Animals were acclimatized for at least five days prior to study initiation. Mice were housed individually in polycarbonate cages with micro-isolator tops. Each cage measured 17 cm wide by 28 cm long (476 cm2 area) and 13 cm high. Absorbent heat-treated hardwood bedding (Northeastern Products Corp., Warrensburg, NY) was used with cage changes once per week. Certified Purina Pico Chow No. 5002 Meal (Ralston Purina Co., St. Louis, MO) was provided ad libitum. The manufacturer’s composition formula was included in the raw data and reviewed prior to use. Reverse osmosis (RO) treated tap water (City of Durham, NC) was provided ad libitum in polycarbonate water bottles with stainless steel sipper tubes. The results of the current annual comprehensive chemical analyses of RO water from National Testing Laboratories, Inc. (Cleveland, OH) were reviewed prior to initiation of the study and was included in the raw data. Water bottles were changed once per week. The ambient temperature was kept between 20.9–23.9°C. A 12/12 hour light/dark cycle was used. Nestlets (Ancare, Bellmont, NY) enrichment was provided with the manufacture’s analytical results of the Nestlets included in the raw data and reviewed before study initiation.
Nestlet
Manufactured by Ancare
Sourced in United States
Nestlets are small, cotton-based nesting material designed for use in laboratory animal cages. They provide a soft, comfortable environment for animals.
Automatically generated - may contain errors
Lab products found in correlation
C57bl 6 mice, by Jackson ImmunoResearch (2 mentions)
C57bi 6 mice, by Jackson ImmunoResearch (2 mentions)
Mouse igloo, by Bio-Serv (1 mentions)
Strain 000664, by Jackson ImmunoResearch (1 mentions)
Prolab isopro rmh 3000, by LabDiet (1 mentions)
Nestletst, by Ancare (1 mentions)
C57bl 6n mice, by Charles River Laboratories (1 mentions)
C57bl 6j control, by Jackson ImmunoResearch (1 mentions)
5xfad mice, by Jackson ImmunoResearch (1 mentions)
C57bl 6 male mice, by Jackson ImmunoResearch (1 mentions)
Teklad mouse diet, by Inotiv (1 mentions)
Female c57bl 6 mice, by Jackson ImmunoResearch (1 mentions)
Wild type c57bl 6 mice, by Jackson ImmunoResearch (1 mentions)
Sprague dawley rat, by Charles River Laboratories (1 mentions)
Female wistar rats, by Charles River Laboratories (1 mentions)
C57bl 6j mice, by Janvier Labs (1 mentions)
Micro isolator static cages, by Tecniplast (1 mentions)
Dl methionine, by Dyets (1 mentions)
C57bl 6ncrl mice, by Charles River Laboratories (1 mentions)
Cd1 male and female mice, by Charles River Laboratories (1 mentions)
58 protocols using nestlet
1
Mouse Housing and Feeding Protocol
2
Nest Building Behavior in Mice
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Single-housed mice were transferred into a new cage with nest-building material, a 5 × 5 cm square of white compressed cotton pads (Nestlets TM; Ancare, Bellmore, NY) in a random corner. After 6, 24, and 48 h, nest building was scored on a scale of 0–5, as previously described [21 (link)]. All data are shown means ± SEM and analyzed using un-paired t tests.
3
Analyzing Mice Nest Building Behavior
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
To examine nesting behavior, mice were transferred to a new home cage with clean bedding and new nest-building material, a 5 × 5 cm square of compressed cotton (Nestlets TM, Ancare). Nest building was scored 2, 4, 6, 8, and 24 h later, as described57 (link).
4
Analyzing Mice Nest Building Behavior
5
Assessing Nest Building Behavior in Mice
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
In mice, nest building is an ethological and relevant behavior involved in heat maintenance, reproduction, and shelter [29 (link)]. Mice were individually housed, and they were provided with two Nestlets (a 5 cm square of compressed cotton-like material weighing approximately 2.4 g; purchased from Ancare, Bellmore, NY, USA), which were placed in the cage at 10:00. At 1 h and 24 h later, the quality of the nest built was evaluated by a researcher trained and blind to the experimental conditions [30 (link)]. The scoring system for assessing nest quality was carried out based on Deacon’s standardized scale from 1 to 5.
