An excerpt from MD Biosciences publication in the Autumn 2022 issue of Göttingen Minipigs Magazine.
MD Biosciences operates a neuroscience research facility that was purpose-built for translational research and includes dedicated wings for in vitro and biomarker assays, rodent and translational pig research. Since the opening of the research facility in 2021, we have been monitored the effect of this purpose-built facility on behavior assays and compared it to data from standard housing facilities. Findings are ongoing, however an intermediate finding of results has been published.
Across species, it is an established fact that behavior assays depend on housing environmental conditions such as light/dark cycles, temperature and humidity, noise, bedding, enrichment, and handling. In farm pigs, poor housing in barren conditions can cause damaging behaviors such as tail and ear biting. These factors lead to chronic stress and alteration of the pig’s immunity, and can affect pain behavior significantly.
Pain by definition, is a subjective experience. This makes pain evaluation in humans challenging and almost impossible to do by another person. In humans, the assessment of pain mostly relies on verbal reporting, while in animals, the assessment of pain relies on animal withdrawal from a stimulus and/or behavioral scoring. Both approaches are highly dependent, among other things, on the animal’s stressful or stress-free environment.
In this report, we examine the effect of Standard Housing Conditions (SHC) and Specifically Designed Housing Conditions (SDHC) focused on behavioral assessment on the pig outcome following PNT induction of chronic pain.
The model was running in two different vivariums: one is a standard swine facility for research, and the other is a new, state-of-the-art facility, specifically purpose-built for swine behavior studies.
The standard facility houses pigs in a corridor of rectangular pens on both sides, which are separated by opaque walls. Pigs are housed in groups of two or three, and the animals and pens are washed each morning with water. The animals are fed twice daily, and enrichments includes a choice of materials and balls. A well-trained caretaker enters the pens once daily for handling. While all tests are carried out in the pig ́s home pen, locomotor activity is evaluated by gently walking the pigs to the open field arena, (sized 1.2mX2.4m). Supportive medications such as antibiotics are delivered by IM injections.
The new facility is built in a U-shape with square pens separated by bars allowing the pigs to interact with one another visually and vocally. The open side of the U-shape has a gate leading to a shared, middle space in which the pigs can enter and play. Pigs may interact freely with pigs from other pens. The pigs are held on sawdust that is replaced daily with no washing and are fed twice daily. Pens are opened twice daily for the animals to play with the caretaker (rope, balls, “feed-me”, and other tasks). All medication is administered orally after training.
Pigs are also taught to climb on to the balance weighing scale. This paper reports the preliminary results of an on-going study that looks at the effect of the different housing and handling conditions on the outcome of a PNT model.
Behavior tests evaluated in both SDH and SDHC:
Approaching test to assess acclimationThe normal behavior of the pigs upon the entry of the researcher entering their housing pen is to initially move away from the intruder and then approach them. The more familiar the pigs are with the person and the more comfortable they feel, the less time it takes them to approach.
Data below shows the time in seconds that it took for the animals to approach the researcher entering their pen. Animals housed in the SDHC facility acclimated faster as was expressed by the faster reduction in the approaching time on study day 4 and 10 (***p<0.001 vs. SDHC).
The withdrawal response to mechanical stimulation was as- sessed using the von Frey methodology. The animals housed in the SDHC facility showed more stable results and also expressed higher withdrawal force vs. the animals housed in the SHC facility (*p<0.05 vs. SDHC).
The open field apparatus size was either 2.5m wide by 4.8 meters long (smaller open field), or 4 meters wide by 4 meters long (new open field). The walls of the small open-field were smooth and 1.6m high. The new open field was a separate room. The animals were introduced to the open field for 5 minutes. The walking pattern of the animals was recorded using a CCTV camera connected to the AnyMaze data acquisition software. After each open field session, the total walking distance was presented, as well as the walking pattern.
At baseline, before the injury, the animals that were exposed to the larger open-field arena in the SDHC facility walked significantly more than the animals exposed to the smaller open- field arena in the SHC facility (figure 4) (56.33±21.13 meters vs. 73.57±35.72).
Following PNT the animals exposed to the smaller open field arena, at the SHC facility, showed a transient decrease in loco- motor activity. Animals exposed to the large open field arena showed no change in the locomotor activity and no reduction in walking distance.
Summary
The results of this study are ongoing, however some notable differences have already been observed between SHC and SDHC and the effect on behavior assays:
To read the full publication, click here.
For a virtual walk through of the CNS Research Facility with Specifically designed housing conditions (SDHC), click here.
To speak with a neuroscientist about running a translational pig model, click here.