THE EFFECTS OF GROUP VERSUS SINGLE HOUSING ON HOME CAGE BEHAVIOUR IN TWO STRAINS OF LABORATORY MICE

Ahmed F. Abou-Elnaga, Ibrahim F. Rehan, Ralph R Thompson, Usama A Abou-Ismail, Motamed E Mahmoud, Radi A Mohamed, Hesham H Mohammed, Ahmed A Sabek, Mohamed Z Elhussiny

Abstract


Studying the behavioural patterns of animals in their house may help to understand their needs, but there has been a little investigation of home-cage behaviours in commonly used inbred strains of mice such as C57BL/6 and DBA/2. Therefore, understanding behavioural patterns in these mice is important for neuroscience research. For the first time, this experiment was carried out to investigate the long-term effects of housing conditions (single vs. group) on home cage behaviour of C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice, in order to reveal differences between C57BL/6 and DBA/2 in home-cage behaviours and in response to single-housing. Sixty-four mice (32 mice/strain) were housed either singly (SH) (n= 32) or in four groups, each group contained 8 animals. Home cage behavioural patterns were recorded weekly using ethogram-based instantaneous sampling for 5 consecutive weeks. Regardless of strain, single housed (SH) mice displayed higher levels of grooming and bedding directed-behaviours and were more frequently seen in-the-crawl ball, and had lower levels of feeding behaviour compared to their group housed (GH) conspecifics. There were significant strain differences in anxiety-related behaviours with the DBA/2 strain demonstrating higher levels of sleep, feeding and grooming behaviour and frequent presence in-the-crawl ball, and lower levels of exploration, locomotion and bedding-directed behaviour compared to the C57BL/6 strain. The results therefore suggest that different housing systems influence home cage behaviours of laboratory mice with the mice of the DBA/2 strain appearing more anxious. These findings may also have great implications for researchers to decide the most appropriate phenotype to use in measuring neural response–relevant behaviours in novel animal/human models.

Key words: anxiety; behaviour; C57BL/6; DBA/2; ethogram; home-cage


Full Text:

PDF

References


Balcombe JP. Laboratory environments and rodents’ behavioural needs: a review. La-boratory Animals 2006; 40(3): 217–235.

Hueihan J, Estibaliz G, Xinlin Y, Vinita K, Tomaso P, Andrew, DS, Thomas S. Automated home-cage behavioural phenotyping of mice. Nature Communications 2010; 1(5): 1–9.

Crawley J. What's wrong with my mouse? Behavioral phenotyping of transgenic and knockout mice. 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons 2007.

Jung YH, Hong SI, Ma SX, Hwang JY, Kim JS, Lee JH, Seo JY, Lee SY, Choon-Gon JG. Strain differences in the chronic mild stress animal model of depression and anxiety in mice. Biomolecular Research and Therapeutics 2014; 22(5): 453–9.

Thomsen MS, Caine SB. 2011. Psychomo-tor stimulant effects of cocaine in rats and 15 mouse strains. Experimental and Clinical Psy-chopharmacology 2011; 19(5): 321–41.

Hiyoshi H, Terao A, Ogura YO, Kimura K. Characteristics of sleep and wakefulness in wild-derived inbred mice. Experimental Ani-mals 2014; 63(2): 205–13.

Chen Q, Panksepp JB, Lahvis GP. Empa-thy is moderated by genetic background in mice. PLoS One 2009; 4(2): 4387.

Wahlsten D, Rustay N, Metten P, Crabbe J. In search of a better mouse test. Trends in Neurosciences 2003; 26: 132–6.

Bains RS, Cater HL, Sillito RR, Chartsias A, Sneddon D, Concas D, Bond P, Lukins TC, Wells S, Arozena AA, Nolan PM, Armstrong JD. Analysis of individual mouse activity in group housed animals of different inbred strains using a novel automated home cage analysis system. Frontier in Behavioral Neuroscience 2016; 10: 106.

Villani C, Sacchetti G, Bagnati R, Passoni A, Fusco F, Mirjana CM, Invernizzi WR. Lovas-tatin fails to improve motor performance and survival in methyl-CpG-binding protein 2-null mice. eLife 2016; 5: 22409.

Cabib S, Orsini C, Le Moal M, Piazza PV. Abolition and reversal of strain differences in behavioral responses to drugs of abuse after a brief experience. Science 2000; 289(5478): 463–5.

Kas MJH, Van RJM. Dissecting complex behaviours in the post-genomic era. Trends in Neurosciences 2004; 27(7): 366-369.

Kamakura R, Kovalainen M, Leppäluoto J, Herzig KH, Mäkelä KA. The effects of group and single housing and automated animal moni-toring on urinary corticosterone levels in male C57BL/6 mice. Physiological Reports 2016; 4(3): 12703

Hunt C, Hambly C. Faecal corticosterone concentrations indicate that separately housed male mice are not more stressed than group housed males. Physiology & Behavior 2006; 87(3): 519–26.

Bartolomucci A, Palanza P, Sacerdote P, Ceresini G, Chirieleison A, Panerai AE. Indi-vidual housing induces altered immune-endocrine responses to psychological stress in male mice. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2003; 28(4): 540–58.

Arndt SS, Laarakker MC, vanLith HA, van der Staay FJ, Gieling E, Salomons AR. In-dividual housing of mice–impact on behaviour and stress responses. Physiology & Behavior 2009; 97(3-4): 385–93.

Olsson AS, Westlund K. More than numbers matter: the effect of social factors on behaviour and welfare of laboratory rodents and nonhuman primates. Applied Animal Be-haviour Science 2007; 103(3): 229–54.

