% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Kroll:890936,
author = {Kroll, Tina and Kornadt-Beck, Nikola and Oskamp, Angela and
Elmenhorst, David and Touma, Chadi and Palme, Rupert and
Bauer, Andreas},
title = {{A}dditional {A}ssessment of {F}ecal {C}orticosterone
{M}etabolites {I}mproves {V}isual {R}ating in the
{E}valuation of {S}tress {R}esponses of {L}aboratory {R}ats},
journal = {Animals / Molecular Diversity Preservation International,
MDPI},
volume = {11},
number = {3},
issn = {2076-2615},
address = {Basel},
publisher = {MDPI},
reportid = {FZJ-2021-01258},
pages = {710 -},
year = {2021},
abstract = {Since animal experiments cannot be completely avoided, the
pain, suffering, and distress of laboratory animals must be
minimized. To this end, a major prerequisite is reliable
assessment of pain and distress. Usually, evaluation of
animal welfare is done by visual inspection and score
sheets. However, relatively little is known about whether
standardized, but subjective, score sheets are able to
reliably reflect the status of the animals. The current
study aimed to compare visual assessment scores and changes
in body weight with concentrations of fecal corticosterone
metabolites (FCMs) in a neuroscientific experimental setup.
Additionally, effects of refinement procedures were
investigated. Eight male adult Sprague-Dawley rats underwent
several experimental interventions, including
electroencephalograph electrode implantation and subsequent
recording, positron emission tomography (PET), and sleep
deprivation (SD) by motorized activity wheels. Additional 16
rats were either used as controls without any treatment or
to evaluate refinement strategies. Stress responses were
determined on a daily basis by means of measuring FCMs, body
weight, and evaluation of the animals’ welfare by
standardized score sheets. Surgery provoked a significant
elevation of FCM levels for up to five days. Increases in
FCMs due to PET procedures or SD in activity wheels were
also highly significant, while visual assessment scores did
not indicate elevated stress levels and body weights
remained constant. Visual assessment scores correlate with
neither changes in body weight nor increases in FCM levels.
Habituation procedures to activity wheels used for SD had no
impact on corticosterone release. Our results revealed that
actual score sheets for visual assessment of animal welfare
did not mirror physiological stress responses assessed by
FCM measurements. Moreover, small changes in body weight did
not correlate with FCM concentration either. In conclusion,
as visual assessment is a method allowing immediate
interventions on suffering animals to alleviate burden,
timely stress assessment in experimental rodents via score
sheets should be ideally complemented by validated objective
measures (e.g., fecal FCM measured by well-established
assays for reliable detection of FCMs). This will complete a
comprehensive appraisal of the animals’ welfare status in
a retrospective manner and refine stressor procedures in the
long run.},
cin = {INM-2},
ddc = {590},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-2-20090406},
pnm = {5253 - Neuroimaging (POF4-525)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5253},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {33807941},
UT = {WOS:000633194800001},
doi = {10.3390/ani11030710},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/890936},
}