Introduction

One of the problems frequently faced in laboratory facilities is the possibility of the natural
parasitic infection of lab animals, which can interfere with biomedical research results (1). In
this study i will present natural infection with Syphacia muris.
Research animals are typically kept in laboratory facilities under ideal conditions to avoid
natural infections that may compromise research results. However, infection with Syphacia
muris remains common in research animals due to the widespread contamination of
laboratory environments due to the shedding of eggs and high resistance to various
decontamination processes (2, 3). This study aimed to evaluate the serological of S. muris,
with the goal of better understanding the risks that natural laboratory infection may impose on
animals and on biomedical research results from studies utilizing cross-reactive species (1).
Modifing action after infection
For quantification of S. muris adult worms, the large intestine was removed, and the entire
intestinal content was washed with PBS (0.1 mol/L, pH 7.2) using a sieve. Adult worms were
collected using the flotation method (i.e., using a saturated solution of NaCl 30%) [13], were
washed in PBS (0.1 mol/L, pH 7.2), centrifuged at low speed and counted using a microscope
at 40 magnification (1).
Parasite occurrence in conventional colonies of laboratory animals is very common.
Infections can be problematic for animal breeding and experimentation due to developmental
interference, and, consequently, biomedical research progress may be negatively impacted
(Doyle et al., 2006, Lytvynets et al., 2013). Syphacia muris is a nematode that is frequently
found in the intestinal tract of Wistar laboratory rats (Rattus norvegicus). Helminth eggs are
very light and may be dispersed as aerosols, resulting in widespread environmental
contamination (Baker, 1998; Dix et al., 2004).
The life cycle of S. muris is direct. The female lays fertilized eggs in the colon and peri-anal
regions of the rat (Lytvynets et al., 2010). Eggs, which are infective within a few hours and
contaminate other rodents, are highly resistant to the environment and can survive for
extended periods of time at room temperature. The host becomes infected either by ingestion
of eggs from the peri-anal region of an infected rat, or indirectly through food, water or other
contaminated materials. Other possibilities include retro-infection, i.e. the hatching of eggs in
the anus and subsequent movement of larvae into the colon. The pre-patent period of S. muris
is 78 days, in which adult worms establish themselves in the caecum and ascending colon
(Lewis & dSilva, 1986; Baker, 1998; Lytvynets et al., 2010).
Several techniques have been described for diagnosing S. muris infections in laboratory
rodents. The most common diagnostic techniques include taping, anal swab, spontaneous
fluctuation, necropsy with microscopic examination of the caecal and colonic contents and
histological examination (Pritchett & Johnston, 2002; Hill et al., 2009). The Hoffman, Pons
and Janer (HPJ) technique is a spontaneous sedimentation method (Hoffman et al., 1934) used
to detect developmental forms of both protozoa and helminths, while the Willis technique
(Willis, 1921) is a spontaneous flotation method, used for detection of light structures such as
protozoan cysts and light helminth eggs (Carvalho et al., 2012).
The Graham (1941) or taping method consists of making impressions of the peri-anal region
of infected rodents using an adhesive tape (Hill et al., 2009).

Laboratory animals are of great importance to biological and biomedical experimentation, and
sanitation insuffi- ciencies can interfere with expected study results. As such, the aims of this
study were to compare the three diagnostic methods for detection of S. muris in naturally
infected rats and to qualify method appropriateness.
Establishing a reliable diagnostic method for S. muris is essential because this oxyurid is
commonly found in laboratory rodent colonies, and infection can cause physiological changes
in hosts that may compromise biomedical research data (Wagner, 1988; Gilioli et al., 2000;
Lytvynets et al., 2010; Tanideh et al., 2010). Besides S.muris, several other parasites have
been detected in laboratory rodents, such as Hymenolepis nana, Hymenolepis diminuta,
Syphacia obvelata, Aspiculuris tetraptera, Physaloptera, Paraspidodera uncinata and
Trichinella spiralis; some of these have high zoonotic potential, making them difficult to
control (Huq et al., 1985; Tanideh et al., 2010; Hayashimoto et al., 2013).
The use of laboratory animals in biomedical research has provided a better understanding of
human and veterinary physiological and pathological processes (Casebolt et al., 1988; Bicalho
et al., 2007; Tanideh et al., 2010). Therefore, the quality, reliability and consequent
standardization of these animals have a great impact on research, since only healthy and
pathogen-free animals produce valid scientific data (Lytvynets et al., 2010). Studies have
demonstrated the importance of detection of infection in laboratory animals not only to ensure
the reliability of scientific research but also to prevent the development of zoonoses, since
approximately 150200 diseases, including parasites, can be transferred from laboratory
animals to healthy humans (Huq et al., 1985; Tanideh et al., 2010).
Syphacia muris presents a great challenge in terms of control due to characteristics of their
life cycle (i.e. as a retro-infection) and the ease of egg dispersion, resulting in contamination
of other laboratory rodents and equipment (Dix et al., 2004). Resolving widespread
contamination of laboratory animals becomes extremely laborious and costly, primarily due to
interference with experimental data and the lengthy treatment period required. Thus, it is
essential to establish effective methods for early detection of S. muris infection.
Choosing the most reliable method for screening of S. muris infection of laboratory rats also
helps prevent future environmental contamination and infection. Considering the importance
of the healthy condition of laboratory animals for both research and researchers, it is of
fundamental importance to periodically monitor and evaluate these animals for parasites, as
well as other pathogens such as viruses, bacteria and fungi.
1. Jos Eduardo N. de Sousa et all, 2015, Serological cross-reactivity between
Strongyloides venezuelensis and Syphacia muris in Wistar rats (Rattus norvegicus)
2. F. Schr, U. Trostdorf, F. Giardina, V. Khieu, S. Muth, H. Marti, P. Vounatsou, P.
Odermatt, Strongyloides stercoralis: global distribution and risk factors, PLoS Negl.
Trop. Dis. 7 (2013) 117.
3. D. Buonfrate, M.A. Mena, A. Angheben, A. Requena-Mendez, J. Muoz, F. Gobbi, M.
Albonico, E. Gotuzzo, Z. Bisoffi, Prevalence of strongyloidiasis in Latin America: a
systematic review of the literature, Epidemiol. Infect. 143 (2015) 452460.
4.