Identification of parasitic infection in laboratory rodents through contrast management methods

Parasites may be found in the skin and intestine of the laboratory mice (Mus musculus) and rat (Rattus norvegicus). High parasitic burden are known to influence experimental outcomes and results. Therefore, it is important to determine the impact of parasitic infestations on rodent study, especially...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Raslan, Nurul Ain Fatin
Format:	Thesis
Language:	English
Published:	2021
Subjects:	Veterinary parasitology - Research Mice as laboratory animals
Online Access:	http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/92916/1/FPV%202021%2013%20IR.pdf
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	my-upm-ir.92916
record_format	uketd_dc
spelling	my-upm-ir.929162022-05-17T02:54:48Z Identification of parasitic infection in laboratory rodents through contrast management methods 2021-03 Raslan, Nurul Ain Fatin Parasites may be found in the skin and intestine of the laboratory mice (Mus musculus) and rat (Rattus norvegicus). High parasitic burden are known to influence experimental outcomes and results. Therefore, it is important to determine the impact of parasitic infestations on rodent study, especially in Malaysia where some rodent colonies are still being kept in conventional systems. This study allows for the identification of common parasitic infection of laboratory rodents, assess the parasitic infection based on management methods of stocking density and environmental condition, and compare the parasitic infection between two conventional animal facilities. Firstly, seventytwo (72) laboratory rodents of BALB/c, ICR and Sprague Dawley (SD) were chosen from an animal facility located in Klang Valley and subjected to identification of common parasitic infections. Secondly, one hundred and eight (108) male BALB/c mice were randomly chosen and placed in three groups to reflect different stocking densities of 3, 6 and 9 mice per group, under different environmental settings of regulated and non-regulated environment for 5 weeks. Thirdly, sixty (60) BALB/c mice and sixty (60) SD rats were chosen to compare the parasitic infection between two conventional animal facilities. Helminths, ectoparasites and blood parasites were examined using conventional techniques. Parasites were identified based on observation and classification of their distinct characteristics under a compound microscope. Results showed that mice were commonly infected with pinworms; Syphacia obvelata (S. obvelata) and Aspiculuris tetraptera (A. tetraptera) whereas, rats were infected with Syphacia muris (S. muris) and A. tetraptera. The prevalence of the pinworms; S. obvelata in the mice range from 20.83% to 41.67%, S. muris in the rats at 83.33%, and A. tetraptera range from 8.33% to 45.83% in both species. Although the second findings revealed BALB/c mice placed in two different management settings had no association between parasitic infections with various stocking density and between different environmental condition using repeated-measures ANOVA, but association was observed using gastrointestinal examination and tape impression test when using one-way ANOVA. Ectoparasites suspected to be immature mites detected in non-regulated environment at a prevalence of 20.4%, with an association found using the tape impression test under one-way ANOVA. Finally, the comparison between two different conventional animal facilities demonstrated that ICR mice were infected with a common fur mite; Myocoptes musculinus (M. musculinus) and lice; Polyplax serrata (P. serrata) while the SD rats were infected by uncommon parasites; Heterakis spumosa (H. spumosa) that is normally found in wild rats, and Chirodiscoides caviae (C. caviae), a common fur mite in guinea pigs. The results also revealed an association between parasitic infections and different management of animal facilities for laboratory mice and rats using the Chi-square test. Overall, management plays an important factor in parasitic infestation of laboratory rodents. The findings highlight the parasites identified in laboratory rodents varied according to the parasitological methods used following the contrast management method of stocking density, environmental condition and facility. Veterinary parasitology - Research Mice as laboratory animals 2021-03 Thesis http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/92916/ http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/92916/1/FPV%202021%2013%20IR.pdf text en public masters Universiti Putra Malaysia Veterinary parasitology - Research Mice as laboratory animals Saulol Hamid, Nur Fazila
institution	Universiti Putra Malaysia
collection	PSAS Institutional Repository
