RELSA-A multidimensional procedure for the comparative assessment of well-being and the quantitative determination of severity in experimental procedures.

Good science in translational research requires good animal welfare according to the principles of 3Rs. In many countries, determining animal welfare is a mandatory legal requirement, implying a categorization of animal suffering, traditionally dominated by subjective scorings. However, how such methods can be objectified and refined to compare impairments between animals, subgroups, and animal models remained unclear. Therefore, we developed the RELative Severity Assessment (RELSA) procedure to establish an evidence-based method based on quantitative outcome measures such as body weight, burrowing behavior, heart rate, heart rate variability, temperature, and activity to obtain a relative metric for severity comparisons. The RELSA procedure provided the necessary framework to get severity gradings in TM-implanted mice, yielding four distinct RELSA thresholds L1<0.27, L2<0.59, L3<0.79, and L4<3.45. We show further that severity patterns in the contributing variables are time and model-specific and use this information to obtain contextualized between animal-model and subgroup comparisons with the severity of sepsis > surgery > restraint stress > colitis. The bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals reliably show that RELSA estimates are conditionally invariant against missing information but precise in ranking the quantitative severity information to the moderate context of the transmitter-implantation model. In conclusion, we propose the RELSA as a validated tool for an objective, computational approach to comparative and quantitative severity assessment and grading. The RELSA procedure will fundamentally improve animal welfare, data quality, and reproducibility. It is also the first step toward translational risk assessment in biomedical research.

Voluntary wheel running behaviour as a tool to assess the severity in a mouse pancreatic cancer model.

Laboratory animals frequently undergo routine experimental procedures such as handling, restraining and injections. However, as a known source of stress, these procedures potentially impact study outcome and data quality. In the present study, we, therefore, performed an evidence-based severity assessment of experimental procedures used in a pancreatic cancer model including surgical tumour induction and subsequent chemotherapeutic treatment via repeated intraperitoneal injections. Cancer cell injection into the pancreas was performed during a laparotomy under general anaesthesia. After a four-day recovery phase, mice received either drug treatment (galloflavin and metformin) or the respective vehicle substances via daily intraperitoneal injections. In addition to clinical scoring, an automated home-cage monitoring system was used to assess voluntary wheel running (VWR) behaviour as an indicator of impaired well-being. After surgery, slightly elevated clinical scores and minimal body weight reductions, but significantly decreased VWR behaviour were observed. During therapy, body weight declined in response to chemotherapy, but not after vehicle substance injection, while VWR activity was decreased in both cases. VWR behaviour differed between treatment groups and revealed altered nightly activity patterns. In summary, by monitoring VWR a high impact of repeated injections on the well-being of mice was revealed and substance effects on well-being were distinguishable. However, no differences in tumour growth between treatment groups were observed. This might be due to the severity of the procedures uncovered in this study, as exaggerated stress responses are potentially confounding factors in preclinical studies. Finally, VWR was a more sensitive indicator of impairment than clinical scoring in this model.

Defining body-weight reduction as a humane endpoint: a critical appraisal.

In many animal experiments scientists and local authorities define a body-weight reduction of 20% or more as severe suffering and thereby as a potential parameter for humane endpoint decisions. In this study, we evaluated distinct animal experiments in multiple research facilities, and assessed whether 20% body-weight reduction is a valid humane endpoint criterion in rodents. In most experiments (restraint stress, distinct models for epilepsy, pancreatic resection, liver resection, caloric restrictive feeding and a mouse model for Dravet syndrome) the animals lost less than 20% of their original body weight. In a glioma model, a fast deterioration in body weight of less than 20% was observed as a reliable predictor for clinical deterioration. In contrast, after induction of chronic diabetes or acute colitis some animals lost more than 20% of their body weight without exhibiting major signs of distress. In these two animal models an exclusive application of the 20% weight loss criterion for euthanasia might therefore result in an unnecessary loss of animals. However, we also confirmed that this criterion can be a valid parameter for defining the humane endpoint in other animal models, especially when it is combined with additional criteria for evaluating distress. In conclusion, our findings strongly suggest that experiment and model specific considerations are necessary for the rational integration of the parameter 'weight loss' in severity assessment schemes and humane endpoint criteria. A flexible implementation tailored to the experiment or intervention by scientists and authorities is therefore highly recommended.