rearing and sleeping behaviours.Expected decrease in movement over time after placed in cage. Expected increase in movement when nose is used vs. centre point (rat n=6).Tracking “Tails”: Refining Motor Activity Monitoring in Rats and MiceIntroduction• A variety of regulatory rat and mouse toxicology studies for pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals and chemicals require the inclusion of neurobehavioural testing. These include water maze tests for learning, and memory and motor activity monitoring which must be performed at specific times within the toxicology studies• Motor activity assessments measure parameters such as distance moved, time at rest and count of total activity, to determine whether a test item has a neurobehavioral effect• The new technology, which uses video capture and analysis, can not only measure the required motor activity parameters but has the ability to assess additional measurements later from recordings of the same dosing and recording sessions as a refinementAim• To develop a caging, orientation and lighting system that enables simultaneous video capture of enough animals to allow efficient assessment during toxicology studies• To extend the video tracking software we already used for Morris Maze to provide robust measurements of distance travelled, time at rest and count of total activityMethod• The Motor activity module detects contrast between the animal subject and the background.• Contrast between the subject and their background was maximised by using: - 1700 x 1300mm infrared light box (two used per recording session) - Clear plastic rodent cage bases (W 255mm x L 475mm x H 210mm) - Perforated Perspex base lids with clasps (custom manufactured) - Ethernet cameras mounted above each light box • This format allowed measurement from 20 cages (1 animal per cage) simultaneously in 1 session.• The software tracks the centre point, base of tail and nose in rodents.• The software algorithm was set to measure:Total distance moved (cm)Mean velocityCumulative duration of movement using the centre point (Center-Point)Cumulative duration of movement using the nose reference point (Nose-Point)Validation study • Conducted to ensure results were robust and comparable to previous methodology• 3 male and 3 female Wistar Han rats and 2 male and 2 female CD-1 mice (strains commonly used)• Animals used to define both the settings and algorithms and validationRunning the experiment• 1 animal placed in each cage in a random order• Main room lights are turned off• White noise generator (set to 75dB +/-5) minimises impact of any sudden background noise• Technologists exit the room and monitor animal welfare remotely from a PC in an adjoining room• Data acquisition for 1 hourObtaining and analysing data • Live video tracking or by running previously recorded footage through the software• Data exported to Excel, visualised in heat maps or integrated visualisation in videoResults• The data was reported in 10-minute segments (intervals) and as a 60-minute overall count (totals)• In rats, fine tuning of the base algorithm produced robust data • In mice, some blind spots, where the mice seemed to disappear, were evident initially; altering the camera settings within the software resolved this without making changes to the physical camera set up• As a result of the increased activity generally in mice vs. rats, the file size of the captured video is notably larger (1 hr session with 20 animals is approx. 300mb in rat and 1.1gb in Mice)Templates are easily created for each species to ensure efficient and reproducible set-upAcceptance criteria were met, on the following requirements• Software was able to detect the correct anatomical features of each animal • Tracking was visibly accurate when replayed• A difference in activity levels between the start (higher activity due to novel environment) and end of the trial (lower activity due to habituation) was clearConclusion and Next Steps• We have confirmed video tracking can be used to measure motor activity at the scale necessary to be included in rodent regulatory toxicology studies• Retrospective analysis of these video files are also possible so removing the potential need to perform additional animal studies should additional parameters be needed following completion of the study, providing a significant refinement in animal welfareAbstractLegacy motor activity recording system which used beam break technology.Cage set up with metal grid top was unsuitable for use with data capture. website: www.sequani.com phone: +44 (0)1531 634121 Rhian Reading BSc (Hons) / rhian.reading@sequani.comSequani Limited Bromyard Road, Ledbury, HR8 1LH, United Kingdom• Motor activity monitoring is used in specialist regulatory toxicology studies to investigate test item related neurobehavioral effects• Introduction of a new video tracking software system which detects the centre point, tail base and nose tip of rodents to individually track the movement of each animal in a non-invasive way• The system was successfully validated and demonstrated it could be used within the constraints regulatory toxicology studies in both rats and mice• The data generated demonstrated that the system accurately identified the targeted parameters on the animal which aligned with the needs of the studyWith ThanksThank you to Nicola Wilson-Neasom, Victoria Hurlow and Hollie Blunt for sharing their wealth of expertise and Ashley Hyne for his help with the practicalities of the project.SuppliersNorth Kent Plastics, Tracksys Ltd, Noldus Ethovision XT, Charles River UK.Individual animal visualization chart shows• The distance moved (TOP PANEL for the Center-point and Nose-point)• Time moving/resting using Centre-point (MIDDLE PANEL)• Time moving/resting using Nose-point (LOWER PANEL)• Nose-point tracking picks up finer head movements• Centre-point tracking only measures whole body movementCages positioned on the light boxes.Each arena zone is defined on the software, to direct analysis for each individual animal.Camera view from directly above the empty cages on the light boxesNote the “opaque” metal clasps.Heat map showing areas animals spent the most time in during the experiment (Dark blue lower time; Red is highest time).Mouse (left) and rat (right) within the cages. Tracking nose and center of gravity can differentiate sitting, rearing and sleeping behaviors.Image of nose tracking patterns (blue) and central point tracking (red).Expected decrease in movement over time after placed in cageExpected increase in movement when nose is used vs. centre point (rat, n=6).Bespoke lids fitted to our original caging..Obtaining and analysing data− Live video tracking or by running previously recorded footage through the software.− Data exported to Excel, visualised in heat maps or integrated visualisation in video.Individual animal visualisation chart shows:− The distance moved (TOP PANEL for the center-point and nose-point).− Time moving/resting using Centre-point (middle panel).− Time moving/resting using Nose-point (lower panel).− Nose-point tracking picks up finer head movements.− Centre-point tracking only measures whole body movement.Figure 5. Individual animal visualization chart.Poster Presentations

56Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020ResultsThe data was reported in 10-minute segments (intervals) and as a 60-minute overall count (totals). In rats, fine tuning of the base algorithm produced robust data. In mice, some blind spots, where the mice seemed to disappear, were evident initially; altering the camera settings within the software resolved this without making changes to the physical camera set up.As a result of the increased activity generally in mice versus rats, the file size of the captured video is notably larger (1 hour session with 20 animals is approximately 300 mb in rat and 1.1 gb in mice).Templates are easily created for each species to ensure efficient and reproducible set-up.Acceptance criteria were met on the following requirementsSoftware was able to detect the correct anatomical features of each animal.− Tracking was visibly accurate when replayed.− A difference in activity levels between the start (higher activity due to novel environment) and end of the trial (lower activity due to habituation) was clear.Conclusion and next stepsWe have confirmed video tracking can be used to measure motor activity at the scale necessary to be included in rodent regulatory toxicology studies.Retrospective analysis of these video files is also possible so removing the potential need to perform additional animal studies should additional parameters be needed following completion of the study, providing a significant refinement in Animal Welfare.With thanksThank you to Nicola Wilson-Neasom, Victoria Hurlow and Hollie Blunt for sharing their wealth of expertise and Ashley Hyne for his help with the practicalities of the project.SuppliersNorth Kent Plastics, Tracksys Ltd, Noldus Ethovision XT, Charles River UK.Poster Presentations

57August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareApril 2025 Animal Technology and WelfareIntroductionExperimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) is a model used in rodents to induce inflammation in the central nervous system. It is commonly used as a model for human multiple sclerosis (MS) and other diseases that involve demyelination. Demyelinating diseases are any conditions that cause damage to the protective covering of a nerve fibre (Figure 1). Implementing refinement in the EAE mouse modelSARA KUNCOVAThe Francis Crick InstituteCorrespondence: sara.kuncova@crick.ac.uk Figure 1. Loss of myelin around nerve fibre.EAE has the potential to cause severe suffering in mice with multiple clinical signs such as ulcerated wounds after injections, tail paralysis and fore- and hind-limb paralysis. The welfare of the animals must be taken into consideration and providing appropriate care is crucial for Animal Welfare and scientific outcomes. Affected animals have special husbandry needs including careful handling, care and housing adaptations, daily scoring and recognising humane endpoints. The EAE mouse model offers an opportunity for implementing all the 3Rs. Refinement can be immediately and easily executed by Animal Technicians. This poster provides an overview of refinements implemented at The Francis Crick Institute to minimise animal pain and discomfort. Induction of EAEGroups of C57BL6/J mice have undergone induction of EAE using a model depicted in Figure 2.MOG –- Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein, used as antigen in the experiment to induce EAE.Figure 2. Induction of EAE – experiment.

58Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020PTX – Protein based toxin produced by Bordetella pertussis.CFA – Freund’s Complete Adjuvant is a solution with inactivated mycobacteria.− Subcutaneous injections are performed on the rear flanks on opposite sides while under inhalation anaesthesia.− Intraperitoneal injections of PTX are used as a booster to activate immune response. − Intravenous injections of B cells carrying receptors specific for MOG supressing EAE symptoms. − Mice usually develop first clinical signs 7 days after injections. − Scoring and weighing animals starts 1 day after induction. − Scores of 3* and above – score twice per day (AM and PM).Humane endpoint: Score 4* or above, contact researcher to discuss euthanasia and sampling. See scoring table (Figure 3).RefinementAdverse effectsThese are the adverse effect seen at The Crick.Implementing Refinement in the EAE Mouse Model by Sara Kuncova, BRF Research Officer, EX1Introduction Induction of EAE Adverse Effects Refinement Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) is a model used in rodents to induce inflammation in the central nervous system. It is commonly used as a model for human multiple sclerosis (MS) and other diseases that involve demyelination. Demyelinating diseases are any conditions that cause damage to the protective covering of a nerve fibre (Fig. 1). Fig.1: Loss of myelin around nerve fibre. Fig. 2: Induction of EAE – experiment. Groups of C57BL6/J have undergone induction of EAE using a model depicted in Fig. 2. • Subcutaneous injections are performed on the rear flanks on opposite sides while under inhalation anaesthesia• Intraperitoneal injections of PTX are used as a booster to activate immune response • Intravenous injections of B cells carrying receptors specific for MOG supressing EAE symptoms • Mice usually develop first clinical signs 7 days after injections • Scoring and weighing animals starts 1 day after induction • Scores of 3* and above - score twice per day (AM and PM)Humane endpoint: Score 4* or above, contact researcher to discuss euthanasia and sampling * see scoring table belowReferences Acknowledgements Barthelmes, J., Tafferner, N., Kurz, J., De Bruin, N., Parnham, M.J., Geisslinger, G., and Schiffmann, S. (2016). Induction of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis in mice and evaluation of the disease-dependent distribution of immune cells in various tissues. Journal of Vis Exp.: 1-10.Croxford, A.L., Kurschus, F.C., and Waisman, A. (2011). Mouse models for multiple sclerosis: historical facts and future implications. Biochim Biophys Acta: 1812, 177-183.Hart, B.A., Gran, B., Weissert, R. (2011). EAE: Imperfect but useful models of Multiple sclerosis. Trends in Mol Med: 17(3), 119-125.Wolfensohn, S., Hawkins, P., Lelley, E., Anthony, D., Chambers, C., Lane, S., Lawton, M., Voipo, HM., Woodhall, G. (2013). Reducing suffering in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE). Journal of Pharm and Tox Methods: 67, 169-176. UC San Francisco. Retrieved, January 2024. Table 1. EAE Adverse Effects. http://tiny.ucsf.edu/Apr2XY.Handled by cupping to reduce stressUse of water bottle to prevent flooding of the cage, replacing automatic watering system Softer bedding material, gentler for paralyzed mice Food on the cage floor, easily reached Mash and hydrogel on the cage floor to support weight gain and prevent dehydrationHouse with cut down sides, easily accessibleDaily weighing to monitor weight lossIncreased communication with NACWO, NVS and researcherFig.3: Scoring system for identifying advancement of EAE and human end points. Fig.4: Cage labels used at The Francis Crick Institute highlighting EAE mice in the cage.Fig.5: Example of a scoring sheet for 3 cages used over one week of weighing and scoring. Scan QR code for more possible adverse effects EAE has the potential to cause severe suffering in mice with multiple clinical signs such as ulcerated wounds after injections, tail paralysis and fore- and hind-limb paralysis. The welfare of the animals must be taken into consideration and providing appropriate care is crucial for the animal’s welfare and scientific outcomes. Affected animals have special husbandry needs including careful handling, care and housing adaptations, daily scoring and recognising humane end points. The EAE mouse model offers an opportunity for implementing all the 3Rs. Refinement can be immediately and easily executed by animal technicians. This poster provides an overview of refinements implemented at the Francis Crick Institute to minimise animal pain and discomfort. Poster displayed on a rack for all staff to recognize husbandry needs MOG PTXProtein based toxin produced by Bordetella pertussisMyelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein, used as antigen in the experiment to induce EAE I would like to thank Nicholas Chisholm, Helen Bailey, Alan Palmer and Clare Brazill-Adams for all their help and support. Thank you, Qian Shen of Vinuesa lab for providing insight into your experimental work.I would also want to thank Hannah Davies for her PowerPoint contribution. CFAFreund’s Complete Adjuvant is a solution with inactivated mycobacteriaThese are the adverse effects seen at the CrickImplementing Refinement in the EAE Mouse Model by Sara Kuncova, BRF Research Officer, EX1Introduction Induction of EAE Adverse Effects Refinement Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) is a model used in rodents to induce inflammation in the central nervous system. It is commonly used as a model for human multiple sclerosis (MS) and other diseases that involve demyelination. Demyelinating diseases are any conditions that cause damage to the protective covering of a nerve fibre (Fig. 1). Fig.1: Loss of myelin around nerve fibre. Fig. 2: Induction of EAE – experiment. Groups of C57BL6/J have undergone induction of EAE using a model depicted in Fig. 2. • Subcutaneous injections are performed on the rear flanks on opposite sides while under inhalation anaesthesia• Intraperitoneal injections of PTX are used as a booster to activate immune response • Intravenous injections of B cells carrying receptors specific for MOG supressing EAE symptoms • Mice usually develop first clinical signs 7 days after injections • Scoring and weighing animals starts 1 day after induction • Scores of 3* and above - score twice per day (AM and PM)Humane endpoint: Score 4* or above, contact researcher to discuss euthanasia and sampling * see scoring table belowReferences Acknowledgements Barthelmes, J., Tafferner, N., Kurz, J., De Bruin, N., Parnham, M.J., Geisslinger, G., and Schiffmann, S. (2016). Induction of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis in mice and evaluation of the disease-dependent distribution of immune cells in various tissues. Journal of Vis Exp.: 1-10.Croxford, A.L., Kurschus, F.C., and Waisman, A. (2011). Mouse models for multiple sclerosis: historical facts and future implications. Biochim Biophys Acta: 1812, 177-183.Hart, B.A., Gran, B., Weissert, R. (2011). EAE: Imperfect but useful models of Multiple sclerosis. Trends in Mol Med: 17(3), 119-125.Wolfensohn, S., Hawkins, P., Lelley, E., Anthony, D., Chambers, C., Lane, S., Lawton, M., Voipo, HM., Woodhall, G. (2013). Reducing suffering in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE). Journal of Pharm and Tox Methods: 67, 169-176. UC San Francisco. Retrieved, January 2024. Table 1. EAE Adverse Effects. http://tiny.ucsf.edu/Apr2XY.Handled by cupping to reduce stressUse of water bottle to prevent flooding of the cage, replacing automatic watering system Softer bedding material, gentler for paralyzed mice Food on the cage floor, easily reached Mash and hydrogel on the cage floor to support weight gain and prevent dehydrationHouse with cut down sides, easily accessibleDaily weighing to monitor weight lossIncreased communication with NACWO, NVS and researcherFig.3: Scoring system for identifying advancement of EAE and human end points. Fig.4: Cage labels used at The Francis Crick Institute highlighting EAE mice in the cage.Fig.5: Example of a scoring sheet for 3 cages used over one week of weighing and scoring. Scan QR code for more possible adverse effects EAE has the potential to cause severe suffering in mice with multiple clinical signs such as ulcerated wounds after injections, tail paralysis and fore- and hind-limb paralysis. The welfare of the animals must be taken into consideration and providing appropriate care is crucial for the animal’s welfare and scientific outcomes. Affected animals have special husbandry needs including careful handling, care and housing adaptations, daily scoring and recognising humane end points. The EAE mouse model offers an opportunity for implementing all the 3Rs. Refinement can be immediately and easily executed by animal technicians. This poster provides an overview of refinements implemented at the Francis Crick Institute to minimise animal pain and discomfort. Poster displayed on a rack for all staff to recognize husbandry needs MOG PTXProtein based toxin produced by Bordetella pertussisMyelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein, used as antigen in the experiment to induce EAE I would like to thank Nicholas Chisholm, Helen Bailey, Alan Palmer and Clare Brazill-Adams for all their help and support. Thank you, Qian Shen of Vinuesa lab for providing insight into your experimental work.I would also want to thank Hannah Davies for her PowerPoint contribution. CFAFreund’s Complete Adjuvant is a solution with inactivated mycobacteriaThese are the adverse effects seen at the CrickImplementing Refinement in the EAE Mouse Model by Sara Kuncova, BRF Research Officer, EX1Introduction Induction of EAE Adverse Effects Refinement Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) is a model used in rodents to induce inflammation in the central nervous system. It is commonly used as a model for human multiple sclerosis (MS) and other diseases that involve demyelination. Demyelinating diseases are any conditions that cause damage to the protective covering of a nerve fibre (Fig. 1). Fig.1: Loss of myelin around nerve fibre. Fig. 2: Induction of EAE – experiment. Groups of C57BL6/J have undergone induction of EAE using a model depicted in Fig. 2. • Subcutaneous injections are performed on the rear flanks on opposite sides while under inhalation anaesthesia• Intraperitoneal injections of PTX are used as a booster to activate immune response • Intravenous injections of B cells carrying receptors specific for MOG supressing EAE symptoms • Mice usually develop first clinical signs 7 days after injections • Scoring and weighing animals starts 1 day after induction • Scores of 3* and above - score twice per day (AM and PM)Humane endpoint: Score 4* or above, contact researcher to discuss euthanasia and sampling * see scoring table belowReferences Acknowledgements Barthelmes, J., Tafferner, N., Kurz, J., De Bruin, N., Parnham, M.J., Geisslinger, G., and Schiffmann, S. (2016). Induction of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis in mice and evaluation of the disease-dependent distribution of immune cells in various tissues. Journal of Vis Exp.: 1-10.Croxford, A.L., Kurschus, F.C., and Waisman, A. (2011). Mouse models for multiple sclerosis: historical facts and future implications. Biochim Biophys Acta: 1812, 177-183.Hart, B.A., Gran, B., Weissert, R. (2011). EAE: Imperfect but useful models of Multiple sclerosis. Trends in Mol Med: 17(3), 119-125.Wolfensohn, S., Hawkins, P., Lelley, E., Anthony, D., Chambers, C., Lane, S., Lawton, M., Voipo, HM., Woodhall, G. (2013). Reducing suffering in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE). Journal of Pharm and Tox Methods: 67, 169-176. UC San Francisco. Retrieved, January 2024. Table 1. EAE Adverse Effects. http://tiny.ucsf.edu/Apr2XY.Handled by cupping to reduce stressUse of water bottle to prevent flooding of the cage, replacing automatic watering system Softer bedding material, gentler for paralyzed mice Food on the cage floor, easily reached Mash and hydrogel on the cage floor to support weight gain and prevent dehydrationHouse with cut down sides, easily accessibleDaily weighing to monitor weight lossIncreased communication with NACWO, NVS and researcherFig.3: Scoring system for identifying advancement of EAE and human end points. Fig.4: Cage labels used at The Francis Crick Institute highlighting EAE mice in the cage.Fig.5: Example of a scoring sheet for 3 cages used over one week of weighing and scoring. Scan QR code for more possible adverse effects EAE has the potential to cause severe suffering in mice with multiple clinical signs such as ulcerated wounds after injections, tail paralysis and fore- and hind-limb paralysis. The welfare of the animals must be taken into consideration and providing appropriate care is crucial for the animal’s welfare and scientific outcomes. Affected animals have special husbandry needs including careful handling, care and housing adaptations, daily scoring and recognising humane end points. The EAE mouse model offers an opportunity for implementing all the 3Rs. Refinement can be immediately and easily executed by animal technicians. This poster provides an overview of refinements implemented at the Francis Crick Institute to minimise animal pain and discomfort. Poster displayed on a rack for all staff to recognize husbandry needs MOG PTXProtein based toxin produced by Bordetella pertussisMyelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein, used as antigen in the experiment to induce EAE I would like to thank Nicholas Chisholm, Helen Bailey, Alan Palmer and Clare Brazill-Adams for all their help and support. Thank you, Qian Shen of Vinuesa lab for providing insight into your experimental work.I would also want to thank Hannah Davies for her PowerPoint contribution. CFAFreund’s Complete Adjuvant is a solution with inactivated mycobacteriaThese are the adverse effects seen at the CrickScan QR code for more possible adverse effectsHandled by cupping to reduce stress.Food on the cage floor, easily reached.Poster displayed on a rack for all staff to recognise husbandry needs.Poster PresentationsUlcerated wounds− Can appear 5-12 days after injections.− Assessed once day for 48 hours after appearing.− Usually heal quickly.Tail paralysisMethods of checking tail:− Whilst cupped, mouse does not wrap its tail around handlers’ hand.− When placed on the edge of the cage, mouse struggles with balance and may fall.Leg paralysisWhen performing health checks, evaluate front and back legs of each mouse:l change in gaitl ‘hopping’l dragging legs

