Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb 10;10(1):2253.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-59012-4.

The effect of group size, age and handling frequency on inter-male aggression in CD 1 mice

Affiliations

The effect of group size, age and handling frequency on inter-male aggression in CD 1 mice

Paulin Jirkof et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Aggression in male mice often leads to injury and death, making social housing difficult. We tested whether (1) small group size, (2) early age of allocation to a group decreases aggression and 3) manipulation increases aggression in male mice. A 14wk study was performed to assess the following conditions in male CD-1/ICR mice: group size (1, 2, or 3), age at grouping (5 or 7wks), and manipulation (daily scruffing or minimal weekly handling). Wounds, body weights, food consumption, nest scores, sucrose consumption, fecal corticosterone and blood for hematology were collected. At the end of the study, mice were euthanized and pelted to assess wounding with the pelt aggression lesion scale (PALS). No signs of acute or chronic stress were observed in any of the groups. Trio housed mice showed less bite wounds than pair housed mice. In general, mice in larger groups ate less but weighed more. Individually housed mice, however, had high nest scores, low body weights, and increased sucrose and food consumption. These results suggest that even when nesting material is provided, individual mice may be experiencing thermal stress. Based on this data, CD-1 mice can successfully be housed for up to 14wks and groups of 3 may be the best for reducing even minor levels of aggression (i.e. wounding).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) False positive PALS (Photo ID 4885, animal ID 102, single, 7 weeks, minimal handling). Spots on the inside right flank, some small spots on the back and neck area. (b) True positive PALS (Photo ID 4766, animal ID 7, pair, 5 weeks, minimal handling). Spots everywhere but not the tail area, vessels, no pigmentation like seen in B6. (c) Average weighted PALS LSM ± SE are plotted. Data on the y-axis is represented as a log10 transformed scale but values have been backtransformed to be meaningful in the real world. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences by post-hoc Tukey tests (P < 0.05).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Sucrose consumption per mouse over time. Asterisks indicate significant differences pair vs single; x indicates significant differences trio vs. solitary.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Food consumption per mouse per week. (a) Comparison of treatment groups. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences by post-hoc Tukey tests (P < 0.05); (b) Development over time. Data on the y-axis is represented as a log10 transformed scale but values have been backtransformed to be meaningful in the real world.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Average body weight per mouse. (a) Comparison of treatment groups. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences by post-hoc Tukey tests (P < 0.05); Bodyweight change per mouse over the experiment: (b) group size, (c) age at allocation and (d) manipulation frequency. (e) Body weight per mouse according to health status. Asterisks indicate significant differences.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Fecal corticosterone metabolites from baseline data only. Baseline was the only time point that showed significant differences via test slices. Therefore, only baseline data has been graphed. Data are represented on the y-axis as a square root transformed scale but values have been backtransformed to be meaningful in the real world. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences by post-hoc, Bonferroni corrected, T-tests (P < 0.0055).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Experimental timetable. a = body weight measurements, b = cage change, food intake, c = nest score, d = sucrose consumption, e = fecal samples.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Olsson IAS, Westlund K. More than numbers matter: The effect of social factors on behaviour and welfare of laboratory rodents and non-human primates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2007;103:229–254. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.022. - DOI
    1. Brown RZ. Social Behavior, Reproduction, and Population Changes in the House Mouse (Mus-Musculus L) Ecological Monographs. 1953;23:217–240. doi: 10.2307/1943592. - DOI
    1. Crowcroft, P. Mice all over, (Foulis, 1966).
    1. Wolff RJ. Mating-Behavior and Female Choice - Their Relation to Social-Structure in Wild Caught House Mice (Mus-Musculus) Housed in a Semi-Natural Environment. Journal of Zoology. 1985;207:43–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1985.tb04914.x. - DOI
    1. Kappel, S., Hawkins, P. & Mendl, M. To Group or Not to Group? Good Practice for Housing Male Laboratory Mice. Animals7 (2017). - PMC - PubMed

Publication types