Effects of space allocation and housing density on measures of wellbeing in laboratory mice: a review

2012 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
A L Whittaker ◽  
G S Howarth ◽  
D L Hickman
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abigail R Basson ◽  
Alexandria LaSalla ◽  
Gretchen Lam ◽  
Danielle Kulpins ◽  
Erika L Moen ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTThe negative effects of data clustering due to (intra-class/spatial) correlations are well-known in statistics to interfere with interpretation and study power. Therefore, it is unclear why housing many laboratory mice (≥4), instead of one-or-two per cage, with the improper use/reporting of clustered-data statistics, abound in the literature. Among other sources of ‘artificial’ confounding, including cyclical oscillations of the ‘cage microbiome’, we quantified the heterogeneity of modern husbandry practices/perceptions. The objective was to identify actionable themes to re-launch emerging protocols and intuitive statistical strategies to increase study power. Amenable for interventions, ‘cost-vs-science’ discordance was a major aspect explaining heterogeneity and the reluctance to change. Combined, four sources of information (scoping-reviews, professional-surveys, expert-opinion, and ‘implementability-score-statistics’) indicate that a six-actionable-theme framework could minimize ‘artificial’ heterogeneity. With a ‘Housing Density Cost Simulator’ in Excel and fully annotated statistical examples, this framework could reignite the use of ‘study power’ to monitor the success/reproducibility of mouse-microbiome studies.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. e0185135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Hugh Barker ◽  
Rebecca Peta George ◽  
Gordon Stanley Howarth ◽  
Alexandra Louise Whittaker

1970 ◽  
Vol 70 (2, Pt.1) ◽  
pp. 221-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bibb Latane ◽  
Howard Cappell ◽  
Virginia Joy

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan M. Stein ◽  
Ronald E. McRoberts ◽  
Lisa G. Mahal ◽  
Mary A. Carr ◽  
Ralph J. Alig ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document