59August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareUse of water bottle to prevent flooding of the cage, replacing automatic watering system.Mash and hydrogel on the cage floor to support weight gain and prevent dehydration.Daily weighing to monitor weight loss.Softer bedding material, gentler for paralysed mice.House with cut down sides, easily accessible.Increased communication with NACWO, NVS and researcher.Poster Presentations

60Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020EAE scoring tableFigure 3. Scoring system for identifying advancement of EAT and humane endpoints.Figure 4. Cage labels used to highlight EAE mice in the cage. Score Clinical symptoms, observations0 No clinical symptoms, mouse is healthy.0.5 Slight orientation or motoric problems during climbing. The tail shows muscle tension, but tip of the tail is limp.1 Complete paralysis of the tail. When the mouse is picked up, the whole tail is loosely hanging down with no muscle tension.1.5 Complete paralysis of the tail and first signs of hind leg weakness by wobbly motions.2 Paralysis of one hind leg.2.5 Paralysis of one hind leg and restrained movement of the second hind leg.3 Paralysis of both hind legs. 3.5 Paralysis of both hind legs and restrained movement on one of the front legs.4 Complete hind and advanced front leg paralysis. The mouse cannot move around the cage at all and does not respond to contact. Mice should be euthanised at this score and a score of 4 is entered for the rest of the experiment. Mice that are found in the cage also get a score of 4 for the rest of the experiment. Figure 5. Example of a scoring sheet for 3 cages used over one week of weighing and scoring.HEALTH CHECKS 2 x per day (AM+PM)EAE MICE: Regular water handle by cuppingAcknowledgementsI would like to thank Nicholas Chisholm, Helen Bailey, Alan Palmer and Clare Brazill-Adams for all their help and support. Thank you, Qian Shen of Vinuesa lab for providing insight into your experimental work.I would also want to thank Hannah Davies for her PowerPoint contribution. Poster Presentations

61August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareReferences1 Barthelmes, J., Tafferner, N., Kurz, J., De Bruin, N., Parnham, M.J., Geisslinger, G., and Schiffmann, S. (2016). Induction of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis in mice and evaluation of the disease-dependent distribution of immune cells in various tissues. Journal of Vis Exp.: 1-10.2 Croxford, A.L., Kurschus, F.C., and Waisman, A. (2011). Mouse models for multiple sclerosis: historical facts and future implications. Biochim Biophys Acta: 1812, 177-183.3 Hart, B.A., Gran, B., and Weissert, R. (2011). EAE: Imperfect but useful models of Multiple sclerosis. Trends in Mol Med: 17(3), 119-125.4 Wolfensohn, S., Hawkins, P., Lelley, E., Anthony, D., Chambers, C., Lane, S., Lawton, M., Voipo, HM., and Woodhall, G. (2013). Reducing suffering in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE). Journal of Pharm and Tox Methods: 67, 169-176. 5 UC San Francisco. Retrieved, January 2024. Table 1. EAE Adverse Effects. http://tiny.ucsf.edu/Apr2XYPoster Presentations

62Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020IntroductionOur facility houses a small colony of Sprague Dawley rats whose purpose is to supply pups at specified time points after they are born for neurophysiology and related research. Historically a male and female were put into a grid floor cage for seven days or until the female plugged. The male and female were then separated and housed individually in solid floor cages with a wood shaving substrate. The male remained on his own until used for further meetings and the female remained alone until she had littered down. Once her pups were weaned, she was single housed until she was put back in the grid floored cage to mate.The system had been set up originally to allow plug date identification but when we talked to the scientists it was clear that they did not need this information. They simply needed an idea of when litters might be born and therefore when the pups would be available for ex vivo work. What did we want to do and why?Rats are considered highly social animals (Research Animals Department, RSPCA). In the wild, they live in groups and develop complex social structures. Re-grouping rats is considered stressful (Suckrow 2015). We therefore wanted to keep animals in monogamous pairs so that they could develop a social bond that was not being repeatedly disrupted and where they could be housed on solid floors all the time as we felt that this would provide better Animal Welfare (Manser 1995).We had to be able to produce pups efficiently. We had to identify whether the females were pregnant and their likely date for littering. To help with planning and to provide tissue regularly, the scientists wanted 2 litters born each week ideally with several days between each litter.A method to improve the housing of breeding rats used to produce pups for tissueKALLY BOOTH, JOANNE KING, JAMES STEPHEN and NGAIRE DENNISONBiological Services, University of DundeeCorrespondence: k.booth@dundee.ac.ukAnimal Technology and Welfare April 2025What did we do?We bought in six-week-old male and female Sprague Dawley rats from Charles River Laboratories (Margate). They arrived in boxes of ten. Animals were housed in the groups that they had arrived in, until they had recovered from transport. They were acclimatised and had then reached a size and weight considered big enough to breed (as judged by an experienced technician).Some animals were kept on the previous system to ensure that a continuing supply of pups were available to the scientists. At the same time, we set up an initial group of 3 stable pairs (Figure 1). These animals were housed in RC2R cages. Over time additional animals were set up as pairs as the trial progressed and currently there are eight monogamous pairs in use.We tried two methods of assessing pregnancy which were manual palpation and visual inspection. The latter was sufficiently accurate for the needs of the scientists Figure 1. Cages on rack are joined using red tubes inserted through holes cut out of the side of the cage bases, towards the back.

63August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePoster Presentationsand was considered a lot less stressful for the animals. Health and welfare of the animals, pregnancy rates and number and sizes of litters born were monitored.To increase the area available to a pair of rats, two cages were linked together (Figure 2) by means of a polycarbonate red rat tube from Datesand. To do this the end of the tube was placed against one side of a cage base 3 cm from the back of the cage and was drawn around with a marker pen. The same was done on the next cage base but on the opposite side. A 5 mm drill bit was used to drill a hole big enough to insert a jigsaw blade and then the marked circles were cut out, ensuring that they were cut accurately to be opposite each other so the tube could be inserted from inside one cage and across to the other. The holes were filed to ensure they were smooth and that the tube fitted snugly. The tubes are not fixed and can be easily slid into place and then pulled back out when cages need to be separated for cleaning.It was noted that females in pairs began to synchronise their oestrus cycles and therefore when they gave birth. To avoid separating and reintroducing the pairs, with associated risk of aggression between the pair or the male and the pups, we used a plastic grid in the tunnel joining the cages to allow contact but not mating (Figure 3).ResultsFemales in the monogamous pairs housed in standard cages suffered from hair loss around their nipples and underbelly and some of the males had hair loss on their cheeks. The Named Veterinary Surgeon considered the most likely diagnosis was excessive grooming by the pups. The cages also became damp rapidly with the numbers of animals present. Increasing cage change frequency for pairs with large litters from once to twice a week was unsuccessful in reducing the over grooming.We increased the space available to pairs with pups by linking two cages together (Figures 1 and 2) to see whether this benefited their welfare, as judged by external signs. All animals regrew lost hair and no more hair loss was seen. Technicians caring for the rats noted that the adults were much easier to handle, calmer and interacted more with the handlers.Figure 2. Female with pups in double cage, with male sleeping in adjoining cageFigure 3. Plastic grid in the tube to join two cages.

64Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Data generated under the previous and new systems were compared (Table 1).For the time-mated animals, their median litter size was 9 (inter-quartile range 6 to 11 and 40 observations) and in the monogamous pairs, the median litter size was 13 (inter-quartile range 9 to 15 and 52 observations). Thus the median litter size was about 50% higher in the monogamous pairs. It was difficult to compare the data directly beyond these basic figures as mothers were at different stages in their reproductive life.Dividing grids have been used in 7 pairs for 11 meetings to date. On one occasion, one female did not become pregnant, was divided from the male for a second time, was reintroduced to him and became pregnant. The median litter size for these meetings is 15 (inter-quartile range 11-15; 10 observations). On average pups are born 35 days after reintroduction of the male (range 24-43 days).ConclusionThe change to monogamous pairs was very successful resulting in marked increase in median litter size. This allowed us to reduce the number of adult rats with related decreased costs and husbandry-related time. By joining two cages together, thus providing a greater floor area, there were improvements in outward signs of welfare and docility of the animals. It appears that we can control the tendency for females to synchronise their oestrus cycles which otherwise could result in an uneven supply of pups, by allowing the male and female in each pair to remain separated but in communication with each other using a grid and then reintroducing the pair around 6 to 7 weeks before pups are needed.AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank the relevant scientists and other members of Mr J A Macleod’s team of animal carers for their enthusiastic support and Dr E L Newman for help with analysing the numerical data.References1 Manser, C.E., Morris, T.H., and Broom, D.M. (1995): An investigation into the effects of solid or grid cage flooring on the welfare of laboratory rats, Laboratory Animals 29, 353-363 http://journals.sagepub.com/ doi/pdf/10.1258/002367795780740023 Research Animals Department, RSPCA (2011) Supplementary resources for members of local ethical review processes Rats: Good practice for housing and care file://homes/ ndennison/Downloads/Rats%20(2011).pdf 2 Suckow, M.A., Weisbroth, S.H., Franklin, C.L. (ed) (2005): The Laboratory Rat, 2nd Edition, American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine Series.Table 1. Comparison of pups generated in litters from timed matings (old system) and monogamous pairs (new system)Median number of pups per litterLower quartileUpper quartileNew System Old System0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Poster Presentations

65August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareApril 2025 Animal Technology and WelfareAbstractDuring our experience of working on the breeding floor of the University of Cambridge’s Anne McLaren Building (AMB), we have recognised the importance of giving the correct amount of nesting and the benefits of additional enrichment. We work with over 100 genetically altered strains of mice; some of these have different activity levels and requirements. We have found that junior Animal Technicians understand the importance of nesting quantities and providing enrichment. However communicating to them the right amount/combination is quite subjective. By creating an information poster we hope that junior Animal Technicians both in the AMB and other similar facilities will have a concrete foundation to rely upon when trying to provide the best animal care.Brown nesting for individually ventilated cages (IVC)At AMB we use brown nesting for most of our cages. As with any nesting, it is important to add the correct amount to the cage. Mice require brown nesting for warmth and a safe space but it is also vital that a full tip-to-tail check can be completed on every mouse during the AM checks. Nesting amount can affect the welfare of mice, our ability to check them and the efficiency of AM checks.A guide for junior technicians: the importance of giving the correct amount of nesting in a mouse IVC and the benefits of an enriched cageLAUREN PITCHER and AMBER STRINGERUniversity of CambridgeCorrespondence: lauren.pitcher@admin.cam.ac.uk Figure 1.

66Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020EnrichmentThe best form of enrichment is other mice but unfortunately singly housed animals cannot always be avoided. To help boost their welfare we provide extra enrichment. We also add extra enrichment in cages of mice that are hyperactive, seen fighting or over-grooming. Adding more enrichment can help reduce stress behaviours and provide distractions. It is important to ensure that when adding extra resources the mice still have enough space to move and are not at risk of getting injured.Enrichment rotationWe have created an enrichment rotation poster for our single males and sentinels on level 4 of AMB. This involves changing to a new enrichment item when they are cleaned out. By rotating enrichment we provide novelty, complexity and excitement.Figure 2. ConclusionThis informational poster is based on a breeding floor, so what may work for breeding mice may not work for mice on an experimental floor. Every strain also has different requirements, i.e. mice that are very hyperactive may require softer surgery nesting as opposed to brown nesting to prevent entanglement. This poster is more of a guide to aid in delivering the best care that we can offer. This includes balancing our need to perform daily health checks and husbandry procedures, whilst maintaining good welfare standards. We believe that enrichment rotation offers the best care for singly housed mice as well as those with behavioural issues. Providing the appropriate levels of nesting allows mice to perform their natural behaviours without hindering our ability to care for them.1. SMART HOMEProvides additional shelter and gives mice something else to chew on and rip up. This is also helpful for anxious mice and sensitive breeders.2. CARDBOARD TUBEThese provide multipurpose enrichment. Mice can hide as well as gnaw. These tubes are more compact and may make mice feel safer.3. LOFTSLofts provide additional floor space and allow mice to create zones within the cage. It also allows mice to climb at various heights.4. COMBINATIONThis creates a more complex environment. Using a different combo each time encourages a range of behaviours and movements.Figure 3. Poster Presentations

Call for nominations now open for the popular2025 AAALAC International Fellowship UK Award“Life-changing!”“The highlight of my professional career.”“This experience offers the most unique opportunity in our industry.”https://www.aaalac.org/awards/fellowship-award/DEADLINE IS JUNE 1, 2025The IAT RAnTech winner will receive a week-long guest visit to prestigious biomedical research facilities in the USA plus complimentary attendance at the National AALAS Meeting, the USA’s largest laboratory animal science and technology meeting. All registration, travel, lodging, meals and out-of-pocket expenses are covered (receipts are required).Timeline for the IAT RAnTech Participants nomination process:• Call for nominations: February, March, April, May• Nomination package deadline: 1st June• Selection Committee reviews nomination packages: June-July• Award recipients notified: 1st August by the AAALAC International Fellowship CommitteeThe AAALAC International Fellowship Award is presented by AAALAC International through grants from industry sponsors, in cooperation with IAT, AALAS, the National Institutes of Health, Vanderbilt University and the HHMI Janelia Research Campus.If you have any questions about this award call +00 301.696.9626 or email fellow@aaalac.org. If you are IAT RAnTech...Don’t delay get your application in now!https://www.aaalac.org/awards/fellowship-award/APPLY ONLINE

Veinlite RShows veins and arteries in the tailWWW.PLEXX.EUVisit www.plexx.eu for more informationVLED+ ForLarge AnimalsVeinlite R is a revolutionary new transillumination device designed to detect both veins and arteries in mice and rats. Veinlite R’s new form factor makes it easy, convenient and readily available for assisting with venous and arterial access. The included tail adapters make stabilisation and securing the tail during access eortless. This device features 3 dierent coloured lights: green for arteries, orange for vein imaging, and a white exam light. Ideal for the Research market, Veinlite R® is specically designed for mice and rats. Powered by one AAA battery, this device features a new, compact form factor that allows for imaging of both arteries and veins.  Three LED colours optimised for versatility Green LED for arteries Orange LED for veins White LED for examination  Only device on the market for arterial sticks  Three switchable levels of brightness  Compact form factor  Through-the-body transillumination  Auto shut-o timer  Includes single use barrier covers  Uses AAA 1.5v battery  Weight 29 gm (1.02 oz) with battery  Size 96.1×19.0x16.5 mm

69August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareApril 2025 Animal Technology and WelfareIntroductionThis introduction sets the stage by acknowledging the importance of mice in cancer research and the challenges associated with tail vein access in the presence of tumours. It introduces Veinlite as an advanced vein visualisation device and outlines the primary benefits setting the tone for a detailed exploration of its applications in imaging studies, cell implants and therapeutic interventions. The goal is to emphasise how Veinlite can significantly enhance the precision and efficiency of research procedures involving mice with tumour burden.BackgroundLaboratory mice are pivotal in cancer research, with successful intravenous (IV) administration aiding in the development of imaging techniques, cell implants and therapeutic interventions. Therefore precise tail vein identification and access is crucial for a proportion of our work. Tumour burden in mice often complicates these procedures leading to increased stress and procedural challenges which is often multiplied when training. Addressing this, Veinlite technology emerges as a significant change offering a novel approach to tail vein observation and greatly increase welfare (3Rs).The challengesMany of our transgenic mice are on a C57BL6 background with dark tails which makes vein identification less straightforward when compared to those that are albino, nude or lighter skinned. These groups of lighter mice may also present vein identification difficulties when showing a tumour burden. Enhancing precision in mouse intravenous tail vein injection using veinlite MIKE MITCHELLCancer Research UK, Cambridge InstituteCorrespondence: Mike.Mitchell@cruk.cam.ac.uk As part of the University of Cambridge we often must teach this technique to students with limited mouse experience, which is a technique that not even many experienced mouse technicians use or could maintain. Traditional methods may result in time-consuming procedures and increased stress for the mice.Figure 1. Dexterity challenge. Veinlite ergonomicsWe have been using the Veinlite for just over a year and in that time there has always been a desire for better ergonomics (see Figures 1 and 2). The 1st edition (Figure 1) was great for vein identification but gave a dexterity challenge if trying to complete the injection whilst holding the light. Plexx approached the manufacturer and the 2nd edition was designed (Figure 2). This enables the preferred angle for IV injection while keeping the vein illuminated throughout.

70Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020The benefits− Enhanced Visibility: Veinlite provides clear visualisation of the tail vein even in mice with tumour burden. − Reduced procedure time: Quick and efficient identification leads to reduced procedure times, minimising stress on the mice. − Increased Precision: Improved accuracy in tail vein access ensures successful IV administration of contrast agents. Veinlite has been used in our facility for the smooth IV administration of therapeutic agents, cell implantation and provision of contrast agents for imaging.Figure 2. Preferred angle. ConclusionFrom training to application, the utilisation of Veinlite during experimental procedures highlights undeniable benefits. It provides new licensees with confidence enabling precise focus irrespective of mouse strain or condition. While it does not replace highly skilled technicians, it significantly enhances training, thereby minimising the number of animals needed. Moreover, in lengthy studies it reduces restraint time subsequently alleviating stress for the animals. This underscores its pivotal role in refining procedures and promoting Animal Welfare.Thank you and acknowledgementsThank you to Plexx and Nilgun Fullbrook who not only listened to their customers comments regarding the ergonomics of the light but actively sourced a solution with the manufactures. In my opinion this makes the Veinlite an asset to any facility looking to improve training time and promote the 3Rs.Poster Presentations

71August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareApril 2025 Animal Technology and WelfareAbstractMaximising the use of MBSCsMicrobiological Safety Cabinets (MBSC) primary function is to provide the operator with protection from exposure to Laboratory Animal Allergens (LAAs) whilst performing a variety of in vivo tasks. Lone working use of MBSCs can impact both efficiency and morale. Our aim was to assess whether two individuals working concomitantly per MBSC would be compatible with our health and safety programme.Despite the implementation of standard ergonomic principles in the facilities, musculoskeletal issues are being increasingly reported i.e. upper and lower back pain, wrist pain, shoulder and neck pain. Over the last 12 months we have been working to find solutions to various ergonomic challenges that have presented themselves within our in vivo laboratories. Some of the issues may be attributed to the working height of the MBSC, the shape and size of the sash height, the duration of the working periods in the MBSCs as well as the operating height which is restricted somewhat by the facility ceiling height as MBSCs to have double HEPA filtration as requested by our Safety, Health and Environment (SHE) team.Working with SHE specialists we have reviewed how we conduct common tasks using the HSE Assessment of Repetitive Tasks (ART) tool and made recommendations for staff to adjust ways of working. The goal of this project was to determine measures that could be utilised to reduce the musculoskeletal risk to an acceptable level when working at a MBSC. (Figure 1)To provide an assessment of musculoskeletal risks, biological and chemical hazards for tasks, alongside existing controls and possible further or amended Ergonomics within an in vivo facility ROBERT McLEARY and ROBERT ORVISAstraZeneca, CambridgeCorrespondence: robert.orvis@astrazeneca.comcontrols which could be considered. To group those risks according to impact and to provide several solutions and next steps which can be considered by those managing the risk. Work on the challenge of finding solutions to enable all individuals to work comfortably within a MBSC for in vivo tasks.Method− Manual handling assessment charts tool.− Ergonomic Method of Analysis. − Assessment of Repetitive Tasks tool.− Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) – Ergonomic assessment method rationale.− Laboratory Animal Allergen assessment for Occupational Exposure Limits under Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH).− Manual handling assessment charts (MAC). Note: Using the MAC may not comprise a suitable and sufficient risk assessment. You may need to do a full risk assessment when certain conditions apply.− Ergonomic Tools (ART & REBA).Remember: The purpose of the assessment is to identify and then reduce the overall level of risk of the task and put measures in place to control the risks that have been identified.Figure 1.

72Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Consultation with line managers for MBSC users who highlighted Muscular Skeletal disorders. Independent specialist from outside of AZ: Industrial Hygienist for measuring potential exposure to LAA.Ergonomic methods and practices Provide theory training to the in vivo team, involving a classroom training session:Engagement with our ergonomic specialist and enable individuals to have specific one assessment of posture whilst in the working environment. (Figure 2)Replacement of lab chairs with ones of ergonomic design following feedback from individuals working within the in vivo facilities.Evaluation of the use of anti-fatigue mats for individuals standing at a MBSC, (however the initial trial was unsuccessful due to the facility barrier entry process but we are investigating other potential types).Complete a holistic assessment combining ergonomics, biological and chemical risks associated with in vivo tasks conducted in a MBSC to understand at risk postures and measure to minimise any risks. Introduce footwear insoles (see Figure 3) that have provided relief for some individuals who spend a lot of time on their feet.DisordersSkeletalMuscularFigure 2. Ergonomic assessment method rationale for REBA Due to the posture, frequency and working range in the MBSCs for both standing and seated, we chose three core tasks for REBA as below in Figure 4. These were then rated using ART Figure 5 and REBA scoring systems Figure 6.Figure 3. Insoles. Figure 4. Chosen core tasks. Core Task Zone of work1. Reaching to the back of cage.Long range – full reach into Tech602. Oral dosing Mid/closer range3. Measuring Close range – close proximity to Tech60 sash.REBA scoringFigure 5. REBA assessment scoring system.1 Negligible Risk2 or 3 Low risk, change may be needed4 to 7Medium risk, further investigation, change soon8 to 10High risk, investigate and implement change11+ Very high risk, implement changePoster Presentations

73August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareART assessments scoring low/medium/high risk depending on duration, however showed similar risk areas as REBA:High risk scores for head/neck and arms for all users, higher risk for back/trunk/neck for taller users.ResultsWe have designed a bespoke monitoring protocol and evaluated LAA exposure when two individuals operate concomitantly per MBSC. Static and operator sample were collected to determine exposure of the operators at the MBSC and in the wider room and when analysed the results of the LAA monitoring: increasing the number of operators to two did not cause greater LAA exposure to the operators. There was no detectable impact on the exposure to anyone in the room.Following a user consultation and review of all the LAA data we were able to update our risk assessment to reflect this change for the tasks evaluated. (Tables 1 and 2)Figure 6. Chosen core tasks results. Task Taller user Taller user – seatedTaller user – change station modeReaching to the back of cageHigh – 10 Medium – 6 Medium – 4Measuring miceHigh – 8 Medium – 6 Medium – 4Oral DosingMedium – 7 Medium – 4 Medium – 4Next – we want to:− Monitor the impact of this refined way of working.− Assess whether a similar approach could be applied to a MBSC in cage change mode.− We have collected information (task risk assessments work timelines) to complete a holistic risk assessment by combining the ergonomic, biological and chemical risks associated with common tasks conducted using the MBSC.− Looking into perching stools to allow flexibility in movement that sitting in a chair does not, allowing users to stand more easily if required to move away from the MBSC and allow an ergo friendly stretching movement.Conclusion− Using the ergonomic processes and tools available we have reduced the impact on staff by validating the ability to safely use our MBSC with two users at once.− Improved postures and ability to work whilst seated Key – HSL Guidance Values (Mouse mus m1):Low Risk: <5 ngm-3Medium Risk: 5 ngm-3 to 50 ngm-3 High Risk: >50 ngm-3Table 1. Guidance values. Table 2. Results of LAA monitoring. Results of monitoringSample RefSample LocationSample Period (mins)Sample Volume (l)Amount Detected ngConcn ngm-3AZ16 Alice Pemberton Hood 2 – Dosing10.28 – 11.01 11.09 – 11.35 (59) 118 <0.04<0.34AZ17 Chelsea Cavanagh Hood 2 – Dosing10.33 – 11.01 11.09 – 11.35 (54) 108 0.131.20AZ26 Positive Control Hood 210.25 – 11.03 11.09 – 11.35 (64) 128 0.513.98AZ18 Julia Bieluczyk Hood 1 – Randomisation10.20 – 11.07 (47) 94 <0.04<0.43AZ27 Positive Control Hood 110.18 – 11.03 11.06 (48) 96 0.040.42AZ19 John Peverill Hood 3 – Dosing10.56 – 11.36 (40) 80 <0.04<0.50AZ28 Positive Control Hood 310.53 – 11.36 (43) 86 0.040.47AZ20 Chelsea Cavanagh Hood 4 – Dosing11.12 – 12.31 (79) 158 <0.04<0.25AZ21 Adam Holberry-Brown Hood 4 – Dosing11.12 – 12.39 (87) 174 <0.04<0.23AZ29 Positive Control Hood 411.13 – 12.39 (86) 172 <0.04<0.23Poster Presentations

74Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020to give relief to musculoskeletal issues.− The improvement in staff wellbeing is also reflected in improved scores in this category in our company-wide employee engagement survey conducted twice a year.− Investment in staff wellbeing for this project has multiple benefits including improved morale, reduced risk of musculoskeletal injury and better workflows in procedure space utilisation.AcknowledgementsAST UK CPSS: Karen Balch, Emma Flynn, AST UK Team.AZ Safety, Health and Environment: Laurence Jones, Chris Harris, Abhishek Upadhyay. AZ Cambridge Operations: Darren Kenyon, Stuart Macdonald, AZ Cambridge Early Oncology In Vivo Teams.Poster Presentations

75August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareApril 2025 Animal Technology and WelfareBackgroundAll commercial organisations must comply with prescribed water quality/discharge limits to operate under their trade effluent licences granted by their water suppliers (Table 1).Sequani’s environmental footprint REECE READINGSequaniCorrespondence: reece.reading@sequani.com Limits ensure the quality of our natural waterways and ensure the biodiversity they contain and prevent release of potentially harmful substances.As a result of an altered sample point during the building works for our new biomedical facility we observed that while complying with the requirements for site release there was an opportunity to improve on 2 measures of water quality: phosphate levels and pH from the discharge directly from a rodent unit cagewash area (image 1).AimEnsure the effluent that is directly discharged from our cagewash machines is phosphate free and pH neutral.MethodCurrent commercially supplied detergent is phosphoric acid based (phosphate levels of >30%, pH 1.8 to 2.2); historically, used because of its excellent degreasing and de-mineralisation properties especially useful for urine and hard water staining.In collaboration with the cagewash manufacturer, we sourced a phosphate-free, citric acid-based detergent that would not cause any technical issues with our cage wash equipment and assessed:− Visual cleanliness of the soiled rodent cages.− Microbial monitoring conducted by; aseptically swabbing an item on completion of cycle and placing the swab in nutrient broth, incubating the broth under shaking at 100 rpm, 37˚C for 16 to 24 hours, treating an air-dried drop of the broth with a gram stain kit, counting the gram positive and gram-negative stained bacteria under a micro-scope.− Method of neuralisation of the cagewash effluent was developed in collaboration with the cagewash manufacturer the cagewash machines have different discharge systems (image 2).Table 1. Trade Effluent Ranges, Severn Trent Water.Parameters Unit RangepH Level1 (acid) – 14 (alkali)6.0 – 10.0Phosphorus Levelmg/L 0 – 25Image 1. New biomedical facility building.Image 2. Sump system.

76Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020− Discharge of effluent into a sump before full discharge to drain.− Direct discharge to drain.− To assess effectiveness of the neutralisation methods, we sampled outflow from the cagewashes at point of entry into the main drain i.e. only cagewash outflow being sampled.− pH was assessed in the samples on the same day of sampling using a standard laboratory pH meter, calibrated prior to measurement.Results− Switch to a citric acid-based detergent ensured both visually clean and microbiologically sanitised cages (see Table 2) and removed all phosphate.− Retrofitting of a sump-based neutralisation system, Image 2 and 4, and an in-line neutralising system, Images 3, 5 and 6 achieved pH neutral water discharges, see Figure 1.Table 2. Cage sanitisation.Parameters Results (Pass/Fail)Gram Negative Rods PassGram Positive Cocci PassCagewash Acceptability LimitsPassAdequately Sanitised PassWorking Satisfactorily PassSummary− Switching to phosphate-free detergent does not negatively impact the sanitising of Cage wash process.− Retrofitting of neutralising infrastructure to cage washes with or without sumps are effective at pH neutralising effluent at point of discharge.Image 4. Actual Sump System.Dosing pumps (1). Sump located underneath machine (2).Image 3. In-line drainage system.Figure 1.Images 5 & 6. Actual in-line system.Panel for pH monitoring (Neutraliser Unit) (1). Dosing pumps (2). pH algorithm monitor (within panel) (3).Poster Presentations

77August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareApril 2025 Animal Technology and WelfarePup numbers weaned are higher in backcrossed colonies of genetically altered mice than non-backcrossed coloniesROSS COLQUHOUN, SAMANTHA TRAILL, CATHERINE GILLAN, KALLY BOOTH, NGAIRE DENNISON and GAIL GILMOURUniversity of DundeeCorrespondence: r.y.colquhoun@dundee.ac.uk IntroductionBackcrossing of genetically altered (GA) mice involves mating colony animals with individuals from the inbred control strain. It is recommended that GA mouse colonies are backcrossed every 5 to 10 generations to reduce genetic drift away from the inbred line.The Jackson Laboratory define a small colony as any that is maintained as less than 6 breeding pairs. Small colonies are at greater risk of unknowingly selecting and maintaining unwanted mutations. Whilst some such mutations are harmless, some may cause clinical effects. Backcrossing reduces the risk of such mutations being maintained in a colony.Since our colonies are generally very small we hypothesised that colonies that were not backcrossed, may contain harmful mutations that would affect the health and productivity of colonies.AimsAim 1: To compare the numbers of pups weaned in colonies that have been backcrossed and those that have not.Aim 2: To investigate whether there is a difference in the number of animals found dead or culled due to illness/unwanted clinical signs (such as hydrocephalus or eye defects) between colonies that have been backcrossed and those that have not.Data collection and analysisThe LabtracksTM system is used for data recording of colonies at Dundee. Five years of information was compared. Five years of information was compared. Data from 47 colonies that had been routinely backcrossed (18,926 mice) were compared with 65 colonies which have not (22,748 mice). Average and range of animals culled before and after weaning were calculated both with and without inclusion of data from known phenotypic colonies.Summary of colony dataNon- backgrossedBackcrossedAverage % loss before weaning21 16Range: max 63 30Range: min 0 3Average % loss before weaning after removal of known phenotypic strains21 N/A Range: max 63 N/ARange: min 0 N/ANumber of mice analysed (including phenotypic)22,748 18,926Number of animals culled due to sickness (including pups)1000 486% sickness rate (including pups)4.4 2.5Number of animals culled due to sickness (excluding pups)702 322% sickness rate (excluding pups)3.1 1.7

78Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020The average loss of pups to weaning was 16% in backcrossed colonies (range 3 to 30%) and 21% in non-backcrossed colonies (range 0 to 63%). Over all colonies there was therefore a 5% higher number of pups weaned in backcrossed colonies. The percentage of sickness rate was calculated both including and excluding pups culled/lost prior to weaning. Including these pups, the sickness rates for backcrossed and non-backcrossed colonies are 2.5% and 4.4% respectively. Excluding pre-weaning pups, the sickness rates are 1.7% and 3.1% indicating an almost doubled rate of illness requiring cull in non-backcrossed colonies.There is a clear difference in the percentage of pups weaned and illness rate between backcrossed and non-backcrossed colonies.Results pups lost vs pups weanedDiscussion and conclusionsThe increased number of pups weaned and the reduced number of animals culled due to illness in backcrossed colonies implies that backcrossing not only prevents genetic drift but also improves the health and productivity of a colony. Analysis is ongoing to investigate whether specific clinical conditions are responsible for the difference in cull rate due to illness between backcrossed and non-backcrossed colonies.Where poor colony management has occurred we have also found that it can be hard to determine whether clinical signs observed are due to phenotype or due to an increased rate of disease from spread of unwanted ‘fixed’ mutations.Non-backcrossedBackcrossedPercentage pups weanedPercentage pups lost before weaningPercentage pups weanedPercentage pups lost before weaningImage 1. Mouse on far right is showing a change in head shape and small size; poor colony management means that it is hard to tell whether this is due to the genetic alteration or hydrocephalus from the C57/bl6J background strain.References Strain background and genetic drift: https://www.jax.org/jax-mice-and-services/customer-support/technical-support/strainbackground-and-genetic-drift The Jackson Laboratory Handbook on Genetically Standardized Mice: https://resources.jax.org/ therapeutic-area-essentials/jax-handbook-genetically-standardized-mice Poster PresentationsFigure 1.

79August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareApril 2025 Animal Technology and WelfareAimThe aim was to determine how well pain correlated to footpad width using the collagen antibody arthritis model.IntroductionA hallmark symptom of rheumatoid arthritis in humans is painful swollen joints. Pain can manifest before any inflammation is noticeable1,2 as well as persist long after inflammation has resolved.3 In rodent models of arthritis, ankle or footpad width is a commonly used surrogate marker of pain (see Figure 1). Assessing pain in models of rheumatoid arthritisKALLY BOOTH, NGAIRE DENNISON, SAMUEL SINGLETON, MERIAM NEFLA, SIMON ARTHUR and TIM HALES University of DundeeCorrespondence: k.booth@dundee.ac.uk Commonly used methods to assess pain are footpad width (A), ankle width (B) or footpad ankle length (C) (Figure 1).Techniques to assess painEquipment used to measure mechanical withdrawal thresholds (Figure 2) on the left-hand side is an electronic von Frey machine which measures mechanical pain and a circulating water bath set to 2˚C that is maintained using ice on the right-hand side.Figure 1. Footpad width as a surrogate measure of pain in arthritis models.CBAFigure 2. Equipment

80Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Collagen antibody induced arthritis (CAIA)A monoclonal antibody (mAb) is injected intravenously (IV) followed by an intraperitoneal (IP) injection of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) 3 days later to induce clinical symptoms (e.g. swelling of hind paw and digits) (Figure 3). Here are examples of clinical scores observed in the paradigm (Figure 4) adapted from Coppard et al 2019.4Figure 5 shows the development of mechanical sensitivity caused by collagen antibodies. i.e., model for mechanical pain caused by rheumatoid arthritis. The black line demonstrates clinical score (swelling of hind paw and digits), showing that increased inflammation is accompanied by decreased mechanical thresholds.Figure 4. Clinical scoring.Figure 3. CAIA induction.3 = Overall swelling in paw/ankle or swelling >2 digits1 = Erythema or swelling in 1 digit0 = No disease activity2 = Erythema >1 digit or swelling in 1-2 digits4 = Bulbous ankle and footpad swellingFigure 5. Development of mechanical sensitivity.Development of cold pain (Figure 6) caused by rheumatoid arthritis in this model. The black line demonstrates how cold sensitivities compare to inflammation.Figure 6. Development of cold pain.Correlation of mechanical thresholds with ankle width (Figure 7). Demonstrates that ankle width (often used as a surrogate for pain) has poor/no correlation with actual mechanical pain which is measured in red.Correlation of cold sensitivities with ankle width which similarly demonstrates that ankle width has little/no correlation with actual cold pain thresholds (Figure 8).Poster Presentations

