1. Animal Use in Neurobiological Research
Witold Żakowski Neuroscience. 2020 May 1;433:1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.02.049. Epub 2020 Mar 7.
The fact that neurobiological research is reliant upon laboratory-reared rodents is well known. The following paper discusses this topic broadly, but also aims to highlight other species used in the study of the nervous system and the evolution of animal species usage from the end of World War II through recent investigations. Attention is drawn to the dramatic reduction in the diversity of species used in neuroscience, with a significant shift toward two species, the mouse (Mus musculus) and rat (Rattus norvegicus). Such a limitation in animal species causes many difficulties in the development of new therapies for various neuropsychiatric diseases. Based on numerous scientific publications, the advantages of using a greater diversity of species in neuroscience and the disadvantages of focusing on mice and rats are presented.
2. Measurements of rat and mouse gastrointestinal pH, fluid and lymphoid tissue, and implications for in-vivo experiments
Emma L McConnell, Abdul W Basit, Sudaxshina Murdan J Pharm Pharmacol. 2008 Jan;60(1):63-70. doi: 10.1211/jpp.60.1.0008.
To use rodent models effectively in in-vivo investigations on oral drug and vaccine delivery, the conditions in the gastrointestinal tract must be understood. Some fundamental information is currently unavailable or incomplete. We have investigated the pH, water content and lymphoid tissue distribution along the gastrointestinal tract, as well as the stomach volume, as these were critical to our investigations on pH-responsive drug delivery and colonic vaccination. The observed values were compared with those in man as an indication of the validity of the rodent model. The mouse stomach pH was 3.0 (fed) and 4.0 (fasted), and the corresponding values in the rat were 3.2 (fed) and 3.9 (fasted). The mean intestinal pH was lower than that in man (
3. Bring Back the Rat!
Christy S Carter, Arlan Richardson, Derek M Huffman, Steven Austad J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2020 Feb 14;75(3):405-415. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glz298.
As 2020 is "The Year of the Rat" in the Chinese astrological calendar, it seems an appropriate time to consider whether we should bring back the laboratory rat to front-and-center in research on the basic biology of mammalian aging. Beginning in the 1970s, aging research with rats became common, peaking in 1992 but then declined dramatically by 2018 as the mouse became preeminent. The purpose of this review is to highlight some of the historical contributions as well as current advantages of the rat as a mammalian model of human aging, because we suspect at least a generation of researchers is no longer aware of this history or these advantages. Herein, we compare and contrast the mouse and rat in the context of several biological domains relevant to their use as appropriate models of aging: phylogeny/domestication, longevity interventions, pathology/physiology, and behavior/cognition. It is not the goal of this review to give a complete characterization of the differences between mice and rats, but to provide important examples of why using rats as well as mice is important to advance our understanding of the biology of aging.
