Sleeping through anything: The effects of unpredictable disruptions on mouse sleep, healing, and affect.

Many aspects of the laboratory environment are not tailored to the needs of rodents, which may cause stress. Unpredictable stressors can cause ulcers, prolonged pituitary-adrenal activation, and anhedonia. Similarly, pain has been demonstrated to slow wound healing, and mice experiencing pain exhibit altered behavior. However it is unknown how husbandry, which occurs when the mice are inactive, and lack of analgesia, specifically in a punch biopsy procedure, effects animal physiology, behavior, and welfare, particularly as it relates to sleep fragmentation. We hypothesized that sleep fragmentation, induced by unpredictable husbandry and lack of pain management will slow wound healing. Two main treatments were tested in a factorial design in C57BL/6 mice of both sexes (64 mice total); 1) analgesia (carprofen and saline) and 2) sleep disruptions (random and predictable). Mice were singly housed in a non-invasive sleep monitoring apparatus on arrival (Day -4). Disruption treatments were applied from Day -3 to 2. All mice received a punch biopsy surgery (Day 0) with topical lidocaine gel and their analgesic treatment prior to recovery, and on Days 1 and 2. Nesting behavior was assessed daily and a sugar cereal consumption test, as a measure of anhedonia, was conducted on Days -1 to 2. On Day 3, mice were euthanized and wound tissue and adrenal glands were collected. We found that the disruption predictability had no effect on mouse sleep, wound healing, or adrenal cortex:medulla ratio. It's possible that the disruption period was not long enough to induce chronic stress. However, male mice who received analgesia slept more than their female counterparts; this may be related to sex differences in pain perception. Overall, it does not appear that the predictability of disturbance effects sleep fragmentation or stress responses, indicating that husbandry activities do not need to occur at set predictable times to improve welfare.

Out Like a Light? The Effects of a Diurnal Husbandry Schedule on Mouse Sleep and Behavior.

Sleep disruption in humans, caused by shift work, can be detrimental to physical and behavioral health. Nocturnal laboratory mice may experience a similar disruption caused by human daytime activities, but whether this disruption affects their welfare is unknown. We used 48 mice (CD1, C57BL/6, and BALB/c of both sexes) in a factorial design to test a sleep disruption treatment, in which mice were disturbed by providing routine husbandry at either 1000 or 2200 during a 12:12-h light:dark cycle, with lights on at 0700. All mice were exposed for 1 wk to each disruption treatment, and we used a noninvasive sleep monitoring apparatus to monitor and record sleep. To determine whether providing nesting material ameliorated effects of sleep disruption, we tested 4 amounts of nesting material (3, 6, 9, or 12 g) and continuously recorded sleep in the home cage for 2 wk. C57BL/6 mice, regardless of sex or disruption timing, slept the least overall. There was a strong interaction of sex and type of mouse on sleep across 24 h. Mice slept less during the first day of the daytime disturbance than on day 6. These results suggest that disturbance timing affects sleep patterns in mice but not their overall amount of sleep and that the changes in sleep patterns vary between mouse type and sex. In addition, mice appear to both anticipate and acclimate to human activity during the day. Our welfare checks were possibly too predictable and inconsequential to induce true sleep disruption.

Sorting it out: bedding particle size and nesting material processing method affect nest complexity.

As part of routine husbandry, an increasing number of laboratory mice receive nesting material in addition to standard bedding material in their cages. Nesting material improves health outcomes and physiological performance in mice that receive it. Providing usable nesting material uniformly and efficiently to various strains of mice remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to determine how bedding particle size, method of nesting material delivery, and processing of the nesting material before delivery affected nest building in mice of strong (BALB/cAnNCrl) and weak (C3H/HeNCrl) gathering abilities. Our data suggest that processing nesting material through a grinder in conjunction with bedding material, although convenient for provision of bedding with nesting material 'built-in', negatively affects the integrity of the nesting material and subsequent nest-building outcomes. We also found that C3H mice, previously thought to be poor nest builders, built similarly scored nests to those of BALB/c mice when provided with unprocessed nesting material. This was true even when nesting material was mixed into the bedding substrate. We also observed that when nesting material was mixed into the bedding substrate, mice of both strains would sort their bedding by particle size more often than if it were not mixed in. Our findings support the utility of the practice of distributing nesting material mixed in with bedding substrate, but not that of processing the nesting material with the bedding in order to mix them.