Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Taming anxiety in laboratory mice

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:

From Nature Methods

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Abstract

Routine laboratory animal handling has profound effects on their anxiety and stress responses, but little is known about the impact of handling method. We found that picking up mice by the tail induced aversion and high anxiety, whereas use of tunnels or open hand led to voluntary approach, low anxiety and acceptance of physical restraint. Using the latter methods, one can minimize a widespread source of anxiety in laboratory mice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1: Effect of handling method on voluntary interaction with the handler and behavior in an elevated plus maze, tested during the dark phase of the diurnal cycle.
Figure 2: Voluntary interaction with the handler after restraint by the scruff for mice experienced with different handling methods.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Holson, R.R., Scallet, A.C., Ali, S.F. & Turner, B.B. Physiol. Behav. 49, 1107–1118 (1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rodgers, R.J. & Dalvi, A. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 21, 801–810 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schmitt, U. & Hiemke, C. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 59, 807–811 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Balcombe, J.P., Barnard, N.D. & Sandusky, C. Contemp. Top. Lab. Anim. Sci. 43, 42–51 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Leussis, M.P. & Heinrichs, S.C. Epilepsia 47, 801–804 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wahlsten, D. et al. J. Neurobiol. 54, 283–311 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Deacon, R.M. Nat. Protoc. 1, 936–946 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Leach, M.C. & Main, D.C. Anim. Welf. 17, 171–187 (2008).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ramos, A. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 29, 493–498 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Henderson, N.D., Turri, M.G., DeFries, J.C. & Flint, J. Behav. Genet. 34, 267–293 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Barros, M. & Tomaz, C. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 26, 187–201 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Augustsson, H., Dahlborn, K. & Meyerson, B.J. Physiol. Behav. 84, 265–277 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Roy, V., Merali, Z., Poulter, M.O. & Anisman, H. Behav. Brain Res. 185, 49–58 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Meddis, R. Statistics Using Ranks: A Unified Approach. (Basil Blackwell Publisher Ltd, Oxford, 1984.)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank R. Beynon, F. Fair, J. Waters, S. Roberts, M. Garratt, J.-F. Lemaitre, S. Ramm, M. Thom, S. Rounding and R. Humphries for practical assistance, and R. Beynon, P. Stockley, S. Roberts and J. Rees for comments on a draft manuscript. The study was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, the Wellcome Trust and the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mammalian Behaviour and Evolution Group, Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston, UK.,

    Jane L Hurst & Rebecca S West

Authors
  1. Jane L Hurst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca S West
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.L.H. gained the funding and designed the project with contributions from R.S.W.; J.L.H. and R.S.W. collected data; and J.L.H. supervised all aspects of the work, analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jane L Hurst.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–6 and Supplementary Tables 1–5 (PDF 1665 kb)

Supplementary Movie 1

Example of the tail handling method. (MOV 2842 kb)

Supplementary Movie 2

Example of the tunnel handling method. (MOV 3685 kb)

Supplementary Movie 3

Example of the cup handling method on day 1 and on subsequent days. (MOV 5425 kb)

Supplementary Movie 4

Voluntary interaction after tail handling. Typical responses of BALB/c, C57BL/6 and ICR(CD-1) mice after handling in the ninth session. (MOV 7234 kb)

Supplementary Movie 5

Voluntary interaction after tunnel handling. Typical responses of BALB/c, C57BL/6 and ICR(CD-1) mice after handling in the ninth session. (MOV 6835 kb)

Supplementary Movie 6

Voluntary interaction after cup handling. Typical responses of BALB/c, C57BL/6 and ICR(CD-1) mice after handling in the ninth session. (MOV 7251 kb)

Supplementary Movie 7

Examples of first transfer from tunnel to hand using the combined method for C57BL/6 mice. (MOV 5429 kb)

Supplementary Movie 8

Voluntary interaction after combined tunnel to cup handling. Typical responses of C57BL/6 mice after direct cup handling in the ninth session. (MOV 5465 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hurst, J., West, R. Taming anxiety in laboratory mice. Nat Methods 7, 825–826 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1500

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1500

  • Springer Nature America, Inc.

This article is cited by

Search

Navigation