Lack of evidence for a consistent differential impact of tail and tunnel handling on markers of welfare in laboratory mice

Abstract 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 effe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Neele Meyer, Rebekka Gottschalk, Lena Jakobi, Anna-Maria Schönhoff, Chadi Touma
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Nature Portfolio 2025-07-01
Series:Scientific Reports
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-07384-w
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849766310472318976
author Neele Meyer
Rebekka Gottschalk
Lena Jakobi
Anna-Maria Schönhoff
Chadi Touma
author_facet Neele Meyer
Rebekka Gottschalk
Lena Jakobi
Anna-Maria Schönhoff
Chadi Touma
author_sort Neele Meyer
collection DOAJ
description Abstract 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.
format Article
id doaj-art-0ea77e82691440f8b77ccf5ddfcde909
institution DOAJ
issn 2045-2322
language English
publishDate 2025-07-01
publisher Nature Portfolio
record_format Article
series Scientific Reports
spelling doaj-art-0ea77e82691440f8b77ccf5ddfcde9092025-08-20T03:04:38ZengNature PortfolioScientific Reports2045-23222025-07-0115111310.1038/s41598-025-07384-wLack of evidence for a consistent differential impact of tail and tunnel handling on markers of welfare in laboratory miceNeele Meyer0Rebekka Gottschalk1Lena Jakobi2Anna-Maria Schönhoff3Chadi Touma4Department of Behavioural Biology, Osnabrück UniversityDepartment of Behavioural Biology, Osnabrück UniversityDepartment of Behavioural Biology, Osnabrück UniversityDepartment of Behavioural Biology, Osnabrück UniversityDepartment of Behavioural Biology, Osnabrück UniversityAbstract 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.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-07384-w
spellingShingle Neele Meyer
Rebekka Gottschalk
Lena Jakobi
Anna-Maria Schönhoff
Chadi Touma
Lack of evidence for a consistent differential impact of tail and tunnel handling on markers of welfare in laboratory mice
Scientific Reports
title Lack of evidence for a consistent differential impact of tail and tunnel handling on markers of welfare in laboratory mice
title_full Lack of evidence for a consistent differential impact of tail and tunnel handling on markers of welfare in laboratory mice
title_fullStr Lack of evidence for a consistent differential impact of tail and tunnel handling on markers of welfare in laboratory mice
title_full_unstemmed Lack of evidence for a consistent differential impact of tail and tunnel handling on markers of welfare in laboratory mice
title_short Lack of evidence for a consistent differential impact of tail and tunnel handling on markers of welfare in laboratory mice
title_sort lack of evidence for a consistent differential impact of tail and tunnel handling on markers of welfare in laboratory mice
url https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-07384-w
work_keys_str_mv AT neelemeyer lackofevidenceforaconsistentdifferentialimpactoftailandtunnelhandlingonmarkersofwelfareinlaboratorymice
AT rebekkagottschalk lackofevidenceforaconsistentdifferentialimpactoftailandtunnelhandlingonmarkersofwelfareinlaboratorymice
AT lenajakobi lackofevidenceforaconsistentdifferentialimpactoftailandtunnelhandlingonmarkersofwelfareinlaboratorymice
AT annamariaschonhoff lackofevidenceforaconsistentdifferentialimpactoftailandtunnelhandlingonmarkersofwelfareinlaboratorymice
AT chaditouma lackofevidenceforaconsistentdifferentialimpactoftailandtunnelhandlingonmarkersofwelfareinlaboratorymice