Resource | Published:

Treatment and re-characterization of mouse obstructive genitourinary syndrome

Lab Animal volume 45, pages 225232 (2016) | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

We aimed to characterize and to explore a treatment for a condition in which male mice exhibited a solid bulge in the preputial area and an inability to breed. Twenty-seven mice from several animal housing institutions in Spain were included in this study for microbiological and pathological characterization of this condition. The condition mostly affected breeding animals and was associated with the C57BL/6J genetic background. A solid, yellowish-white substance was found inside the prepuce, which displaced the penis cranially, preventing its externalization and limiting the animal's capacity to breed. This pattern was almost identical to that of post-coital vaginal plugs, suggesting that the blocking substance originated from ejaculate. Opposite to what was suggested in previous publications, the penis was completely intact in all of the cases, with no signs of mutilation or wounds. Based on our findings, we developed a surgical technique to clear the prepuce and recover breeding performance, which we tested in 15 other mice with the condition. We eliminated the blocking substance and recurrence of the condition by surgically opening the prepuce, and most of the animals recovered fertility.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    & Incidence of obstructive uropathy in male B6C3F1 mice on a 24-month carcinogenicity study and its apparent prevention by ochratoxin A. Lab. Anim. Sci. 36, 282–285 (1986).

  2. 2.

    & Self-mutilation of the penis in C57BL/6N mice. Lab. Anim. 12, 55–57 (1978).

  3. 3.

    Urogenital lesions in laboratory mice. J. Pathol. Bacteriol. 91, 301–309 (1966).

  4. 4.

    Urologic syndrome, mouse. in Monographs on Pathology of Laboratory Animals 2nd edn (eds. Jones, T.C., Hard, G.C. & Mohr, U.) 456–462 (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1998).

  5. 5.

    , , , & Urethral obstruction by seminal coagulum is associated with medetomidine-ketamine anesthesia in male mice on C57BL/6J and mixed genetic backgrounds. J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. 48, 296–299 (2009).

  6. 6.

    Terminal formation of urethral plugs in male mice. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 111, 243–245 (1962).

  7. 7.

    , , , & Urethral plug—a new secondary male sex characteristic in rat and other rodents. Lab. Anim. 16, 151–155 (1982).

  8. 8.

    & Removal of the preputial glands alters the individual odors of male MHC-congenic mice and the preferences of females for these odors. Physiol. Behav. 58, 191–194 (1995).

  9. 9.

    et al. Sexual dysfunction and sudden death in epileptic male EL mice: inheritance and prevention with the ketogenic diet. Epilepsia 44, 25–31 (2003).

  10. 10.

    Urethral plugs and urine retention in male mice. Lab. Anim. 19, 189–191 (1985).

  11. 11.

    & Obstructive uropathy in laboratory mice. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 120, 580–581 (1965).

  12. 12.

    & Obstructive genitourinary disease in male STR/1N mice. Am. J. Pathol. 41, 233–246 (1962).

  13. 13.

    & Hydronephrosis in inbred strains of mice with particular reference to the BRVR strain. Lab. Anim. 7, 229–236 (1973).

  14. 14.

    & Perputial gland abscess in mice. Lab. Anim. Sci. 28, 153–156 (1978).

  15. 15.

    & Bulbourethral gland infections in mice associated with Staphylococcus aureus. Lab. Anim. 10, 311–315 (1976).

  16. 16.

    Abscesses of the bulbourethral glands of mice due to Pasteurella pneumotropica. Lab. Anim. 7, 315–317 (1973).

  17. 17.

    et al. Oral self-administration of buprenorphine in the diet for analgesia in mice. Lab. Anim. 48, 216–224 (2014).

  18. 18.

    et al. (eds.) The Mouse in Biomedical Research: Diseases (Academic Press, 2006).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank our colleagues and technicians at all of the animal housing institutions involved in this study for their enthusiastic work and support, especially Isabel Blanco, Carmen Checa, Sandra González, Veronica Jiménez, Ana Lorena Marin, Patricia Muñoz, Sonia Segura, Rebecca Ortiz, Lucia Yuste, Cristina Martí, Carolina Zamora, Rebeca Sanchez, Vicenta Jaraba, Marc Solé, Anabel Cónsul, Carla Lorente, Pilar Castañeda, Adoración Rodríguez, Mercedes Díaz Sarmiento and Carlos Mateos Díaz. We also thank Dr. Enrique de Madaria and Juan Ramos for their review of the manuscript, Juan Antonio Camara and Diego Echevarría for their valuable help with image editing and Dr. Marta Casado for her suggestions and advice.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Animal Facility Unit, RMG-SEA Instituto de Neurociencias de Alicante, Universidad Miguel Hernandez–Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Alicante, Spain.

    • María Jesús Molina-Cimadevila
  2. Animal Facility Unit Parc de Recerca Biomedica de Barcelona, Spain.

    • Tomás García-Robles
  3. Animal Facility Unit, Spanish National Cancer Research Center CNIO, Madrid, Spain.

    • Clara Muñoz-Mediavilla
  4. Instituto Universitario de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Sanitarias, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular Materno Infantil de Gran Canaria, Spain.

    • Yeray Brito-Casillas
    •  & Ana M. Wägner
  5. Veterinary Faculty of the Universidad Alfonso X El Sabio de Madrid, Spain.

    • Paloma Rey
    •  & Alicia Sanchez

Authors

  1. Search for María Jesús Molina-Cimadevila in:

  2. Search for Tomás García-Robles in:

  3. Search for Clara Muñoz-Mediavilla in:

  4. Search for Yeray Brito-Casillas in:

  5. Search for Ana M. Wägner in:

  6. Search for Paloma Rey in:

  7. Search for Alicia Sanchez in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María Jesús Molina-Cimadevila.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.1024