Explore the vast range of titles available.

Nonhuman primates use social touch for maintenance and reinforcement of social structures, yet the role of social touch in human bonding in different reproductive, affiliative, and kinshipbased relationships remains unresolved. Here we reveal quantified, relationship-specific maps of bodily regions where social touch is allowed in a large cross-cultural dataset (N= 1,368 from Finland, France, Italy, Russia, and the United Kingdom). Participants were shown front and back silhouettes of human bodies with a word denoting one member of their social network. They were asked to color, on separate trials, the bodily regions where each individual in their social network would be allowed to touch them. Across all tested cultures, the total bodily area where touching was allowed was linearly dependent (meanr² = 0.54) on the emotional bond with the toucher, but independent of when that person was last encountered. Close acquaintances and family members were touched for more reasons than less familiar individuals. The bodily area others are allowed to touch thus represented, in a parametric fashion, the strength of the relationship- specific emotional bond. We propose that the spatial patterns of human social touch reflect an important mechanism supporting the maintenance of social bonds.

Handling is a well-known source of stress to laboratory animals and can affect variability of results and even compromise animal welfare. The conventional tail handling in mice has been shown to induce aversion and anxiety-like behaviour. Recent findings demonstrate that the use of alternative handling techniques, e.g. tunnel handling, can mitigate negative handling-induced effects. Here, we show that technique and frequency of handling influence affective behaviour and stress hormone release of subjects in a sex-dependent manner. While frequent tail handling led to a reduction of wellbeing-associated burrowing and increased despair-like behaviour in male mice, females seemed unaffected. Instead, they displayed a stress response to a low handling frequency, which was not detectable in males. This could suggest that in terms of refinement, the impact in handling could differ between the sexes. Independently from this observation, both sexes preferred to interact with the tunnel. Mice generally explored the tunnel more often than the tail-handling hands of the experimenter and showed more positively rated approaches, e.g. touching or climbing, and at the same time, less defensive burrowing, indicating a strong preference for the tunnel.

Mice handled by their tails show high levels of anxiety and stress compared to mice handled in cupped hands or in a transparent tunnel. Routine laboratory animal handling has profound effects on their anxiety and stress responses, but little is known about the impact of handling method. We found that picking up mice by the tail induced aversion and high anxiety, whereas use of tunnels or open hand led to voluntary approach, low anxiety and acceptance of physical restraint. Using the latter methods, one can minimize a widespread source of anxiety in laboratory mice.

Mice are commonly tail-handled, despite evidence that this is aversive. Alternatives include cupping and tunnel handling; both methods are associated with improved welfare outcomes, including reduced anxiety and improved ease of handling, but tail handling may be perceived as more practical for handlers. Practicality may be improved by using handling objects already present in facilities, such as upturned mouse huts. Our first aim was to compare hut handling with the established refined alternatives of cupping and tunnel handling. As both tunnels and huts may be used as part of mouse caging, a second aim was to assess the effects of handling object familiarity (from the home cage vs. a novel object). Outcomes assessed were voluntary interaction with the handler and time spent in the open arms of an elevated plus maze (EPM). Mice (n = 51) were randomly assigned a handling method: cupping, tunnel, or hut. Cages (n = 14) were randomly assigned to contain either a tunnel or hut. Mice underwent 9 days of handling and voluntary interaction tests were conducted on days 1, 5, and 9. On day 10, mice were tested in the EPM. We found that interaction varied with handling object: hut-handled mice spent the most time interacting, followed by tunnel-handled and cupped mice (41.7 ± 1.5 s, 36.1 ± 1.4 s, and 33.0 ± 1.5 s, respectively). Familiar objects improved interaction at the outset, but this difference was no longer evident by day 5. We found no effect of handling object or object familiarity on time spent in the open arms of the EPM. These results suggest that hut handling is a refined handling method; this method may be a practical alternative in facilities that already use huts.

Handling stress is a well-recognised source of variation in animal studies that can also compromise the welfare of research animals. To reduce background variation and maximise welfare, methods that minimise handling stress should be developed and used wherever possible. Recent evidence has shown that handling mice by a familiar tunnel that is present in their home cage can minimise anxiety compared with standard tail handling. As yet, it is unclear whether a tunnel is required in each home cage to improve response to handling. We investigated the influence of prior experience with home tunnels among two common strains of laboratory mice: ICR(CD-1) and C57BL/6. We compared willingness to approach the handler and anxiety in an elevated plus maze test among mice picked up by the tail, by a home cage tunnel or by an external tunnel shared between cages. Willingness to interact with the handler was much greater for mice handled by a tunnel, even when this was unfamiliar, compared to mice picked up by the tail. Once habituated to handling, C57BL/6 mice were most interactive towards a familiar home tunnel, whereas the ICR strain showed strong interaction with all tunnel handling regardless of any experience of a home cage tunnel. Mice handled by a home cage or external tunnel showed less anxiety in an elevated plus maze than those picked up by the tail. This study shows that using a tunnel for routine handling reduces anxiety among mice compared to tail handling regardless of prior familiarity with tunnels. However, as home cage tunnels can further improve response to handling in some mice, we recommend that mice are handled with a tunnel provided in their home cage where possible as a simple practical method to minimise handling stress.

