Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 May 7;21(5):e0341404. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0341404

A novel application tunnel in combination with medical training reduces stress induced by frequent intraperitoneal injections and blood draws in mice

Anne Schlutt 1,2, Katarina Riesner 2,3, Merle Kochan 4, Ann-Kathrin Meß 4, Denise Jahn 2,5, Isabella Lurje 1, Wiebke Werner 1, Felix Heymann 1, Olivia Kershaw 6, Frank Tacke 1, Bernhard Hiebl 7, Linda Hammerich 1,2,*
Editor: I Anna S Olsson8
PMCID: PMC13152133  PMID: 42096462

Abstract

Handling-induced stress represents a major burden on laboratory mice and is heavily influenced by the handling technique. As such, tail-handling induces much higher stress than cup- or tunnel-handling, which is further aggravated by interventions, e.g., injections, which require even harsher fixation methods. Previous studies demonstrated that habituation protocols can improve animal welfare during handling and interventions. Here, we developed a medical training program and an alternative fixation method using an application tunnel in the context of a liver cancer model, where frequent intraperitoneal injections in male C57Bl/6 mice over many weeks are needed to induce tumor development. The training regimen consisted of 5 sessions over 2 weeks, which gradually introduced the animals to being touched by handlers and restrained for procedures. The training program was completed once before the start of any interventions, additional training sessions were performed biweekly during the entire course of the experiments. The animals were randomized to receive injections either in the novel application tunnel or using conventional fixation. Training effect was continuously monitored by measuring the latency to interact with the experimenter, the surface body temperature and by activity tracking. The latency to interact rapidly decreased during initial training sessions in both groups, and this effect was sustained throughout the course of treatment. Body temperature did not change over the course of medical training and seemed to be more influenced by environmental influences. Activity tracking demonstrated that mice injected inside the tunnel were more active and returned to their normal activity levels after injections faster than conventionally restrained mice. Those mice also showed less signs of defecation and urination during interventions. Furthermore, the tunnel had a positive influence on the well-being of mice during blood draws demonstrated by reduced signs of pain and faster willingness to interact with the handler after the procedure. In conclusion, habituation of the mice to the interventions with medical training and the improved handling procedure during ip injections and blood draws durably reduces stress levels and improves welfare of mice.

Introduction

Laboratory animals are still indispensable for medical research to understand the function of genes, the mechanisms of diseases and the effectiveness and toxicities of drugs and chemicals. This is particularly relevant for cancer research, as many hallmarks of cancer can only be fully recapitulated in models using living organisms [1]. The house mouse (Mus musculus) is the most frequently used animal species for biomedical research in the European Union; about 1 million mice were used in 2024 for scientific purposes in Germany alone [2]. Directive 2010/63/EU [3] adapted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union aims to standardize and harmonize national legal provisions on animal welfare in research. Member States are encouraged to promote research in the field of the 3Rs, which are embedded in article 4 of the Directive [3]. 3R stands for “Replacement”, “Reduction” and “Refinement” as defined by William Russell und Rex Burch´s „The Principles of Human Experimental Technique” in 1959 [4]. Nowadays, replacement of animal studies with alternative strategies is often viewed as the ultimate goal. However, if replacement by animal-free methods is not possible, refinement methods can be used to improve animal welfare in basic and translational medical research.

Identifying and implementing the most appropriate refinement methods is always dependent on the individual experimental design. It may include enhanced cage enrichment, proven stress-reducing handling methods like cup or tunnel handling or a habituation of the animals to the interventions during experiments in form of a training program. Handling is the procedure most frequently experienced by laboratory animals (during regular husbandry as well as experimental interventions). Especially handling by less-experienced personnel can lead to repeated attempts during handling sessions with an increased risk of being bitten, increased experience of stress and a higher risk of injuries to both the animal and the handler due to wrong restraining or mis-application (needlestick injuries). Ultimately, handling-induced stress may influence the results of the respective research question [5,6]. Therefore, it appears promising that the implementation of a medical training could be a useful tool to improve animal well-being in a laboratory context since laboratory routine itself is stressful to mice [5]. It has been shown that habituation to the method of handling can lower long-term stress and anxiety, as it helps the animals to associate handling with neutral or positive experiences and better tolerate brief unpleasant procedures [6,7]. Habituation involves repeatedly exposing animals to a non-threatening stimulus such as simple, repetitive handling [8]. Currently available protocols usually employ training programs that last 3–5 days and sometimes include cognitive enrichment methods such as clicker training as well [6,9,10]. Handling can also be trained for specific procedures, such as injections or oral gavage [11], and strategies have been described to refine the immobilization method for these procedures. These include the 3-finger method, which creates less pressure on the throat area than traditional scruffing methods, and a technique without full restraint where mice are allowed to grasp a wire grid while right hind limb and tail are secured with one hand to allow access to the lower abdomen for injection [12,13]. However, the former still requires the mice to be picked up and turned around into an unnatural and therefore fear-inducing position, while the latter provides no protection from being bitten by stressed animals and might limit the amount of time to administer injections, especially in more aggressive strains. It is important to emphasize that the type and frequency of handling depends on the particular experimental setup and any training program must be well thought out to fit the need. Because experimental procedures vary widely, only very limited universal training guidelines exist.

Here, we describe the implementation of a medical training program and a novel application tunnel for injections and blood draws in the context of a mouse model for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which requires repeated intraperitoneal (ip) injections over many weeks. Regarding our training program, the different steps can be adapted depending on the experimental design. In order to determine the training effect, we evaluated several non-invasive stress parameters, including the latency to interact with the experimenter, surface body temperature, corticosterone accumulation in fur as well as the general behavior of the mice. The latency to interact is an easily measurable parameter that can provide immediate information about the stress level and well-being of mice [14], which are flight animals that hide in dangerous situations. The more comfortable a mouse feels, the more voluntary interaction with humans can be observed [14,15]. Another common method to detect acute stress or illness in rodents is measuring the body temperature [16]. Since intrarectal measurements can cause additional stress [17], we chose to measure the surface temperature with a contactless infrared thermometer [18]. We also measured corticosterone accumulation in fur as an end-point parameter, as it has been shown that corticosterone increases in serum and fur not only due to heightened activity or arousal [19] but also as a response to stress [20,21], which can be influenced by the handling method [22,23]. Finally, we evaluated the general behavior of the mice after injections by assessing activity patterns and defecation/urination. After blood draws, the mouse grimace scale (MGS) was applied as a readout for pain.

Materials and methods

Animals and housing

C57Bl/6J and C57Bl/6N wildtype mice (age range 14 days to 26 weeks) were bred in-house in the experimental area of the Research Institutes for Experimental Medicine (FEM) of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Therefore, no acclimatization period to the experimental area was necessary. Mice were kept in groups in eurostandard type-III-cages made from polycarbonate (425 x 266 x 185 mm, base area 800 cm2, Tecniplast Germany, Hohenpeißenberg, Germany) at a relatively constant temperature (range 20–24°C) and humidity (range 30–70%). Animals had access to food (1324, Altromin Spezialfutter GmBH, Lage, Germany; contains 55% carbohydrates, 19,2% protein, 12% crude ash/fiber, 4,1% fat, moisture content 11,3%) and water (untreated tap water provided in water bottles) ad libitum and cages were changed once per week. All cages were enriched with spruce wood granulate (FS 14, Safe-lab, Essingen, Germany), cotton pads (14010, Plexx B.V., Elst, The Netherlands), paper nesting material (Sizzle-Nest, Datesand, Stockport, UK), 2 aspen wood gnawing blocks (H9234-NGS, 40 mm x 16 mm x 10 mm, Ssniff Spezialdiäten GmbH, Soest, Germany), 1 nesting igloo made from red polycarbonate (Mouse House, Tecniplast Germany, Hohenpeißenberg, Germany), 1 opaque grey tunnel for hiding and 1 clear acrylic tunnel (50 x 3 x 100 mm, Datesand Group, Stockport, UK), which was also used for contact-free transfer of the mice between cages during the weekly cage changes. Mice were maintained on a 12/12 h light/dark cycle (6am-6 pm) and experiments were conducted between 4 pm and 7 pm when the animals are more active than in the morning hours. All animal experiments were reviewed and approved by the competent local authority (Landesamt für Gesundheit und Soziales Berlin (LAGeSo); approval numbers G 0310/19, G 0112/23, G 0131/23, G 0037/21) and were conducted in accordance with the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines.

Hepatocellular carcinoma induction

HCC induction was performed in male mice only, because HCC is much more prevalent in men than women and accordingly, early exposure to the DNA-alkylating agent diethyl nitrosamine (DEN) leads to HCC development in almost 100% of male mice, but only in 30% of female mice. This is thought to be due to estrogen [24,25]. HCC was induced based on established protocols [26–28]: male C57Bl/6J mice received a single ip injection of 25 mg/kg DEN at the age of 14 days followed by repetitive (twice weekly) injections of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4; 0.5 ml/kg diluted in corn oil) to induce fibrosis or feeding a Western-style diet (WD, E15723-34, Ssniff Spezialdäten GmBH, Soest, Germany) containing 21% butter fat, 1.25% cholesterol, 17% protein, 47% carbohydrates and 9% crude fibre/ash to induce steatosis from the age of 8 weeks (Fig 1). All male mice born in our colony received DEN injections and were subsequently randomized to receive CCl4 or WD when they were 8 weeks old. The combination of DEN and CCl4 resulted in tumor development within 10 weeks (i.e., at 18 weeks of age), the combination of DEN with WD resulted in tumor development within 16 weeks (i.e., at 24 weeks of age). Tumor-bearing mice were again randomized to be treated with an immunotherapy regimen (either a dendritic cell growth factor, fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand (Flt3L), an immune checkpoint inhibitor, or both) administered via ip injection. Animals were monitored for welfare and health status via daily visual health checks. Efforts to minimize suffering and distress are described under medical training and injection procedures. Death by euthanasia was not a planned experimental endpoint for this study as evaluation of the welfare methods described here concluded at a maximum age of 26 weeks (see below) after which the mice continued to be monitored for tumor growth as part of other ongoing studies. To ensure that spontaneous death due to disease-related events could be prevented, humane endpoints and termination criteria were defined in case animals should show early signs of suffering or distress. These included: indicators of lasting pain (more than 24 hours after analgesia), severely impaired overall condition (weight loss >20%, body condition score of 2 or lower, palpable tumors >10 mm, centralized circulation, lack of reaction to stimuli), or largest tumor diameter (of a single nodule) of 15 mm as measured via non-invasive magnetic resonance imaging. Animals were monitored for these endpoints throughout the whole course of the study; none of the animals reached any humane endpoint until conclusion of the study.

Fig 1. Mouse models.

Fig 1

To induce tumorigenesis, mice are injected with diethyl nitrosamine (DEN) at the age of 14 days and then subjected to carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) injections to induce fibrosis or western diet (WD) feeding to induce steatosis. (A) fibrosis model: Basic medical training program starts at 6 weeks of age, CCl4 injections start at 8 weeks of age. Training is continued (2 sessions every other week) until immunotherapy treatments commence at 18 weeks after tumors have developed. (B) steatotis model: Basic medical training program starts either at 6 weeks of age („early“; 2 weeks before WD feeding starts at 8 weeks) and is continued (2 sessions every other week) until immunotherapy treatments commence at 24 weeks or starts at 22 weeks („late“; 2 weeks before immunotherapy treatments).

Experimental groups

Following the 3R principle of reduction, this welfare study was conducted exclusively on animals already undergoing HCC induction in other ongoing projects. All animals undergoing HCC induction during the course of this study were included. Within the CCl4 model, mice were randomized to receive medical training and/or ip injections in the novel application tunnel (S1 Table, groups 2–5). Within the WD model, mice were randomized to receive medical training either early (at 6 weeks, i.e., 2 weeks before beginning of WD feeding) or late (at 20 weeks, i.e., 2 weeks before ip injections begin) (S1 Table, groups 6–8). As a baseline control group for biochemical measurements, 22-weeks old healthy mice without any interventions (no disease induction) were included as well (S1 Table, group 1). Because animals entered the experiments at 2 weeks (=before weaning), animal numbers differed between cages depending on the number of male pups per litter. In general, mice in the same experimental groups were housed together. Therefore, we treated cage as the experimental unit, unless otherwise stated. Blinding of the experimenters during training and sample/data collection was not possible, because all animals had to be trained repeatedly and many measurements were taken during or immediately after training. This required the experimenters to be aware of the group allocation of the animals at any given time. However, experimenters were blinded to sample allocation during end-point sample analysis whenever possible (e.g., corticosterone measurements, pathological examination).

Medical training program

All animals undergoing HCC induction were included in the medical training program and analyzed according to their group assignment (no exclusions of animals occurred). The training program included a basic training consisting of 5 training sessions within 2 weeks (S2 Table and Fig 2) and was started at the age of 6 weeks, i.e., 2 weeks before the beginning of CCl4 injections or WD feeding to induce liver cancer (Fig 1). The amount of training sessions was chosen based on previous studies demonstrating training success after completing 5 training sessions with mice [29]. At the end of every training session mice were given treats (Kellogg’s fruit loops®) in the home cage and training sessions were 2–3 days apart to allow time for recovery. The same Vetbed® was used for all mice in one cage (but not shared between cages) and reused over several training days. Vetbeds were cleaned after contamination with urine/feces. A detailed description of the training sessions included considerations for handler behavior, criteria of success and how to respond to animal behavior can be found in S2 Table. In general, handlers performing the training should stay calm, avoid fast movement and not put any pressure on the animals (e.g., corner them) as this can lead to negative associations.

Fig 2. Medical training program.

Fig 2

(A) Day 1: Gloved hand is reached inside the cage, handler waits for voluntary interaction. (B) Day 2: mice are directed into acrylic handling tunnels and held for about 30 seconds before being released back into the cage. (C) Day 3: mice are transferred onto a Vetbed outside of the cage using the acrylic handling tunnel. Handler tries to touch the animals gently for about 30 seconds, before transferring them back. (D) Day 4: same as day 3, with a focus on touching neck, back, tail area for about 30 seconds. (E) Day 5: fixation method for injections is performed once without injection.

Conventional Handling (scruffing) for injections

Mice were immobilized on a cage grid by securing the tail and allowing the mouse to grasp the cage grid with its forepaws. Then, the lower abdomen and extremities were gently pushed down with the hand holding the tail while pulling back (scruffing) the fur and skin in the neck area between thumb and forefinger of the other hand. Mice were turned around to expose the abdomen and the tail fixated between the palm and the little finger of the same hand holding on to the neck (Fig 2E), leaving the other hand free for injections [13].

Application tunnel for intraperitoneal injections

The application tunnel was 3D-printed in house, details on the design and manufacturing can be found in supplementary methods and S1 Fig. The size of the tunnel was dependent on the age of mice; for mice under 10 weeks a tunnel with an inner diameter of 7 cm, for older mice of 8 cm was used. The length of the tunnel was 10 cm. A rolled-up piece of a washable and autoclavable Vetbed, which the mice were introduced to during the medical training, was placed inside the tunnel. Since studies have shown that mice feel safer on groundings which have similar color to their fur [30], a grey Vetbed was used (Fig 3A). The same Vetbed was used for all mice housed together in one cage, but changed between cages. After each day of injection both the Vetbed and tunnel were cleaned.

Fig 3. Application tunnel.

Fig 3

(A) 3D-printed tunnel with Vetbed. (B) Mouse entering tunnel. (C) Soft pressure is applied on the sacral area and tail fixed between forefinger and thumb. (D) View on caudal abdominal region for ip injection and location of injection (syringe).

Injections inside the tunnel

Fig 3 shows the procedure of ip injection using the tunnel (a link to a video demonstrating the injection procedure can be found in supplementary methods). Mice were removed from their home cages using the acrylic tunnel already known from the medical training and placed on a Vetbed outside of the cage. In our experience, the mice often enter the application tunnel voluntarily and instinctively as it offers a place to hide. If not, mice were gently directed to enter the application tunnel (Fig 3B) The handler carefully held the tail’s base between forefinger and thumb to prevent that the mouse is walking too deep inside. By applying soft pressure on the sacral area with the middle finger of the same hand, the mouse is immobilized (Fig 3C). This fixation allows a good view on the caudal abdominal region where ip injection is performed (Fig 3D). After completing the injection, the injection tunnel was placed inside the home cage to allow mice to return to their home cage without additional handling.

Latency to interact with the experimenter

For the purpose of this study, we defined the latency to interact as the amount of time required for a mouse to voluntarily get into contact with the handler after completing a training session. To measure this, mice were placed back into their home cage after each training session or after blood draws and one gloved hand of the handler was reached inside the cage but did not move. A timer was used to measure the time it took for the animal to voluntarily interact with the gloved hand again (e.g., sniff). Each mouse was assessed individually, but with the co-housed animals present in the home cage. Cage means were treated as the experimental unit, unless stated otherwise.

Body temperature

Surface body temperature was determined non-invasively using an infrared thermometer (GT-101, Geratherm Medical AG, Geratal, Germany) by holding the thermometer over the back region of the mice (2–3 mm away). Temperature measurements were performed immediately at the end of each training session and again 15 minutes after completing the training session and transferring the mice back into their home cages. Each mouse was assessed individually, but with the co-housed animals present in the home cage. Cage means were treated as the experimental unit.

Subcutaneous tracking chips and activity tracking

For movement tracking, a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Chip (ID162-PM) was implanted subcutaneously in the caudal abdominal region left of the Linea alba, using the IntelliCage® Injector (Cat.No. D-290000-IC-50705). The procedure was performed at the age of 5 weeks under short-term isoflurane anesthesia. The 2 x 2 mm wound channel was closed using a single staple with a 5/0 Monocryl suture. Cages were placed on Trafficage devices (TSE Systems, Berlin, Germany) to monitor activity of the animals inside the cages. Every cage was divided into 6 areas and each time an animal moved from one area to another was recorded as an event (S2 Fig). Measurements were analyzed using Microsoft Access. Co-housed mice were in the same experimental groups and tracked at the same time; cage means were treated as the experimental unit.

Blood draws from the tail vein

Healthy untrained female C57Bl/6N mice not undergoing HCC induction (Table 1) were used to assess stress levels after blood draw from the tail vein. Mice were randomized to undergo blood draws either in the injection tunnel or a conventional restrainer (clear plastic tube without bedding, length 11 cm, inner diameter 3 cm, manufactured in-house; S6A Fig). In both cases the lateral tail vein was scored with a needle and one drop of blood collected into a microtube. Stress parameters were assessed immediately after releasing mice from the restrainer or the tunnel: pictures to assess MGS were taken on the Vetbed as soon as the mice exited the restrainer or tunnel; latency to interact was measured directly after placing the animals back into their home cages individually. Therefore, Individual mice were treated as the experimental units for stress parameters taken after blood draws. Two animals had to be excluded from the study, because blood draw was not successful on the first try and animals had to undergo restraining procedure twice, which could potentially falsify the results due to higher stress levels.

Table 1. Overview of experimental groups to evaluate effect of restraining method on stress levels after blood draws.

# Disease model Procedure Training regimen Restraining Method
1 Untreated (n = 8) Blood draw from tail vein None Conventional Restrainer
2 Untreated (n = 7) Blood draw from tail vein None Tunnel

Mouse grimace scale

The MGS was first introduced in 2010 to detect facial pain expression and categorization in mice [31]. Since then, it is a widely used parameter in pain and stress assessment [32]. For classification of animal welfare the MGS can be used as a scoring system for the characterization of reaction to pain by analyzing expression of facial muscles [32,33] and is a useful tool to determine the stress level in mice, e.g., after repeated anesthesia [34]. The scores were determined using photographs (n = 2–3 per mouse) taken directly after the procedures before placing the animals back into their home cages. Therefore, individual animals were treated as the experimental unit in this case. Two observers with an experienced background on mice behavior scored three different facial expression parameters: Orbital tightening, nose bulge, and ear position. We did not assess whisker position and cheek bulge as this was challenging due to the dark fur color of our mice (a limitation already noticed in other animal welfare studies [35,36]). The parameters were scored on a three-point scale from 0 to 2 (0 = not present, 1 = moderately present, 2 = obviously present). The three facial scores were then added up and averaged (mean MGS scores). Each animal was scored by both observers independently and the 2 MGS scores averaged to reach one final MGS score per animal.

