与活体动物取样相比,利用无哨兵培养基改进小鼠病原体检测。

Joshua M Woolsey, Jennie Bonica, Savannah Godbey, Ida M Washington
{"title":"与活体动物取样相比,利用无哨兵培养基改进小鼠病原体检测。","authors":"Joshua M Woolsey, Jennie Bonica, Savannah Godbey, Ida M Washington","doi":"10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-25-070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Health monitoring of rodent colonies has traditionally used live animal (LA) sampling by means such as the use of soiled bedding sentinels (SBS), with the associated expenditure of labor, supplies, and animals. In the spirit of the 3Rs, sentinel-free (SF) approaches are becoming more common. PCR testing of environmental samples is replacing traditional SBS-based testing for routine health monitoring of rodent colonies. Passive sampling of in-cage media exposed to pooled, soiled bedding is effective for detecting some common rodent pathogens. We hypothesized that PCR testing of commercially available media exposed to soiled bedding would be as effective as sampling SBS, or SBS combined with samples from colony animals, for detecting several enzootic organisms of mice (Mus musculus) within our facility. Media were placed in IVC cages and exposed to pooled dirty bedding from all cages on a rack side at biweekly cage changes during a 3-mo period. PCR results of the SF soiled bedding-exposed media were compared with results from feces, pelt, and oral swabs from SBS with and without SBS combined with 10 randomly sampled colony animals from the same rack side over the same period. Detection rates were similar for murine norovirus and Staphylococcus xylosus using SF testing compared with SBS with and without direct colony samples. Five organisms, Proteus mirabilis, Rodentibacter heylii, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella oxytoca, and Klebsiella pneumoniae, were detected by SF testing, but not by LA samples. Demodex musculi, Entamoeba, Proteus mirabilis, Helicobacter spp., and Rodentibacter heylii were detected at significantly higher rates by SF testing compared with SBS with and without colony animal samples. SF testing detected organisms of zoonotic concern (S. aureus, K. pneumoniae) that were undetected by LA testing. SF testing detected organisms at similar rates during 2 consecutive quarters. We conclude that PCR testing of media exposed to pooled soiled bedding effectively detects these common enzootic organisms.</p>","PeriodicalId":94111,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improved Detection of Murine Pathogens Using Sentinel-Free Media Compared to Live Animal Sampling.\",\"authors\":\"Joshua M Woolsey, Jennie Bonica, Savannah Godbey, Ida M Washington\",\"doi\":\"10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-25-070\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Health monitoring of rodent colonies has traditionally used live animal (LA) sampling by means such as the use of soiled bedding sentinels (SBS), with the associated expenditure of labor, supplies, and animals. In the spirit of the 3Rs, sentinel-free (SF) approaches are becoming more common. PCR testing of environmental samples is replacing traditional SBS-based testing for routine health monitoring of rodent colonies. Passive sampling of in-cage media exposed to pooled, soiled bedding is effective for detecting some common rodent pathogens. We hypothesized that PCR testing of commercially available media exposed to soiled bedding would be as effective as sampling SBS, or SBS combined with samples from colony animals, for detecting several enzootic organisms of mice (Mus musculus) within our facility. Media were placed in IVC cages and exposed to pooled dirty bedding from all cages on a rack side at biweekly cage changes during a 3-mo period. PCR results of the SF soiled bedding-exposed media were compared with results from feces, pelt, and oral swabs from SBS with and without SBS combined with 10 randomly sampled colony animals from the same rack side over the same period. Detection rates were similar for murine norovirus and Staphylococcus xylosus using SF testing compared with SBS with and without direct colony samples. Five organisms, Proteus mirabilis, Rodentibacter heylii, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella oxytoca, and Klebsiella pneumoniae, were detected by SF testing, but not by LA samples. Demodex musculi, Entamoeba, Proteus mirabilis, Helicobacter spp., and Rodentibacter heylii were detected at significantly higher rates by SF testing compared with SBS with and without colony animal samples. SF testing detected organisms of zoonotic concern (S. aureus, K. pneumoniae) that were undetected by LA testing. SF testing detected organisms at similar rates during 2 consecutive quarters. We conclude that PCR testing of media exposed to pooled soiled bedding effectively detects these common enzootic organisms.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94111,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-25-070\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-25-070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

