Evidence-based severity assessment of the forced swim test in the rat.

The forced swim test (FST) is a traditional assay, which has been used for more than 40 years to assess antidepressant effects of novel drug candidates. In recent years, a debate about the test has focused on the assumption that the FST is highly aversive and burdening for the animals because of the earlier anthropomorphic interpretation and designation as a "behavioral despair test". The Directive 2010/63/EU and the German Animal Welfare law require a prospective severity classification of the planned experimental procedures. Still, an objective examination of the animals' burden in this test has not been performed yet. To fill this gap, we conducted an evidence-based severity assessment of the forced swim test in rats according to a 'standard protocol' with a water temperature of 25°C. We examined parameters representing the physiological and the affective state, and natural as well as locomotion-associated behaviors in three separate experiments to reflect as many dimensions as possible of the animal's condition in the test. Hypothermia was the only effect observed in all animals exposed to the FST when using this standard protocol. Additional adverse effects on body weight, food consumption, and fecal corticosterone metabolite concentrations occurred in response to administration of the antidepressant imipramine, which is frequently used as positive control when testing for antidepressant effects of new substances. We conclude that this version of the FST itself is less severe for the animals than assumed, and we suggest a severity classification of 'moderate' because of the acute and short-lasting effects of hypothermia. To refine the FST according to the 3Rs, we encourage confirming the predictive validity in warmer water temperatures to allow the rats to maintain physiological body temperature.

Comparative Severity Assessment of Genetic, Stress-Based, and Pharmacological Mouse Models of Depression.

The use of animals in neurosciences is pivotal to gaining insights into complex functions and dysfunctions of behavior. For example, various forms of physical and/or psychological stress are inherent to various animal models for psychiatric disorders, e.g., depression. Regarding animal welfare, it would be mandatory to use models that inflict the least amount of stress necessary to address the underlying scientific question. This study compared the severity of different approaches to induce depression in mice: mutagenesis in GluA1 knockout, immobilization stress, and stress-induction via stress hormone treatment. While genetic alterations potentially represent a lifelong burden, the temporary intervention only affects the animals for a limited time. Therefore, we used home cage-based behavioral and physiological parameters, including nest building, burrowing, body weight, and fecal corticosterone metabolites, to determine the well-being of male and female mice. In addition, we performed an evidence-based estimate of severity using a composite score for relative severity assessment (RELSA) with this data. We found that even though restraint stress and supplementation of corticosterone in the diet both aimed at depression-related precipitating stress effects, the latter affected the well-being much stronger, especially in females. Restraint leads to less noticeable well-being impairments but causes depression-associated anhedonic behavior. Mice of both sexes recovered well from the stress treatment. GluA1 KO and their littermates showed diminished well-being, comparable to the immobilization experiments. However, since this is a lifelong condition, this burden is not reversible and potentially accumulative. In line with the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement), the process of choosing the most suitable model should ideally include an evidence-based severity assessment to be able to opt for the least severe alternative, which still induces the desired effect. Promoting refinement, in our study, this would be the restraint stress.