{"title":"小鼠热室校准","authors":"P. Poh, S. Carus, Yifan Chen, P. Deuster","doi":"10.4236/JASMI.2014.44013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Firm conclusions regarding the etiology of heat exposure responses among animals are difficult to draw due to different experimental designs and methodological confounders, such as environmental chamber set-up and heating rates. The purpose of this investigation was to 1) validate the heat test protocol for mice models via cage location and orientation; and to 2) determine the maximum number of cages that can be used without compromising individual heating rates. Methods: A mice temperature transponder (G2 E-Mitter, Mini Meter, Respironics) was centrally positioned inside each mice cage set in the environmental chamber (Thermo Scientific Forma, Model 3961). Two cage orientations (adjacent, left-to-right and parallel, front-to-back) with 3 set-ups (top shelf, bottom shelf and both shelves) using 2 and 4 cages were examined in triplicate and averaged. Transponders equilibrated at 21.5℃ for 5 min, then exposed to 39.5℃ for a minimum of 60 min. Results: A major finding was that adjacent (L-R) top shelf set-up had the smallest temperature difference throughout the heat test (Δ = 0.43℃ vs. Δ = 2.2℃) and at minute 60 (Δ = 0.2℃ vs. Δ = 1.8℃). Both orientations for the bottom shelf set-up had a slower rise in temperature (0.04℃·min-1) than other set-ups (0.3℃·min-1). Using both shelves, top shelf cages were consistently warmer than bottom shelf cages (1.0℃ - 3.6℃) for both orientations. Conclusions: We strongly suggest using an adjacent (L-R) top shelf set-up since it enabled uniform chamber heating rates and standardized heat exposure. Bottom shelf is not recommended for use due to poor heating rate performance. Since an increased number of cages may obstruct heat flow patterns, a one shelf set-up with 2 cages should be used.","PeriodicalId":14932,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Analytical Sciences, Methods and Instrumentation","volume":"66 1","pages":"95-101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mice Heat Chamber Calibration\",\"authors\":\"P. Poh, S. Carus, Yifan Chen, P. Deuster\",\"doi\":\"10.4236/JASMI.2014.44013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Firm conclusions regarding the etiology of heat exposure responses among animals are difficult to draw due to different experimental designs and methodological confounders, such as environmental chamber set-up and heating rates. The purpose of this investigation was to 1) validate the heat test protocol for mice models via cage location and orientation; and to 2) determine the maximum number of cages that can be used without compromising individual heating rates. Methods: A mice temperature transponder (G2 E-Mitter, Mini Meter, Respironics) was centrally positioned inside each mice cage set in the environmental chamber (Thermo Scientific Forma, Model 3961). Two cage orientations (adjacent, left-to-right and parallel, front-to-back) with 3 set-ups (top shelf, bottom shelf and both shelves) using 2 and 4 cages were examined in triplicate and averaged. Transponders equilibrated at 21.5℃ for 5 min, then exposed to 39.5℃ for a minimum of 60 min. Results: A major finding was that adjacent (L-R) top shelf set-up had the smallest temperature difference throughout the heat test (Δ = 0.43℃ vs. Δ = 2.2℃) and at minute 60 (Δ = 0.2℃ vs. Δ = 1.8℃). Both orientations for the bottom shelf set-up had a slower rise in temperature (0.04℃·min-1) than other set-ups (0.3℃·min-1). Using both shelves, top shelf cages were consistently warmer than bottom shelf cages (1.0℃ - 3.6℃) for both orientations. Conclusions: We strongly suggest using an adjacent (L-R) top shelf set-up since it enabled uniform chamber heating rates and standardized heat exposure. Bottom shelf is not recommended for use due to poor heating rate performance. Since an increased number of cages may obstruct heat flow patterns, a one shelf set-up with 2 cages should be used.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Analytical Sciences, Methods and Instrumentation\",\"volume\":\"66 1\",\"pages\":\"95-101\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Analytical Sciences, Methods and Instrumentation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4236/JASMI.2014.44013\",\"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 Analytical Sciences, Methods and Instrumentation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/JASMI.2014.44013","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
背景:由于不同的实验设计和方法学混杂因素,如环境室设置和加热速率,很难得出关于动物热暴露反应病因学的确切结论。本研究的目的是:1)通过笼位和方向验证小鼠模型热试验方案;2)确定在不影响单个加热速率的情况下可以使用的最大笼数。方法:在环境室(Thermo Scientific Forma, Model 3961)设置的每只小鼠笼内中央放置一个小鼠温度传感器(G2 E-Mitter, Mini Meter,呼吸器)。两种笼子方向(相邻、从左到右、平行、从前到后),使用2个和4个笼子进行3次设置(顶部架子、底部架子和两个架子)检查并取平均值。应答器在21.5℃下平衡5分钟,然后暴露在39.5℃下至少60分钟。结果:一个主要发现是相邻的(L-R)顶部架子设置在整个热测试中具有最小的温差(Δ = 0.43℃vs. Δ = 2.2℃)和在60分钟(Δ = 0.2℃vs. Δ = 1.8℃)。两种方式的升温幅度(0.04℃·min-1)均低于其他方式(0.3℃·min-1)。在使用两种货架时,在两个方向上,上层货架的温度均高于下层货架的温度(1.0℃~ 3.6℃)。结论:我们强烈建议使用相邻的(L-R)顶部架子设置,因为它可以实现均匀的室加热速率和标准化的热暴露。由于加热速率性能差,不建议使用底层货架。由于笼子数量的增加可能会阻碍热流模式,应该使用一个架子设置2个笼子。
Background: Firm conclusions regarding the etiology of heat exposure responses among animals are difficult to draw due to different experimental designs and methodological confounders, such as environmental chamber set-up and heating rates. The purpose of this investigation was to 1) validate the heat test protocol for mice models via cage location and orientation; and to 2) determine the maximum number of cages that can be used without compromising individual heating rates. Methods: A mice temperature transponder (G2 E-Mitter, Mini Meter, Respironics) was centrally positioned inside each mice cage set in the environmental chamber (Thermo Scientific Forma, Model 3961). Two cage orientations (adjacent, left-to-right and parallel, front-to-back) with 3 set-ups (top shelf, bottom shelf and both shelves) using 2 and 4 cages were examined in triplicate and averaged. Transponders equilibrated at 21.5℃ for 5 min, then exposed to 39.5℃ for a minimum of 60 min. Results: A major finding was that adjacent (L-R) top shelf set-up had the smallest temperature difference throughout the heat test (Δ = 0.43℃ vs. Δ = 2.2℃) and at minute 60 (Δ = 0.2℃ vs. Δ = 1.8℃). Both orientations for the bottom shelf set-up had a slower rise in temperature (0.04℃·min-1) than other set-ups (0.3℃·min-1). Using both shelves, top shelf cages were consistently warmer than bottom shelf cages (1.0℃ - 3.6℃) for both orientations. Conclusions: We strongly suggest using an adjacent (L-R) top shelf set-up since it enabled uniform chamber heating rates and standardized heat exposure. Bottom shelf is not recommended for use due to poor heating rate performance. Since an increased number of cages may obstruct heat flow patterns, a one shelf set-up with 2 cages should be used.