• Measures to counteract parasitic contamination in experimental animals, especially rats and mice, lag conspicuously behind those that counteract other pathogens.

• Parasites often serve as indicators of the level of microbiologic control among animal facilities. However, because some parasites may affect experimental data, their existence and species name should be clearly indicated in the health monitoring reports.

• The pathogenecity of parasites should be reexamined, even if they are considered nonpathogenic to the animals. An international scheme for unification/harmonization of test results and allowable conditions should be devised.

• Parasites should be eliminated as much as possible. The methods recommended are as follows:

  1. mixing anthelminthic with feed;

  2. spraying animals/bedding with anthelminthic; and/or

  3. cleaning the colony using a method such as embryo transplant.

Itoh, T. 1998. Quality testing system for SPF animals in Japan and problems in the management of such systems. In: Microbial and Phenotypic Definition of Rats and Mice: Proceedings of the1998 US/Japan Conference. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. p. 15-23.

Mannen, K. 1998. Definition of microbiologic status of rats and mice: The need for methods of defining flora: International standards for terminology . In: Microbial and Phenotypic Definition of Rats and Mice: Proceedings of the 1998 US/Japan Conference. Washington DC: National Academy Press. p. 24-27.

Sato, Y., H.K. Ooi, N. Nonaka, Y. Oku, and M. Kamiya. 1995. Antibody production in Syphacia obvelata in infected mice. J. Parasitol. 81:559-562.

Wagner, M. 1988. The effect of infection with the pin worm (Syphacia muris) on rat growth. Lab. Anim. Sci. 38:476-478.