National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

PAPERBACK
price:$51.75
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Microbial Status and Genetic Evaluation of Mice and Rats: Proceedings of the 1999 US/Japan Conference (2000)
Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR)

Citation Manager

. "Standardization of Rodent Health Surveillance: Regulation Versus Competition." Microbial Status and Genetic Evaluation of Mice and Rats: Proceedings of the 1999 US/Japan Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2000.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
15
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


Microbial Status and Genetic Evaluation of Mice and Rats: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1999 US/JAPAN CONFERENCE

newly discovered agents were MPV and RPV, originally known as the “orphan” parvoviruses (Jacoby and others 1996). The pathogenesis of MPV in particular has been elucidated at Yale's Section of Comparative Medicine, which it is worth noting received substantial support in this effort from a commercial vendor. At this time, most if not all laboratories offer serology for MPV and RPV antibodies, primarily by ELISA with recombinant antigens and by IFA.

More recently, research done at various institutions has shown that infections with certain species of Helicobacter may cause disease, especially in immunodeficient mice. Without any regulations or recommendations requiting them to do so, most rodent diagnostic laboratories in the United States (and in Europe and Japan as well) quickly developed and began offering Helicobacter PCR assays.

SUMMARY

In the United States (and I would argue in Europe and Japan as well), the main motivation for standardization among the suppliers of rodents and diagnostic services has been competition and not government regulation or the recommendations of professional organizations. There is strong competition among microbiologists, laboratory animal suppliers, and diagnostic laboratories to discover and publish on important etiologic agents, to provide the highest quality SPF rodents, and to offer the most complete and accurate testing services, respectively. Laboratory animal suppliers have had to conform to the de facto standards that are set by their competitors and the demands of the research community. Consequently, there is little variation among suppliers of the excluded infectious agents that define rodents as SPF. To keep up with their competitors, diagnostic laboratories have had to quickly adopt the latest assay methodologies and to add tests for emerging pathogens. Concordance of the results reported by different laboratories for assays to diagnose common infections is good. Nevertheless, a quality assurance program to assess the accuracy of laboratory results, such as the one discussed in this meeting by Dr. Riley, is sorely needed.

REFERENCES

Dix, J., and J.R. Needham. 1996. Assessing the impact needs reliable results: The Laboratory Animal Health Monitoring Club. Scand. J. Lab. Anim. Sci. 23:171-176.

Jacoby, R.O., L. Ball-Goodrich, D.G. Besselsen, M.D. McKisic, L.K. Riley, and A.L. Smith. 1996. Rodent parvovirus infections. Lab. Anim. Sci. 46:370-380.

Rehbinder, C., P. Baneux, D. Forbes, H. Van Herck, W. Nicklas, Z. Rugaya, and G. Winkler. 1996. FELASA recommendations for the health monitoring of mouse, rat, hamster, gerbil, guinea pig and rabbit experimental units. Lab. Anim. 30:193-208.

Page
15
Front Matter (R1-R16)
Opening Remarks, Judith Vaitukaitis (1-3)
Opening Remarks, Shin-Ichi Ota (4-5)
Introductory Comments on Microbiologic Testing of Laboratory Mice and Rats: Uniformity of Results (6-6)
Development of a Performance Assessment Program for Research Animal Diagnostic Laboratories and Defining Microbiologic Testing Standards (7-10)
Standardization of Rodent Health Surveillance: Regulation Versus Competition (11-15)
Factors Causing Difficulties in Uniformity of Results Among Testing Facilities in Microbiologic Monitoring of Laboratory Animals (16-20)
Necessity of Reexamining the Pathogenicity and Elimination of Parasites in Rats and Mice (21-26)
Emerging (and Reemerging) Viruses of Laboratory Mice and Rats (27-34)
Emerging Infections as a Cause of Concern (35-39)
Emerging Diseases in Mice and Rats (40-43)
Survey of Heliobacter Species in Laboratory Mice and Gerbils in Japan (44-46)
Genetic Evaluation of Outbred Rats (47-50)
Genetic Evaluation of Outbred Rats from the Breeder's Perspective (51-64)
Concept for Establishment of Rat Outbred Global Standard Strains (65-76)
Necessity of Genetic and Microbiologic Quality Network from the Pharmaceutical Industry's Perspective (77-84)
International Harmonization of Laboratory Animals (85-96)
Rat Genetics and Toxicology (97-104)
A Phenotype-driven Approach to the Molecular and Functional Analysis of the Mouse Genome (105-115)
Evaluation of Targeted Mutations (116-118)
Defining Behavioral Phenotypes in Transgenic and Knockout Mice (119-129)
Defining Phenotype in Genetically Engineered Mice (130-131)
Development of the Mouse Model Dramatype for Human Clinical Benefit (132-136)
Concluding Remarks (137-137)
Implication of Wild-derived Genes, Mitochondria, and Chromosomes in the Genetic Background of Mouse Models for Diseases and Biologic Functions (138-141)
Concluding Comments, John Strandberg (142-143)
Concluding Remarks, John Vandenbergh (144-146)
Appendix A (147-148)
Appendix B (149-150)