Pathological examination

We randomly selected 3 conventionally injected mice and 4 mice injected in the tunnel to be sampled for histopathological examination of the injection site. Mice had received the last intraperitoneal injection 72h before sampling. At sacrifice via isoflurane overdose, tissue samples of about 2 x 1 cm including peritoneum, abdominal wall and skin were collected from the caudal abdominal region where mice had received injections and stored in 4% paraformaldehyde solution until further processing. Samples were paraffin embedded, cut into 5 µm sections and stained with hematoxylin and eosin at the Institute of Veterinary Pathology, Freie Universität Berlin. Histopathological examination was performed by an EBVS® European Specialist in Veterinary Pathology.

Fur collection and Corticosterone analysis

Fur samples were collected by carefully cutting the hair on the back of the mice with fine scissors as close as possible to the skin. Samples were wrapped in aluminum foil and stored at room temperature in the dark to avoid light exposure. Steroid extraction and quantification were performed by Dresden Lab Service GmbH (Dresden, Germany) as previously described [37,38]. Briefly, the fur samples were washed by shaking them in 2.5 mL isopropanol for 3 min at room temperature. After drying for 12 hours, 5 ± 0,5 mg of non-pulverized hair was transferred to a 2 ml centrifuge tube. After adding 50 μl of internal standard and 1,8 mL Methanol, the sample was incubated for 18 h. Thereafter, the sample was centrifuged at 10000 rpm for 2 min and 1,6 ml of the supernatant was transferred to a new 2 ml tube. Alcohol was evaporated at 50°C and under a constant stream of nitrogen. The dried samples were resuspended in water and analyzed via liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assay with atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) positive mode on a Shimadzu LC-20AD HPLC unit with a Shimadzu SIL-20 AC autosampler and a Shimadzu CTO-20 AC column temperature oven.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 10. Due to the small sample sizes non-parametric tests were performed as a default. Comparison of two groups was performed using Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test for paired data and Mann Whitney test for unpaired data. Comparison of more than two groups was performed using repeated measures Friedman test with Dunn’s multiple comparisons test (comparing every mean to a control mean) or repeated measures 2-way ANOVA of ranked data followed by Šidák´s multiple comparison test, as indicated. P-values under 0.05 were considered significant. Effect size r was calculated by dividing the standardized test statistic (z) by the square root of the total sample size (N). Following Cohen´s rule of thumb we considered effect sizes <0.3 as small, between 0.3–0.5 as medium and >0.5 as large. Two mice had to be excluded from experiments due to technical issues during blood draw (see above), but no additional data points or outliers were removed during analysis.

Results

Latency to interact

As a first and very immediate parameter to determine training effect, we measured the latency to interact after every training session. As expected, the latency to interact was quite high and very variable in untrained mice not used to the experimenter (S3 Fig and Fig 4A and 4B training day 1). In mice without training, the latency to interact remained high even when the animals were tested repeatedly (S3A Fig), whereas a decrease was apparent in all training groups already after the first day of training (Fig 4A and 4B). This effect was sustained even after the beginning of frequent ip injections (between training day 5 and 6 for CCl4 mice and between training day 17 and 18 for WD mice). While not all timepoints reached significance when compared to the first day of training, effect sizes were generally quite large (>1.0 in many cases; S3B Fig). Furthermore, in the CCl4 model we did not observe any differences between mice injected using the conventional scruffing method or the application tunnel (Fig 4A).

Fig 4. Latency to interact.

Fig 4

Mice were subjected to the medical training regimen described in Fig 1 starting at the age of 6 weeks. After each training session the Latency to interact (LtI) was recorded for every animal individually, but with co-housed animals present in the home cage. Cage means were treated as the experimental unit with the average LtI of all mice in one cage as the datapoint. (A) Latency to interact of CCl4 mice undergoing medical training only (MT) or medical training with tunnel injection (MT + T), (B) Latency to interact of WD mice receiving early (MT early) vs. late (MT late) medical training. Data are displayed as mean + /- SEM. Repeated Measures Friedman test with Dunn’smultiple comparisons test (all time-points compared to first day of training). * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001, **** = p < 0.0001.

In the WD model, we also compared mice that received an early basic training starting at the age of 6 weeks followed by a continuous training (WD + MT early) with mice that received a late training starting at the age of 22 weeks (WD + MT late) (Fig 4B). As described above, we observed a strong decrease in the latency to interact after the first training day in both groups, which did not increase again after the beginning of the ip injections, indicating that the age of the mice did not have an influence on the training effect.

Body temperature

Next, we assessed the surface body temperature immediately and 15 min after each training session. We expected to observe a higher temperature in stressed mice due to the stress-induced hyperthermia response [39,40]. Hence, body temperature should be higher immediately after the training sessions as compared to 15 min after returning to their home cage and successful stress reduction via medical training should result in a lower surface body temperature over time. However, we observed the opposite in the CCl4 + MT group (Fig 5A). The temperature right after the training session was lower (mean minimum 35,33°C, maximum 35,61°C) compared to the temperature 15 minutes after (mean minimum 35,66°C, maximum 35,82°C). Of note, this difference was could be observed at every timepoint during the course of the experiment, but did not reach significance. The average body temperature – both immediately and 15 minutes after each session – did not change with increasing training sessions (i.e., with increasing age of the mice). Similar results were obtained for MT + T mice with minimal surface measurements of 34,8°C and maximum measurements of 35,69°C right after the training and a minimum of 35,35°C and a maximum of 35,86°C after 15 minutes recovery (Fig 5B). It is important to note that CCl4 -treated mice were handled inside a biosafety cabinet with a ventilation system with high air flow due to the hazardous properties of CCl4, which results in a rather cold surrounding atmosphere.

Fig 5. Body temperature.

Fig 5

Body temperature measured immediately (0’) and 15 minutest (15’) after training sessions. Body temperature was measured for every animal individually, but with co-housed animals present in the home cage. Cage means () were treated as the experimental unit with the average body temperature of all mice in one cage as the datapoint. (A) CCl4 mice with medical training (CCl4 + MT), (B) CCl4 mice with medical training and tunnel injection, (C) WD mice with early medical training (WD + MT early) and (D) WD mice with late medical training (WD + MT late). Data are displayed as mean + /- SEM. 2-way ANOVA of ranked data with Šidák´s post-test. * = p < 0.05.

In comparison, mice of the WD-model (Fig 5C and 5D) showed no differences of surface body temperature right after (Mean WD early = 35,61 °C and WD late = 35,43°C) and 15 minutes after the medical training session (Mean WD early = 35,7 °C and WD late = 35,44°C). Those mice underwent medical training under the same conditions as their housing conditions (20–24°C). The animals had an increased body temperature over their training sessions and lifetime, and the WD early group displayed a temporary rise in temperature right after immunotherapy onset.

Activity assessment after ip injections

In previous studies, we noticed that mice often show an apathic behavior directly after ip injections, especially after the injection of CCl4. CCl4 intoxication is known to cause symptoms like headaches, nausea and abdominal pain in humans [41], which may well explain the side-effects we observe in our mice: about 5–10 min after the injection, the animals start showing apathic behavior including closed eyes, curved backs, laid-back ears and above all, severely restricted movement for 30–60 minutes. Since we observed that this behavior seemed less pronounced when the mice were injected inside the novel injection tunnel, we assessed the activity of the mice after CCl4 ip injections using subcutaneous RFID chips. For each mouse, the number of movements was collected over a period of three hours following ip injection either in the tunnel or using the conventional scruffing method for several (up to 19) time points per mouse (Fig 6). To generate a baseline, the same mice were tracked after cage cleaning and medical training sessions (S4A Fig). Since mice in the same experimental groups were housed together and assessed at the same time, we compared the cage means at each time point rather than the movements of individual mice. In general, all mice were less active after ip injections than after training sessions, but mice injected inside the application tunnel were more active after the injections than conventionally injected mice (Fig 6A). In addition, tunnel injected mice seemed to recover faster as well (Fig 6B). During the first hour after injection, the count of movements did not differ between both groups, however, during the second and third hour the tunnel injected group showed significantly more activity than conventionally injected mice. Both groups had a decreased movement again into the third hour after injection, possibly due to the handler having left them alone for quite some time by then, but tunnel injected mice were still more active than the conventionally injected group. Importantly, the positive effect on the activity of the mice did not seem dependent on the injected substance, as we observed the same trend after ip injection of our immunotherapy drug (Flt3L, S4B and S4C Fig).

Fig 6. Activity tracking after ip injections.

Fig 6

Mice were implanted a subcutaneous RFID chip in the abdominal region. After ip injections using either conventional scruffing or the novel injection tunnel, cages were placed on a traffic cage system and movements of the mice were recorded for a total of 3 hours after each injection. Because co-housed mice were tracked together, cage means were treated as the experimental until with the average count of movements of all mice in one cage per timepoint as the datapoint. Conventional: n = 10 mice in 2 cages; tunnel: n = 9 mice in 2 cages. (A) Count of movements after tunnel or conventional injection of CCl4 measured over 3h at 12 different timepoints during the course of the experiment. Every data point represents the average count of movement per hour of all mice in the group at one experimental timepoint. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test; (B) Count of movements after tunnel or conventional injection stratified by the first three hours after CCl4. Friedman test with Dunn’s multiple comparisons test was used to compare individual timepoints within conventional or tunnel groups, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test was used to compare conventional vs. tunnel groups at each timepoint; (C) Incidence of urination and defecation during injection (each data point represents the sum of events in each group at 3 different experimental time points). Mann-Whitney test. Data are displayed as mean + /- SEM. r = effect size.

Defecation and urination

We also recorded cases of urination and defecation during the injection procedure in two groups of mice, which received CCl4 injections either conventionally or in the application tunnel. During the first 3 injection timepoints (i.e., the first 3 injections after completing the training regimen), we detected 10 cases of urination and 4 cases of defecation from conventionally injected mice (n = 5) compared to no defecation and only one case of urination from mice injected inside the tunnel (Fig 6C).

Pathological examination

To ensure that the altered positioning of the animals during injection did not result in injuries to the application area we also examined the injection sites of 3 randomly selected conventionally and 4 randomly selected tunnel-injected mice histopathologically (S5 Fig). All mice showed moderate to severe inflammation of the skeletal muscles and, in some cases, seroma-like cystic cavities, which are likely the result of the regular and frequent injection needle puncture. However, in the pathological examination, no differences were observed between the two injection groups in a blinded assessment, suggesting that injection inside the tunnel did not cause any additional injuries.