6
Subcutaneous Tumor Implantation in NRG Mice
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
For the in vivo experiments, 6–10-week-old male NRG mice were purchased from the BC Cancer Research Institute Animal Resource Centre (ARC, Vancouver, BC, Canada). Mice were caged in autoclaved Allentown ventilated caging at a capacity of 2–4 animals/cage for the length of the study. Cages were changed biweekly and included Nestlets (Ancare, Bellmore, NY, USA) as environmental enrichment, transparent tinted polycarbonate Mouse Igloos (Bio-Serv, Flemington, NJ, USA), and Envigo 7097 ¼” corn cob bedding. All enrichment was added to the cages prior to the cages being autoclaved. Mice were fed Envigo Teklad Global Rodent Diet 2920 (Indianapolis, IN, USA). The rodent food was kept in the hoppers of the wire lids and was changed biweekly. Reverse-osmosis water was supplied through Avidity Science automatic watering valves at a flow rate of 25–50 mL/min. The environmental control of the lights and the monitoring of temperature, humidity, and airflow was performed by WatchDogEX™ (Waterford, WI, USA). On the first day of the experiment, 5 × 106 tumour cells were implanted subcutaneously into each mouse’s back. The volumes of the tumours were determined using the following formula: L × W2 × 0.5.
7
Evaluating Nest Building in PhenoTyper
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
We investigated nest building performance in the PhenoTyper home cage, assessing the complexity and shape of the nest over four days each during prepubescence and sexual maturity. On the first test day, animals were given two pressed cotton squares (nestlets, Ancare, Bellmore, New York, USA) per PhenoTyper home cage. Pictures of the nest were taken on a daily basis in the morning, including a top-down view and two side views at an angle of 90 and approximately 45 degrees. For the image-based evaluation of the nest complexity, we applied a slightly modified version of a protocol reported by Jirkof and . The scoring of the images was carried out by a person who was blinded for group allocation. Detailed information about the applied scoring scheme can be found in the Supplementary file.
8
Nest Building Behavior Assessment in Mice
9
Reverse Cycle Controlled Mouse Study
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
All experiments were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Pittsburgh.
Specific pathogen free male (n = 31) and female (n = 30) B6 mice (The Jackson Laboratory; Bar Harbor, ME, USA) were housed in a temperature-controlled AAALAC-approved rodent facility in cages with nestlets (Ancare, Bellmore, NY, USA) and Innodomes (Innovive, San Diego, CA, USA) under reverse light cycle (lights out at 10 am and on at 10 pm). An overview of the experimental design and the procedures the mice were exposed to is shown inFigure 1 .
Specific pathogen free male (n = 31) and female (n = 30) B6 mice (The Jackson Laboratory; Bar Harbor, ME, USA) were housed in a temperature-controlled AAALAC-approved rodent facility in cages with nestlets (Ancare, Bellmore, NY, USA) and Innodomes (Innovive, San Diego, CA, USA) under reverse light cycle (lights out at 10 am and on at 10 pm). An overview of the experimental design and the procedures the mice were exposed to is shown in
10
Evaluating Maternal Nest Building and Care
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
On E16.5 and P3 dams (and litter when present) were removed from the Phenotyper cage. Nest and bedding were discarded and replaced with three nestlets (Ancare, US) and one cardboard tube (International Product Supplies, UK). The litter was then returned to Phenotyper cage and video recording was initiated. Dams were reintroduced to the Phenotyper cage and allowed to build a nest. After 1 h, the quality of the nest was scored visually. This was a quantitative score determined by number of nestlets shredded to form a nest. A score from 0 to 3 was assigned each animal. Distance moved during this trial and visits to virtual ‘zones’ was calculated automatically using Ethovision XT software. At P3, maternal care and nest building behaviours were scored manually off line by a rater blind to genotype of the pups. Behaviours scored were arched nursing, licking and grooming of pups, contact with pups, nest building, self-grooming, eating and drinking. Latency to display maternal care was recorded; specifically this was determined to be latency to crouch over all pups and build and nest.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!