The DOI matches its Crossref record; 134 of the 136 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
To Group or Not to Group? Good Practice for Housing Male Laboratory Mice
Open accessAbstract
It is widely recommended to group-house male laboratory mice because they are ‘social animals’, but male mice do not naturally share territories and aggression can be a serious welfare problem. Even without aggression, not all animals within a group will be in a state of positive welfare. Rather, many male mice may be negatively affected by the stress of repeated social defeat and subordination, raising concerns about welfare and also research validity. However, individual housing may not be an appropriate solution, given the welfare implications associated with no social contact. An essential question is whether it is in the best welfare interests of male mice to be group- or singly housed. This review explores the likely impacts—positive and negative—of both housing conditions, presents results of a survey of current practice and awareness of mouse behavior, and includes recommendations for good practice and future research. We conclude that whether group- or single-housing is better (or less worse) in any situation is highly context-dependent according to several factors including strain, age, social position, life experiences, and housing and husbandry protocols. It is important to recognise this and evaluate what is preferable from animal welfare and ethical perspectives in each case.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Social environment (group size and composition/stocking density) | Compromises animal welfare [191]. Induces aggressive behaviour [192,193] and stress [180].”
From Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 (2020) · cites this paper as [191]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research
Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412 · Cited by 7,300
Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research
Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics · doi:10.4103/0976-500x.72351 · Cited by 6,277
da Luz, A. C. D. D. S., Dias, G. P., Bevilaqua, M. C. D. N., Cocks, G. D., Gardino, P. F., Thuret, S., & Nardi, A. E. (2013) · Neuropsychobiology · doi:10.1159/000353269 · Cited by 4,015
Moy, S. S., Nadler, J. J., Perez, A., Barbaro, R. P., Johns, J. M., Magnuson, T. R., Piven, J., & Crawley, J. N. (2004) · Genes, Brain and Behavior · doi:10.1111/j.1601-1848.2004.00076.x · Cited by 1,522 · cited 2×
“via scent marking [21,52] - Social company as reward; evidenced by motivation to gain access to a social partner [61,76–78] - Preference for social stimulation over social isolation [61,76,82,83,89] - Strain-dependent sociability and social novelty [79,80] - Rewarding effects of aggression (e.”
BackgroundAssessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare
Boissy, A., Manteuffel, G., Jensen, M. B., Moe, R. O., Spruijt, B., Keeling, L. J., Winckler, C., Forkman, B., Dimitrov, I., Langbein, J., et al. (2007) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.003 · Cited by 1,486
A Scientific Conception of Animal Welfare that Reflects Ethical Concerns
Fraser, D. J., Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., & Milligan, B. N. (1997) · Animal Welfare · doi:10.1017/s0962728600019795 · Cited by 1,066
From an animal's point of view: Motivation, fitness, and animal welfare
Dawkins, M. S. (1990) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00077104 · Cited by 1,017
Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A Life Worth Living”
Mellor, D. (2016) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani6030021 · Cited by 948
Measuring emotional processes in animals: the utility of a cognitive approach
Paul, E. S., Harding, E. J., & Mendl, M. (2005) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.01.002 · Cited by 856
Self-citationNeurobiology of rodent self-grooming and its value for translational neuroscience
Kalueff, A. V., Stewart, A. M., Song, C., Berridge, K. C., Graybiel, A. M., & Fentress, J. C. (2016) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2015.8 · Cited by 852
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Berry, 1970, Natural History of the House Mouse, Field Stud., 3, 219
- Berdoy, M. (2002). The Laboratory Rat: A Natural History [Film], University of Oxford.
- Huber, R.C., Weber, E.M., and Olsson, I.A.S. (2007, January 11–14). Mice in standard and furnished cages do not differ in their short-term behavioural reaction to cage change and mating. Proceedings of the Tenth FELASA Symposium and the XIV ICLAS General Assembly and Conference, Cernobbio, Italy.
- McGregor, 1991, Reply to Jones R.B. 1991 article “Varied cages and aggression”. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 295–296, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 27, 297
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0
Percie du Sert, N., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., Emerson, M., et al. (2020) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000411 · Cited by 2,677
Reporting animal research: Explanation and Elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2019Preprint
du Sert, N. P., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., Emerson, M., et al. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/703355 · Cited by 557
A standardized social preference protocol for measuring social deficits in mouse models of autism
Rein, B. A., Ma, K., & Yan, Z. (2020) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/s41596-020-0382-9 · Cited by 254
Guidelines and Considerations for Metabolic Tolerance Tests in Mice
Benedé‐Ubieto, R., Estévez‐Vázquez, O., Ramadori, P., Cubero, F. J., & Nevzorova, Y. A. (2020) · Diabetes Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity · doi:10.2147/dmso.s234665 · Cited by 179
Hassan, A. M., Mancano, G., Kashofer, K., Fröhlich, E. E., Matak, A., Mayerhofer, R., Reichmann, F., Olivares, M., Neyrinck, A. M., Delzenne, N. M., et al. (2019) · Nutritional Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/1028415x.2018.1465713 · Cited by 166
Metadata
- Authors
- Kappel, S., Hawkins, P., & Mendl, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kappel, Sarah
- Hawkins, Penny
- Venue
- Animals
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2017-11-24
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 88
- ISSN
- 2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5742782
- OpenAlex
- W2766574891
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 136
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 4.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Animals (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
- Keywords
- laboratory mice, male mice, group housing, single housing, animal welfare, social behavior, aggression, social defeat, subordination, stress, housing conditions, husbandry, mouse strain differences, research validity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