Blood draws

The encouraging results of the movement tracking and behavior of the mice during and after ip injections prompted us to also test the injection tunnel for blood draws from the tail vein using needle puncture. The existing restrainers to immobilize the mice during this procedure often cause signs of fear like vocalization, defecation and urination. Therefore, we assessed the stress level of mice after blood draw inside the restrainer in comparison to mice after blood draw using the application tunnel. For this purpose, we used healthy untrained mice in order to assess the effect of the tunnel without any confounders from the disease induction or the training. The latency to interact measured right after blood draw was significantly lower for the tunnel-handled mice (mean = 13,14 s) compared to restrainer-handled mice (mean = 41,5 s) (Fig 7A). We also noticed variation in facial expression and general habitus. Pictures taken right after the blood draw (S6 Fig) were assessed for orbital tightening, nose bulge and ear position on a categorical scale from 0 to 2. Tunnel-handled mice displayed a significantly lower MGS score compared to restrained mice (Fig 7B). Taken together, these results indicate that restraining mice in the tunnel also increases welfare during and after blood draws from the tail vein.

Fig 7. Latency to interact and grimace scale after blood draw from the tail vein.

Fig 7

Mice were subjected to blood draws either inside a conventional restrainer (n = 8) or the novel application tunnel (n = 7). (A) Latency to interact (LtI) measured immediately after blood draw. Every animal was assessed individually with no other animals present in the home cage. Mann Whitney test. (B) Facial expression assessed by mouse grimace scale (MGS) immediately after blood draw. Mice were assessed individually before being returned to the home cage. Mann-Whitney test, Data are displayed as mean + /- SEM. r = effect size.

Corticosterone accumulation in fur

As a long-term stress parameter, we assessed corticosterone accumulation in the fur at the age of 22 weeks (CCl4 model) and 26 weeks (WD model) and compared corticosterone levels to 22-weeks old healthy untrained mice without any disease induction or interventions. We were not able to detect any significant differences in either model (S7A and S7B Fig), with a tendency towards lower corticosterone levels in WD mice in the early training group, which also received a continuous training throughout the whole experiment (for about 20 weeks). This may indicate that the medical training has a positive influence on the welfare of the mice even during regular housing without interventions. This effect was not observed in the late training group.

Discussion

Our study shows that habituation of mice to interventions with medical training in combination with the use of a novel application tunnel reduces stress levels during frequent ip injections and blood draws. These effects were sustained throughout the course of the experiment and applied even after injection of substances that are known to have a negative effect on well-being themselves. Similar to what other studies have shown [29,42], a training frequency of 5 training days was sufficient for us to get the animals used to the handling procedure, e.g., for ip injections. Neither the timepoint of the training start within the experiment nor the beginning of the injections had an influence on the training success. As expected, measuring the latency to interact with the experimenter as an immediate stress parameter was very helpful to determine the effect of the training. Since this parameter decreased rapidly after only one training session and remained constant after that, it is possible that this change in approach behavior was supported by familiarity with the test from day 2 onwards, which would suggest that less training still maintains the same benefits. However, the same reduction could not be observed in mice that did not receive any training and were only assessed for the latency to interact on the same days as the training groups. Still, as each training session creates some level of stress on the animals, achieving the desired effect with as few training sessions as possible is highly desirable and would also save considerable lab resources (experimenter time). Nevertheless, we noticed that it is essential for the animals to be introduced to the application tunnel during the training program in order to facilitate them entering the tunnel without force. Therefore, the sessions for training of the injection procedure should not be omitted. Otherwise, the time saved on training would be offset by the additional time needed to convince animals to enter the tunnel and the added stress of using force might negate the purpose of the training. In contrast to the latency to interact, the measurement of body temperature showed no changes over the course of the medical training sessions and rather seemed dependent on external influences as working under ventilation systems (resulting in lower surrounding temperature) seemed to distort the values strongly. The risk of temperature loss for mice with a relatively large surface area compared to their body weight is known [43]. Therefore, the reduced surface temperature observed in CCl4 -treated animals was likely due to the surrounding atmosphere in the biosafety cabinet rather than stress-related. In addition, the increase in body temperature observed in WD animals over time was likely due to the diet-induced obesity and decreasing body surface to weight ratio [44] and the temperature peak in the WD early group right after immunotherapy seemed to be more influenced by immunotherapy itself than training effort [45]. Therefore, it might have been more informative to test both CCl4 and WD mice in similar environmental conditions, however, this was not possible due to animal facility regulations (due to its hazardous properties, CCl4 -treated mice had to be kept in a separate room and cages could only be opened under a biosafety cabinet to protect experimenters). Nevertheless, since we were still able to detect rather small temperature deviations (between 0 and 15 min after training in cold environments), surface measurements can generally be a good alternative to intrarectal measurements, which has been suggested by other studies as well [18,46]. It is important to keep in mind that there is a big variation in surface temperature depending on the location of measurement [47], which can falsify the results due to vasoconstriction in the periphery as a reaction to stress and pain. These issues could be circumvented by using infrared thermography, which is able to non-invasively capture the temperature of different body areas at the same time, or implantable transponder-based systems to measure core temperature [16,47]. However, these methods require more resources in terms of time, expertise and money and might not be available in every research environment. In this case, measuring the temperature in proximal areas and with a probe held close to the surface, as we performed here, leads to more accurate and consistent results compared to a contactless measurement [48].

In mice, handling procedures during laboratory routine itself, which includes lifting the mice up, cleaning and moving the cages, can already trigger fear and pain [5]. Invasive interventions, like injections, which are associated with harsh restraining are increasing those effects. It has been shown that ip injections with saline only can increase stress parameters like fecal corticosterone metabolites [47]. Catching mice by the tail can cause pain and fear and many studies show improved welfare when replacing tail handling by tunnel or cup handling [15,29] and this beneficial effect remain even when animals are subject to frequent interventions like ip injections [49,50]. In line with this, we observed that not only the method of catching and transferring mice, but also the type of restraining during injection appears to have a major impact. The measurement of activity patterns after ip injections showed that mice that experience less restraining injection had a significantly faster recovery period. Importantly, this effect seemed to be independent of the injected substance. Furthermore, we noticed that use of the application tunnel can also reduce stress in researchers, especially those inexperienced in handling and fixation of animals. Conventional restraining methods can lead to stress caused by fear of getting bitten while scruffing the animal, which is aggravated by failed attempts and repeated tries to achieve correct positioning of the mouse. Increased stress levels of the researchers transfer to the animals and heightens their fear, which makes restraining even more difficult. The animals included in this study were all handled by experienced handlers to exclude level of experience as a confounder. However, it is worth mentioning that many other researchers at our institution using the tunnel for intraperitoneal injection in their own studies, including some that were newly trained, reported decreased hesitation in approaching the animals and performing injections.

We also observed reduced signs of pain after blood draws from the tail vein inside the new application tunnel, which we assessed by taking the MGS immediately after the procedure. Mice handled in a conventional restrainer showed higher MGS compared to those, which experienced the same procedure less restrained in our application tunnel. This is in accordance with a previous study that demonstrated pain differences based on facial expression during ear-tagging depending on the handling method (tunnel or tail). Tunnel handled mice showed significantly lower MGS after ear-tagging [51], suggesting that handling method plays an important role in the response of mice to stressful and painful procedures. Still, the experience of the scorers can lead to significant variability in MGS results [32] and needs to be taken into account. Already existing approaches in (half-)automated evaluation of MGS are promising tools for standardized assessment of facial expressions [52,53] and could allow the use by non- or less-experienced experimenters.

In our study, we could not measure any significant changes in the end-point stress parameter corticosterone in the fur of our mice. Neither medical training nor tunnel injection were able to lower corticosterone levels of the mice in the CCl4 groups and only a tendency could be observed in the WD groups. It is unclear, whether this means that chronic stress levels in our mice were unchanged or whether corticosterone levels were influenced by any other experiment-related conditions. It is known that corticosterone levels show higher variability in grouped mice, potentially caused by hierarchy with the dominant animal in the cage showing the highest levels [23]. The frequent handling of the CCl4 mice can lead to increased aggressiveness and dominance behavior, as the animals constantly have to fight out and defend their hierarchy when reassembling/relocating in their cages, which may cause higher variability of corticosterone levels in individual mice. Additionally, it should be noted that sampling the fur may be prone to distortion of data through circumstances such as mice grooming each other in groups and transferring the corticosterone-containing saliva of one mouse to another. This problem could be circumvented by measuring corticosterone metabolites in urine or feces, but collection of these samples can lead to increased acute stress levels due to single-housing or use of special metabolic cages without nesting material or housing and therefore also skew results [54]. In addition, corticosterone is underlying a circadian rhythm with a peak in the evening hours during the awakening response of the nocturnal animals [19], which further complicates standardized collection as fecal droppings in the home cage would need to be from the same time of day. This would require cage changes directly before the collection period, which could also increase short-term stress levels in the animals. Our results are in line with a recent study in rats that challenged the general concept of hair corticosterone as a representative of chronic stress and concluded that glucocorticoid levels in fur can only indicate recent stress as they diffuse out of hairs again within a few days after a stress stimulus [55]. This might explain why our end-point measurements were not able to show any differences between the groups. Further studies with more frequent sampling during the course of experiments would be needed to confirm this.

In conclusion, our study shows that the medical training program is able to habituate the mice to human contact and reduce handling-associated stress during interventions. In addition, the use of the new application tunnel seems to significantly mitigate the negative influence of procedures like injections and blood draws and further reduced signs of stress, fear and pain. Therefore, our medical training protocol provides a good concept to increase and monitor animal welfare in the context of long-term experiments with frequent ip injections, which can easily be adapted depending on the experimental design. The application tunnel is easily customizable to individual needs as well. It can be printed on basic 3D-printer models using low-cost UV-cured resin making it accessible to a wide scientific community even in limited resource settings. Given the large number of rodents used in biomedical research worldwide, our application tunnel has the potential to make a significant and lasting impact on laboratory animal welfare.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Overview of experimental groups.

(PDF)

pone.0341404.s001.pdf (427.8KB, pdf)
S2 Table. Overview of the basic training program.

(PDF)

pone.0341404.s002.pdf (433.5KB, pdf)
S1 Fig. Technical diagram of the injection tunnel.

(JPG)

pone.0341404.s003.jpg (240.3KB, jpg)
S2 Fig. Traffic cage system.

(JPG)

pone.0341404.s004.jpg (357.3KB, jpg)
S3 Fig. Latency to interact in mice not subjected to medical training.

