FELASA accreditation of education and training courses in laboratory animal science according to the Directive 2010/63/EU.

THE FOUR EU FUNCTIONS AND BEYOND: FELASA accredits courses that fulfil the requirements of Functions A, B, C and D as defined by EU Directive, Article 23, as well as for designated veterinarians and specialists in laboratory animal science. MODULARITY AND MOBILITY: Cohesive courses for Functions and for very specific topics are accredited, but flexibility and mobility are possible: a researcher can start his/her training with one FELASA accredited course and complete other modules with another. A course organizer will deliver a FELASA certificate relating to the successfully completed modules. ACCREDITATION PROCESS: The process consists of two major steps: (1) a review of full course documentation provided by the applicant will lead, if successful, to FELASA accreditation. The course is posted on the FELASA website as 'FELASA accredited' and the course provider can deliver FELASA certificates upon successful completion of the course; (2) successful accreditation is followed by an on-site course audit. In the case of a negative outcome of the audit, FELASA accreditation is withdrawn, the course is deleted from the list of FELASA accredited courses and FELASA certificates cannot be issued. To ensure that quality is maintained, continuation of accreditation requires regular revalidation.

FELASA guidelines and recommendations.

The Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA) has been releasing guidelines and recommendations on several laboratory animal science disciplines for more than 15 y. The Working Groups producing these documents comprise specialists in each of the addressed topics, are nominated by the FELASA constituent associations, and are elected by the FELASA Board of Management. The FELASA guidelines and recommendations are not regulatory but rather are proposals based on scientific knowledge and the state of the art of laboratory animal science activities. Because they are supported by laboratory animal science associations that represent the vast majority of European professionals, these guidelines and recommendations have influenced the development of various regulatory requirements in Europe, including those related to education and training, routine laboratory animal activities, and animal health monitoring. Some reports fill existing gaps in the European legal framework or complement it. The Working Groups occasionally collaborate with other European organizations, thus enhancing the professional input and effect of the documents produced. The recently established AALAS-FELASA Liaison Body may result in future international cooperation that benefits laboratory animal science and welfare in a global context.

Advances in zebrafish husbandry and management.

The zebrafish has emerged over the past several decades to become a mainstream animal model. While the growth of the use of the fish in basic biomedical research has been characterized by innovation, the methods and tools for fish husbandry, management, and care have been slow to evolve beyond those conceived during the initial establishment of the model system. While these approaches and technologies have certainly served the purposes of the field, they must now be improved to better match the widening scope and scale of research being done in fish. Such advances are made possible by applying new scientific information to the development of more sophisticated approaches for fish husbandry and management, and by considering the lessons learned during the establishment of the rodent model system. This review highlights the recent progress made in various areas of fish husbandry and management and points out new directions for further improvements.

The response of C57BL/6J and BALB/cJ mice to increased housing density.

Increased numbers of mice housed per cage (that is, increased housing density) is seen as 1 way to reduce the costs of conducting biomedical research. Current empirically derived guidelines are based on the area provided per mouse depending on body weight as documented in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. The current study aimed to provide a more scientific basis for housing density by examining the response of C57BL/6J and BALB/cJ mice to increased housing density from weaning to 5 mo of age, to determine those parameters most useful for future larger-scale studies. A wide range of phenotypic characteristics--including growth rate, body composition, hematology, serum biochemistry, hormone and metabolite measurements, in-cage telemetry, behavior, and cage microenvironment--was examined at various time points. The parameters showing greatest changes were: growth rate, which was significantly reduced in animals at the highest density; adrenal gland size, the proportion of adrenal cortex, and concentration of fecal corticosterone metabolites, all of which were increased at higher densities; and anxiety and barbering, which were more pronounced at higher densities. Cage microenvironment deteriorated with increasing density, but the increases in measured parameters were small, and their biologic impact, if any, was not apparent. The current findings indicate that mouse housing density can be increased 50% to 100% above the current recommendations (as floor area per mouse) with no or few apparent affects on mouse overall wellbeing. However, weight gain, fecal corticosterone metabolite levels, and barbering differed significantly with housing density and therefore are suggested as good measures of the response to alterations in housing.

Preparing for a semiannual IACUC inspection of a satellite zebrafish (Danio rerio) facility.

Institutions worldwide have experienced a rapid growth in the use of zebrafish as a research model for a variety of molecular and genetic studies of vertebrate development. This expansion in zebrafish research essentially has outpaced the establishment of specific recommendations for the care and use of fish in research. In some cases, this situation has created a dilemma where an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, which is responsible for oversight of vertebrate animal research, is not fully prepared to undertake this role for a decentralized zebrafish facility. IACUC inspectors will be more equipped to ask pertinent questions by understanding the basic principles of zebrafish health and facility management. Concurrently, zebrafish facility managers can contribute to the progress of a semiannual facility inspection by maintaining fully accessible operating records. In the context of presenting a well-established and useful model of zebrafish management and recordkeeping to the zebrafish facility operator, the information we present here also prepares a potential IACUC inspector to conduct a constructive and positive inspection.