MOLECULAR ANALYSIS OF AIR PARTICLES AS AN INNOVATIVE STRATEGY FOR SANITARY SURVEILLANCE OF SPF COLONIES IN IVC SYSTEMS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66104/rer3nr70Keywords:
pcr, Rodentibacter pneumotropicus, exhaust air particle, ventilated racks, sanitary monitoring.Abstract
Laboratory animals maintained under specific pathogen-free (SPF) conditions are essential to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of biomedical research. Individually ventilated cage (IVC) rack systems contribute to preserving the sanitary status of animal colonies; however, contamination events may still occur. Conventional monitoring strategies, such as random animal screening or soiled bedding sentinel (SBS) programs, exhibit limited sensitivity, particularly for pathogens transmitted via aerosols or direct contact. In this context, exhaust air particle sampling combined with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based molecular detection has emerged as a promising alternative. This study evaluated the detection of pathogens in aerosolized particles collected from ventilated racks at Laboratory Animal Breeding Centers in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Lactobacillus sp. was used as a positive control, and Rodentibacter pneumotropicus served as a model respiratory pathogen. A total of 74 samples were collected from three sampling sites: exhaust filters (n = 16), resident animal cages/top filters (n = 46), and mini-isolators containing soiled bedding (n = 12). Molecular analysis demonstrated higher and more consistent DNA recovery from exhaust filters, whereas mini-isolators yielded low detectable DNA concentrations. The absence of R. pneumotropicus detection, together with consistent recovery of the positive control, supports the feasibility and reliability of the proposed protocol for environmental health surveillance. This methodology shows potential for further optimization and may contribute to reducing or replacing sentinel animals, in accordance with the principles of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) in animal experimentation.
Downloads
References
ANDERSEN, M. L. Princípios éticos e práticos do uso de animais de experimentação. São Paulo: Universidade Federal de São Paulo, 2004.
BARMAN, T. K. Quality control of laboratory animals. In: NAGARAJAN, P.; SRINIVASAN, R.; GUDDE, R. (org.). Essentials of laboratory animal science: principles and practices. Singapore: Springer, 2021. p. 85–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0987-9_5
BAUER, B. A. et al. Exhaust air dust monitoring is superior to soiled bedding sentinels for detection of Pasteurella pneumotropica in individually ventilated cage systems. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, Memphis, v. 55, n. 6, p. 775–781, 2016a.
BAUER, B. A. et al. Influence of rack design and disease prevalence on detection of rodent pathogens in exhaust debris samples from individually ventilated caging systems. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, Memphis, v. 55, n. 5, p. 548–556, 2016b.
BOURGADE, F. et al. Simple duplex fecal PCR assay that allows identification of false-negative results in Helicobacter sp.-infected mice. Comparative Medicine, Memphis, v. 54, n. 6, p. 633–640, 2004.
BRASIL. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. Conselho Nacional de Controle de Experimentação Animal (CONCEA). Resolução Normativa n.º 15, de 16 de dezembro de 2013. Dispõe sobre a estrutura física e o ambiente de roedores e lagomorfos. Diário Oficial da União: seção 1, Brasília, DF, 16 dez. 2013.
DUBELKO, A. R. et al. PCR testing of filter material from IVC lids for microbial monitoring of mouse colonies. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, Memphis, v. 57, n. 5, p. 547–553, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-18-000008
HENDERSON, K. S. et al. A guide to modern strategies for infection surveillance of rodent populations. Wilmington: Charles River Laboratories International, 2022.
MAHABIR, E. et al. Comparison of two prevalent individually ventilated caging systems for detection of murine infectious agents via exhaust air particles. Laboratory Animals, Vol. 53(1) 84–88, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0023677218785929
MÄHLER, M. et al. FELASA recommendations for the health monitoring of mouse, rat, hamster, guinea pig and rabbit colonies in breeding and experimental units. Laboratory Animals, London, v. 48, n. 3, p. 178–192, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0023677213516312
MAILHIOT, D. et al. Comparing mouse health monitoring between soiled-bedding sentinel and exhaust air dust surveillance programs. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, Memphis, v. 59, n. 1, p. 66–74, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-19-000061
MILLER, M.; BRIELMEIER, M. Environmental samples make soiled bedding sentinels dispensable for hygienic monitoring of IVC-reared mouse colonies. Laboratory Animals, London, v. 52, n. 3, p. 233–247, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0023677217739329
MILLER, M.; RITTER, B.; ZORN, J. et al. Exhaust air dust monitoring is superior to soiled bedding sentinels for the detection of Pasteurella pneumotropica in individually ventilated cage systems. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, v. 55, n. 5, p. 573–579, 2016.
MOLINARO, E. M.; MAJEROWICZ, J.; COUTO, S. E. R. et al. Animais de laboratório. In: MOLINARO, E. M.; CAPUTO, L.; AMENDOEIRA, R. Conceitos e métodos para formação de profissionais em laboratório de saúde. Rio de Janeiro: EPSJV/IOC, 2009. v. 1, p. 155–223.
NOZU, R. et al. Evaluation of PCR as a means of identification of Pasteurella pneumotropica. Experimental Animals, Tokyo, v. 48, n. 1, p. 45–50, 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1538/expanim.48.51
O’CONNELL, K. A.; TIGYI, G. J.; LIVINGSTON, R. S. Evaluation of in-cage filter paper as a replacement for sentinel mice in the detection of murine pathogens. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, Memphis, v. 60, n. 2, p. 197–205, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-20-000086
YU, K. F.; VAN DEYNZE, A.; PAULUS, K. P. Random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis. In: GLICK, B. R.; THOMPSON, J. E. (ed.). Methods in plant molecular biology and biotechnology. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1993. p. 287–301
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Camilla Ribeiro Nery, Maria Inês Doria Rossi, Lília de Cássia Espírito Santo, Cladinara Roberts Sarturi, Joseli Maria da Rocha Nogueira

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits the sharing of the work with proper acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal;
Authors are authorized to enter into separate, additional agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g., posting in an institutional repository or publishing it as a book chapter), provided that authorship and initial publication in this journal are properly acknowledged, and that the work is adapted to the template of the respective repository;
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post and distribute their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their personal websites) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this may lead to productive exchanges and increase the impact and citation of the published work (see The Effect of Open Access);
Authors are responsible for correctly providing their personal information, including name, keywords, abstracts, and other relevant data, thereby defining how they wish to be cited. The journal’s editorial board is not responsible for any errors or inconsistencies in these records.
PRIVACY POLICY
The names and email addresses provided to this journal will be used exclusively for the purposes of this publication and will not be made available for any other purpose or to third parties.
Note: All content of the work is the sole responsibility of the author and the advisor.