(JPG)

pone.0341404.s005.jpg (704.6KB, jpg)
S4 Fig. Activity tracking after ip injections or cage cleaning.

(JPG)

pone.0341404.s006.jpg (488.2KB, jpg)
S5 Fig. Representative H&E pictures of abdominal wall after injection.

(JPG)

pone.0341404.s007.jpg (566.6KB, jpg)
S6 Fig. Pictures used for mouse grimace scale assessment after blood draw.

(JPG)

pone.0341404.s008.jpg (651.9KB, jpg)
S7 Fig. Corticosterone accumulation in fur.

(JPG)

pone.0341404.s009.jpg (275.8KB, jpg)
S1 Checklist. ARRIVE checklist.

(PDF)

pone.0341404.s010.pdf (171.4KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

We thank our animal welfare officer Dr. Juliane Unger for her support in designing and implementing this study and all members of the Charité 3R Refinement Taskforce for helpful discussion.

Data Availability

This study protocol has been preregistered on animalstudyregistry.org and is accessible under this DOI: 10.17590/asr.0000307. The data that support the findings of this study, technical diagrams and 3D-printing files for manufacturing the tunnel as well as a video demonstrating the injection procedure have been deposited on the Open Science Framework platform (OFS.io) and can be accessed under this link: https://osf.io/vsjnb.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by Charité 3R – Replace, Reduce, Refine (https://charite3r.charite.de/), grant awarded to LH. The funder was not involved in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Hanahan D. Hallmarks of cancer: new dimensions. Cancer Discov. 2022;12(1):31–46. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-1059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.BfR. Verwendung von Versuchstieren im Berichtsjahr 2024. German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment; 2025. Available from: https://www.bf3r.de/angebote/versuchstierzahlen/versuchstierzahlen-2024 [Google Scholar]
  • 3.2010/63/EU. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes Text with EEA relevance. European Union; 2010. p. 33–79. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/63/oj [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Russell WMS, Burch RL, Hume CW. The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen; 1959. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Balcombe JP, Barnard ND, Sandusky C. Laboratory routines cause animal stress. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 2004;43(6):42–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Marcotte M, Bernardo A, Linga N, Perez-Romero CA, Guillou JL, Sibille E. Handling techniques to reduce stress in mice. J Vis Exp. 2021;2021(175). doi: 10.3791/62593 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Castro de Jesus L, S Rodrigues AL. Non-aversive handling in laboratory animals and its effects on depressive-like and anxiety-related behaviors: a scoping review. Physiol Behav. 2025;294:114883. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2025.114883 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Leussis MP, Bolivar VJ. Habituation in rodents: a review of behavior, neurobiology, and genetics. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2006;30(7):1045–64. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Leidinger C, Herrmann F, Thone-Reineke C, Baumgart N, Baumgart J. Introducing clicker training as a cognitive enrichment for laboratory mice. J Vis Exp. 2017;121. doi: 10.3791/55415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Dickmann J, Gonzalez-Uarquin F, Reichel S, Pichl D, Radyushkin K, Baumgart J, et al. Clicker training mice for improved compliance in the catwalk test. Animals (Basel). 2022;12(24):3545. doi: 10.3390/ani12243545 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ahlström T. Handling and training mice and rats: Low stress procedures. National Center for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research; 2023. Available from: https://nc3rs.org.uk/3rs-resource-library/handling-and-training-mice-and-rats-low-stress-procedures [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Labitt RN, Oxford EM, Davis AK, Butler SD, Daugherity EK. A validated smartphone-based electrocardiogram reveals severe bradyarrhythmias during immobilizing restraint in mice of both sexes and four strains. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2021;60(2):201–12. doi: 10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-20-000069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Baek JM, Kwak SC, Kim J-Y, Ahn S-J, Jun HY, Yoon K-H, et al. Evaluation of a novel technique for intraperitoneal injections in mice. Lab Anim (NY). 2015;44(11):440–4. doi: 10.1038/laban.880 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hohlbaum K, Frahm S, Rex A, Palme R, Thone-Reineke C, Ullmann K. Social enrichment by separated pair housing of male C57BL/6JRj mice. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):11165. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-67902-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gouveia K, Hurst JL. Reducing mouse anxiety during handling: effect of experience with handling tunnels. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e66401. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mei J, Riedel N, Grittner U, Endres M, Banneke S, Emmrich JV. Body temperature measurement in mice during acute illness: implantable temperature transponder versus surface infrared thermometry. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):3526. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-22020-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bae DD, Brown PL, Kiyatkin EA. Procedure of rectal temperature measurement affects brain, muscle, skin, and body temperatures and modulates the effects of intravenous cocaine. Brain Res. 2007;1154:61–70. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.078 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Saegusa Y, Tabata H. Usefulness of infrared thermometry in determining body temperature in mice. J Vet Med Sci. 2003;65(12):1365–7. doi: 10.1292/jvms.65.1365 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lightman SL, Conway-Campbell BL. The crucial role of pulsatile activity of the HPA axis for continuous dynamic equilibration. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010;11(10):710–8. doi: 10.1038/nrn2914 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rasmussen S, Miller MM, Filipski SB, Tolwani RJ. Cage change influences serum corticosterone and anxiety-like behaviors in the mouse. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2011;50(4):479–83. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Erickson RL, Browne CA, Lucki I. Hair corticosterone measurement in mouse models of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Physiol Behav. 2017;178:166–71. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.01.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ghosal S, Nunley A, Mahbod P, Lewis AG, Smith EP, Tong J, et al. Mouse handling limits the impact of stress on metabolic endpoints. Physiol Behav. 2015;150:31–7. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.06.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Elmi A, Galligioni V, Govoni N, Bertocchi M, Aniballi C, Bacci ML, et al. Quantification of hair corticosterone, DHEA and testosterone as a potential tool for welfare assessment in male laboratory mice. Animals (Basel). 2020;10(12):2408. doi: 10.3390/ani10122408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Naugler WE, Sakurai T, Kim S, Maeda S, Kim K, Elsharkawy AM, et al. Gender disparity in liver cancer due to sex differences in MyD88-dependent IL-6 production. Science. 2007;317(5834):121–4. doi: 10.1126/science.1140485 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nakatani T, Roy G, Fujimoto N, Asahara T, Ito A. Sex hormone dependency of diethylnitrosamine-induced liver tumors in mice and chemoprevention by leuprorelin. Jpn J Cancer Res. 2001;92(3):249–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2001.tb01089.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tolba R, Kraus T, Liedtke C, Schwarz M, Weiskirchen R. Diethylnitrosamine (DEN)-induced carcinogenic liver injury in mice. Lab Anim. 2015;49(1 Suppl):59–69. doi: 10.1177/0023677215570086 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Uehara T, Pogribny IP, Rusyn I. The DEN and CCl4 -induced mouse model of fibrosis and inflammation-associated hepatocellular carcinoma. Curr Protoc. 2021;1(8):e211. doi: 10.1002/cpz1.211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Park EJ, Lee JH, Yu G-Y, He G, Ali SR, Holzer RG, et al. Dietary and genetic obesity promote liver inflammation and tumorigenesis by enhancing IL-6 and TNF expression. Cell. 2010;140(2):197–208. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.12.052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gouveia K, Hurst JL. Improving the practicality of using non-aversive handling methods to reduce background stress and anxiety in laboratory mice. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):20305. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-56860-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kawakami K, Xiao B, Ohno R, Ferdaus MZ, Tongu M, Yamada K, et al. Color preferences of laboratory mice for bedding materials: evaluation using radiotelemetry. Exp Anim. 2012;61(2):109–17. doi: 10.1538/expanim.61.109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Langford DJ, Bailey AL, Chanda ML, Clarke SE, Drummond TE, Echols S, et al. Coding of facial expressions of pain in the laboratory mouse. Nat Methods. 2010;7(6):447–9. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1455 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Whittaker AL, Liu Y, Barker TH. Methods used and application of the mouse grimace scale in biomedical research 10 years on: a scoping review. Animals (Basel). 2021;11(3):673. doi: 10.3390/ani11030673 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Onuma K, Watanabe M, Sasaki N. The grimace scale: a useful tool for assessing pain in laboratory animals. Exp Anim. 2024;73(3):234–45. doi: 10.1538/expanim.24-0010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hohlbaum K, Bert B, Dietze S, Palme R, Fink H, Thöne-Reineke C. Severity classification of repeated isoflurane anesthesia in C57BL/6JRj mice-Assessing the degree of distress. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179588. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179588 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mai SHC, Sharma N, Kwong AC, Dwivedi DJ, Khan M, Grin PM, et al. Body temperature and mouse scoring systems as surrogate markers of death in cecal ligation and puncture sepsis. Intensive Care Med Exp. 2018;6(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s40635-018-0184-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cho C, Michailidis V, Lecker I, Collymore C, Hanwell D, Loka M, et al. Evaluating analgesic efficacy and administration route following craniotomy in mice using the grimace scale. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):359. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-36897-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Gao W, Stalder T, Foley P, Rauh M, Deng H, Kirschbaum C. Quantitative analysis of steroid hormones in human hair using a column-switching LC-APCI-MS/MS assay. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2013;928:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2013.03.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Carlitz EHD, Runge J-N, König B, Winkler L, Kirschbaum C, Gao W, et al. Steroid hormones in hair reveal sexual maturity and competition in wild house mice (Mus musculus domesticus). Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):16925. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-53362-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Vianna DML, Carrive P. Changes in cutaneous and body temperature during and after conditioned fear to context in the rat. Eur J Neurosci. 2005;21(9):2505–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.04073.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Zethof TJ, Van der Heyden JA, Tolboom JT, Olivier B. Stress-induced hyperthermia in mice: a methodological study. Physiol Behav. 1994;55(1):109–15. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(94)90017-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Al Amin ASM, Menezes RG. Carbon tetrachloride toxicity. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bigelow LJ, Pope EK, MacDonald DS, Rock JE, Bernard PB. Getting a handle on rat familiarization: the impact of handling protocols on classic tests of stress in Rattus norvegicus. Lab Anim. 2023;57(3):259–69. doi: 10.1177/00236772221142687 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kowaltowski AJ. Cold exposure and the metabolism of mice, men, and other wonderful creatures. Physiology (Bethesda). 2022;37(5):0. doi: 10.1152/physiol.00002.2022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Cheung MC, Spalding PB, Gutierrez JC, Balkan W, Namias N, Koniaris LG, et al. Body surface area prediction in normal, hypermuscular, and obese mice. J Surg Res. 2009;153(2):326–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2008.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Repasky EA, Evans SS, Dewhirst MW. Temperature matters! And why it should matter to tumor immunologists. Cancer Immunol Res. 2013;1(4):210–6. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-13-0118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Newsom DM, Bolgos GL, Colby L, Nemzek JA. Comparison of body surface temperature measurement and conventional methods for measuring temperature in the mouse. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 2004;43(5):13–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Gjendal K, Franco NH, Ottesen JL, Sørensen DB, Olsson IAS. Eye, body or tail? Thermography as a measure of stress in mice. Physiol Behav. 2018;196:135–43. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.08.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Sikoski P, Banks ML, Gould R, Young RW, Wallace JM, Nader MA. Comparison of rectal and infrared thermometry for obtaining body temperature in cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fascicularis). J Med Primatol. 2007;36(6):381–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0684.2007.00214.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Hurst JL, West RS. Taming anxiety in laboratory mice. Nat Methods. 2010;7(10):825–6. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1500 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Henderson LJ, Dani B, Serrano EMN, Smulders TV, Roughan JV. Benefits of tunnel handling persist after repeated restraint, injection and anaesthesia. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):14562. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71476-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Roughan JV, Sevenoaks T. Welfare and scientific considerations of tattooing and ear tagging for mouse identification. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2019;58(2):142–53. doi: 10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-18-000057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Ernst L, Kopaczka M, Schulz M, Talbot SR, Zieglowski L, Meyer M, et al. Improvement of the Mouse Grimace Scale set-up for implementing a semi-automated Mouse Grimace Scale scoring (Part 1). Lab Anim. 2020;54(1):83–91. doi: 10.1177/0023677219881655 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Sturman O, Schmutz M, Lorimer T, Zhang R, Privitera M, Roessler FK, et al. GrimACE: automated, multimodal cage-side assessment of pain and well-being in mice. Lab Anim (NY). 2026;55(4):137–46. doi: 10.1038/s41684-026-01695-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kennedy BW. Metabolic caging for animal research. Lab Anim (NY). 2012;41(6):171–6. doi: 10.1038/laban0612-171 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Colding-Jørgensen P, Hestehave S, Abelson KSP, Kalliokoski O. Hair glucocorticoids are not a historical marker of stress - exploring the time-scale of corticosterone incorporation into hairs in a rat model. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2023;341:114335. doi: 10.1016/j.ygcen.2023.114335 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

I Anna S Olsson

12 Feb 2026

-->PONE-D-26-00796-->-->A novel application tunnel in combination with medical training reduces stress induced by frequent intraperitoneal injections and blood sampling in mice-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Hammerich,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.-->-->

Please see the detailed comments given by the two independent reviewers below.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 29 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

I Anna S Olsson, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. To comply with PLOS One submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: The authors report on a novel tunnel designed for routine applications (injections and blood draws) that can reduce handling stress.

I have some concerns regarding statistical analyses.

1. The authors correctly use cage as the experimental unit by averaging measurements within cages (avoiding pseudoreplication), however, the sample sizes appear quite small (N=3-8 cages per group) with unequal group sizes.

The authors state they used the Shapiro-Wilk test to determine whether to use parametric or non-parametric tests. Shapiro-Wilk test has low power to check for normality when sample size is small. With small sample sizes across the study (<10), non-parametric alternatives should be used by default.

2. All statistical results should be clearly reported in the Results section. Given the small sample sizes, it would be better to focus on effect sizes and confidence intervals for interpreting the biological significance of results.

3. According to Table 1, the number of cages per treatment group ranged from 2 to 6, and the number of mice per cage was also highly variable (from 1 to 6). So, for example, looking at Table 1, measures for corticosterone were taken from a singly housed mouse in C1, and averaged from 5 mice in cage C6. When cage means are calculated from different numbers of mice, each cage mean will probably have different variance. I am not sure treating a single mouse is equivalent to the mean of 5 or 6 mice. ANOVA and t-tests assume equal variance across groups, which is probably violated here.

4. Line 298-301 – the authors report that because animals were tested individually after injections, individual mice were treated as individual units for statistical analysis. Mice from the same home-cage should not be treated as independent even if they were tested individually. Experimental unit should be cage. Mixed models can be used for analysis, where mouse nested in cage is used as a random factor.

5. I have an additional question about voluntary interaction measurements. The authors measure latency to approach the experimenter’s hand. The literature that they cite (Henderson et al 2020, Gouveia et al 2013), that also conducted voluntary interaction tests however, measure differences in interaction time (% time spent interacting with the experimenter’s hand during 60s). Can the authors explain why they used a different metric here (latency to start interacting) as the papers they cited?

Also, in the first part of the experiment you measure latency to interact in group housed mice, but in the second experiment you measure it on each individual mouse before it was placed back in the home cage. I don’t think either method is better, but the difference in measuring interaction should be more explicitly stated in the discussion as it could have affected the results.

Some additional minor points:

Abstract: the strain and sex of animals tested should be mentioned in the abstract.

Line 57: It should be clearly stated that the latency to interact with experimenter decreased for both treatment groups, or there was no treatment effect.

Line 58: Change “normal behaviour” to “normal activity levels” as you did not measure behaviour but activity (as mentioned in Results, line: 434).

Line 55: The authors mention that body surface temperature was measured, but the result is not mentioned in the abstract. All outcome measures that were assessed should be mentioned in the abstract.

Lines 119-128: this paragraph should go at the beginning of the discussion.

Line 141: It is not clear from the times stated (4pm and 7pm) if experiments were conducted during the light or dark phase.

Reviewer #2: Schlutt and colleagues propose a refinement strategy for intraperitoneal injections and blood sampling based on the use of a tunnel in combination with a training protocol. The manuscript addresses an important issue in the context of the 3Rs by proposing a refined strategy for routine procedures in animal facilities. As such, I consider it to be an important addition to the knowledge base on the 3Rs.

Nevertheless, there are several errors and points that require clarification. Specific comments on the different sections are provided below.

________________________________________

Introduction

• On lines 87–88, the authors refer to a “higher risk of painful mistakes due to wrong restraining or application.” Please clarify what is meant by these “painful mistakes.”

• Throughout the manuscript, the term “medical training” is used to describe the training protocol/program. I suggest using a different term, as this wording may be misleading.

• On line 117 and in most of the manuscript, the term “blood draws” is used, whereas the title uses “blood sampling.” I recommend standardizing the terminology throughout the manuscript.

• The Introduction would benefit from a more thorough review of previously developed refinement methodologies for substance administration in laboratory mice.

________________________________________

Materials & Methods

There is a recurrent lack of detailed information regarding the animals and their housing conditions. In accordance with the ARRIVE guidelines and reproducibility standards, I strongly recommend including the following information:

• Age range of the animals used in the study;

• Details of the cage type (e.g., dimensions, manufacturer);

• Details of the diet (e.g., manufacturer, treatment, product code);

• Details of water provision (e.g., water bottles vs. automated watering system, treatment);

• Details of nesting, bedding, and environmental enrichment (amount, manufacturer, product code).

• Line 153 – Please provide more details on the Western-style diet (e.g., percentage of fat, sucrose, protein, moisture content).

• Lines 159–160 – The authors state that animal “welfare and health status” were assessed daily. Please describe this procedure. Was this a daily visual health check?

• Lines 161–165 – The authors state that “death was not a likely outcome or planned experimental endpoint.” Please clarify whether “death” refers to spontaneous death or euthanasia. Death should be prevented through the application of humane endpoints and should not be considered an endpoint in itself. Moreover, all animals undergoing procedures should be monitored using predefined criteria and humane endpoints at all stages of the experiment.

• Line 166 – Humane endpoints included weight loss >20%. Why was body condition scoring not included? In oncological models with internal tumors, body condition score is generally more sensitive than body weight for assessing overall condition (see OBSERVE guidelines). Given that this is a refinement-focused manuscript, this omission should be justified.

• Line 167 – Tumor diameter is listed as a humane endpoint. How was tumor size measured?

• Table 1 – Table 2 presents an overview of experimental groups, assessed parameters, and the number of animals per cage. This table raises several questions:

o Why were not all parameters assessed in all experimental groups? For example, tracking was assessed only in the CCl₄ groups with medical training and tunnel handling, as well as in the conventional group.

o Why did the number of animals per cage vary from 1 to 6? Could this variation have influenced parameters such as corticosterone levels?

• Lines 228–232 – The description of the “conventional method” for intraperitoneal injections does not correspond to the method typically described for scruffing, nor does it match the description in the cited reference. In particular, the method of immobilizing the animal prior to scruffing is unclear. Conventionally, immobilization is achieved by securing the tail and allowing the mouse to grasp the cage grid with its forepaws. Please justify the choice of the described method. Additionally, given that this is a refinement-focused study, the authors should acknowledge that a more refined and widely accepted scruffing method—the three-finger method, which avoids pressure on the neck area—exists and has been described (see Labitt et al., 2021), as illustrated in Figure 2E.

• Line 266 – A space is missing between “interact” and “as.”

• Lines 270–271 – It is stated that “each mouse was assessed individually, but with the co-housed animals present in the home cage.” Why was this assessment not performed in complete isolation? Could dominance hierarchies or social interactions have influenced the results?

• Body temperature measurements (lines 275–280) – Why was the dorsal region selected for temperature assessment? As infrared thermometers measure surface temperature, contact with the handler’s hands during scruffing or proximity to the tunnel could have influenced the readings.

• Subcutaneous tracking chips and movement tracking:

o Why were RFID chips implanted in the caudal abdominal region, left of the linea alba? This placement is not recommended (see Kahnau, 2026) and is close to the intraperitoneal injection site, potentially increasing discomfort compared with dorsal subcutaneous implantation.

o At what age were the transponders implanted?

o Was analgesia provided?

• Blood sampling from the tail vein:

o Please provide more details on the “conventional restrainer.”

o Does the description provided encompass the entire procedure? Were any measures taken to promote vasodilation?

• Pathological examination – Please describe the euthanasia method used. How long after the final intraperitoneal injection was euthanasia performed?

________________________________________

Results

• Line 372 – A space should be inserted between “interact” and “after,” and between “interact” and “was.”

• Lines 372–373 – The authors state that “latency to interact was quite high and very variable in untrained mice,” but these data are not shown in the figure.

• Line 381 – A space should be inserted between “interact” and “after.”

• Figure 4 – This figure would be more informative if it also included data from untrained mice.

• Line 426 – I suggest replacing “Behavioral assessment” with “Activity assessment,” as no specific behaviors were scored.

• Lines 473–480 (Pathological examination) – Were any additional procedures performed to confirm the absence of tissue damage resulting from the modified technique?

• Lines 488–489 – The authors state that “healthy untrained mice” were used to avoid confounding effects of disease induction. Why was this approach not applied to the other experimental groups?

• Was the potential effect of the experimenter on the results evaluated or controlled?

________________________________________

Discussion

• Lines 549–554 – The discussion of temperature assessment methods is unclear and should be rephrased. Although the authors refer to different methodologies, they used a contactless infrared thermometer (measurements taken at 2–3 mm from the skin). The discussion should also address other non-invasive and accurate temperature assessment methods, such as thermography, as well as invasive alternatives like implanted microchip transponders.

• Lines 571–573 – The authors state that only experienced handlers were included in the study but then mention that newly trained researchers reported decreased hesitation. This sentence should be rephrased for clarity.

• Line 581 – The authors discuss the influence of observer experience on Mouse Grimace Scale (MGS) scores. Were the observers in this study experienced? How many scorers were involved?

• Lines 597–600 – The authors state that a limitation of fecal corticosterone analysis is the need for metabolic cages. This is incorrect, as fecal samples can be collected directly from the home cage.

• Lines 601–602 – Circadian rhythm is mentioned as a limitation of fecal corticosterone analysis; however, this can be mitigated by collecting samples consistently at the same time of day.

• Lines 602–607 – Given these known limitations, please justify the choice to quantify corticosterone in fur.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 May 7;21(5):e0341404. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0341404.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


17 Mar 2026

Thank you for evaluating our manuscript PONE-D-26-00796.

Please find our answers to the editor´s and reviewers´ comments below:

Journal requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

� We have formatted the manuscript to adhere to all requirements.

2. To comply with PLOS One submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

� Sacrifice was not an endpoint for this study, except for pathological examination, we have added the method of sacrifice in the respective methods section. Anesthesia/Analgesia were not used in this study and methods to alleviate suffering are described (training program, health checks, improved injection procedure).

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

� All data has been prepared to be uploaded to the OSF platform upon acceptance and will be available under the same link as the files for manufacturing the tunnel (view-only link in supplementary methods).

4. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

� This was related to the process of protecting the tunnel via a utility model. This situation has changed in the meantime and all data can be made available now (see above). We removed this statement from the respective section.

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

� Table 3 is now referenced in the text.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

� This did not apply.

Reviewer #1: The authors report on a novel tunnel designed for routine applications (injections and blood draws) that can reduce handling stress.

I have some concerns regarding statistical analyses.

1. The authors correctly use cage as the experimental unit by averaging measurements within cages (avoiding pseudoreplication), however, the sample sizes appear quite small (N=3-8 cages per group) with unequal group sizes.

The authors state they used the Shapiro-Wilk test to determine whether to use parametric or non-parametric tests. Shapiro-Wilk test has low power to check for normality when sample size is small. With small sample sizes across the study (<10), non-parametric alternatives should be used by default.

� Thank you for pointing this out. We have recalculated all statistics using non-parametric tests. Details can be found in the methods section. Please note: since Prism does not provide a to analyze non-parametric data corresponding to a 2-way ANOVA, we transformed the data into ranks and performed a 2-way ANOVA on those ranks based on Scheirer et al, 1976 (this only applied to the body temperature measurements).

2. All statistical results should be clearly reported in the Results section. Given the small sample sizes, it would be better to focus on effect sizes and confidence intervals for interpreting the biological significance of results.

� Thank you for suggesting this. We have calculated the effect sizes for all comparisons (described in methods) and report them either directly in the figures together with the p-values or as a supplementary table (in the case of Figure 4) for clarity. The majority of effect sizes could be considered large (>0.5).

3. According to Table 1, the number of cages per treatment group ranged from 2 to 6, and the number of mice per cage was also highly variable (from 1 to 6). So, for example, looking at Table 1, measures for corticosterone were taken from a singly housed mouse in C1, and averaged from 5 mice in cage C6. When cage means are calculated from different numbers of mice, each cage mean will probably have different variance. I am not sure treating a single mouse is equivalent to the mean of 5 or 6 mice. ANOVA and t-tests assume equal variance across groups, which is probably violated here.

� Please see previous answer regarding statistics above, all statistics have been recalculated with non-parametric tests.

4. Line 298-301 – the authors report that because animals were tested individually after injections, individual mice were treated as individual units for statistical analysis. Mice from the same home-cage should not be treated as independent even if they were tested individually. Experimental unit should be cage. Mixed models can be used for analysis, where mouse nested in cage is used as a random factor.

� This statement was related to blood draws, not injections. In the injection groups, all mice were tested individually, but with the co-housed animals present in the home cage, and we always used cages as the experimental unit. However, in case of the blood draws, mice were assessed individually without the co-housed animals being and without coming into contact with the co-housed animals between procedure and measurement of the stress parameters. Therefore, individual mice were treated as the experimental unit, equivalent to the general approach with regards to other anxiety tests (eg. open field), where mice are group-housed, but assessed individually without other mice present.

5. I have an additional question about voluntary interaction measurements. The authors measure latency to approach the experimenter’s hand. The literature that they cite (Henderson et al 2020, Gouveia et al 2013), that also conducted voluntary interaction tests however, measure differences in interaction time (% time spent interacting with the experimenter’s hand during 60s). Can the authors explain why they used a different metric here (latency to start interacting) as the papers they cited?

� Thank you for catching this mistake. We indeed cited the wrong papers for this method. Our approach followed the study of Hohlbaum et al (2020), who measured “latency to first voluntary interaction with the experimenter’s hand” to assess “anxiety-related behavior in anticipation of handling”. We have replaced the original citations with the correct one.

Also, in the first part of the experiment you measure latency to interact in group housed mice, but in the second experiment you measure it on each individual mouse before it was placed back in the home cage. I don’t think either method is better, but the difference in measuring interaction should be more explicitly stated in the discussion as it could have affected the results.

� The latency to interact was also measured inside the home cage after blood sampling, however without the cohoused mice being present. This is also stated in the respective method section. We decided to use this strategy, because the pictures for MGS had to be recorded as immediately as possible after the blood draws, ie. on the Vetbed right after releasing the mice from the tunnel or restrainer. Releasing the mice back into the home cage would have made it challenging to take a picture suitable to assess the MGS. Therefore, we also wanted to record the latency to interact individually instead of in cage groups.

Some additional minor points:

Abstract: the strain and sex of animals tested should be mentioned in the abstract.

� This has been added

Line 57: It should be clearly stated that the latency to interact with experimenter decreased for both treatment groups, or there was no treatment effect.

� This has been added.

Line 58: Change “normal behaviour” to “normal activity levels” as you did not measure behaviour but activity (as mentioned in Results, line: 434).

� Thank you for suggesting this. We have changed this throughout the manuscript

Line 55: The authors mention that body surface temperature was measured, but the result is not mentioned in the abstract. All outcome measures that were assessed should be mentioned in the abstract.

� This has been added to the abstract

Lines 119-128: this paragraph should go at the beginning of the discussion.

� We combined this paragraph with the first paragraph of the discussion.

Line 141: It is not clear from the times stated (4pm and 7pm) if experiments were conducted during the light or dark phase.

� We have added this information

Reviewer #2: Schlutt and colleagues propose a refinement strategy for intraperitoneal injections and blood sampling based on the use of a tunnel in combination with a training protocol. The manuscript addresses an important issue in the context of the 3Rs by proposing a refined strategy for routine procedures in animal facilities. As such, I consider it to be an important addition to the knowledge base on the 3Rs.

Nevertheless, there are several errors and points that require clarification. Specific comments on the different sections are provided below.

Introduction

• On lines 87–88, the authors refer to a “higher risk of painful mistakes due to wrong restraining or application.” Please clarify what is meant by these “painful mistakes.”

� We have rephrased this sentence for clarity

• Throughout the manuscript, the term “medical training” is used to describe the training protocol/program. I suggest using a different term, as this wording may be misleading.

� In veterinary medicine the term medical training is used for training of animals to voluntarily cooperate with medical procedures and examinations with the goal to reduce or eliminate the need for physical restraint and thereby reduce stress. We find this definition very fitting for the purpose of our training and would therefore like to keep this wording.

• On line 117 and in most of the manuscript, the term “blood draws” is used, whereas the title uses “blood sampling.” I recommend standardizing the terminology throughout the manuscript.

� This has been changed

• The Introduction would benefit from a more thorough review of previously developed refinement methodologies for substance administration in laboratory mice.

� Thank you for this suggestion. We have now added this to the introduction.

Materials & Methods

There is a recurrent lack of detailed information regarding the animals and their housing conditions. In accordance with the ARRIVE guidelines and reproducibility standards, I strongly recommend including the following information:

• Age range of the animals used in the study;

• Details of the cage type (e.g., dimensions, manufacturer);

• Details of the diet (e.g., manufacturer, treatment, product code);

• Details of water provision (e.g., water bottles vs. automated watering system, treatment);

• Details of nesting, bedding, and environmental enrichment (amount, manufacturer, product code).

� We have added the requested information to the methods section

• Line 153 – Please provide more details on the Western-style diet (e.g., percentage of fat, sucrose, protein, moisture content).

� We have added this information in the methods

• Lines 159–160 – The authors state that animal “welfare and health status” were assessed daily. Please describe this procedure. Was this a daily visual health check?

� Yes, visual health checks were performed daily. We have added this in the methods section

• Lines 161–165 – The authors state that “death was not a likely outcome or planned experimental endpoint.” Please clarify whether “death” refers to spontaneous death or euthanasia. Death should be prevented through the application of humane endpoints and should not be considered an endpoint in itself. Moreover, all animals undergoing procedures should be monitored using predefined criteria and humane endpoints at all stages of the experiment.

� Thank you for pointing out that this was not clearly described. Neither spontaneous death nor euthanasia were a likely or planned outcome in this study. We agree, that death should be prevented through the application of humane endpoints, which was the case in our study. We have clarified these points in the respective section.

• Line 166 – Humane endpoints included weight loss >20%. Why was body condition scoring not included? In oncological models with internal tumors, body condition score is generally more sensitive than body weight for assessing overall condition (see OBSERVE guidelines). Given that this is a refinement-focused manuscript, this omission should be justified.

� We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. In fact, body condition scoring was included in our humane endpoints as we followed the OBSERVE guidelines for our study, but we forgot to mention this in the manuscript. We included weight loss as a separate endpoint independent of the body condition score, because the latter is often difficult to assess in the western-diet fed mice. Due to the obesity, a weight loss of 20% does not necessarily lead to a body condition score of 2 or lower, but is considered a humane endpoint as per local animal welfare regulations. Therefore, both parameters were considered as separate humane endpoints. We have now clarified this in the manuscript.

• Line 167 – Tumor diameter is listed as a humane endpoint. How was tumor size measured?

� Tumor diameters were determined via magnetic resonance imaging

• Table 1 – Table 2 presents an overview of experimental groups, assessed parameters, and the number of animals per cage. This table raises several questions:

o Why were not all parameters assessed in all experimental groups? For example, tracking was assessed only in the CCl₄ groups with medical training and tunnel handling, as well as in the conventional group.

� The purpose of the movement tracking was to prove that our novel injection technique, which consists of both training and use of the tunnel, improves the welfare of the mice after injections. As we have also described in the discussion, we noticed that it is essential for the animals to be introduced to the injection tunnel during the training program in order to facilitate them entering the tunnel without force. Otherwise, trying to convince the animals to enter the tunnel of forcefully placing them inside the tunnel would again result in additional stress for the animals. Therefore, we did not see benefit of assessing either part of the method (training vs. use of the tunnel) by itself.

o Why did the number of animals per cage vary from 1 to 6? Could this variation have influenced parameters such as corticosterone levels?

� Animal numbers differed between cages, because animals entered the experiments at the age of 2 weeks (ie. before

Attachment

Submitted filename: Schlutt et al_response to reviewers.pdf

pone.0341404.s012.pdf (142.7KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 1

I Anna S Olsson

20 Apr 2026

-->PONE-D-26-00796R1-->-->A novel application tunnel in combination with medical training reduces stress induced by frequent intraperitoneal injections and blood draws in mice-->-->

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Hammerich,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I acknowledge that all reviewer comments have met. My own careful reading of the manuscript show a number of minor inconsistencies, as listed below, which need addressing before the paper can be accepted.

Introduction:

First sentence: I don’t think one can back up the claim that rodents are more indispensable than other animal species! They are more commonly used but you are stating that explicitly and with a reference later on in the same paragraph.

Line 121-124 The last sentence summarizes the results and should therefore not be part of the Introduction

Line 159 “All male mice born in our facility” – is it really true that all male animals born in the entire facility underwent this protocol? Do you have an entire mouse facility dedicated to this line of research?

Tables 1 and 2 take up several pages and they present information in a level of detail that is more suitable for the Supplementary materials section than for the article proper. Please move these tables to the Supplementary materials, and include only a brief summary of them in the Materials and Methods section.

Line 270 Latency to approaching a human hand is a relevant parameter to measure in this study, but I don’t think that the main issue here is the stress effect on social interaction. Social interaction is not an appropriate description for how mice react to human handling. Animals interact socially with members of their own species, and may also develop a social relationship to individuals of other species (e.g. dogs, cats, horses, farm animals, rats) but that level of relationship is rarely established with a lab mouse. The human hand is the source of stress and discomfort in handling, and the mice are likely to associate the hand with the negative experience of being handled. Mice who have experienced less stressful handling are likely to show a shorter latency to approach the hand (do the mice really interact with the hand?). Please consider this also elsewhere in the manuscript where this concept is addressed.

Line 333 Please avoid starting a sentence with a digit.

Lines 416-417 What does “No remarkable changes were detectable depending on training success or age” mean? Please reword.

Lines 433-434 “Cage means (average body temperature of all mice in one cage) were treated as the experimental unit.”. I think most readers will understand what you mean, but to use precise and  correct terminology, the cage is the experimental unit, whereas the average body temperature of all mice in a cage is the datapoint.

Lines 512-518 How can you measure social interaction when the mouse is alone in the cage with no other mice present?

Line 566 “variation”, not “variety”

Line 577 “increasing”, not “maximizing”

Lines 578-580 Please reword. I suggest “many studies show improved welfare when replacing tail handling by tunnel or cup handling [15, 29] and this beneficial effect remain even when animals are subject to frequent interventions like ip injections.

Lines 616-617 I have never seen the word falsify being used in this way. In science, the word falsify stands for either the formal testing of hypothesis, or for researcher manipulation of data. Please reword. Also, you refer to “by various circumstances” but then only give one example.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 04 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

-->

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

I Anna S Olsson, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

PLoS One. 2026 May 7;21(5):e0341404. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0341404.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


21 Apr 2026

Thank you for evaluating our manuscript PONE-D-26-00796R1.

Please find our answers to your comments below:

Introduction:

First sentence: I don’t think one can back up the claim that rodents are more indispensable than other animal species! They are more commonly used but you are stating that explicitly and with a reference later on in the same paragraph.

� We removed “especially rodents” from the first sentence as we agree that this applies to all laboratory animal species.

Line 121-124 The last sentence summarizes the results and should therefore not be part of the Introduction

� This sentence was removed.

Line 159 “All male mice born in our facility” – is it really true that all male animals born in the entire facility underwent this protocol? Do you have an entire mouse facility dedicated to this line of research?

� We acknowledge that this sentence may be confusing. Our mice are kept in a larger facility shared by many research groups, where we keep our own breedings since we need the pups at 14 days of age (ie. before weaning). All male mice born in the breeding cages of our research groups underwent this protocol. We replaced “facility” with “colony” for clarity.

Tables 1 and 2 take up several pages and they present information in a level of detail that is more suitable for the Supplementary materials section than for the article proper. Please move these tables to the Supplementary materials, and include only a brief summary of them in the Materials and Methods section.

� We have moved the tables to Supplementary Materials. Since the legend of Figure 2 already includes a short description of the training days we did not add another summary of Table 2, but rather extended the figure legend a bit.

Line 270 Latency to approaching a human hand is a relevant parameter to measure in this study, but I don’t think that the main issue here is the stress effect on social interaction. Social interaction is not an appropriate description for how mice react to human handling. Animals interact socially with members of their own species, and may also develop a social relationship to individuals of other species (e.g. dogs, cats, horses, farm animals, rats) but that level of relationship is rarely established with a lab mouse. The human hand is the source of stress and discomfort in handling, and the mice are likely to associate the hand with the negative experience of being handled. Mice who have experienced less stressful handling are likely to show a shorter latency to approach the hand (do the mice really interact with the hand?). Please consider this also elsewhere in the manuscript where this concept is addressed.

� We removed the first sentence of this paragraph and ensured that latency to interact is not discussed as a measure of social interaction throughout the manuscript.

Line 333 Please avoid starting a sentence with a digit.

� The sentence was rephrased.

Lines 416-417 What does “No remarkable changes were detectable depending on training success or age” mean? Please reword.

� We have reworded this sentence.

Lines 433-434 “Cage means (average body temperature of all mice in one cage) were treated as the experimental unit.”. I think most readers will understand what you mean, but to use precise and correct terminology, the cage is the experimental unit, whereas the average body temperature of all mice in a cage is the datapoint.

� This was rephrased (also in other figure legends where this applied).

Lines 512-518 How can you measure social interaction when the mouse is alone in the cage with no other mice present?

� We measured the latency to interact, this was phrased incorrectly in the figure title and has been adjusted.

Line 566 “variation”, not “variety”

� This has been changed.

Line 577 “increasing”, not “maximizing”

� This has been changed.

Lines 578-580 Please reword. I suggest “many studies show improved welfare when replacing tail handling by tunnel or cup handling [15, 29] and this beneficial effect remain even when animals are subject to frequent interventions like ip injections.

� We reworded the sentence following your suggestion.

Lines 616-617 I have never seen the word falsify being used in this way. In science, the word falsify stands for either the formal testing of hypothesis, or for researcher manipulation of data. Please reword. Also, you refer to “by various circumstances” but then only give one example.

• We have reworded this part.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Schlutt et al_response to reviewers2.pdf

pone.0341404.s013.pdf (66.1KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 2

I Anna S Olsson

22 Apr 2026

A novel application tunnel in combination with medical training reduces stress induced by frequent intraperitoneal injections and blood draws in mice

PONE-D-26-00796R2

Dear Dr. Hammerich,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

I Anna S Olsson, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

I Anna S Olsson

PONE-D-26-00796R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Hammerich,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. I Anna S Olsson

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Overview of experimental groups.

    (PDF)

    pone.0341404.s001.pdf (427.8KB, pdf)
    S2 Table. Overview of the basic training program.

    (PDF)

    pone.0341404.s002.pdf (433.5KB, pdf)
    S1 Fig. Technical diagram of the injection tunnel.

    (JPG)

    pone.0341404.s003.jpg (240.3KB, jpg)
    S2 Fig. Traffic cage system.

    (JPG)

    pone.0341404.s004.jpg (357.3KB, jpg)
    S3 Fig. Latency to interact in mice not subjected to medical training.

    (JPG)

    pone.0341404.s005.jpg (704.6KB, jpg)
    S4 Fig. Activity tracking after ip injections or cage cleaning.

    (JPG)

    pone.0341404.s006.jpg (488.2KB, jpg)
    S5 Fig. Representative H&E pictures of abdominal wall after injection.

    (JPG)

    pone.0341404.s007.jpg (566.6KB, jpg)
    S6 Fig. Pictures used for mouse grimace scale assessment after blood draw.

    (JPG)

    pone.0341404.s008.jpg (651.9KB, jpg)
    S7 Fig. Corticosterone accumulation in fur.

    (JPG)

    pone.0341404.s009.jpg (275.8KB, jpg)
    S1 Checklist. ARRIVE checklist.

    (PDF)

    pone.0341404.s010.pdf (171.4KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Schlutt et al_response to reviewers.pdf

    pone.0341404.s012.pdf (142.7KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Schlutt et al_response to reviewers2.pdf

    pone.0341404.s013.pdf (66.1KB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

    This study protocol has been preregistered on animalstudyregistry.org and is accessible under this DOI: 10.17590/asr.0000307. The data that support the findings of this study, technical diagrams and 3D-printing files for manufacturing the tunnel as well as a video demonstrating the injection procedure have been deposited on the Open Science Framework platform (OFS.io) and can be accessed under this link: https://osf.io/vsjnb.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES