用环境污染的床上用品健康监测方法取代哨兵鼠,节省机构成本并改进病原体检测。

Maggie L Tu-Wood, Marcia L Hart, Robert S Livingston, Kathleen M Donovan, Sarah A Hansen
{"title":"用环境污染的床上用品健康监测方法取代哨兵鼠,节省机构成本并改进病原体检测。","authors":"Maggie L Tu-Wood, Marcia L Hart, Robert S Livingston, Kathleen M Donovan, Sarah A Hansen","doi":"10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-25-087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Use of soiled bedding sentinels (SBS) for rodent colony health monitoring is limited by inconsistent pathogen detection, reliance on live animals, high costs, and labor intensity. Sentinel-free soiled bedding (SFSB) offers a viable alternative for all rodent housing systems, overcoming limitations by using PCR testing of matrices exposed to soiled bedding. As an alternative, a matrix may be exposed to all cages via direct colony dredging (DCD). This study compared pathogen detection and costs between SFSB, DCD, and SBS for mice housed in individually-ventilated cage rack system cages. For each study rack, SFSB was performed with one matrix shaken in composite soiled bedding, while DCD was performed with a second matrix exposed to all soiled cages on the rack using a dredging method. We hypothesized that the SFSB and DCD matrices would detect Rodentibacter heylii, Rodentibacter pneumotropicus, Helicobacter typhlonius, Helicobacter mastomyrinus, Helicobacter hepaticus, Helicobacter bilis, Helicobacter rodentium, Helicobacter ganmani, and murine norovirus (MNV) with equal or superior efficacy to SBS, at a comparable or reduced program cost. All SBS failed to detect R. heylii, R. pneumotropicus, H. typhlonius, H. mastomyrinus, H. hepaticus, H. bilis, H. rodentium, and H. ganmani when tested by fecal PCR, and 25% failed to detect MNV when tested via serology. In contrast, SFSB and DCD matrices detected MNV, R. heylii, R. pneumotropicus, H. typhlonius, H. mastomyrinus, H. hepaticus, H. bilis, H. rodentium, and H. ganmani even with low pathogen prevalence, although neither method achieved 100% detection. DCD had negative ergonomic, workflow, and labor challenges compared with SFSB. Overall, SFSB and DCD had reduced costs and superior pathogen detection compared with SBS, while SFSB provided the most efficient and user-friendly approach for health monitoring by this institution.</p>","PeriodicalId":94111,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Institutional Cost Savings and Improved Pathogen Detection by Replacing Sentinel Mice with Environmental Soiled Bedding Health Monitoring Methods.\",\"authors\":\"Maggie L Tu-Wood, Marcia L Hart, Robert S Livingston, Kathleen M Donovan, Sarah A Hansen\",\"doi\":\"10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-25-087\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Use of soiled bedding sentinels (SBS) for rodent colony health monitoring is limited by inconsistent pathogen detection, reliance on live animals, high costs, and labor intensity. Sentinel-free soiled bedding (SFSB) offers a viable alternative for all rodent housing systems, overcoming limitations by using PCR testing of matrices exposed to soiled bedding. As an alternative, a matrix may be exposed to all cages via direct colony dredging (DCD). This study compared pathogen detection and costs between SFSB, DCD, and SBS for mice housed in individually-ventilated cage rack system cages. For each study rack, SFSB was performed with one matrix shaken in composite soiled bedding, while DCD was performed with a second matrix exposed to all soiled cages on the rack using a dredging method. We hypothesized that the SFSB and DCD matrices would detect Rodentibacter heylii, Rodentibacter pneumotropicus, Helicobacter typhlonius, Helicobacter mastomyrinus, Helicobacter hepaticus, Helicobacter bilis, Helicobacter rodentium, Helicobacter ganmani, and murine norovirus (MNV) with equal or superior efficacy to SBS, at a comparable or reduced program cost. All SBS failed to detect R. heylii, R. pneumotropicus, H. typhlonius, H. mastomyrinus, H. hepaticus, H. bilis, H. rodentium, and H. ganmani when tested by fecal PCR, and 25% failed to detect MNV when tested via serology. In contrast, SFSB and DCD matrices detected MNV, R. heylii, R. pneumotropicus, H. typhlonius, H. mastomyrinus, H. hepaticus, H. bilis, H. rodentium, and H. ganmani even with low pathogen prevalence, although neither method achieved 100% detection. DCD had negative ergonomic, workflow, and labor challenges compared with SFSB. Overall, SFSB and DCD had reduced costs and superior pathogen detection compared with SBS, while SFSB provided the most efficient and user-friendly approach for health monitoring by this institution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94111,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"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-25-087\",\"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-25-087","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

