دورية أكاديمية
أعرض في EDS

Health comparison between guinea pigs raised in uncontrolled and controlled environments.

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: Health comparison between guinea pigs raised in uncontrolled and controlled environments.
المؤلفون: Fitria L; Laboratory of Animal Physiology, Department of Tropical Biology, Faculty of Biology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia., Wijayanti N; Laboratory of Animal Physiology, Department of Tropical Biology, Faculty of Biology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia., Arisuryanti T; Laboratory of Genetics and Breeding, Department of Tropical Biology, Faculty of Biology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia., Salasia SIO; Department of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
المصدر: Veterinary world [Vet World] 2022 Jun; Vol. 15 (6), pp. 1575-1582. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Jun 29.
نوع المنشور: Journal Article
اللغة: English
بيانات الدورية: Publisher: Veterinary World Country of Publication: India NLM ID: 101504872 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Print ISSN: 0972-8988 (Print) Linking ISSN: 09728988 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Vet World Subsets: PubMed not MEDLINE
أسماء مطبوعة: Publication: Dist. Morbi (Gujarat), India : Veterinary World
Original Publication: Rajkot (Gujarat), India : Veterinary World, [2008]-
مستخلص: Background and Aim: Guinea pigs (GPs) ( Cavia porcellus ) are not only kept as pets but also widely used in biological and biomedical research. At present, GPs are also used as a species for animal-assisted therapy (AAT). Consequently, assessing their health status is vital to determining their quality of life, usability for research, and prevention of spread of potential zoonotic diseases to patients using them for AAT. GPs are mainly sourced from animal markets supplied by traditional farms, where environmental factors and sanitation are not properly controlled. This study aimed to compare health status between GPs raised in uncontrolled (conventional farm) and controlled (animal facility) environments.
Materials and Methods: Sample animals were obtained from a local animal market and transported to an animal facility. After 1 week of acclimatization, the health status of the animals, including general health condition, body weight, body temperature, complete blood count, liver function (alanine aminotransferase and bilirubin), renal function (blood urea nitrogen and creatinine), and presence of ectoparasites and endoparasites, was assessed. Then, the animals were maintained in the animal facility following the standard procedure for laboratory animals. After 2 months, the animals' health status was re-examined, assessing the same parameters.
Results: Based on the evaluated parameters, GPs raised in an uncontrolled environment were found to have poorer health status than those raised in a controlled environment. There were significant differences in almost all parameters between GPs raised in controlled and uncontrolled environments. We found that the populations of two ectoparasites, Gyropus ovalis and Gliricola porcelli , and one endoparasite, Eimeria caviae , decreased significantly following the movement of the animals from an uncontrolled to a controlled environment.
Conclusion: GPs raised in an uncontrolled environment have poor health status. However, a controlled environment with better care management can improve the health status of GPs.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
(Copyright: © Fitria, et al.)
References: Lab Anim (NY). 2015 Jun;44(6):207-8. (PMID: 25989552)
Comp Med. 2008 Aug;58(4):324-40. (PMID: 18724774)
BMC Vet Res. 2017 Jun 26;13(1):196. (PMID: 28651534)
Animals (Basel). 2020 Jul 25;10(8):. (PMID: 32722418)
Rev Sci Tech. 2005 Aug;24(2):683-91. (PMID: 16358519)
J Exp Psychol. 1953 Jan;45(1):1-11. (PMID: 13034994)
Folia Primatol (Basel). 2017;88(4):344-357. (PMID: 29041010)
Ann Sci. 2010 Jul;67(3):303-28. (PMID: 20853813)
Lab Anim (NY). 2016 Jan;45(1):35-41. (PMID: 26684957)
Lab Anim. 2005 Jul;39(3):321-30. (PMID: 16004692)
Horm Behav. 2003 Feb;43(2):281-92. (PMID: 12694638)
Vet World. 2017 Apr;10(4):375-379. (PMID: 28507407)
Lab Anim. 1976 Apr;10(2):119-42. (PMID: 180326)
Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2003 Mar-Apr;116(3-4):102-7. (PMID: 12680275)
Mycoses. 2013 Mar;56(2):168-72. (PMID: 22849870)
Animals (Basel). 2019 Aug 02;9(8):. (PMID: 31382429)
Vet Clin North Am Exot Anim Pract. 2015 Jan;18(1):33-40. (PMID: 25421024)
Vet World. 2017 Aug;10(8):999-1003. (PMID: 28919696)
Sci Rep. 2020 Jun 1;10(1):8901. (PMID: 32483316)
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2014 Jan;27(1):48-67. (PMID: 24396136)
Physiol Behav. 2020 Oct 15;225:113076. (PMID: 32673619)
J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2014;17(2):111-24. (PMID: 24665951)
J Physiol Sci. 2010 Mar;60(2):151-60. (PMID: 20039154)
فهرسة مساهمة: Keywords: clinical biochemistry; environment; guinea pig; health status; hematology; parasites
تواريخ الأحداث: Date Created: 20220822 Latest Revision: 20220823
رمز التحديث: 20221213
مُعرف محوري في PubMed: PMC9375207
DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2022.1575-1582
PMID: 35993076
قاعدة البيانات: MEDLINE
الوصف
تدمد:0972-8988
DOI:10.14202/vetworld.2022.1575-1582