Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:10:37.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modulation of Aggression in Male Mice: Influence of Cage Cleaning Regime and Scent Marks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

P L P Van Loo ,
C L J J Kruitwagen ,
L F M Van Zutphen ,
J M Koolhaas  and
V Baumans
P L P Van Loo*
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Animal Science, Utrecht University, P O Box 80166, 3504 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands
C L J J Kruitwagen
Affiliation:
Centre for Biostatistics, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands
L F M Van Zutphen
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Animal Science, Utrecht University, P O Box 80166, 3504 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands
J M Koolhaas
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology, University of Groningen, P O Box 14, 9750 AA Haren, The Netherlands
V Baumans
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Animal Science, Utrecht University, P O Box 80166, 3504 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
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.

Group housing of male laboratory mice often leads to welfare problems due to aggressive behaviour. From a welfare perspective, individual housing is not a preferred solution to these problems - and so we sought other ways of reducing aggression between male mice. Aggression peaks after disturbances such as cage cleaning. Transfer of olfactory cues during cage cleaning procedures has been repeatedly proposed as a means of reducing these peaks in aggression. In this study, the aggression-modulating properties of olfactory cues were studied by investigating the effects of their source and distribution on aggression after cage cleaning in groups of male BALB/c mice. The physiological effects of aggression on individuals within a group were also monitored.

Our results indicated that neither kinship nor distribution of urine marks affected aggression. Olfactory cues from nesting and bedding material, however, affected aggression to a marked degree: transfer of nesting material reduced aggression significantly, while transfer of sawdust containing urine and faeces seemed to intensify aggression. None of the physiological data revealed any differences between dominant and subordinate animals, nor any correlations with aggressiveness, except that dominant animals gained weight more rapidly than subordinate ones. We conclude that the transfer of nesting material will reduce aggression, or at least slow down its development, and thus aid the reduction of social tension due to cage cleaning.

