Jove
Visualize
Contact Us

Related Experiment Videos

Animal identification.

John Donovan1, Patricia Brown2

  • 1Wyeth Research, Collegeville, Pennsylvania.

Current Protocols in Immunology
|April 25, 2008
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Automated microstructural characterization of hydrogels using deep instance segmentation and graph-based agglomerate analysis.

European journal of pharmaceutics and biopharmaceutics : official journal of Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Pharmazeutische Verfahrenstechnik e.V·2026
Same author

Is body mass index associated with hypoxic-ischemic brain injury risk in extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation?

Perfusion·2025
Same author

Impact of Left Ventricular Venting on Acute Brain Injury in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: An Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry Analysis.

Critical care medicine·2025
Same author

Determining VO<sub>2</sub> in the ECMO patient.

Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition·2025
Same author

Practice Patterns in Management of Low- to Intermediate-Grade Salivary Gland Carcinoma: A Multi-Institutional Study.

Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology·2025
Same author

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Seizures in Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Patients: An Analysis of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry.

ASAIO journal (American Society for Artificial Internal Organs : 1992)·2025
Same journal

A Comprehensive Experimental Guide to Studying Cross-Presentation in Dendritic Cells In Vitro.

Current protocols in immunology·2020
Same journal

Immunologic Studies in Humans.

Current protocols in immunology·2020
Same journal

Immunologic Studies in Humans.

Current protocols in immunology·2020
Same journal

Immunologic Studies in Humans.

Current protocols in immunology·2020
Same journal

Monoclonal Antibodies to Human Cell Surface Antigens.

Current protocols in immunology·2020
Same journal

Protocols for Experimental Sjögren's Syndrome.

Current protocols in immunology·2020
See all related articles
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

This article details standardized techniques for labeling laboratory animals, including mice, rats, hamsters, and rabbits, to ensure accurate tracking and ethical research practices. It covers physical marking methods like ear punching and tattooing, as well as electronic identification using subcutaneous transponders.

Area of Science:

  • Laboratory animal science within animal identification protocols
  • Veterinary medicine and research ethics

Background:

Accurate tracking of laboratory specimens remains a persistent challenge for investigators maintaining rigorous experimental standards. No prior work has fully synthesized the diverse methodologies available for marking common rodent and lagomorph models. Researchers often struggle to select appropriate labeling techniques that minimize distress while ensuring long-term data integrity. Standardized procedures for animal identification are necessary to prevent errors in data collection across breeding and experimental cohorts. That uncertainty drove the need for a comprehensive guide on current best practices for marking research subjects. Prior research has shown that improper labeling leads to significant confusion in longitudinal studies involving tissues or fluids. This gap motivated the development of clear, reproducible protocols for various species used in scientific settings. The following overview addresses these needs by detailing established physical and electronic marking systems.

Purpose Of The Study:

Keywords:
rodent markingveterinary protocolsanimal welfareresearch methodology

Frequently Asked Questions

The researchers propose that ear punching is suitable for short-term rodent studies, whereas subcutaneous transponders offer a more permanent, unique electronic identification method for all mentioned species. Unlike physical tags, transponders minimize tissue damage while ensuring reliable data retrieval throughout the animal's lifespan.

The authors describe subcutaneous transponders as electronic devices implanted beneath the skin. These tools facilitate automated tracking, which contrasts with manual physical markers like ear tags or tattoos that require visual inspection for identification.

The authors state that specific anatomical regions, such as the ear or skin, are necessary for these procedures to ensure proper healing. This technical requirement prevents complications like infection or tag loss, which are more frequent when markers are placed in suboptimal locations.

Related Experiment Videos

The aim of this work is to provide standardized protocols for the proper identification of laboratory animals used in scientific research. Researchers often face challenges in maintaining accurate records for subjects involved in breeding or experimental procedures. This uncertainty drove the need for a comprehensive guide covering both physical and electronic marking systems. The authors intend to clarify the appropriate application of ear punches, ear tags, and tattoos for various species. They also seek to define the correct usage of subcutaneous transponders to ensure reliable data tracking. This study addresses the necessity of minimizing animal distress while achieving high-quality identification outcomes. By synthesizing these techniques, the authors hope to assist laboratories in improving their record-keeping accuracy. This effort provides a clear, actionable resource for investigators managing diverse animal cohorts.

Main Methods:

Review Approach involves a systematic examination of established physical and electronic marking techniques for common research models. The authors evaluate protocols for ear punching and ear tagging specifically designed for mice, rats, and hamsters. They also analyze tattooing procedures applicable to mice, rats, and rabbits to ensure visual identification. The investigation includes an assessment of subcutaneous transponder systems for all mentioned species. This synthesis focuses on the practical application of each technique within standard laboratory environments. The authors compare the invasiveness and durability of these diverse marking strategies. They provide instructions for implementing these tools while minimizing potential stress to the animals. This approach ensures that the provided guidelines remain applicable to various experimental designs and institutional requirements.

Main Results:

Key Findings From the Literature indicate that ear punching and tagging are highly effective for rapid, short-term identification in rodent populations. The review demonstrates that tattooing provides a durable visual marker for rabbits and rodents when long-term tracking is required. Authors report that subcutaneous transponders offer a sophisticated electronic alternative for unique, permanent identification across all studied species. The literature shows that each method carries specific risks, such as tissue irritation or potential device migration. Findings suggest that physical markers are prone to loss or fading, whereas electronic systems maintain high readability. The authors highlight that proper technique during implantation or application significantly reduces the incidence of adverse events. Data indicate that the choice of method should align with the specific needs of the research project. The synthesis confirms that standardized marking protocols are essential for maintaining accurate records in breeding and experimental settings.

Conclusions:

Synthesis and Implications suggest that selecting an identification method depends heavily on the species and the specific duration of the study. Authors indicate that ear punching offers a quick, low-cost solution for short-term tracking in rodents. The literature highlights that ear tagging provides a more permanent visual marker but carries risks of tissue irritation. Tattoos serve as a reliable alternative for rabbits and rodents when visual clarity is required over extended periods. Researchers propose that subcutaneous transponders represent the most robust electronic solution for unique, long-term animal tracking. The review emphasizes that all marking procedures must prioritize the welfare of the subject to maintain ethical compliance. Authors conclude that consistent application of these protocols reduces experimental variability and enhances the reliability of collected biological data. These findings provide a framework for laboratories to standardize their identification workflows effectively.

The researchers utilize procedural data to categorize marking efficacy across different species. This information serves as a guide for selecting the appropriate tool, distinguishing between manual methods like tattooing and automated electronic systems.

The authors measure the success of these techniques by assessing the longevity and readability of the markers. This phenomenon is compared across physical methods, where ear tags may fail, and electronic systems, which maintain high accuracy over time.

The researchers propose that adopting these standardized protocols improves research reproducibility. They claim that consistent identification practices are vital for maintaining the integrity of experimental subjects compared to inconsistent, ad-hoc labeling strategies.