由于病原体检测不一致、对活体动物的依赖、成本高和劳动强度大,使用脏垫哨兵(SBS)进行啮齿动物群体健康监测受到限制。无哨兵脏垫层(SFSB)为所有啮齿动物住房系统提供了可行的替代方案,克服了暴露于脏垫层的基质的PCR测试的局限性。作为一种替代方法,可以通过直接群体疏浚(DCD)将基质暴露在所有网箱中。本研究比较了SFSB、DCD和SBS在单独通风的笼架系统中对小鼠的病原体检测和成本。对于每个研究机架,SFSB使用一个基质在复合污垢层理中摇晃,而DCD使用第二个基质通过疏浚方法暴露于机架上的所有污垢笼中。我们假设SFSB和DCD基质能够以相当或更低的程序成本检测出与SBS相同或更优越的效果检测出黑利鼠杆菌、肺毒鼠杆菌、伤寒螺杆菌、乳糜杆菌、肝螺杆菌、胆螺杆菌、啮齿螺杆菌、甘曼螺杆菌和鼠诺如病毒(MNV)。所有SBS在粪便PCR检测中均未检测出黑氏弧菌、肺肺弧菌、伤寒弧菌、乳突弧菌、肝炎弧菌、胆汁弧菌、啮齿弧菌和甘马尼弧菌,25%的SBS在血清学检测中未检测出MNV。相比之下,SFSB和DCD基质即使在病原体患病率较低的情况下也能检测到MNV、黑氏嗜血杆菌、尘肺嗜血杆菌、伤寒嗜血杆菌、乳突嗜血杆菌、肝炎嗜血杆菌、胆毒嗜血杆菌、啮齿嗜血杆菌和甘马尼嗜血杆菌,但两种方法都不能达到100%的检出率。与SFSB相比,DCD在人体工程学、工作流程和劳动方面存在负面挑战。总体而言,与SBS相比,SFSB和DCD具有更低的成本和更好的病原体检测,而SFSB为该机构提供了最有效和用户友好的健康监测方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Institutional Cost Savings and Improved Pathogen Detection by Replacing Sentinel Mice with Environmental Soiled Bedding Health Monitoring Methods.

Use of soiled bedding sentinels (SBS) for rodent colony health monitoring is limited by inconsistent pathogen detection, reliance on live animals, high costs, and labor intensity. Sentinel-free soiled bedding (SFSB) offers a viable alternative for all rodent housing systems, overcoming limitations by using PCR testing of matrices exposed to soiled bedding. As an alternative, a matrix may be exposed to all cages via direct colony dredging (DCD). This study compared pathogen detection and costs between SFSB, DCD, and SBS for mice housed in individually-ventilated cage rack system cages. For each study rack, SFSB was performed with one matrix shaken in composite soiled bedding, while DCD was performed with a second matrix exposed to all soiled cages on the rack using a dredging method. We hypothesized that the SFSB and DCD matrices would detect Rodentibacter heylii, Rodentibacter pneumotropicus, Helicobacter typhlonius, Helicobacter mastomyrinus, Helicobacter hepaticus, Helicobacter bilis, Helicobacter rodentium, Helicobacter ganmani, and murine norovirus (MNV) with equal or superior efficacy to SBS, at a comparable or reduced program cost. All SBS failed to detect R. heylii, R. pneumotropicus, H. typhlonius, H. mastomyrinus, H. hepaticus, H. bilis, H. rodentium, and H. ganmani when tested by fecal PCR, and 25% failed to detect MNV when tested via serology. In contrast, SFSB and DCD matrices detected MNV, R. heylii, R. pneumotropicus, H. typhlonius, H. mastomyrinus, H. hepaticus, H. bilis, H. rodentium, and H. ganmani even with low pathogen prevalence, although neither method achieved 100% detection. DCD had negative ergonomic, workflow, and labor challenges compared with SFSB. Overall, SFSB and DCD had reduced costs and superior pathogen detection compared with SBS, while SFSB provided the most efficient and user-friendly approach for health monitoring by this institution.

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