Mice are the most widely used model species for drug discovery and scientific research. Consequently, it is important to refine laboratory procedures and practices to ensure high standards of welfare and scientific data quality. Recent studies have identified that the standard practice of handling laboratory mice by their tails increases behaviours indicative of anxiety, which can be overcome by handling mice using a tunnel. However, despite clear negative effects on mice’s behaviour, tunnel handling has yet to be widely implemented. In this study, we provide the first evidence that tail handling also reduces mice’s responses to reward. Anhedonia is a core symptom of clinical depression, and is measured in rodents by assessing how they consume a sucrose solution: depressed mice consume less sucrose and the size of their licking bouts when drinking (their ‘lick cluster sizes’) also tend to be smaller. We found that tail handled mice showed more anhedonic responses in both measures compared to tunnel handled mice, indicative of a decreased responsiveness to reward and potentially a more depressive-like state. Our findings have significant implications for the welfare of laboratory mice as well as the design and interpretation of scientific studies, particularly those investigating or involving reward.

This study aims to identify the most valid, reliable and practicable indicators of laboratory mouse welfare using the Delphi consultation technique. The effective assessment of laboratory mouse welfare is a fundamental legal and moral requirement as it is critical part of both maintaining and improving the welfare of the most widely used laboratory animal globally. Although many different welfare indicators are routinely used to assess mouse welfare, the validity, reliability and practicability of many of these measures remains unclear. The Delphi consultation technique is designed to gauge expert opinion through multiple rounds of surveys until a consensus is reached. Participants ranked 59 welfare indicators in terms their validity, reliability and practicability for either a half-day unit audit or a daily welfare assessment and for each scenario identified 10 key indicators. The Delphi consultation reached consensus at 72% for the overall list of indicators and over 60% for each individual indicator. From this consensus the key indicators for each mouse welfare scenario (half day audit and daily welfare assessment) were identified and used to create a welfare scoring system for each scenario.

Whether and to what extent animals experience emotions is crucial for understanding their decisions and behaviour, and underpins a range of scientific fields, including animal behaviour, neuroscience, evolutionary biology and animal welfare science. However, research has predominantly focused on alleviating negative emotions in animals, with the expression of positive emotions left largely unexplored. Therefore, little is known about positive emotions in animals and how their expression is mediated. We used tail handling to induce a negative mood in laboratory mice and found that while being more anxious and depressed increased their expression of a discrete negative emotion (disappointment), meaning that they were less resilient to negative events, their capacity to express a discrete positive emotion (elation) was unaffected relative to control mice. Therefore, we show not only that mice have discrete positive emotions, but that they do so regardless of their current mood state. Our findings are the first to suggest that the expression of discrete positive and negative emotions in animals is not equally affected by long-term mood state. Our results also demonstrate that repeated negative events can have a cumulative effect to reduce resilience in laboratory animals, which has significant implications for animal welfare.

Killing is often an unavoidable and necessary procedure for laboratory mice involved in scientific research, and providing a humane death is vital for public acceptance. Exposure to carbon dioxide (CO ₂ ) gas is the most widely used methodology despite well proven welfare concerns. Consequently, the continued use of CO ₂ and its globally permitted status in legislation and guidelines presents an ethical dilemma for users. We investigated whether killing with hypobaric hypoxia via gradual decompression was associated with better welfare outcomes for killing laboratory mice. We compared the spontaneous behaviour of mice exposed to CO ₂ , decompression or sham conditions, and used analgesic or anxiolytic interventions to determine their relative welfare impact. Gradual decompression resulted in longer times to unconsciousness and death and the pharmacological interventions support the notion of a minimally negative animal experience, while providing further evidence for pain and anxiety associated with exposure to CO ₂ . Decompression resulted in moderate ear haemorrhage, but our welfare assessment suggests this may happen when mice are unconscious. Hence, gradual decompression could be the basis of significant refinement for killing laboratory mice. Future work should corroborate behaviour with neurobiological markers of loss of consciousness to verify the conscious phase of concern for animal welfare.

[Lopez-Luna et al. (2017a)][1] investigated the utility of using larval zebrafish as a replacement for adults in nociceptive testing. Five days post-fertilisation larvae were held in a 25-well plate and monitored using a video tracking system. Either larvae were undisturbed or system water was added