啮齿动物群落的健康监测传统上使用活体动物(LA)采样,方法包括使用脏床上用品哨兵(SBS),这伴随着人工、用品和动物的相关支出。本着3r的精神,无哨兵(SF)方法正变得越来越普遍。环境样本PCR检测正在取代传统的基于sbs的检测,用于啮齿动物群落的常规健康监测。对暴露于池状、污秽的床上物的笼内介质进行被动采样是检测一些常见啮齿动物病原体的有效方法。我们假设,在我们的设施中,对暴露于肮脏床上用品的市售培养基进行PCR检测,与对SBS或SBS与群体动物样本结合进行取样一样有效,以检测小鼠(小家鼠)的几种地方性生物。培养液被放置在IVC笼中,并在3个月期间每两周换一次笼,暴露在架子一侧所有笼中汇集的脏床上。将SF污染的床上暴露培养基的PCR结果与同期随机抽取的10只同架侧边的SBS患者的粪便、皮毛和口腔拭子的PCR结果进行比较。用SF检测小鼠诺如病毒和木糖葡萄球菌的检出率与不直接采集菌落样本的SBS检测结果相似。SF检测检测到奇异变形杆菌、黑氏鼠杆菌、金黄色葡萄球菌、氧化克雷伯菌和肺炎克雷伯菌5种微生物,LA未检测到。SF检测肌肉蠕形螨、内阿米巴、奇异变形杆菌、幽门螺杆菌和黑氏啮齿杆菌的检出率明显高于不含菌落动物样本的SBS。SF检测检测到LA检测未检测到的人畜共患疾病(金黄色葡萄球菌、肺炎克雷伯菌)。SF测试在连续两个季度中以相似的比率检测到微生物。我们的结论是,聚合酶链反应检测媒体暴露于池污染垫层有效检测这些常见的地方性动物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Improved Detection of Murine Pathogens Using Sentinel-Free Media Compared to Live Animal Sampling.

Health monitoring of rodent colonies has traditionally used live animal (LA) sampling by means such as the use of soiled bedding sentinels (SBS), with the associated expenditure of labor, supplies, and animals. In the spirit of the 3Rs, sentinel-free (SF) approaches are becoming more common. PCR testing of environmental samples is replacing traditional SBS-based testing for routine health monitoring of rodent colonies. Passive sampling of in-cage media exposed to pooled, soiled bedding is effective for detecting some common rodent pathogens. We hypothesized that PCR testing of commercially available media exposed to soiled bedding would be as effective as sampling SBS, or SBS combined with samples from colony animals, for detecting several enzootic organisms of mice (Mus musculus) within our facility. Media were placed in IVC cages and exposed to pooled dirty bedding from all cages on a rack side at biweekly cage changes during a 3-mo period. PCR results of the SF soiled bedding-exposed media were compared with results from feces, pelt, and oral swabs from SBS with and without SBS combined with 10 randomly sampled colony animals from the same rack side over the same period. Detection rates were similar for murine norovirus and Staphylococcus xylosus using SF testing compared with SBS with and without direct colony samples. Five organisms, Proteus mirabilis, Rodentibacter heylii, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella oxytoca, and Klebsiella pneumoniae, were detected by SF testing, but not by LA samples. Demodex musculi, Entamoeba, Proteus mirabilis, Helicobacter spp., and Rodentibacter heylii were detected at significantly higher rates by SF testing compared with SBS with and without colony animal samples. SF testing detected organisms of zoonotic concern (S. aureus, K. pneumoniae) that were undetected by LA testing. SF testing detected organisms at similar rates during 2 consecutive quarters. We conclude that PCR testing of media exposed to pooled soiled bedding effectively detects these common enzootic organisms.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信