Protective cranial implant caps for macaques

Trends and Treatment Approaches for Complications in Neuroscience Experiments with Monkey Species

Our goal in this manuscript is to advance the assessment and treatment of monkey species in neuroscience research. We hope to begin a discussion and establish baseline data on how complications are identified and treated. We surveyed the neuroscience research community working with monkeys and compiled responses to questions about investigator demographics, assessment of animal wellbeing, treatment choices, and approaches to mitigate risks associated with CNS procedures and promote monkey health and wellbeing. The majority of the respondents had worked with nonhuman primates (NHP) for over 15 y. Identification of procedure-related complications and efficacy of treatment generally rely on common behavioral indices. Treatments for localized inflammatory responses are generally successful, whereas the treatment success for meningitis or meningoencephalitis, abscesses, and hemorrhagic stroke are less successful. Behavioral signs of pain are treated successfully with NSAIDs and opioids. Our future plans are to collate treatment protocols and develop best practices that can be shared across the neuroscience community to improve treatment success rates and animal welfare and therefore science. Human protocols can be used to develop best practices, assess outcomes, and promote further refinements in treatment practices for monkeys to enhance research outcomes.

A Systematic Review on the Link between Animal Welfare and Antimicrobial Use in Captive Animals

Simple Summary

The threat of antimicrobial resistance is a global health concern, and the misuse of medications is often considered a major contributor. Thus, judicious antimicrobial stewardship in captive animal species (i.e., farm, zoo, companion, and laboratory animals) is paramount and should rely on effective strategies for the reduction of antimicrobial use (AMU). Despite the relationship between welfare, health and productivity, the role that animal welfare can play in such a reduction has been poorly investigated, especially with regards to empirical evidence. This systematic review aimed to summarise the available body of research on the link between animal welfare and AMU in captive species. The low number of publications retrieved from the search, with 76% of them published in the last five years, revealed the knowledge gap pertaining this topic. The majority of publications was on farm animals, suggesting a relevance of the topic for this group, with most of the work (82%) looking at the effect of animal welfare on AMU, rather than the opposite. Overall, better animal welfare was found to be associated with lower AMU. Studies were mainly carried out in EU, likely due to its well-known role as being the avant-garde of animal welfare and AMU. Further research is needed to support these findings, especially concerning other captive species beyond farm animals.

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to assess the link between animal welfare and antimicrobial use (AMU) in captive species (i.e., farm, zoo, companion, and laboratory animals) and its effect. Studies empirically examining the effect of welfare on AMU or vice versa were included. Studies in wild animals were excluded. A total of 6610 studies were retrieved from PubMed^® and Web of Science^® in April 2021. Despite finding several papers superficially invoking the link between welfare and AMU, most did not delve into the characteristics of this link, leading to a small number of publications retained (n = 17). The majority (76%) of the publications were published from 2017–2021. Sixteen were on farm animals, and one publication was on laboratory animals. Most of the studies (82%) looked at the effect of animal welfare on AMU. The body of research retained suggests that, in farm animals, better animal welfare often leads to lower AMU, as was hypothesised, and that, generally, poor welfare is associated with higher AMU. Additionally, AMU restrictions in organic systems may prevent animals from receiving treatment when necessary. Limitations of this study include focusing only on empirical research and excluding non-peer reviewed evidence. More research is needed to corroborate these findings, especially on the link between animal welfare and AMU in other captive species.

Blood Analysis of Laboratory Macaca mulatta Used for Neuroscience Research: Investigation of Long-Term and Cumulative Effects of Implants, Fluid Control, and Laboratory Procedures

The nonhuman primate (NHP) constitutes an extraordinarily important model in neuroscience research for understanding the neuronal underpinnings of perceptual, motor, cognitive, and executive functions of the primate brain, and to study the physiological causes, effects, and potential treatments of brain disorders. Because of their cognitive capabilities, NHPs receive special attention in animal welfare regulations around the world, and their well-being is a benchmark for the evaluation, monitoring, and refinement of experimental procedures. As a consequence, many typical neuroscientific procedures are considered only mildly severe by animal welfare boards. There is, however, an ongoing debate about possible long-term and cumulative effects. Because of a lack of longitudinal data, it is unclear whether mildly severe procedures may cause more significant harm on the long-term, and to what extent they may impact animal well-being and healthiness over time. We here make use of a database of blood samples drawn over a period of 15 years from 39 rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) to address the issue of long-term, cumulative effects of neuroscientific procedures. A careful analysis of indicative primate blood markers for chronic inflammation, hydration status, and stress levels, their comparison to baseline values from both the same animals and the literature, and evaluation of additional hematologic, physiological, and behavioral parameters did not provide support for the notion of long-term, cumulative effects on the monkeys’ healthiness and well-being. The results may serve the community as a reference for the severity assessment of neuroscientific experiments involving NHPs.

International primate neuroscience research regulation, public engagement and transparency opportunities

Scientific excellence is a necessity for progress in biomedical research. As research becomes ever more international, establishing international collaborations will be key to advancing our scientific knowledge. Understanding the similarities in standards applied by different nations to animal research, and where the differences might lie, is crucial. Cultural differences and societal values will also contribute to these similarities and differences between countries and continents. Our overview is not comprehensive for all species, but rather focuses on non-human primate (NHP) research, involving New World marmosets and Old World macaques, conducted in countries where NHPs are involved in neuroimaging research. Here, an overview of the ethics and regulations is provided to help assess welfare standards amongst primate research institutions. A comparative examination of these standards was conducted to provide a basis for establishing a common set of standards for animal welfare. These criteria may serve to develop international guidelines, which can be managed by an International Animal Welfare and Use Committee (IAWUC). Internationally, scientists have a moral responsibility to ensure excellent care and welfare of their animals, which in turn, influences the quality of their research. When working with animal models, maintaining a high quality of care ("culture of care") and welfare is essential. The transparent promotion of this level of care and welfare, along with the results of the research and its impact, may reduce public concerns associated with animal experiments in neuroscience research.