Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of methods for detection of pinworms in mice and rats

  • Research Note
  • Published:
Lab Animal

Abstract

Though pinworm infestation remains common in laboratory rodent colonies, there is little information regarding current practices for pinworm detection and their relative efficacy. The authors surveyed research institutions to find out the prevalence of pinworm infestations and the detection methods they used. They also tested mice and rats from colonies that were known to be infested with Syphacia sp. and compared the following detection methods: perianal tape test, fecal flotation, fecal concentration, cecal content examination, cecal flotation and histological examination. Though the different methods yielded comparable efficacy overall, the authors recommend using more than one type of test to increase detection potential.

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
Figure 2: Life cycles of Syphacia sp. and A. tetraptera. Syphacia sp. adults reside primarily in the cecum.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pritchett, K.R. in The Mouse in Biomedical Research 2nd edn., vol. 2 (eds. Fox, J.G. et al.) 551–564 (Academic, New York, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nakagawa, M. et al. Ten years-long survey on pathogen status of mouse and rat breeding colonies. Jikken Dobutsu 33, 115–120 (1984).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hasslinger, M.A. & Wiethe, T. [Oxyurid infestation of small laboratory animals and its control with ivermectin; article in German]. Tierarztl Prax. 15, 93–97 (1987).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Baker, D.G. in Flynn's Parasites of Laboratory Animals 2nd edn. (ed. Baker, D.G. ) 303–397 (Blackwell, Ames, IA, 2007).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Bazzano, T., Restel, T.I., Pinto, R.M. & Gomes, D.C. Patterns of infection with the nematodes Syphacia obvelata and Aspiculuris tetraptera in conventionally maintained laboratory mice. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 97, 847–853 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baker, D.G. Natural Pathogens of Laboratory Animals: Their Effects on Research (American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, 2003).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Smith, P.H., Wiles, S.E., Malone, J.B. & Monahan, C.M. in Flynn's Parasites of Laboratory Animals 2nd edn. (ed. Baker, D.G. ) 1–13 (Blackwell, Ames, IA, 2007).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Goncalves, L., Pinto, R.M., Vicente, J.J., Noronha, D. & Gomes, D.C. Helminth parasites of conventionally maintained laboratory mice—II. Inbred strains with an adaptation of the anal swab technique. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 93, 121–126 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, National Research Council. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996).

  10. Snedecor, G.W. & Cochran, W.G. Statistical Methods 7th edn. 127 (Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Margaret Juliana and Lauretta Gerrity for consultation and manuscript review. Histology services were provided by the Comparative Pathology Laboratory of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn, AL

    J. Camille Effler

  2. Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

    Judy M. Hickman-Davis

  3. Comparative Pathology Library, 720 Kaul Genetics Building, 720 S 20th St., University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, 35294, AL

    Julie G. Erwin

  4. Animal Resources Program, 720 Kaul Genetics Building, 720 S 20th St., University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, 35294, AL

    Samuel C. Cartner

  5. Department of Genetics, 720 Kaul Genetics Building, 720 S 20th St., University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, 35294, AL

    Trenton R. Schoeb

Authors
  1. J. Camille Effler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Judy M. Hickman-Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julie G. Erwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Samuel C. Cartner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Trenton R. Schoeb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trenton R. Schoeb.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Effler, J., Hickman-Davis, J., Erwin, J. et al. Comparison of methods for detection of pinworms in mice and rats. Lab Anim 37, 210–215 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0508-210

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0508-210

  • Springer Nature America, Inc.

Search

Navigation