Abou-Ismail UA, Mahboub HD. The ef-fects of enriching laboratory cages using vari-ous physical structures on multiple measures of welfare in singly-housed rats. Laboratory Ani-mals 2011; 45(3): 145–53.

Cabib S, Puglisi-Allegra S, Ventura R. The contribution of comparative studies in in-bred strains of mice to the understanding of the hyperactive phenotype. Behavioural Brain Re-search 2002; 130(1-2): 103–9.

Hatcher JP, Jones DN, Rogers DC, Hetcher PD, Reavill C, Hagan JJ, Hunter AJ. Development of SHIRPA to characterize the phenotype of gene-targeted mice. Behavioural Brain Research 2001; 125(1-2): 43–7.

Bolivar VJ, Caldarone BJ, Reilly AA, Flaherty L. Habituation in theopen field: asur-vey of inbred strains and F1 hybrids. Behavior Genetics 2000; 30(4): 258–93.

Rogers DC, Jones DN, Nelson PR, Jones CM, Quilter CA, Robinson TL, Hagan JJ. Use of SHIRPA and discriminant analysis to charac-terize marked differences in the behavioural phenotype of six inbred mouse strains. Behav-ioural Brain Research 1999; 105(2): 207–17.

Brigman JL, Mathur PL, Williams RW, Holmes A. Genetic relationship between anxie-ty-related and fear-related behaviors in BXD recombinant inbred mice. Behavioural Pharma-cology 2009; 20(2): 204–9.

Vladimira J, Cornelia F, Rainer L, Ma-yumi K. Sleep phenotyping in a mouse model of extreme trait anxiety. PLoS One 2012; 7(7): 40625.

Campos AC, Fogaga MV, Aguiar DC, Guimaraes FS. Animal models of anxiety disor-ders and stress. Revista Brasileira Psiquiatria 2013; 35(2): 101–11.

Fraser ML, Brown RE, Hussin A, Fon-tana M, Whittaker A, Timothy PO, Lederle L, Holmes A, Ramos A. Measuring anxiety- and locomotion-related behaviours in mice: a new way of using old tests. Psychopharmacology 2010; 211(1): 99–112.

Steimer T. Animal models of anxiety disorders in rats and mice: some conceptual issues Dialogues. Journal of Clinical Neurosci-ence 2011; 13(4): 495–506.

Cabib S. The contribution of studies in inbred strains of mice to understanding of a hyperactive phenotype. Behavioural Brain Re-search 2002; 130(1-2): 103–9.

Bailey KR, Crawley JN. Anxiety-related behaviors in mice. In methods of behavior analysis in neuroscience 2nd ed. Boca Raton (FL). CRC Press/Taylor & Francis 2009.

Wood E. A behavioral comparison of four inbred strains of mice. Ph.D. Thesis. Vir-ginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, USA 2010.

Võikar V, Polus A, Vasar E, Rauvala H. Long-term individual housing in C57BL/6J and DBA/2 mice: assessment of behavioral conse-quences. Genes, Brain and Behavior 2005; 4(4): 240–52.

Bachmanov AA, Reed DR, Beauchamp GK, Tordoff MG. Food intake, water intake and drinking spout side preference of 28 mouse strains. Behavior Genetics 2002; 32(6): 435–43.

Lewis SR, Ahmed S, Dym C, Khaimova E, Kest B, Bodnar RJ. Inbred mouse strain sur-vey of sucrose intake. Physiology & Behavior 2005; 85(5): 546–56.

Lewis SR, Dym C, Chai C, Singh A, Kest B, Bodnar RJ. Genetic variance contributes to ingestive processes: A survey of eleven in-bred mouse strains for fat (Intralipid) intake. Physiology & Behavior 2007; 90(1): 82–94.

Ferguson, M, Rebrin I, Forster MJ, Sohal RS. Comparison of metabolic rate and oxidative stress between two different strains of mice with varying response to caloric restriction. Ex-perimental Gerontology 2008; 43(1): 757–63.

Vallès A, Martí O, García A, Armario A. Single exposure to stressors causes long-lasting, stress-dependent reduction of food intake in rats. American Journal of Physiology; Regulato-ry Integrative Comparative Physiology 2000; 279(3): 1138–44.

Saibaba P, Sales GD, Stodulski G, Hau J. Behaviour of rats in their home cages: daytime variation and effects of routine husbandry pro-cedures analysed by time sampling techniques. Laboratory Animals 1996; 30(1): 13–21.

D’Aquila PS, Peana AT, Carboni V, Ser-ra G. Exploratory behaviour and grooming after repeated restraint and chronic mild stress: effect of desipramine. European Journal of Pharma-cology 2000; 399(1): 43–7.

Kantor S, Anheuer ZE, Bagdy G. High social anxiety and low aggression in Fawn-Hooded rats. Physiology & Behavior 2000; 71(5): 551–7.

Kalueff AV, Tuohimaa P. Contrasting grooming phenotypes in C57Bl/6 and 129S1/SvImJ mice. Brain Research 2004; 1028(1): 75–82.

Van Loo PL, Van Zutphen LF, Baumans V. Male management: coping with aggression problems in male laboratory mice. Lab Animal 2003; 37(4): 300–13.

Hurst JL, Barnard CJ, Tolladay U, Ne-vison CM, West CD. Housing and welfare in laboratory rats: effects of cage stocking density and behavioural predictors of welfare. Animal Behaviour 1999; 58(3): 563–86.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26873/SVR-742-2019

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


SLOVENIAN VETERINARY RESEARCH, Veterinary Faculty
Gerbičeva 60, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, T: +386 (0)1 47 79 100, F: +386 (0)1 28 32 243, E: slovetres@vf.uni-lj.si
Published by computing.si