Correction: Davies et al. Impact of Refinements to Handling and Restraint Methods in Mice. Animals 2022, 12, 2173.

In the original publication [...].

Impact of Refinements to Handling and Restraint Methods in Mice.

There is increasing evidence that, compared to non-aversive handling methods (i.e., tunnel and cupping), tail handling has a negative impact on mouse welfare. Despite this evidence, there are still research organisations that continue to use tail handling. Here, we investigated handling for routine husbandry by three different methods: tail, cupping and tube in a relevant real-world scenario involving mice bred off-site. After transfer to the destination unit, mice were assessed for overt behaviours associated with anxiety and fear. Mice that experienced tail handling were less easy to handle, were more responsive to the box opening, and scored lower in a hand approach test. One barrier to non-tail handling methods is the current practice of restraining mice by the tail for procedures. We therefore next assessed whether a modified method for restraint that takes the animal from cupping to restraint without the use of the tail was associated with better welfare. This refined restraint method reduced overt signs of distress although we did not find any differences in corticosterone levels or anxiety-related behaviours. These findings suggest that avoiding tail handling throughout the animal's laboratory experience, including during restraint, benefits their welfare.

Effects of pro-depressant and immunomodulatory drugs on biases in decision-making in the rat judgement bias task.

Studies in human and non-human species suggest that decision-making behaviour can be biased by an affective state, also termed an affective bias. To study these behaviours in non-human species, judgement bias tasks (JBT) have been developed. Animals are trained to associate specific cues (tones) with a positive or negative/less positive outcome. Animals are then presented with intermediate ambiguous cues and affective biases quantified by observing whether animals make more optimistic or more pessimistic choices. Here we use a high versus low reward JBT and test whether pharmacologically distinct compounds, which induce negative biases in learning and memory, have similar effects on decision-making: tetrabenazine (0.0-1.0 mg/kg), retinoic acid (0.0-10.0 mg/kg), and rimonabant (0.0-10.0 mg/kg). We also tested immunomodulatory compounds: interferon-α (0-100 units/kg), lipopolysaccharide (0.0-10.0 µg/kg), and corticosterone (0.0-10.0 mg/kg). We observed no specific effects in the JBT with any acute treatment except corticosterone which induced a negative bias. We have previously observed a similar lack of effect with acute but not chronic psychosocial stress and so next tested decision-making behaviour following chronic interferon-alpha. Animals developed a negative bias which was sustained even after treatment was ended. These data suggest that decision-making behaviour in the task is sensitive to chronic but not acute effects of most pro-depressant drugs or immunomodulators, but the exogenous administration of acute corticosterone induces pessimistic behaviour. This work supports our hypothesis that biases in decision-making develop over a different temporal scale to those seen with learning and memory which may be relevant in the development and perpetuation of mood disorders.