Early handling (EH), the brief separation of pups from their mother during early life, has been shown to exert beneficial effects. However, the impact of EH in a high anxiety background as well as the role of brain mitochondria in shaping EH-driven responses remain elusive.Here, we used a high (HAB) vs. normal (NAB) anxiety-related behavior mouse model to study how EH affects pup and dam behavior in divergent anxiety backgrounds. We also investigated EH-induced effects at the protein and mRNA levels in adult male HAB mice in the hypothalamus, the prefrontal cortex, and the hippocampus by examining the same mitochondrial/energy pathways and mitochondrial dynamics mechanisms (fission, fusion, biogenesis, and mitophagy) in all three brain regions.EH exerts anxiolytic effects in adult HAB but not NAB male mice and does not affect HAB or NAB maternal behavior, although basal HAB vs. NAB maternal behaviors differ. In adult HAB male mice, EH does not impact oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) and oxidative stress in any of the brain regions studied but leads to increased protein expression of glycolysis enzymes and a correlation of anxiety-related behavior with Krebs cycle enzymes in HAB mice in the hypothalamus. Intriguingly, EH alters mitochondrial dynamics by increasing hypothalamic DRP1, OPA1, and PGC1a protein levels. At the mRNA level, we observe altered, EH-driven mitochondrial dynamics mRNA signatures which predominantly affect the prefrontal cortex.Taken together, our results show that EH exerts anxiolytic effects in adulthood in high anxiety and modulates mitochondrial dynamics pathways in a brain region-specific manner.

Mice are the most commonly used laboratory animals for studying diseases, behaviour, and pharmacology. Behavioural experiment battery aids in evaluating abnormal behaviour in mice. During behavioural experiments, mice frequently experience human contact. However, the effects of repeated handling on mice behaviour remains unclear. To minimise mice stress, methods of moving mice using transparent tunnels or cups have been recommended but are impractical in behavioural tests. To investigate these effects, we used a behavioural test battery to assess differences between mice accustomed to the experimenter’s handling versus control mice. Repeatedly handled mice gained slightly more weight than control mice. In behavioural tests, repeatedly handled mice showed improved spatial cognition in the Y-maze test and reduced anxiety-like behaviour in the elevated plus-maze test. However, there was no change in anxiety-like behaviour in the light/dark transition test or open-field test. Grip strength, rotarod, sociability, tail suspension, Porsolt forced swim, and passive avoidance tests revealed no significant differences between repeatedly handled and control mice. Our findings demonstrated that mice repeatedly handled by the experimenter before behavioural tests showed reduced anxiety about high altitudes and improved spatial cognition, suggesting that repeated contact can affect the results of some behavioural tests.

Different handling methods for laboratory mice have been intensely debated in light of refining animal husbandry. Several studies claim that tail handling is aversive, while tunnel handling seems to have a lesser impact on animal welfare. However, most of these studies investigated the effect of handling performed in an unusually high frequency and prolonged duration, not matching laboratory routines. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate the impact of weekly cage change using tail versus tunnel handling on male and female C57BL/6J and CD-1 mice. Locomotion and exploratory activity as well as anxiety-related behaviour were measured. Moreover, the animals’ interest in social partners and social novelty as well as voluntary interaction with the handler were assessed. Reactivity and repeated activation of the HPA axis were monitored using corticosterone levels and adrenal gland and thymus weights. Only very few of the measured behavioural and stress physiological parameters differed significantly between the two handling groups, with varying direction. Our comprehensive analysis could thus reveal no consistent evidence supporting the superiority of one method over the other in terms of welfare of the handled mice.

Millions of mice are used every year for scientific research, representing the majority of scientific procedures conducted on animals. The standard method used to pick up laboratory mice for general husbandry and experimental procedures is known as tail handling and involves the capture, elevation and restraint of mice via their tails. There is growing evidence that, compared to non-aversive handling methods (i.e. tunnel and cup), tail handling increases behavioural signs of anxiety and induces anhedonia. Hence tail handling has a negative impact on mouse welfare. Here, we investigated whether repeated scruff restraint, intraperitoneal (IP) injections and anaesthesia negated the reduction in anxiety-related behaviour in tunnel compared with tail handled BALB/c mice. We found that mice which experienced repeated restraint spent less time interacting with a handler compared to mice that were handled only. However, after repeated restraint, tunnel handled mice showed increased willingness to interact with a handler, and reduced anxiety in standard behavioural tests compared with tail handled mice. The type of procedure experienced (IP injection or anaesthesia), and the duration after which behaviour was measured after a procedure affected the willingness of mice to interact with a handler. Despite this, compared with tail handling, tunnel handling reduced anxiety in standard behavioural tests and increased willingness to interact with a handler within hours after procedures. This suggests that the welfare benefits of tunnel handling are widely applicable and not diminished by the use of other putatively more invasive procedures that are frequently used in the laboratory. Therefore, the simple refinement of replacing tail with tunnel handling for routine husbandry and procedures will deliver a substantial improvement for mouse welfare and has the potential for improving scientific outcomes.

Large herbivores are subject to handling and social stress in captivity. These may affect blood biochemical values, which motivated this research. Twelve healthy common eland (Taurotragus oryx) were monitored for 12 months. The animals were handled monthly, and blood samples were collected. Samples from every second month were analysed for 14 blood biochemical parameters. Temperament throughout the handling, as the summation of various behavioural responses, was calculated as a proxy of the stress generated during handling. Social behaviour was recorded each month, and the agonistic interactions were used to calculate the social rank, which was considered a proxy of social stress. Generalised Linear Mixed Models were designed to test the effects of temperament and social rank on the blood biochemical parameters while keeping sex, age, body condition, and body weight as covariates. The results show that the temperament during handling influences blood levels of albumin, alkaline phosphate, blood urea nitrogen, glucose, total bilirubin, and total protein; however, social rank has little influence, affecting just albumin. The ranges observed in the values of these biochemical parameters were still within their reference intervals, implying the absence of pathology or physiological problems during the study. The results suggest that blood biochemical values of physically restrained common eland should be carefully interpreted, even in animals already habituated to routine handling. On the contrary, social rank has low effects on the blood biochemical parameters.