Back

Thinking outside of the box: Refining rat housing to improve welfare

O'Malley, C.; Paterson, E. A.; Tambadou, H.; Moreau, E.; Ekundayo, O.; Puoliväli, J.; Collymore, C.; Turner, P. V.

2026-05-04 animal behavior and cognition
10.64898/2026.04.29.721812 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Standard rat housing may impede species-typical behaviors and impact rat welfare and research outcomes. This research investigated the effects of housing on behavioral and physiological outcomes of rats through the use of modified large animal cages for housing, and was conducted in two studies. Study A: 70 Sprague Dawley (SD) rats (34 males, 36 females; 5 wk old) were randomly assigned to standard polycarbonate shoebox cages (C: 733.9cm2) or modified stainless steel primate cages (T: 10,416cm2) for 18 days. In Study B: 48 SD rats (24 males, 24 females; 7.5 wk old) were held in T housing for 90 days to assess long term impacts. All rats received gentle handling for 15s 3x/week. Rats were assessed for body weight, anxiety-like behavior in an elevated plus maze, response during a voluntary human approach test, and overall home cage behavior, posture, and space usage. Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models, with sex and treatment as fixed effects, and cage as the random effect. The results of study A suggest that the modified large animal cages (T) had positive impacts on rat behavior and welfare. T rats were less anxious (P=0.038) and more active (P<0.0001) and explorative (P=0.0003) compared to C rats. In both groups, activity levels declined towards the end of the 18-day study period (P<0.0001). For study B, similar patterns were observed, with rats becoming more inactive (P<0.0001) over 90 days. However, rats spent significant time on elevated shelves in T housing, which increased throughout the study (P<0.0001), suggesting continued use of the resources the housing provided. In both studies, there were no differences in latency to approach humans (P>0.05), but T rats spent less time in contact with human handlers, suggesting differences in motivation to interact with humans that should be explored further.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 2%
35.0%
2
Physiology & Behavior
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.6%
50% of probability mass above
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 28%
4.2%
4
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
46 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
5
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.8%
6
Behavioural Brain Research
70 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.2%
7
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.8%
8
Biomedicines
66 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.8%
9
Genes, Brain and Behavior
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
10
Animals
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
11
Journal of Visualized Experiments
30 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
12
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
13
Neuroscience Letters
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
14
Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
15
Behavioural Processes
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
16
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
17
European Journal of Neuroscience
168 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
18
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
19
Biology of Sex Differences
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
20
Brain and Behavior
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
21
Current Protocols
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
22
Psychopharmacology
59 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
23
Translational Psychiatry
219 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
24
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
25
Biology Open
130 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
26
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%