Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Protocol Review
  • Published:

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Right decision; inadequate justification

Lab Animal volume 39, pages 201–202 (2010)Cite this article

Wolfson was correct to question the potential double standard being applied at Great Eastern by allowing multiple major survival surgeries in Xenopus frogs. Research institutions using animals covered by the Animal Welfare Act must comply with the act's prohibition of multiple major survival surgeries except in cases of scientific necessity, as required for veterinary care or under special circumstances approved by the USDA1. If Great Eastern receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, then the institution is also required to comply with the standards of care detailed in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (the Guide)2. The Guide discourages carrying out multiple major survival surgeries on any one animal unless scientifically justified, consistent with animal use regulations and IACUC approval. The Great Eastern IACUC categorized repeat oocyte collection as multiple major survival surgeries but did not have adequate scientific rationale for allowing the procedures to be done on frogs. Based on the information given, we are unable to comment on the justification that was provided for multiple major survival surgeries in the dog study.

We question the IACUC's classification of this surgery as 'major'. The surgery involves a small incision over the ovaries, immediately exposing the desired oocytes, and other visceral organs are undisturbed3,4. It is usually rapid and well tolerated by the animal3,4. The Guide defines a major surgery as one that penetrates and exposes a body cavity or produces substantial impairment of physical or physiologic functions2. Minor surgeries are further clarified as procedures that do not expose a body cavity, and laparoscopic procedures are described here. Although the surgery penetrates the frog's coelomic cavity, it does not expose the body cavity. Therefore, we propose that Xenopus oocyte collection is no more invasive than a laparoscopic procedure and could be considered a minor procedure. To support this suggestion, the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare recently updated their guidance on laparoscopic procedures, emphasizing that the IACUC has the power to declare such procedures as minor after a thorough review of the proposal5.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Animal Welfare Act. Section 13 (a)(3)(D,E). 9 CFR, Part 2, Sec. 2.31, Policy #14.

  2. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 1996).

  3. Green, S.L. The Laboratory Xenopus sp. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Reed, B.T. Guidance on the Housing and Care of the African Clawed Frog, Xenopus laevis (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, West Sussex, UK, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Public Health Service. Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals – Frequently Asked Questions. Animal Use and Management, Question 13. (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 2006; revised 2010). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/faqs.htm#f13

  6. Koeller, C.A. Comparison of buprenorphine and butorphanol analgesia in the eastern red-spotted newt (Notophthalmus viridescens). J. Am. Assoc. Lab Anim. Sci. 48, 171–175 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Public Health Service. Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 1986).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Johnson is Resident in Comparative Pathobiology at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN,

    Jenelle Johnson

  2. Crisler-Roberts is Assistant Director and Hickman is Director at the Laboratory Animal Resource Center, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.,

    Robin Crisler-Roberts &  Debra Hickman

Authors
  1. Jenelle Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robin Crisler-Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Debra Hickman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, J., Crisler-Roberts, R. & Hickman, D. Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Right decision; inadequate justification. Lab Anim 39, 201–202 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0710-201b

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0710-201b

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing