Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:59:38.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A study on some welfare-related parameters of hDAF transgenic pigs when compared with their conventional close relatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2014

G. Martelli ,
L. Sardi ,
L. Stancampiano ,
N. Govoni ,
A. Zannoni ,
E. Nannoni ,
M. Forni  and
M. L. Bacci
G. Martelli*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Via Tolara di Sopra 50, Ozzano dell’Emilia, 40064 Bologna, Italy
L. Sardi
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Via Tolara di Sopra 50, Ozzano dell’Emilia, 40064 Bologna, Italy
L. Stancampiano
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Via Tolara di Sopra 50, Ozzano dell’Emilia, 40064 Bologna, Italy
N. Govoni
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Via Tolara di Sopra 50, Ozzano dell’Emilia, 40064 Bologna, Italy
A. Zannoni
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Via Tolara di Sopra 50, Ozzano dell’Emilia, 40064 Bologna, Italy
E. Nannoni
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Via Tolara di Sopra 50, Ozzano dell’Emilia, 40064 Bologna, Italy
M. Forni
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Via Tolara di Sopra 50, Ozzano dell’Emilia, 40064 Bologna, Italy
M. L. Bacci
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Via Tolara di Sopra 50, Ozzano dell’Emilia, 40064 Bologna, Italy
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Pigs are increasingly used in medical research as transgenic laboratory animals; however, little knowledge is presently available concerning their welfare assessment. The aim of the present study was to investigate some welfare-related parameters of transgenic pigs intended for xenotrasplantation (human decay-accelerating factor (hDAF)) when compared with their conventional (i.e. not transgenic) close relatives (full sibs and half sibs). A total of 14 Large White female transgenic pigs and 10 female non-transgenic (conventional) pigs from four litters were used. All pigs were from the same conventional boar, donor of the semen treated for sperm-mediated gene transfer. During the experiment, BW ranged from 50 to about 80 kg and pigs were weighed at the beginning and at the end of the experiment. Animals were subjected to a set of behavioural tests: a human approach test (HAT), a novel object test (NOT) and an open-door test (ODT). Food preferences were tested through the offer of different foods (banana, apple, carrot, cracker and lemon). During a 4-day period, pigs were diurnally videotaped to study the prevalence of the different behaviours and social interactions (aggressive and non-aggressive interactions). At the end of the trial, cortisol level had been assessed on bristles. No significant differences (P>0.05) were observed between hDAF transgenic and conventional pigs with respect to growth traits, reactivity towards unexpected situations (HAT, NOT, ODT), food preferences, main behavioural traits, social interactions and hair cortisol.

