Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 10090055

Rodent quarantine programs: purpose, principles, and practice.

Abstract

In animal research, validity and reproducibility of data are critically influenced by the microbial status of the experimental animals. One of the most crucial aspects of assuring quality in animal research is providing research personnel with confidence that experimental results will not be invalidated due to interference caused by infectious disease. An effective quarantine program is essential to providing this assurance. Quarantine programs are generally instituted to prevent the introduction of rodent pathogens into established specific-pathogen-free colonies in a facility. Therefore, programs should be designed to isolate newly acquired rodents until their health status can be determined and to maximize the probability that microorganisms of interest will be detected before the animals are introduced into (and thus, could potentially contaminate) established colonies. Important principles that are critical to designing an effective quarantine program will be discussed here, as will the practical implementation of these principles. Although quarantine programs may be costly in terms of time and effort, these costs must be balanced against the potential costs of disease outbreaks that could invalidate long-term studies, alter normal biological baselines, and cause the loss or necessitate re-derivation of rare or valuable strains of rodents. Reducing the incidence of quarantine failures through appropriate program design and implementation helps to maintain the confidence of research personnel in the value of quarantine programs and in our competence as specialists in laboratory animal management and as partners in the research process.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J E Rehg, L A Toth. 1998. Rodent quarantine programs: purpose, principles, and practice.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10090055/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Detection of two porcine circovirus type 2 genotypic groups in United States swine herds.

In late 2005, sporadic cases of an acute onset disease of high mortality were observed in 10- to 16-week-old growing pigs among several swine herds of the United States. Tissues from the affected pigs in Kansas, Iowa, and North Carolina were examined, and porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) was detected consistently among these tissues. Phylogenetically, PCV2 can be divided into two major genotypic groups, PCV2-group 1 and PCV2-group 2. Whereas PCV2-group 1 isolates were detected in all the diseased animals, only two of the diseased animals harbored PCV2-group 2 isolates. This observation is important because PCV2-group 1 isolates had never been reported in the United States before (GenBank as of May 16, 2006), and they are closely related to the PCV2-group 1 isolates that have been described in Europe and Asia, previously. Our analysis revealed that each genotypic group contains a distinct stretch of nucleotide or amino acid sequence that may serve as a signature motif for PCV2-group 1 or PCV2-group 2 isolates.

Animal Husbandry↗

Performance of gestating sows in bedded hoop barns and confinement stalls.

The effects of gestation housing systems on sow and litter performance were evaluated for 2.5 yr in southwest Iowa. Gestation housing system treatments were as follows: 1) individual gestation stalls in a mechanically ventilated confinement building with a partially slatted floor and a manure flush system and 2) group pens with individual feed stalls in deep-bedded, naturally ventilated hoop barns. In all, 957 litters from 353 sows were evaluated. Number of pigs born alive per litter differed for the 2 housing treatments (P = 0.002). Sows gestated in hoop barns gave birth to more live pigs per litter (10.0 +/- 0.2 pigs) than sows gestated in stalls (9.3 +/- 0.2 pigs). Preweaning mortality was not different for the 2 housing treatments (P = 0.70). Cross-fostering was done to equalize litter size within 24 h of birth, which resulted in an equal number of weaned pigs per sow (P = 0.50) regardless of gestation housing treatment. The weaning-to-breeding interval was different (P = 0.01), with sows kept in stalls (4.3 +/- 0.6 d) returning to estrus sooner than sows gestated in hoop barns (6.0 +/- 0.6 d). These results indicate that gestating sows can be housed as groups in deep-bedded hoop barns equipped with individual feeding stalls and will perform comparably to gestating sows housed in confinement systems with individual gestation stalls.

Animal Husbandry↗