Table 3.
Statistically significant effects and trends of identification marking methods on the homecage behaviour of mice and their cagemates.
| Behaviour | Comparison | Effect Size | p-Value * |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allogrooming | Overall Treatment | H = 34.80 | <0.001 |
| C-EP > Control | 23.48 +/− 6.13 | <0.001 | |
| C-EP > EP | 27.15 +/− 6.98 | <0.001 | |
| C-EP > EP+A | 27.15 +/− 6.98 | <0.001 | |
| C-EP > MP | 27.15 +/− 7.29 | <0.001 | |
| C-EP > C-MP | 27.15 +/− 7.29 | <0.001 | |
| C-EP+A > Control | 18.94 +/− 6.13 | 0.002 | |
| C-EP+A > EP | 22.61 +/− 6.98 | 0.001 | |
| C-EP+A > EP+A | 22.61 +/− 6.98 | 0.001 | |
| C-EP+A > MP | 22.61 +/− 7.29 | 0.002 | |
| C-EP+A > C-MP | 22.61 +/− 7.30 | 0.002 | |
| Ear grooming | Overall Treatment | F6,89 = 10.10 | <0.001 |
| EP+A > Control | 0.90 +/− 0.13 | <0.001 | |
| EP+A > EP | 0.77 +/− 0.15 | <0.001 | |
| EP+A > MP | 0.91 +/− 0.15 | <0.001 | |
| EP+A > C-EP | 0.94 +/− 0.15 | <0.001 | |
| EP+A > C-EP+A | 0.75 +/− 0.15 | <0.001 | |
| EP+A > C-MP | 0.75 +/− 0.15 | <0.001 | |
| Facial grimacing | Overall Treatment | H = 18.90 | 0.004 |
| EP+A > MP | 15.23 +/− 7.50 | 0.042 FDR | |
| EP+A > C-EP | 15.23 +/− 7.18 | 0.034 FDR | |
| C-MP > Control | 21.41 +/− 6.66 | 0.001 | |
| C-MP > MP | 25.46 +/− 7.80 | 0.001 | |
| C-MP > C-EP | 25.46 +/− 7.50 | 0.001 | |
| C-MP > C-EP+A | 21.26 +/− 7.50 | 0.005 | |
| Other active behaviour | Overall Treatment | F6,89 = 2.22 | 0.048 FDR |
| Control > EP+A | 0.13 +/− 0.05 | 0.010 | |
| Control > C-EP | 0.12 +/− 0.05 | 0.019 FDR | |
| Control > C-EP+A | 0.12 +/− 0.05 | 0.017 | |
| Self-grooming | Overall Treatment | F6,89 = 4.74 | <0.001 |
| EP+A > Control | 0.15 +/− 0.04 | <0.001 | |
| EP+A > EP | 0.13 +/− 0.04 | 0.005 | |
| EP+A > MP | 0.16 +/− 0.05 | 0.001 | |
| EP+A > C-EP | 0.10 +/− 0.04 | 0.025 FDR | |
| EP+A > C-MP | 0.14 +/− 0.05 | 0.002 | |
| C-EP+A > Control | 0.13 +/− 0.04 | 0.001 | |
| C-EP+A > EP | 0.11 +/− 0.04 | 0.016 | |
| C-EP+A > MP | 0.14 +/− 0.05 | 0.003 | |
| C-EP+A > C-MP | 0.13 +/− 0.05 | 0.007 | |
| Sniffing cagemate | Overall Treatment | F6,89 = 13.39 | <0.001 |
| C-EP > Control | 1.02 +/− 0.21 | <0.001 | |
| C-EP > EP | 1.09 +/− 0.24 | <0.001 | |
| C-EP > EP+A | 1.04 +/− 0.24 | <0.001 | |
| C-EP > MP | 1.32 +/− 0.26 | <0.001 | |
| C-EP > C-MP | 1.02 +/− 0.25 | <0.001 | |
| C-EP+A > Control | 1.31 +/− 0.21 | <0.001 | |
| C-EP+A > EP | 1.38 +/− 0.24 | <0.001 | |
| C-EP+A > EP+A | 1.32 +/− 0.24 | <0.001 | |
| C-EP+A > MP | 1.60 +/− 0.25 | <0.001 | |
| C-EP+A > C-MP | 1.31 +/− 0.25 | <0.001 |
The behaviours were recorded for 5 min following identification marking of marked mice and are arranged in alphabetical order. The overall effect sizes are reported as H-values where Kruskall–Wallis tests were used for non-normally distributed data, and as F-values where linear mixed models were used; the post-hoc effect sizes were taken from model coefficients. FDR = these results are nonsignificant trends after adjusting the significance level to account for the false discovery rate, so they are reported for completeness. The treatments are as follows: Control = neither mouse was marked; EP = ear-punch; EP+A = ear-punch plus anaesthetic cream; MP = permanent marker on the tail; C-EP = cagemates of EP mice; C-EP+A = cagemates of EP+A mice; C-MP = cagemates of MP mice. * p < 0.018, the significance threshold following controlling the false discovery rate.