Injurious home-cage aggression (fighting) in mice affects both animal welfare and scientific validity. It is arguably the most common potentially preventable morbidity in mouse facilities. Existing literature on mouse aggression almost exclusively examines territorial aggression induced by introducing a stimulus mouse into the home-cage of a singly housed mouse (i.e. the resident/intruder test). However, fighting occurring in mice living together in long-term groups under standard laboratory housing conditions has barely been studied. We performed a point-prevalence epidemiological survey of fighting at a research institution with an approximate 60,000 cage census. A subset of cages was sampled over the course of a year and factors potentially influencing home-cage fighting were recorded. Fighting was almost exclusively seen in group-housed male mice. Approximately 14% of group-housed male cages were observed with fighting animals in brief behavioral observations, but only 14% of those cages with fighting had skin injuries observable from cage-side. Thus simple cage-side checks may be missing the majority of fighting mice. Housing system (the combination of cage ventilation and bedding type), genetic background, time of year, cage location on the rack, and rack orientation in the room were significant risk factors predicting fighting. Of these predictors, only bedding type is easily manipulated to mitigate fighting. Cage ventilation and rack orientation often cannot be changed in modern vivaria, as they are baked in by cookie-cutter architectural approaches to facility design. This study emphasizes the need to invest in assessing the welfare costs of new housing and husbandry systems before implementing them.

Rats are a reservoir of human- and livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). However, the composition of the natural S. aureus population in wild and laboratory rats is largely unknown. Here, 144 nasal S. aureus isolates from free-living wild rats, captive wild rats and laboratory rats were genotyped and profiled for antibiotic resistances and human-specific virulence genes. The nasal S. aureus carriage rate was higher among wild rats (23.4%) than laboratory rats (12.3%). Free-living wild rats were primarily colonized with isolates of clonal complex (CC) 49 and CC130 and maintained these strains even in husbandry. Moreover, upon livestock contact, CC398 isolates were acquired. In contrast, laboratory rats were colonized with many different S. aureus lineages—many of which are commonly found in humans. Five captive wild rats were colonized with CC398-MRSA. Moreover, a single CC30-MRSA and two CC130-MRSA were detected in free-living or captive wild rats. Rat-derived S. aureus isolates rarely harbored the phage-carried immune evasion gene cluster or superantigen genes, suggesting long-term adaptation to their host. Taken together, our study revealed a natural S. aureus population in wild rats, as well as a colonization pressure on wild and laboratory rats by exposure to livestock- and human-associated S. aureus, respectively.

Environmental complexity is an experimental paradigm as well as a potential part of animals’ everyday housing experiences. In experimental uses, researchers add complexity to stimulate brain development, delay degenerative brain changes, elicit more naturalistic behaviors, and test learning and memory. Complexity can exacerbate or mitigate behavioral problems, give animals a sense of control, and allow for expression of highly driven, species-typical behaviors that can improve animal welfare. Complex environments should be designed thoughtfully with the animal’s natural behaviors in mind, reported faithfully in the literature, and evaluated carefully for unexpected effects.

Alloparenting, a behavior in which individuals other than the actual parents act in a parental role, is seen in many mammals, including house mice. In wild house mice, alloparental care is only seen when familiar sibling females simultaneously immigrate to a male’s territory, so in the laboratory, when a pair of unfamiliar female wild mice are mated with a male, alloparenting does not occur because one female will typically be reproductively suppressed. In contrast, laboratory mice are assumed to alloparent regardless of familiarity or relatedness and are therefore routinely trio bred to increase productivity. Empirical evidence supporting the presence of alloparental care in laboratory mice is lacking. Albino and pigmented inbred mice of the strain C57BL/6NCrl (B6) and outbred mice of the stock Crl:CF1 (CF1) were used to investigate alloparenting in laboratory mice since by mating pigmented and albino females with albino males of the same stock or strain, maternal parentage was easily determined. We housed pairs (M:F) or trios (M:2F) of mice in individually ventilated cages containing nesting material and followed reproductive performance for 16 weeks. Females in trios were tested to determine dominance at the start of the experiment, and again 5 days after the birth of a litter to determine if a female’s dominance shifted with the birth of pups. Results showed a significant and expected difference in number of offspring produced by B6 and CF1 (p < 0.0001). Pigmented mice nursed and nested with albino pups and vice-versa, confirming empirical observations from many that group nesting and alloparenting occurs in unrelated laboratory mice. When overall production of both individual mice and cages was examined, reproductive suppression was seen in trio cages. Dominance testing with the tube test did not correlate female reproduction with female dominance in a female-female dyad. Due to the reproductive suppression noted in trios, on a per-mouse basis, pair mating outperformed trio mating (p = 0.02) when the measure was weaned pups/female/week. No infanticide was seen in any cages, so the mechanism of reproductive suppression in trio matings may occur before birth.