ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023
Acclimation and Blood Sampling: Effects on Stress Markers in C57Bl/6J Mice.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Ang II Receptor Inhibition on GSK-3β/CREB/BDNF Signalling in REM Sleep Deprivation-Induced Memory Impairment.Neurochemical research · 2026Article
- Assessing Physiological and Behavioral Stress Parameters in Trained Goats During Repeated Blood Sampling.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Strategies for optimization of hypoglycemia rat models.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2025Review
- Hyperactivity in male and female mice manifests differently following early, acute prenatal alcohol exposure and mild juvenile stress.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- Chitosan Soft Matter Vesicles Loaded with Acetaminophen as Promising Systems for Modified Drug Release.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blood sampling in rodents is common practice in scientific studies. Some of the refined methods widely used are the puncture of the saphenous vein or tail vein, or even tail docking. The handling needs of these different blood sampling methods are different and can directly affect stress, increasing the variability of the study. Moreover, there is less aversion and stress if the animal is accustomed to the environment, handling and technique. Therefore, our study aimed to assess the influence of these three blood sampling techniques (saphenous puncture, tail vein puncture and tail vein docking) and the use of previous acclimation on different indicators of animal stress, assessing blood glucose concentrations and faecal corticosterone metabolites (FCMs). Twenty-four young adult male and female C57Bl6/J mice were divided in three groups by sampling method: tail docking (TD), saphenous vein puncture (SV) and caudal vein puncture (CV) groups. All mice were studied with and without acclimation, which was performed during 9 consecutive days. The results showed that both males and females present very similar responses to the different handling and sampling methods without significant differences. Nevertheless, acclimation in all sampling methods decreased glucose and FCM levels significantly. The method that obtained the lowest glucose and FCM levels with significance was saphenous vein puncture. Therefore, we can say that it causes less stress when performing prior acclimation, even when this involves greater handling of the animal. Our results contribute to refinement within the 3R concept and could serve researchers to programme and select a good handling technique and a welfare-friendly blood sampling method for their experiments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.