Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22326784›Full record

ArticleToxicology and applied pharmacology2012

A less stressful alternative to oral gavage for pharmacological and toxicological studies in mice.

Mary K Walker, Jason R Boberg, Mary T Walsh, Valerie Wolf, Alisha Trujillo, Melissa Skelton Duke, Rupert Palme, Linda A Felton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicology and applied pharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 146 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Chewable Tablets for Precise Unit Dosing of Animals.Journal of pharmaceutical innovation · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Effects of Long-Term Carprofen and Omeprazole Administration in C57BL/6J Mice.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mary K WalkerDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA. mwalker@salud.unm.edu
Jason R Boberg
Mary T Walsh
Valerie Wolf
Alisha Trujillo
Melissa Skelton Duke
Rupert Palme
Linda A Felton
University of New Mexico · USUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Vienna · AT

Funding

Ah Receptor and Endothelin-Dependent HypertensionR01HL078914 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO · PI WALKER, MARY K · 2006 to 2010
$1.9M
NHLBI NIH HHS HL078914NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL078914
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oral gavage dosing can induce stress and potentially confound experimental measurements, particularly when blood pressure and heart rate are endpoints of interest. Thus, we developed a pill formulation that mice would voluntarily consume and tested the hypothesis that pill dosing would be significantly less stressful than oral gavage. C57Bl/6 male mice were singly housed and on four consecutive days were exposed to an individual walking into the room (week 1, control), a pill being placed into the cage (week 2), and a dose of water via oral gavage (week 3). Blood pressure and heart rate were recorded by radiotelemetry continuously for 5h after treatment, and feces collected 6-10h after treatment for analysis of corticosterone metabolites. Both pill and gavage dosing significantly increased mean arterial pressure (MAP) during the first hour, compared to control. However, the increase in MAP was significantly greater after gavage and remained elevated up to 5h, while MAP returned to normal within 2h after a pill. Neither pill nor gavage dosing significantly increased heart rate during the first hour, compared to control; however, pill dosing significantly reduced heart rate while gavage significantly increased heart rate 2-5h post dosing. MAP and heart rate did not differ 24h after dosing. Lastly, only gavage dosing significantly increased fecal corticosterone metabolites, indicating a systemic stress response via activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. These data demonstrated that this pill dosing method of mice is significantly less stressful than oral gavage.

Indexed as

Stress, PhysiologicalAdministration, OralAnimalsBlood PressureDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHeart RateHypothalamo-Hypophyseal SystemMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLPharmaceutical PreparationsPituitary-Adrenal SystemTelemetryTime FactorsToxicity TestsPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID22326784
PMCPMC3306547
OpenAlexW1989193256

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.