Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33918975›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

Social Nesting, Animal Welfare, and Disease Monitoring.

Lydia Giménez-Llort, Virginia Torres-Lista

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

2 authors.

Lydia Giménez-LlortInstitut de Neurociències, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, E-08193 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4091-489X
Virginia Torres-ListaInstitut de Neurociències, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, E-08193 Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

Envellir bé - Saber Envejecer - Health Aging 2020/28112020Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 737390Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona 2020/UAB-GE260408
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The assessment of welfare and disease progression in animal models is critical. Most tools rely on evaluating individual subjects, whereas social behaviors, also sensitive to acute illness, chronic diseases, or mental health, are scarcely monitored because they are complex and time-consuming. We propose the evaluation of social nesting, a species-typical behavior naturally occurring in standard housing conditions, for such behavioral monitoring. We provide an example of its use to evaluate social deficits and the long-term effects of neonatal tactile-proprioceptive sensorial stimulation from postnatal day 1 to 21, in male and female adult 3xTg-AD mice for Alzheimer's disease compared to sex- and age-matched non-transgenic (NTg) counterparts with normal aging. Social nesting was sensitive to genotype (worse in 3xTg-AD mice), sex (worse in males), profile, and treatment (distinct time to observe the maximum score and incidence of the perfect nest). Since social nesting can be easily included in housing routines, this neuroethological approach can be useful for animal welfare, monitoring the disease's progress, and evaluating potential risk factors and effects of preventive/therapeutical strategies. Finally, the noninvasive, painless, simple, short time, and low-cost features of this home-cage monitoring are advantages that make social nesting feasible to be successfully implemented in most animal department settings.

Indexed as

3xTg-AD miceAlzheimer’s diseaseanimal welfarebehavioral monitoringearly-life eventsearly-life interventionsgender medicinelong-term effectsnest-buildingsocial behavior

Identifiers

PMID33918975
PMCPMC8070261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.