Keywords

transgenic pighDAFbehaviouranimal welfare
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 5 , May 2014 , pp. 810 - 816
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archer, GS, Friend, TH, Piedrahita, J, Nevill, CH and Walker, S 2003. Behavioural variation among cloned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 82, 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM 1991. Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69, 4167–4175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, DM 1993. Assessing the welfare of modified or treated animals. Livestock Production Science 36, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, MD, Tiefenbacher, S, Lutz, CK, Novak, MA and Meyer, JS 2006. Analysis of endogenous cortisol concentrations in the hair of Rhesus macaques . General and Comparative Endocrinology 147, 255–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deppenmeier, S, Bock, O, Mengel, M, Niemann, H, Kues, W, Lemme, E, Wirth, D, Wonigeit, K and Kreipe, H 2006. Health status of transgenic pigs expressing the human complement regulatory protein CD59. Xenotransplantation 13, 345–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diaz, F, Speer, VC, Ashton, GC, Liu, CH and Catron, DV 1956. Comparison of refined cane sugar, invert cane molasses and unrefined cane sugar in starter rations for early weaned pigs. Journal of Animal Science 15, 315–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EFSA 2007. Scientific Report on animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry. Annex to the EFSA Journal 564, 1–14.Google Scholar
Estrada, J, Sommer, J, Collins, B, Mir, B, Martin, A, York, A, Petters, RM and Piedrahita, JA 2007. Swine generated by somatic cell nuclear transfer have increased incidence of intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). Cloning Stem Cells 9, 229–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eurobarometer 2010. Special Eurobarometer 341. Wave 73.1. Biotechnology. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf Google Scholar
Hay, M, Vulin, A, Génin, S, Sales, P and Prunier, A 2003. Assessment of pain induced by castration in piglets: behavioral and physiological responses over the subsequent 5 days. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 82, 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, RC, Remuge, L, Carlisle, A, Lillico, S, Sandøe, P, Sørensen, DB, Whitelaw, CBA and Olsson, IAS 2012. Welfare assessment in transgenic pigs expressing green fluorescent protein (GFP). Transgenic Research 21, 773–784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, PGG and Cockcroft, PD 2002. Clinical examination of farm animals. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jegstrup, I, Thon, R, Hansen, AK and Ritskes Hoitinga, M 2003. Characterization of transgenic mice a comparison of protocols for welfare evaluation and phenotype characterization of mice with a suggestion on a future certificate of instruction. Laboratory Animals 37, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, P 1980. An ethogram of social interaction patterns in group housed dry sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 6, 341–350.Google Scholar
Koolhaas, JM, Korte, SM, De Boer, SF, Van der Vegt, BJ, Van Reenen, CG, Hopster, H, De Jong, IC, Ruis, MAW and Blokhyuis, HJ 1999. Coping styles in animals: current status in behavior and stress-physiology. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 23, 925–935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lassen, J, Gjerris, M and Sandøe, P 2006. After Dolly – ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals. Theriogenology 65, 992–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavitrano, M, Forni, M, Bacci, ML, Di Stefano, C, Varzi, V, Wang, H and Seren, E 2003. Sperm mediated gene transfer in pig: selection of donor boars and optimization of DNA uptake. Molecular Reproduction and Development 64, 284–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavitrano, M, Bacci, ML, Forni, M, Lazzereschi, D, Di Stefano, C, Fioretti, D, Giancotti, P, Marfé, G, Pucci, L, Renzi, L, Wang, H, Stoppacciaro, A, Stassi, G, Sargiacomo, M, Sinibaldi, P, Turchi, V, Giovannoni, R, Della Casa, G, Seren, E and Rossi, G 2002. Efficient production by sperm-mediated gene transfer of human decay accelerating factor (hDAF) transgenic pigs for xenotransplantation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99, 14230–14235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyons, CAP, Bruce, JM, Fowler, VR and English, PR 1995. A comparison of productivity and welfare of growing pigs in four intensive systems. Livestock Production Science 43, 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martelli, G, Boccuzzi, R, Grandi, M, Mazzone, G, Zaghini, G and Sardi, L 2010. The effects of two different light intensities on the production and behavioural traits of Italian heavy pigs. Berliner und Münchener tierärztliche Wochenschrift 123, 457–462.Google ScholarPubMed
Nannoni, E, Martelli, G, Cecchini, M, Vignola, G, Zaghini, G and Sardi, L 2013. Water requirements of liquid-fed heavy pigs: effect of water restriction on growth traits, animal welfare and meat and ham quality. Livestock Science 151, 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemann, H, Kues, W and Carnwath, JW 2005. Transgenic farm animals: present and future. Revue scientifique et technique de l’Office international des épizooties 24, 285–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
OIE 2010. Introduction to the recommendations for animal welfare. Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Retrieved June 1, 2013, from http://web.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.7.1.htm Google Scholar
Olsson, IAS and Sandøe, P 2004. Ethical decisions concerning animal biotechnology: what is the role of animal welfare science? Animal Welfare 13, S139–S144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormandy, EH, Dale, J and Griffin, G 2011. Genetic engineering of animals: ethical issues, including welfare concerns. Canadian Veterinary Journal 52, 544–550.Google ScholarPubMed
Ormandy, EH, Schuppli, CA and Weary, DM 2013. Public attitudes toward the use of animals in research: effects of invasiveness, genetic modification and regulation. Anthrozoos 26, 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, DC, Fisher, EM, Brown, SD, Peters, J, Hunter, AJ and Martin, JE 1997. Behavioral and functional analysis of mouse phenotype: SHIRPA, a proposed protocol for comprehensive phenotype assessment. Mammalian Genome 8, 711–713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russel, E, Koren, G, Rieder, M and Van Uum, S 2012. Hair cortisol as a biological marker of chronic stress: current status, future directions and unanswered questions. Psychoneuroendocrinology 37, 589–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P and Holtug, N 1993. Transgenic animals. Which worries are ethically significant? Livestock Production Science 36, 113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scipioni, R, Martelli, G and Volpelli, LA 2009. Assessment of welfare in pigs. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8 (suppl. 1), 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperandio, S, Lulli, V, Bacci, ML, Forni, M, Maione, B, Spadafora, C and Lavitrano, M 1996. Sperm mediated DNA tranfer in bovine and swine species. Animal Biotechnology 7, 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
StataCorp 2009. Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. StataCorp LP, College Station, TX.Google Scholar
Studniz, M, Jensen, MB and Pedersen, LJ 2007. Why do pigs root and in what will they root? A review on the exploratory behaviour of pigs in relation to environmental enrichment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107, 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamanini, C, Giordano, N, Chiesa, F and Seren, E 1983. Plasma cortisol variations induced in the stallion by mating. Acta Endocrinologica 102, 447–450.Google ScholarPubMed
Tucker, A, Belcher, C, Moloo, B, Bell, J, Mazzulli, T, Humar, A, Hughes, A, McArdle, P and Talbot, A 2002. The production of transgenic pigs for potential use in clinical transplantation: baseline clinical pathology and organ size studies. Xenotransplantation 3, 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Meer, M, Rolls, A, Baumans, V, Olivier, B and van Zutphen, B 2001. Use of score sheets for welfare assessment of transgenic mice. Laboratory Animals 35, 379–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Erp-van der Kooij, E, Kuijpers, AH, Schrama, JW, van Eerdenburg, FJCM, Schouten, WGP and Tielen, MJM 2002. Can we predict behaviour in pigs? Searching for consistency in behaviour over time and across situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75, 293–305.Google Scholar
Webster, NL, Forni, M, Bacci, ML, Giovannoni, R, Razzini, R, Fantinati, P, Zannoni, A, Fusetti, L, Dalprà, L, Bianco, MR, Papa, M, Seren, E, Sandrin, MS, Mc Kenzie, IFC and Lavitrano, M 2005. Multi-transgenic pigs expressing three fluorescent proteins produced with high efficiency by sperm mediated gene transfer. Molecular Reproduction and Development 72, 68–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare quality assessment protocols. Lelystat, the Nederlands, 122pp. Retrieved June 1, 2013, from: http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/network/45848/7/0/40 Google Scholar
Wells, DJ, Playle, LC, Enser, WE, Flecknell, PA, Gardiner, MA, Holland, J, Howard, BR, Hubrecht, R, Humphreys, KR, Jackson, IJ, Lane, N, Maconochie, M, Mason, G, Morton, DB, Raymond, R, Robinson, V, Smith, JA and Watt, N 2006. Assessing the welfare of genetically altered mice. Laboratory Animals 40, 111–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed