Influence of Animal Handling and Housing on Multimodality Imaging

  • David Stout


Development of small-animal imaging systems for functional and anatomical measurements resulted in a fundamental shift toward smaller animals being used for medical research. Rodents, in particular rats and mice, have become the most commonly used species due in part to their low cost, ability to image large numbers quickly, and ease of handling. This had led to the development of support devices such as imaging chambers and specialized anesthesia systems. These imaging chambers provide physiological and physical support for imaging animals, which in turn facilitates imaging animals multiple times and in multiple imaging systems. The ability to reproducibly position animals greatly aids in image analysis, making it easier to co-register and fuse images, draw and reuse regions of interest across studies, and create uniformly positioned images for presentation.

The focus of this chapter is on imaging chambers and the physiological variations that can occur due to variations in handling and housing conditions and how these factors impact image fusion and analysis. The ideal conditions are dependent on the experimental design requirements for each particular research investigation; thus it is essential to have a range of conditions suitable for imaging research. Well-defined and followed protocols are important for any scientific research project; however the appropriate animal model, housing, and handling conditions vary, and no one set of conditions can be applied to all animal research.


  1. 1.
    Glasser O. Wilhelm Röntgen and the early history of the Roentgen rays. San Francisco, CA: Norman Publishing; 1993. p. 25, ISBN: 0930405226.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jaszczak RJ. The early years of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT): an anthology of selected reminiscences. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:R99–115. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Portnow LH, Vaillancourt DE, Okun MS. The history of cerebral PET scanning. Neurology. 2013;80:952. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cherry SR, Gambhir SS. Use of positron emission tomography in animal research. ILAR J. 2001;42(3):219–32. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zinn KR, Chaudhuri TR, Szafran AA, O’Quinn D, Weaver C, Dugger K, Lamar D, Kesterson RA, Wang X, Frank SJ. Noninvasive bioluminescence imaging in small animals. ILAR J. 2008;49(1):103–15. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Osborne DR, Kuntner C, Berr S, Stout DB. Guidance of efficient small animal imaging quality control. Mol Imaging Biol. 2017;19:485–98. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Magota K, Kudo N, Kuge Y, Nishijima K, Zhao S, Tamaki N. Performance characterization of the Inveon preclinical small-animal PET/SPECT/CT system for multimodality imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:742–52. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chehade M, Srivastava AK, Bulte JWM. Co-registration of bioluminescence tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging for multimodal in vivo stem cell tracking. Tomography. 2016;2:158–65. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Torigian DA, Zaidi H, Kwee TC, Saboury B, Udupa JK, Cho ZHC, Alavi A. PET/MR imaging: technical aspects and potential clinical applications. Radiology. 2013;267:26–44. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Judenhofer MS, Wehrl HF, Newport DF, et al. Simultaneous PET-MRI: a new approach for functional and morphological imaging. Nat Med. 2008;14:459–65. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sasser TA, Chapman SE, Sanders I, Liepert L, Leevy WM. Cross-platform MRI/PET or MRI/SPECT imaging, and co-registration. 2016. Available at: Accessed 1 Nov 2016.
  12. 12.
    Suckow CE, Kuntner C, Chow PL, Silverman RW, Chatziioannou AF, Stout DB. Multimodality rodent imaging chambers for use under barrier conditions with gas anesthesia. Mol Imaging Biol. 2009;11:100–6. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oliveira FP, Tavares JM. Medical image registration: a review. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng. 2014;17:73–93. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang H, Stout D, Chatziioannou A. A deformable atlas of the laboratory mouse. Mol Imaging Biol. 2015;17:18–28. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Segars WP, Tsui BMW, Frey EC, Johnson GA, Berr SS. Development of a 4D digital mouse phantom for molecular imaging research. Mol Imaging Biol. 2004;6:149–59. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fueger BJ, Czernin J, Hildebrandt I, Tran C, Halpern BS, Stout DB, Phelps ME, Weber WA. Impact of animal handling on the results of FDG-PET studies in mice. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(6):999–1006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    David J, Knowles S, Lamkin D, Stout D. Individually ventilated cages impose cold stress on laboratory mice: a source of systemic experimental variability. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2013;52:738–44.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    David J, Chatziioannou A, Taschereau R, Wang H, Stout D. The hidden cost of housing practices: quantifying the metabolic demands of chronic cold-stress of laboratory mice with non-invasive imaging. Comp Med. 2013;63(5):386–91.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jilge B, Kunz E. The laboratory mouse, Chapter 20. London: Elsevier Academic Press; 2004. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stout D, Berr S, LeBlanc A, Kalen J, Osborne D, Price J, Schiffer W, Kuntner C, Wall J. Guidance for methods descriptions used in preclinical imaging papers. Mol Imaging Biol. 2013;12:1–15.Google Scholar
  21. 21.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Stout
    • 1
  1. 1.D&D DesignCulver CityUSA

Personalised recommendations