Keywords

aggressionanimal welfarekinshipmicenesting materialolfactory cues
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , August 2000 , pp. 281 - 295
Copyright
© 2000 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ader, R and Friedman, S B 1964 Social factors affecting emotionality and resistance to disease in animals: IV. Differential housing, emotionality, and Walker 256 carcinosarcoma in the rat. Psychological Reports 15: 535–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, H 1971 Long-term isolation stress and its effects on drug response in rodents. Laboratory Animal Science 21: 341–349Google ScholarPubMed
Barrett, A M and Stockman, M A 1966 One or many animals in a cage? Nutrition Reviews 24: 116–119Google Scholar
Bartos, L and Brain, P F 1994 Influence of body weight on dominance and aggression of male Swiss strain mice. Animal Technology 45: 161–168Google Scholar
Baumans, V 1999 The laboratory mouse. In: Poole, T (ed) UF AW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals, 7th edition pp 282–312. Blackwell Science Ltd: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Benus, R F, Den Daas, S, Koolhaas, J M and Van Oortmerssen, G A 1990 Routine formation and flexibility in social and non-social behaviour of aggressive and non-aggressive male mice. Behaviour 112: 176–193Google Scholar
Bisazza, A 1981 Social organization and territorial behaviour in three strains of mice. Bollettino Zoologica 48: 157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisazza, A 1982 Hereditary differences in social behaviour of male mice (Mus musculus L.). Bollettino Zoologica 49: 207–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, M J and Chevins, P F D 1987 Urine odours and marking patterns in territorial laboratory mice (Mus musculus). Behavioural Processes 15: 233–248CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bishop, M J and Chevins, P F D 1988 Territory formation by mice under laboratory conditions: welfare considerations. In: Laboratory Animal Welfare Research - Rodents pp 25-48 UFAW: South Mimms, UKGoogle Scholar
Blom, H J M, Witkamp, A C P, Schlingmann, F, Hoogervorst, M J C, Van de Weerd, H A, Baumans, V and Beynen, A C 1993 Demonstration of preference for clean versus soiled cages as expressed by laboratory mice. In: Blom H Evaluation of Housing Conditions for Laboratory Mice and Rats pp 81–99. Published PhD thesis. Febodruk: Enschede, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Brain, P F 1975 What does individual housing mean to a mouse? Life Sciences 16: 187–200CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brain, P F 1990 Variation in aggressiveness in house mouse populations. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 41: 257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brain, P F and Benton, D 1983 Conditions of housing, hormones, and aggressive behavior. In: Svare B B (ed) Hormones and Aggressive Behavior pp 351 -372. Plenum Press: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brain, P F and Parmigiani, S 1990 Variation in aggressiveness in house mouse populations. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 41: 257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R E 1985 The rodents II: suborder Myomorpha. In: Brown, R E and Macdonald, D W (eds) Social Odours in Mammals, Volume 1 pp 345–428. Clarendon Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Busser, J, Zweep, A and Van Oortmerssen, G A 1974 Variability in the aggressive behaviour of Mus musculus domesticus, its possible role in population structure. In: Van Abeelen, J N F (ed) The Genetics of Behaviour pp 185–199. North-Holland Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Chance, M R A and Mackintosh, J H 1962 The effects of caging. In: Collected Papers, Volume 11: The Environment of Laboratory Animals pp 59–64. Laboratory Animals Centre, MRC Laboratories: Carshalton, UKGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe 1997 Working party for the preparation of the multilateral consultation of parties to the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and Other Purposes (ETS 123). Resolution on the Accommodation and Care of Laboratory Animals, adopted by the multilateral consultation on May 30, 1997. Council of Europe: Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
Crowcroft, P 1966 Mice All Over. Foulis: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Desjardins, C, Maruniak, J A and Bronson, F H 1973 Social rank in house mice: differentiation revealed by ultraviolet visualization of urinary marking patterns. Science 182: 939–941CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dijkstra, H, Tilders, F J H, Hiehle, M A and Smelik, P G 1992 Hormonal reactions to fighting in rat colonies: prolactin rises during defence, not during offence. Physiology and Behavior 51: 961–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärtner, K 1968 Sammelreferat: zur Soziologie der Laboratoriumsratten, physiologische Psychologie der Gruppen- und Einzelhaltung. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 2: 45–48 and 4: 97–100Google Scholar
Gray, S and Hurst, J L 1995 The effects of cage cleaning on aggression within groups of male laboratory mice. Animal Behaviour 49: 821–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haseman, J K, Bourbina, J and Eustis, S L 1994 Effect of individual housing and other experimental design factors on tumor incidence in B6C3F1 mice. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 23: 44–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hatch, A M, Wiberg, G S, Zawidzka, Z, Cann, M, Airth, J M and Grice, H C 1965 Isolation syndrome in the rat. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 7: 737–745CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayashi, S and Kimura, T 1983 Degree of kinship as a factor regulating preferences among conspecifics in mice. Animal Behaviour 31: 81–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, J L 1990 Urine marking in populations of wild house mice Mus domesticus Rutty. I. Communication between males. Animal Behaviour 40: 209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, J L 1993 The priming effects of urine substrate marks on interactions between male house mice Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz. Animal Behaviour 45: 55–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, J L, Fang, J and Barnard, C J 1993 The role of substrate odours in maintaining social tolerance between male house mice, Mus musculus domesticus. Animal Behaviour 45: 997–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeppesen, L L and Hansen, J 1985 Comparisons of measures of dominance in adult and subadult male mice. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening i Koebenhavn 146: 47–62Google Scholar
Jones, R B and Nowell, N W 1975 Effects of clean and soiled sawdust substrates and of different urine types upon aggressive behavior in male mice. Aggressive Behavior 1: 111–1213.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kareem, A M 1983 Effect of increasing periods of familiarity on social interactions between male sibling mice. Animal Behaviour 31: 919–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kareem, A M and Barnard, C J 1982 The importance of kinship and familiarity in social interactions between mice. Animal Behaviour 30: 594–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kareem, A M and Barnard, C J 1986 Kin recognition in mice: age sex and parental effects. Animal Behaviour 34: 1814–1824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerspetz, K M J and Sandnabba, K 1982 The decline of aggressiveness in male mice during group caging as determined by punishment delivered by the cage mates. Aggressive Behavior 8: 319–3343.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, L A and Eleftheriou, B E 1980 Circadian variation in concentrations of testosterone in plasma of male mice: a difference between BALB/cBy and C57BL/6By inbred strains. Journal of Endocrinology 87: 37–46CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackintosh, J H 1970 Territory formation by laboratory mice. Animal Behaviour 18: 177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackintosh, J H 1973 Factors affecting the recognition of territory boundaries by mice (Mus musculus). Animal Behaviour 21: 464–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainardi, D, Mainardi, M, Parmigiani, S and Pasquali, A 1977 Relationship between aggressiveness due to isolation and social status in the house mouse. Lincei 63: 120–125Google Scholar
McGregor, P K, Barnard, C and Hurst, J L 1991 Reply to Jones R B 1991 ‘Varied cages and aggression. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 295–296.Google Scholar
Mondragón, R, Mayagoitia, L, López-Luján, A and Díaz, J 1987 Social structure features in three inbred strains of mice, C57B1/6J, Balb/cj, and NIH: A comparative study. Behavioral and Neural Biology 47: 384–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mugford, R A 1972 Infermale fighting affected by home-cage odors of male and female mice. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 84: 289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevison, C M, Barnard, C J, Beynon, R L and Hurst, J L 2000 The consequences of inbreeding for recognizing competitors. Proceedings of the Royal Society London, Series B 267: 687–694CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Donoghue, P N (ed) 1993 The Accommodation of Laboratory Animals in Accordance with Animal Welfare Requirements. Proceedings of an international workshop at the Bundesgesundheitsamt, Berlin, Germany 17-19 May 1993Google Scholar
Poole, T B and Morgan, H D R 1973 Differences in aggressive behaviour between male mice (Mus musculus L.) in colonies of different sizes. Animal Behaviour 21: 788–795CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poole, T B and Morgan, H D R 1976 Social and territorial behaviour of laboratory mice (Mus musculus L.) in small complex areas. Animal Behaviour 24: 476–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodent Refinement Working Party 1998 Refining rodent husbandry: the mouse. Laboratory Animals 32: 233–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ropartz, P 1977 Chemical signals in agonistic and social behavior of rodents. In: Müller-Schwarze D and Mozell M M Chemical Signals in Vertebrates pp 169–206. Plenum Press: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sluyter, F, Bult, A, Lynch, C B, Van Oortmerssen, G A and Koolhaas, J M 1995 A comparison between house mouse lines selected for attack latency or nest-building: evidence for a genetic basis of alternative behavioral strategies. Behavior Genetics 25: 247–252CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoddart, D M 1980 The Ecology of Vertebrate Olfaction pp 141–160. Chapman and Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Loo, P L P and Baumans, V 1998 Preference of subordinate male mice for their dominant cage mates. Aktuelle Arbeiten zur Artgemaessen Tierhaltung, KTBL-Schrift 380: 45–52Google Scholar
Van Oortmerssen, GA 1971 Biological significance, genetics and evolutionary origin of variability in behaviour within and between inbred strains of mice (Mus musculus) - a behaviour genetic study. Behaviour 38: 1–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winslow, J T and Miczek, K A 1984 Habituation of aggressive behavior in mice: a parametric study. Aggressive Behavior 10: 103–1133.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle Scholar