81August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareThe correlation found to be significant was on day 5 (Figure 10).Figure 7. Correlation of mechanical thresholds.Figure 8. Correlation of cold sensitivities.Figure 9 shows the correlation values for mechanical pain.Day testedPearson’s r valueP value Significant?Baseline -0.015 (-0.71–0.70)0.97 Not significant2 0.59 (-0.20 – 0.91)0.13 Not significant4 -0.08 (-0.84 – 0.78)0.88 Not significant6 0.51 (-0.51 – 0.93)0.3 Not significant 8 0.20 (-0.73 – 0.87)0.7 Not significant10 0.75 (-0.15 – 0.97)0.08 Not significant12 0.10 (-0.77 – 0.84)0.85 Not significantFigure 9. Mechanical pain.Mechanical withdrawal threshold correlation to ankle width:Day testedPearson’s r valueP value Significant?Baseline 0.046 (-0.73–0.77)0.92 Not significant1 0.20 (-0.65 – 0.83)0.66 Not significant3 -0.035 (-0.77 – 0.74)0.94 Not significant5 0.86 (0.16 – 0.98)0.028 Significant* 7 -0.6 (-0.95 – 0.41)0.21 Not significant9 0.47 (-0.55 – 0.93)0.35 Not significant11 0.56 (-0.46 – 0.94)0.25 Not significantFigure 10. Correlation values for cold pain.Cold hypersensitivity correlation to ankle width:− Pain in collagen antibody induced arthritis. (A) Time course of development of mechanical hyperalgesia. (B and Bi) Correlations between ankle width and mechanical withdrawal thresholds on each day of testing.− (C) Time course of development of cold hypersensitivity. (D and Di) Correlations between ankle width and paw withdrawal latency from cold water on each day of testing. In each case * indicates P < 0.05 from baseline.Collagen antibody treated mice were scored as ‘sad’ as evident by their quiescence, hunched posture and lameness. (Figure 11.) Mice which received morphine at 3mg/kg displayed significantly fewer observations on all qualitative parameters. Figure 11. Affective measures of analgesia.Hunched?Yes/NoInactive? Yes/NoInactive/slow/fastLame? Yes/NoObvious/weight baring/normalPoster Presentations

82Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020The scoring was performed by trained Animal Technicians who participated in the daily welfare checks and were blind to the treatment outcome.This demonstrates that qualitative assessment of pain and analgesia is a better outcome compared to a single surrogate of hind paw width.Additional observations that were scored included grooming status, ear position and piloerection (data not shown).Conclusion − Footpad widths poorly reflect pain experienced in arthritis models. − Observing the posture and activity of an animal might better indicate whether they are in pain. − Qualitative and semi-quantitative measures of affective pain can be useful in determining when an animal should receive analgesia. − Further qualitative refinements should be added to identify better humane endpoints.AcknowledgementsThank you to all MRSU staff for their participation in affective scoring.British Journal of AnaesthesiaRoyal College of AnaesthetistsNational Institute of Academic AnaesthesiaStudentship funding bodies: This work was supported by a National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia studentship awarded to Tim Hales. Samuel Singleton assessed pain.References1 McWilliams, D.F., Rahman, S., James, R.J.E. et al. Disease activity flares and pain flares in an early rheumatoid arthritis inception cohort; characteristics, antecedents and sequelae. BMC Rheumatol 3, 49 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-019-0100-9 2 ten Klooster, P.M., de Graaf, N. & Vonkeman, H.E. Association between pain phenotype and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a non-interventional, longitudinal cohort study. Arthritis Res Ther 21, 257 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s 13075-019-2042-4 3 Sandor, K., Nandakumar, K.S., Holmdahl, R., et al. Collagen antibody-induced arthritis (CAIA) leads to evoked and ongoing persistent pain-like behavior, but transient joint inflammation Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2012;71: A32. 4 Coppard, C., Bonnefoy, F., Hannani, D. et al. Photopheresis efficacy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a pre-clinical proof of concept. J Transl Med 17, 312 (2019). Poster Presentations

Mental Health AwarenessWhat is Compassion Fatigue?It’s a type of mental pain that presents as an emotional and physical exhaustion that causes us to reduce our capacity to empathise or feel compassion for animals and for other peopleSo why are Animal Technicians, Vets and Researchers affected? l It’s the exposure to potential animal suffering, often death of the animal and sacrificing excess stock.l Frequently having to deal with ethical dilemmas – moral stress, or moral injury, are primary contributors to compassion fatigueWhen you are caring for animals, you need to remember to take care of yourself and your own mental wellbeingHere are a few ideasAre you an IAT member and feel that you would benefit from speaking to a trained mental health first aider? There are a group of people that would be happy to chat:Scan the QRC or Click here to request contact with a MHFA Institute of Animal TechnologyCOUNCILEDI GroupBE HEALTHYtake some exercise that you enjoyBE MINDFUL OF YOUenjoy what you like to do - walking, listening to your favourite musicBE HONESTtalk to people about your feelingsBE PROUDof the scientific breakthroughs you may have contributed toBE POSITIVEand thankfulHow are youFEELING?ESTABLISH CLEAR BOUNDARIESBE AWARE OF WHAT’S NORMAL FOR YOUBE KIND TO YOURSELFiat.org.uk

84Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020The 3Rs’ committeeImperial’s 3Rs’ committee was created in 2014 to promote and drive 3Rs changes in animal research at the college. It is made up of several members who work with animals at various levels.By having members from separate roles and backgrounds it enables topics to be discussed and evaluated. This could be from an Animal Welfare point of view (techs, Named Animal Care and Welfare Officers and Named Veterinary Surgeon), or scientific viewpoint (academics). This enables more information to be gathered and discussed.Topics discussed at committee meetingsThe committee meets every 3 months to discuss topics, where are: − Ideas and opinions on current practices, including how regulated procedure techniques can be altered and improved or changed to improve the Animal Welfare.− Discuss any positive 3Rs topics from other institutes that have been brought to our attention at symposiums, from ex-colleagues and newsletters.− Organise and manage a range of courses and initiatives for staff and researchers that relate to the 3Rs. Previous events include Charles River seminars on genetically altered mice, RSPCA courses on everyday 3Rs and collaborative grants between researchers and Central Biomedical Services (CBS) staff.− Organise and manage prizes and events to promote excellent animal research at the college (Imperial’s Provost Prize award; Animal Forum; Animal Report).Supporting the 3Rs at ImperialIt is vital to always strive to improve as modern technology, methods and drugs are constantly being created. Working with the 3Rs in mind ensures that a high standard of welfare is met, maintained and improved. Supporting the 3Rs will help with the Refinement, Reduction & Replacement of the animals used at Imperial.The role of CBS staff on the committeeWith CBS staff as members of the 3Rs’ committee is essential to ensure a balanced discussion and to propose initiatives which are relevant. This and ensures that an elevated level of welfare is maintained for animals housed and used for scientific studies at Imperial. Initiatives. moted from CBS representatives within the committee aim to encourage Technicians (of all levels) to share their work and/or any 3Rs ideas that could be improved or newly implemented at Imperial (e.g. clear handling tunnels) via poster presentations or Congress participation. The 3Rs’ committee at Imperial College LondonIn the future, we are working on several initiatives for CBS staff by educating and promoting ideas through staff seminars and newsletters. We are interested in looking into the use of ‘Vet Bed’ cloths for handling and restraint for procedures and to support post-surgery animals to help with body temperature regulation.The 3Rs’ Committee at Imperial College LondonANDREW GREENAN and BONNIE GLEN Imperial College London, Central Biomedical ServicesCorrespondence: a.greenan@imperial.ac.uk, b.glen@imperial.ac.uk Animal Technology and Welfare April 2025

Institute of Animal TechnologyFor further information, visit our websites: www.iat.org.uk www.atwjournal.com www.iateducation.co.ukMembers of the IAT agree to a code of practice that helps employers to maintain the highest standards of Animal Welfare and global best practice by:• Supporting cutting-edge research with highly-skilled professional and committed Animal Technologists.• Recognised qualifications: Register of Animal Technologists (RAnTech), Named Animal Care and Welfare Officer (NACWO), IAT FE and HE governed by Ofqual, and Continuing Professional Development (CPD).•Access to the wider research community, including government legislators and other professional bodies.•Network support and social opportunities for Animal Technologists.•Career progression, maximise potential through globally, recognised qualification apprenticeship courses.•Animal Technology learning resources such as IAT website members’ section, IAT Bulletin and IAT official Journal Animal Technology and Welfare.Since 1950, the Institute of Animal Technology (IAT) has been the UK’s most prominent professional body in the field of Animal Technology. Our goal is to promote advancing knowledge and standards in the care and welfare of animals in science and support technicians working in the field.Benefits of belonging to the IAT