Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2026
Infecting Mice with Malassezia spp. to Study the Fungus-Host Interaction
Published on: November 6, 2019
Infectious diseases in wild mice (Mus musculus) collected on and around the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)
Sharon E Parker1, Sarah Malone, Ralph M Bunte
1School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract:
Laboratory mice serve as important models in biomedical research. Monitoring these animals for infections and infestations and excluding causative agents requires extensive resources. Despite advancements in detection and exclusion over the last several years, these activities remain challenging for many institutions. The infections and infestations present in laboratory mouse colonies are well documented, but their mode of introduction is not always known. One possibility is that wild rodents living near vivaria somehow transmit infections to and between the colonies. This study was undertaken to determine what infectious agents the wild mice on the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) campus were carrying. Wild mice were trapped and evaluated for parasites, viruses, and selected bacteria by using histopathology, serology, and PCR-based assays. Results were compared with known infectious agents historically circulating in the vivaria housing mice on campus and were generally different. Although the ectoparasitic burdens found on the 2 populations were similar, the wild mice had a much lower incidence of endoparasites (most notably pinworms). The seroprevalence of some viral infections was also different, with a low prevalence of mouse hepatitis virus among wild mice. Wild mice had a high prevalence of murine cytomegalovirus, an agent now thought to be confined to wild mouse populations. Helicobacter DNA was amplified from more than 90% of the wild mice (59% positive for H. hepaticus). Given the results of this study, we conclude that wild mice likely are not a source of infection for many of the agents that are detected in laboratory mouse colonies at the University of Pennsylvania.
Insights
Wild mice on a university campus were studied for infectious agents. Results indicate they are unlikely to be a significant source of infections for laboratory mouse colonies, despite carrying some common pathogens.
Area of Science:
- Veterinary Pathology
- Infectious Disease Epidemiology
- Laboratory Animal Science
Background:
- Laboratory mice are crucial for biomedical research, but monitoring and excluding pathogens is resource-intensive.
- The introduction routes of infections in laboratory mouse colonies are not always clear, with wild rodents being a potential source.
- Understanding the infectious agents carried by wild rodents near vivaria is essential for maintaining colony health.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the prevalence and types of infectious agents (parasites, viruses, bacteria) present in wild mice on the University of Pennsylvania campus.
- To compare the infectious agent profiles of wild mice with those historically found in campus laboratory mouse colonies.
- To assess the potential role of wild mice as a source of infection for laboratory mouse colonies.
Main Methods:
- Wild mice were trapped and subjected to comprehensive diagnostic testing, including histopathology, serology, and PCR-based assays.
- Samples were analyzed for a range of parasites, viruses, and specific bacterial species.
- Findings were compared against established data from laboratory mouse colonies at the institution.
Main Results:
- Wild mice exhibited a lower incidence of endoparasites, particularly pinworms, compared to laboratory mice.
- Seroprevalence for certain viruses differed, with low levels of mouse hepatitis virus but high prevalence of murine cytomegalovirus in wild mice.
- Helicobacter DNA was detected in over 90% of wild mice, with 59% testing positive for H. hepaticus.
Conclusions:
- Wild mice on the University of Pennsylvania campus do not appear to be a primary source for many common infections found in the institution's laboratory mouse colonies.
- Differences in endoparasite and viral profiles suggest distinct transmission dynamics between wild and laboratory mouse populations.
- While not a major source, the high prevalence of Helicobacter species in wild mice warrants consideration for biosecurity measures.
More Related Videos
05:34Operating and Biocontainment Procedures of a Facility for Laboratory Mice with a Natural Microbiome: Immunophenotyping Procedure
Published on: December 13, 2024
09:02An Experimental Model to Study Tuberculosis-Malaria Coinfection upon Natural Transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Plasmodium berghei
Published on: February 17, 2014