Guidelines and ethical considerations for housing and management of psittacine birds used in research

The Psittaciformes are a large order of landbirds comprising over 350 species in about 83 genera. In 2009, 141 published studies implicated parrots as research subjects; in 31 of these studies, 483 individuals from 45 different species could be considered laboratory animals. Amazons and budgerigars were by far the most represented psittacine species. The laboratory research topics were categorized as either veterinary medicine and diagnostics (bacteriology, hematology, morphology, and reproduction; 45%) or behavioral and sensory studies (behavior, acoustics, and vision; 17%). Confinement of psittacine species for research purposes is a matter of concern as scientifically based species-specific housing guidelines are scarce. The aim of this article is to provide scientific information relevant to the laboratory confinement of Psittaciformes to promote the refinement of acquisition, housing, and maintenance practices of these birds as laboratory animals. We briefly discuss systematics, geographical distribution, legislation, and conservation status as background information on laboratory parrot confinement. The following section presents welfare concerns related to captive containment (including domestication status) and psittacine cognition. We then discuss considerations in the acquisition of laboratory parrots and review important management issues such as nutrition, zoonoses, housing, and environmental enrichment. The final section reviews indications of distress and compromised welfare.     

The welfare of fish

Our interactions with fish cover a wide range of activities including enjoying them as pets to consuming them as food. I propose that we confine the consideration of the welfare of fish to their physiology, and not join the discussion on whether fish can feel pain and suffering, as humans. A significant proportion of the papers on animal welfare center on whether non-human animals can feel pain, and suffer as humans. This is a question that never can be answered unequivocally. The premise of the present paper is that we have an ethical responsibility to respect the life and wellbeing of all organisms. Thus, we should concentrate on the behavioural, physiological, and cellular indicators of their well-being and attempt to minimize a state of stress in the animals that we have in our care or influence.     

The case for genetic monitoring of mice and rats used in biomedical research

Currently, there is the potential to generate over 200,000 mutant mouse strains between existing mouse strains (over 24,000) and genetically modified mouse embryonic stem cells (over 209,000) that have been entered into the International Mouse Strain Resource Center (IMSR) from laboratories and repositories all over the world. The number of rat strains is also increasing exponentially. These mouse and rat mutants are a tremendous genetic resource; however, the awareness of their genetic integrity such as genetic background and genotyping of these models is not always carefully monitored. In this review, we make a case for the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS), which is interested in promoting and helping academic institutions develop a genetic monitoring program to bring a level of genetic quality assurance into the scientific interchange and use of mouse and rat genetically mutant models.     

Guidelines for monitoring autophagy in Caenorhabditis elegans

The cellular recycling process of autophagy has been extensively characterized with standard assays in yeast and mammalian cell lines. In multicellular organisms, numerous external and internal factors differentially affect autophagy activity in specific cell types throughout the stages of organismal ontogeny, adding complexity to the analysis of autophagy in these metazoans. Here we summarize currently available assays for monitoring the autophagic process in the nematode C. elegans. A combination of measuring levels of the lipidated Atg8 ortholog LGG-1, degradation of well-characterized autophagic substrates such as germline P granule components and the SQSTM1/p62 ortholog SQST-1, expression of autophagic genes and electron microscopy analysis of autophagic structures are presently the most informative, yet steady-state, approaches available to assess autophagy levels in C. elegans. We also review how altered autophagy activity affects a variety of biological processes in C. elegans such as L1 survival under starvation conditions, dauer formation, aging, and cell death, as well as neuronal cell specification. Taken together, C. elegans is emerging as a powerful model organism to monitor autophagy while evaluating important physiological roles for autophagy in key developmental events as well as during adulthood.     

Insights into the concept of fish welfare

Fish welfare issues are predicated on understanding whether fish are sentient beings. Therefore, we analyzed the logic of the methodologies used for studying this attribute. We conclude that empirical science is unable to prove or to disprove that fish are sentient beings. Thus, we propose a combined ethical-scientific approach for considering fish as sentient beings. The most difficult ongoing question is to determine which conditions fish prefer. Approaches to assess fish preferences should be rigorously and cautiously employed. In light of these considerations, attempts to establish physiological standards for fish welfare are discouraged, and a preference-based definition of fish welfare is proposed.     

Techniques of embryo transfer and facility decontamination used to improve the health and welfare of transgenic mice

'Reduction' and 'Refinement' can be achieved in transgenic mouse studies by re-deriving transgenic mouse lines and subsequently maintaining them under high standards of husbandry in a unit with restricted access. This report describes the initial steps of a project to improve the health and welfare of transgenic mice at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), by re-deriving transgenic lines as microbiologically defined animals to be maintained in a barrier unit in a newly constructed animal facility. A pilot study showed that it was possible to transfer embryos obtained from contaminated donor mice in the old facility to specific pathogen free recipients housed in a ventilated cabinet in the new unit, without concomitant carry over of disease. The offspring born following embryo transfer were of high health status and did not show any evidence of contamination with any of the pathogens present in the mice in the old animal unit. Antibodies to various murine viruses (mouse hepatitis virus (MHV), rota virus, reo-3 virus, Theilers encephalomyelitis virus, adenovirus) and parasites were present in sentinel animals from the old animal house whereas the re-derived animals were found to be free of virus antibodies and parasites. Therefore the methods used were considered to be successful in terms of disease prevention and enhancement of welfare. The barrier unit was sterilized without the use of formaldehyde or related substances, to minimize the risks to personnel and to the environment from using potentially dangerous substances. From the results of in vitro and in vivo screening, the protocol for sterilization described here was found to be effective in achieving microbiological sterility of the barrier unit and was cost effective.     

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.     

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.     

Safeguarding the many guises of farmed fish welfare

There has been a great deal of debate and sometimes open hostility between people with differing approaches to the welfare of farmed animals, but relatively little progress towards compromise or consensus. It has been suggested that progress has been inhibited by a fundamental lack of common ground; people are debating different questions. Compromise or consensus can only be achieved through understanding and this in turn requires effective presentation of information and constructive dialogue. In this paper we adapt a previously published framework to present and evaluate information relevant to a wide range of definitions of fish welfare. Through improved understanding we will increase our capacity to safeguard many aspects of welfare of farmed fish, satisfying the demands of more but not all stakeholders.