Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34941923›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Voluntary wheel running behaviour as a tool to assess the severity in a mouse pancreatic cancer model.

Nora Weegh, Eva Zentrich, Dietmar Zechner, Birgitta Struve, Laura Wassermann, Steven Roger Talbot, Simone Kumstel, Miriam Heider, Brigitte Vollmar, André Bleich and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nora WeeghInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Eva ZentrichInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Dietmar ZechnerRudolf-Zenker-Institute of Experimental Surgery, University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany.
Birgitta StruveInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Laura WassermannInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Steven Roger TalbotInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Simone KumstelRudolf-Zenker-Institute of Experimental Surgery, University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany.
Miriam HeiderInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Brigitte VollmarRudolf-Zenker-Institute of Experimental Surgery, University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany.
André BleichInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Christine HägerInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6971-9780
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEUniversity of Rostock · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laboratory animals frequently undergo routine experimental procedures such as handling, restraining and injections. However, as a known source of stress, these procedures potentially impact study outcome and data quality. In the present study, we, therefore, performed an evidence-based severity assessment of experimental procedures used in a pancreatic cancer model including surgical tumour induction and subsequent chemotherapeutic treatment via repeated intraperitoneal injections. Cancer cell injection into the pancreas was performed during a laparotomy under general anaesthesia. After a four-day recovery phase, mice received either drug treatment (galloflavin and metformin) or the respective vehicle substances via daily intraperitoneal injections. In addition to clinical scoring, an automated home-cage monitoring system was used to assess voluntary wheel running (VWR) behaviour as an indicator of impaired well-being. After surgery, slightly elevated clinical scores and minimal body weight reductions, but significantly decreased VWR behaviour were observed. During therapy, body weight declined in response to chemotherapy, but not after vehicle substance injection, while VWR activity was decreased in both cases. VWR behaviour differed between treatment groups and revealed altered nightly activity patterns. In summary, by monitoring VWR a high impact of repeated injections on the well-being of mice was revealed and substance effects on well-being were distinguishable. However, no differences in tumour growth between treatment groups were observed. This might be due to the severity of the procedures uncovered in this study, as exaggerated stress responses are potentially confounding factors in preclinical studies. Finally, VWR was a more sensitive indicator of impairment than clinical scoring in this model.

Indexed as

AnimalsDisease Models, AnimalMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMotor ActivityPancreatic NeoplasmsPhysical Conditioning, AnimalRunningSeverity of Illness Index

Identifiers

PMID34941923
PMCPMC8699632
OpenAlexW4200182626

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.