How is the monitoring of the health status of laboratory animals conducted in our country, and is the awareness of researchers on this issue sufficient?

Ayşe Meltem Sevgili; Burak Kayabaşı; Yakup Tatar

Makale detayları

How is the monitoring of the health status of laboratory animals conducted in our country, and is the awareness of researchers on this issue sufficient?

Yazarlar:

Ayşe Meltem Sevgili | Burak Kayabaşı | Yakup Tatar

Yayıncı:

Ataturk University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hayvan Bilimi (Diğer)

Dergi:

Laboratuvar Hayvanları Bilimi ve Uygulamaları Dergisi Vol.5 Issue 2, pp.92-101

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

9/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001358089

pISSN:

2791-8645

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 The microbiological status of laboratory animals can substantially influence research out-comes. Although legal regulations in our country mandate the supervision of laboratory an-imal health, to our knowledge, no study has been conducted to examine how laboratory an-imal units carry out health monitoring of the animals up to the present day. Similarly, there is a lack of studies in our country assessing researchers interests and attitudes regarding this issue. With our study, we aimed to fill these gaps. In the study, we used two separate questionnaires. The first aimed to gather information about health screening programs in approved laboratory animal units, while the second aimed to assess researchers knowledge and attitudes regarding animal health monitoring programs that should be implemented. Out of the 120 units in our country that house rodents commonly used for scientific purpos-es, 42 35 contributed to our study. Over 60 of these laboratory animal units lack mi-crobiological monitoring practices. Out of 8 units containing specific pathogen-free SPF animals, 7 adhere to microbiological monitoring program required by regulations. While 85 of the units conducting microbiological monitoring perform fecal examinations, only 53 conduct serological analyses from blood. Overall, it can be said that our research-ers knowledge levels and awareness regarding the microbiological monitoring of laboratory animals are inadequate. Meanwhile, researchers who held a certificate had slightly higher awareness compared to those who did not. In summary, it has been observed that the microbiological monitoring of laboratory animals in our country is inadequate, and researchers do not request sufficient information from the units on this issue. Training programs, including broader undergraduate or postgraduate courses, may prove more effective than certificate programs. Additionally, it would be bene-ficial to incorporate provisions in our legislation that outline the methodology for microbio-logical monitoring of conventional animals.

 The microbiological status of laboratory animals can substantially influence research out-comes. Although legal regulations in our country mandate the supervision of laboratory an-imal health, to our knowledge, no study has been conducted to examine how laboratory an-imal units carry out health monitoring of the animals up to the present day. Similarly, there is a lack of studies in our country assessing researchers interests and attitudes regarding this issue. With our study, we aimed to fill these gaps. In the study, we used two separate questionnaires. The first aimed to gather information about health screening programs in approved laboratory animal units, while the second aimed to assess researchers knowledge and attitudes regarding animal health monitoring programs that should be implemented. Out of the 120 units in our country that house rodents commonly used for scientific purpos-es, 42 35 contributed to our study. Over 60 of these laboratory animal units lack mi-crobiological monitoring practices. Out of 8 units containing specific pathogen-free SPF animals, 7 adhere to microbiological monitoring program required by regulations. While 85 of the units conducting microbiological monitoring perform fecal examinations, only 53 conduct serological analyses from blood. Overall, it can be said that our research-ers knowledge levels and awareness regarding the microbiological monitoring of laboratory animals are inadequate. Meanwhile, researchers who held a certificate had slightly higher awareness compared to those who did not. In summary, it has been observed that the microbiological monitoring of laboratory animals in our country is inadequate, and researchers do not request sufficient information from the units on this issue. Training programs, including broader undergraduate or postgraduate courses, may prove more effective than certificate programs. Additionally, it would be bene-ficial to incorporate provisions in our legislation that outline the methodology for microbio-logical monitoring of conventional animals.

 The microbiological status of laboratory animals can substantially influence research out-comes. Although legal regulations in our country mandate the supervision of laboratory an-imal health, to our knowledge, no study has been conducted to examine how laboratory an-imal units carry out health monitoring of the animals up to the present day. Similarly, there is a lack of studies in our country assessing researchers interests and attitudes regarding this issue. With our study, we aimed to fill these gaps. In the study, we used two separate questionnaires. The first aimed to gather information about health screening programs in approved laboratory animal units, while the second aimed to assess researchers knowledge and attitudes regarding animal health monitoring programs that should be implemented. Out of the 120 units in our country that house rodents commonly used for scientific purpos-es, 42 35 contributed to our study. Over 60 of these laboratory animal units lack mi-crobiological monitoring practices. Out of 8 units containing specific pathogen-free SPF animals, 7 adhere to microbiological monitoring program required by regulations. While 85 of the units conducting microbiological monitoring perform fecal examinations, only 53 conduct serological analyses from blood. Overall, it can be said that our research-ers knowledge levels and awareness regarding the microbiological monitoring of laboratory animals are inadequate. Meanwhile, researchers who held a certificate had slightly higher awareness compared to those who did not. In summary, it has been observed that the microbiological monitoring of laboratory animals in our country is inadequate, and researchers do not request sufficient information from the units on this issue. Training programs, including broader undergraduate or postgraduate courses, may prove more effective than certificate programs. Additionally, it would be bene-ficial to incorporate provisions in our legislation that outline the methodology for microbio-logical monitoring of conventional animals.

 Deney hayvanlarının mikrobiyolojik durumu, araştırma verilerini önemli düzeyde etkileye-bilir. Ülkemizde yasal düzenlemeler deney hayvan sağlığının gözetimini zorunlu tutmakla birlikte bildiğimiz kadarı ile günümüze kadar deney hayvanı ünitelerinin hayvanların sağlık gözlemini nasıl yürüttüklerini inceleyen bir çalışma yapılmamıştır. Benzer şekilde ülke-mizde araştırmacıların bu konuya olan ilgi ve tutumlarını değerlendiren bir çalışma da bu-lunmamaktadır. Çalışmamız ile bu boşlukları doldurmayı amaçladık. Çalışmada iki ayrı anket kullandık. İlki onaylı deney hayvan ünitelerinin sağlık tarama programları hakkında bilgi toplamayı amaçlarken, ikincisi araştırmacıların yürütülmesi gereken hayvan sağlık izlem programlarıyla ilgili bilgi düzeyi ve tutumlarının değerlendir-mesini amaçlamaktaydı. Ülkemizde bilimsel amaçlar ile sık kullanılan kemirgenleri bulunduran 120 üniteden 42 35si çalışmamıza katkı sağladı. Bu deney hayvanları ünitelerinin en az 60ı hiçbir şekilde mikrobiyolojik gözetim yapmamaktadır. Spesifik patojen ari SPF hayvan bulundu-ran 8 üniteden 7si mevzuatın öngördüğü mikrobiyolojik gözetim programını uygulamakta-dır. Mikrobiyolojik izlem yapan ünitelerin 85i gaita incelemesi yaparken ancak 53ü kandan serolojik analiz yapmaktadır. Genel olarak araştırmacıların deney hayvanlarının mikrobiyolojik gözetimi konusundaki bilgi düzeyleri ve farkındalıklarının yeterli olmadığı söylenebilir. Diğer taraftan sertifika sahibi olan araştırmacıların olmayanlara göre farkında-lıkları biraz daha yüksekti. Sonuç olarak ülkemizde deney hayvanlarının mikrobiyolojik izleminin yeterli düzeyde ol-madığı ve araştırmacıların bu konuda ünitelerden yeterli bilgi talep etmedikleri görülmüş-tür. Bu konularda gelişme sağlanması için sertifika programlarından öte daha geniş kapsam-lı lisans ya da lisans üstü ders gibi eğitimler daha verimli olabilir. Ayrıca mevzuatımıza konvansiyonel hayvanların mikrobiyolojik izleminin nasıl yapılması gerektiğini belirleye-cek maddeler eklenmesinin faydası olacaktır.

Makale detayları

How is the monitoring of the health status of laboratory animals conducted in our country, and is the awareness of researchers on this issue sufficient?

Yazarlar:

Ayşe Meltem Sevgili | Burak Kayabaşı | Yakup Tatar

Yayıncı:

Ataturk University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hayvan Bilimi (Diğer)

Dergi:

Laboratuvar Hayvanları Bilimi ve Uygulamaları Dergisi Vol.5 Issue 2, pp.92-101

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

9/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001358089

pISSN:

2791-8645

Laboratory animals

laboratory animal units

microbiological monitoringDeney hayvanları

deney hayvanları üniteleri

mikrobiyolojik izlem

Sayı

Makale detayları

How is the monitoring of the health status of laboratory animals conducted in our country, and is the awareness of researchers on this issue sufficient?

Yazarlar: Ayşe Meltem Sevgili | Burak Kayabaşı | Yakup Tatar

Yayıncı: Ataturk University

Ana Başlıklar: Hayvan Bilimi (Diğer)

Dergi: Laboratuvar Hayvanları Bilimi ve Uygulamaları Dergisi Vol.5 Issue 2, pp.92-101

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 9/2025

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001358089

pISSN: 2791-8645

Laboratory animals

laboratory animal units

microbiological monitoringDeney hayvanları

deney hayvanları üniteleri

mikrobiyolojik izlem

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Ayşe Meltem Sevgili | Burak Kayabaşı | Yakup Tatar

Yayıncı:

Ataturk University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hayvan Bilimi (Diğer)

Dergi:

Laboratuvar Hayvanları Bilimi ve Uygulamaları Dergisi Vol.5 Issue 2, pp.92-101

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

9/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001358089

pISSN:

2791-8645