Microbial and Phenotypic Definition of Rats and Mice: Proceedings of the 1998 US/Japan Conference (1999)
Chapter: Definition of Microbiological Status of Rats and Mice / The Need for Methods of Defining Flora / International Standards for Terminology
Figure 2
Comparison of microbiological quality of rats between the United States and Japan (% positive of agents in animal facilities).
nal by Drs. Jacoby and Lindsey (1997), who are present today. These results were compared for tests performed in both countries. The trends were the same for mice and rats. There were fewer positive items in Japan than in the United States, and when the tests were positive, the positive rates were lower in Japan.
Japan is a small country where it is comparatively easy to reach a consensus. Once such a consensus is reached, there is a tendency to persevere in the direction decided. This national characteristic may be the reason that quality control of laboratory animals in Japan has been more successful than in the United States.
Conclusion
Internationalization of laboratory animals has made remarkable advances as seen with genetically engineered animals, and mice and rats can be shipped all over the world by air. From the standpoint of animal control, there are now more opportunities for infected animals or materials obtained from infected animals to enter facilities. In Japan currently, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and viral hepatitis in immunodeficient mice and in immunological function knockout mice introduced from the United States have become a major problem in microbiological control in animal facilities. In the United States, contamination of sera with
ectromelia virus has presented a problem. Animal quality control, especially microbiological monitoring, is becoming more important for maintenance of laboratory animals and assuring reproducibility of experimental results.
References
Jacoby, R., and J. R. Lindsey. 1997. Health care for research animals is essential and affordable. FASEB J. 11:609–614.
US Public Health Service/NIH. 1994. Manual of Microbiologic Monitoring of Laboratory Animals. 2nd edition. (NIH Publication No. 94-2498). GPO, Washington, D.C.
Definition of Microbiological Status of Rats and Mice / The Need for Methods of Defining Flora / International Standards for Terminology
Kazuaki Mannen
Associate Professor, Laboratory Animal Research Center
Oita Medical University
Japan
Current Status of Microbiological Quality of Laboratory Animals in University Animal Centers in Japan
The organization of university animal centers in Japan is shown in Figure 1. The national university animal centers consist of 53 facilities. The Division of Science and International Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture, of which Mr. Ota is Director, is closely linked with all of the animal centers.
In Japan, the national university medical schools and national institutions are members of the Association of Laboratory Animal Facilities of the National University in Japan, hereafter referred to as University Facilities Japan (UFJ). We occasionally encounter subtle differences between the required microbiological inspection of animals being transported among the national, public, and private colleges and other, atypical locations such as other academic institutions or nonapproved vendors and researchers. This type of problem also exists with international transportation. Because specific pathogen-free (SPF) animals are under strict microbiological control, it is technically not necessary to consider pathogenic contamination during their transportation to and from UFJ locations. However, we have found during quarantine inspection that gene-manipulated animals, such as transgenic and knockout mice and rats, have been contaminated by some microorganisms. For this reason, UFJ has established a Working Biohazard Committee (of which I am a member) to formulate guidelines for the microbiological quarantine inspection of mice and rats.
Figure 1
Organizational chart of animal centers in Japanese universities.
Importance of Identifying Contamination
Forty-nine of the 53 facilities at national universities and centers participated in the survey (Table 1). Of the 49 facilities, 47 (96%) had gene-manipulated mice from domestic sources. A total of 28 facilities (57%) had mice from international sources, mainly from the United States and in some cases from Great Britain, Switzerland, France, Canada, and Germany.
The contaminating microorganisms of the mice are shown in Table 2. Major organisms were mouse hepatitis virus, Pasteurella, Mycoplasma, Syphacia,
TABLE 1 Introduction of Transgenic and Knockout Mice (1996–1997)
|
Number of facilities responding: 49 (n=53) Facilities with transgenic and knockout mice: 47 (96%) Domestic introduction: 47 (96%) International introduction: 28 (57%) |
|
|
U.S.A. |
Great Britain |
|
American Red Cross Holland Laboratory |
Mammalian Genetic Unit |
|
Charles River Lab |
Medical Research Council |
|
Chrysalis DNX Transgenic Sciences |
|
|
Harvard University |
Switzerland |
|
Jackson Lab |
CIBA |
|
NCI |
|
|
NIH |
France |
|
McLaughlin Research Institute |
Institut Gustave Roussy |
|
Northwestern University |
|
|
North Carolina University |
Canada |
|
Stanford University |
Ontario Cancer Institute |
|
University of Missouri College of Vet Med |
|
|
University of California |
Germany |
|
|
Heidelberg Universitat |
