Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:09:04.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The welfare impact of gavaging laboratory rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

M Bonnichsen ,
N Dragsted  and
AK Hansen
M Bonnichsen
Affiliation:
Division of Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare, Department of Pharmacology and Pathobiology, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Dyrlaegevej 35, DK–1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
N Dragsted
Affiliation:
Division of Safety Pharmacology, Novo Nordisk A/S, Måløv, Denmark
AK Hansen*
Affiliation:
Division of Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare, Department of Pharmacology and Pathobiology, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Dyrlaegevej 35, DK–1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Gavaging (oral dosing) has previously been shown to have only a short-term effect on behavioural parameters in the laboratory rat. The aim of this study was to determine if the gavaging of laboratory rats influenced their heart rate, blood pressure and body temperature, and if so, whether the duration of this impact correlated with the volume gavaged. The three stress parameters were measured using telemetric transponders placed in the abdomen of eight female Sprague-Dawley (Mol:SPRD) rats. Using a Latin Square cross-over design, the rats were gavaged with three different doses of barium sulphate (4, 10 and 40 ml kg–1); in addition, there was a control of no dose, only insertion of the tube. The heart rate, blood pressure and body temperature of the rats were monitored continuously for 4 h after dosing and again for 1 h, 24 h after dosing. The gavaging of laboratory rats was shown to induce an acute reaction: after 30 min, blood pressure and heart rate were significantly higher than before gavaging, and body temperature was significantly higher 60 min after gavaging — indicators of stress levels comparable to those of other basic experimental procedures. A significant correlation between heart rate and dosage was observed until 10 min after gavaging. This indicates that the dosage gavaged is of only minor importance in causing stress, and only important for the most acute reaction. However, because of the resistance and discomfort observed when administering a 40 ml kg–1 dose, this dose should be administered only with caution.

Keywords

animal welfareblood pressuregavagingheart ratelaboratory ratstelemetry
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , August 2005 , pp. 223 - 227
Copyright
© 2005 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Alban, L, Dahl, PJ, Hansen, AK, Hejgaard, KC, Jensen, AL, Kragh, M, Thomsen, P and Steensgaard, P 2001 The welfare impact of increased gavaging doses in rats. Animal Welfare 10: 303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amar, A and Sanyal, AK 1981 Immobilization stress in rats: effect on rectal temperature and possible role of brain monoamines in hypothermia. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 73: 157–160Google ScholarPubMed
Brown, AP, Dinger, N and Levine, BS 2000 Stress produced by gavage administration in the rat. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 39: 17–21Google ScholarPubMed
Diehl, K-H, Hull, R, Morton, D, Pfister, R, Rabemampianina, Y, Smith, D, Vidal, J-M and Van de Vorstenbosch, C 2001 A good practice guide to the administration of substances and removal of blood, including routes and volumes. Journal of Applied Toxicology 21: 15–23Google Scholar
Gärtner, K, Büttner, D, Döhler, K, Friedel, R, Lindena, J and Trautsschold, I 1980 Stress response of rats to handling and experimental procedures. Laboratory Animals 14: 267–274CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Germann, P-G and Ockert, D 1994 Granulomatous inflammation of the oropharyngeal cavity as a possible cause for unexpected high mortality in a fischer 344 rat carcinogenicity study. Laboratory Animal Science 44(4): 338–343Google Scholar
Hull, RM 1995 Guideline limit volumes for dosing animals in the preclinical stage of safety evaluation. Human & Experimental Toxicology 14: 305–307Google ScholarPubMed
Krohn, TC, Hansen, AK and Dragsted, N 2003 Telemetry as a method for measuring impacts of housing conditions on rats. Animal Welfare 12: 53–62Google Scholar
Moberg, GP 1985 Biological response to stress: key to assessment of animal well-being? In: Moberg GP (ed) Animal Stress pp 27–49. American Physiological Society: Bethesda, Maryland, USAGoogle Scholar
Morton, DB, Jennings, M, Buckwell, A, Ewbank, R, Godfrey, C, Holgate, B, Inglis, I, James, R, Page, C, Sharman, I, Verschoyle, R, Westall, L and Wilson, AB 2001 Refining procedures for the administration of substances. Report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group. Laboratory Animals 35: 1–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, SJ, Smith, P, Shaivitz, AB, Rossberg, MI and Hurn, PD 2001 The effect of brief halothane anaesthesia during daily gavage on complications and body weight in rats. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 40(2): 9–12Google ScholarPubMed
Pekow, C and Baumans, V 2003 Common nonsurgical techniques and procedures. In: Hau J & Van Hoosier GL (eds) Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, Volume 1, 2nd Edition p 367. CRC Press LLC: Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
Singer, R, Harker, CT, Vander, AJ and Kluger, MJ 1986 Hyperthermia induced by open-field stress is blocked by salicylate. Physiology & Behavior 36: 1179–1182CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van den Buuse, M, Van Acker, SABE, Fluttert, M and De Kloet, ER 2001 Blood pressure, heart rate, and behavioural responses to psychological “novelty” stress in freely moving rats. Psychophysiology 38: 490–499Google ScholarPubMed
Van den Buuse, M, Van Acker, SABE, Fluttert, MFJ and De Kloet, ER 2002 Involvement of corticosterone in cardiovascular responses to an open-field novelty stressor in freely moving rats. Physiology & Behavior 75: 207–215Google Scholar