language	English
advisor	Saulol Hamid, Nur Fazila
topic	Veterinary parasitology - Research Mice as laboratory animals
spellingShingle	Veterinary parasitology - Research Mice as laboratory animals Raslan, Nurul Ain Fatin Identification of parasitic infection in laboratory rodents through contrast management methods
description	Parasites may be found in the skin and intestine of the laboratory mice (Mus musculus) and rat (Rattus norvegicus). High parasitic burden are known to influence experimental outcomes and results. Therefore, it is important to determine the impact of parasitic infestations on rodent study, especially in Malaysia where some rodent colonies are still being kept in conventional systems. This study allows for the identification of common parasitic infection of laboratory rodents, assess the parasitic infection based on management methods of stocking density and environmental condition, and compare the parasitic infection between two conventional animal facilities. Firstly, seventytwo (72) laboratory rodents of BALB/c, ICR and Sprague Dawley (SD) were chosen from an animal facility located in Klang Valley and subjected to identification of common parasitic infections. Secondly, one hundred and eight (108) male BALB/c mice were randomly chosen and placed in three groups to reflect different stocking densities of 3, 6 and 9 mice per group, under different environmental settings of regulated and non-regulated environment for 5 weeks. Thirdly, sixty (60) BALB/c mice and sixty (60) SD rats were chosen to compare the parasitic infection between two conventional animal facilities. Helminths, ectoparasites and blood parasites were examined using conventional techniques. Parasites were identified based on observation and classification of their distinct characteristics under a compound microscope. Results showed that mice were commonly infected with pinworms; Syphacia obvelata (S. obvelata) and Aspiculuris tetraptera (A. tetraptera) whereas, rats were infected with Syphacia muris (S. muris) and A. tetraptera. The prevalence of the pinworms; S. obvelata in the mice range from 20.83% to 41.67%, S. muris in the rats at 83.33%, and A. tetraptera range from 8.33% to 45.83% in both species. Although the second findings revealed BALB/c mice placed in two different management settings had no association between parasitic infections with various stocking density and between different environmental condition using repeated-measures ANOVA, but association was observed using gastrointestinal examination and tape impression test when using one-way ANOVA. Ectoparasites suspected to be immature mites detected in non-regulated environment at a prevalence of 20.4%, with an association found using the tape impression test under one-way ANOVA. Finally, the comparison between two different conventional animal facilities demonstrated that ICR mice were infected with a common fur mite; Myocoptes musculinus (M. musculinus) and lice; Polyplax serrata (P. serrata) while the SD rats were infected by uncommon parasites; Heterakis spumosa (H. spumosa) that is normally found in wild rats, and Chirodiscoides caviae (C. caviae), a common fur mite in guinea pigs. The results also revealed an association between parasitic infections and different management of animal facilities for laboratory mice and rats using the Chi-square test. Overall, management plays an important factor in parasitic infestation of laboratory rodents. The findings highlight the parasites identified in laboratory rodents varied according to the parasitological methods used following the contrast management method of stocking density, environmental condition and facility.
format	Thesis
qualification_level	Master's degree
author	Raslan, Nurul Ain Fatin
author_facet	Raslan, Nurul Ain Fatin
author_sort	Raslan, Nurul Ain Fatin
title	Identification of parasitic infection in laboratory rodents through contrast management methods
title_short	Identification of parasitic infection in laboratory rodents through contrast management methods
title_full	Identification of parasitic infection in laboratory rodents through contrast management methods
title_fullStr	Identification of parasitic infection in laboratory rodents through contrast management methods
title_full_unstemmed	Identification of parasitic infection in laboratory rodents through contrast management methods
title_sort	identification of parasitic infection in laboratory rodents through contrast management methods
granting_institution	Universiti Putra Malaysia
publishDate	2021
url	http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/92916/1/FPV%202021%2013%20IR.pdf
_version_	1747813778355912704

Identification of parasitic infection in laboratory rodents through contrast management methods

Similar Items