|
In reviewing proposals
which include the mouse ascites method, the ARC is required by
federal regulations to determine that (i) the use of the ascites
method for producing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) is
scientifically justified, (ii) methods that avoid or minimize
discomfort, distress, and pain (including in
vitro methods) have been considered, and (iii) such
alternatives have been found unsuitable.
The following guidelines were developed by the ARC in
order to address these regulatory requirements.
Each
investigator is specifically responsible for ensuring that all
those working with the animals are properly trained to perform
the procedures and are aware of the contents of these guidelines
and the ARC approved animal care protocol.
I. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ASCITES METHOD
The National
Research Council (NRC) Committee on Methods of Producing
Monoclonal Antibodies (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/antibodies.pdf)
states:
-
"It is
incumbent on the scientist to consider first
the use of in vitro
methods for the production of mAb.
When hybridomas fail to grow or fail to achieve a
product consistent with scientific goals, the
investigator is obliged to show that a good-faith effort was
made to adapt the hybridoma to in vitro growth conditions before using the mouse ascites
method."
-
"In
vitro methods for producing mAb are appropriate in
numerous situations, and it
is the responsibility of the researcher to produce
scientific justification for using the mouse ascites method."
Although the ARC may
approve the use of the mouse ascites for the production of mAbs,
a proposal to use this method must contain sufficient
information for the Committee to evaluate whether or not there
is adequate justification.
Ease of purification, higher antibody yield, and lower
cost are not acceptable reasons to use the ascites method unless
carefully and properly justified.
1. Failure of In Vitro Methods to Produce the Monoclonal
Antibody
a.
Examples:
-
Some cell lines
do not adapt well to tissue culture conditions.
-
Rat cell lines
usually do not efficiently generate mAb in rats and adapt poorly
to tissue-culture conditions but do produce mAb in
immunocompromised mice.
b.
Justification must address the following:
-
Has in
vitro monoclonal antibody production been attempted by the
investigator and/or an outside source?
If so, is supporting data available to demonstrate that
the in vitro method
was unsuccessful in producing the monoclonal antibody using
several different culture conditions (cell lines and serum-free
medium)?
- Has the investigator
considered an NIH-assured commercial source or other core
hybridoma facility for ascites production?
2. Problems with Antibody Production/Yield Using In Vitro
Methods
a.
Examples:
-
Inability of some cell lines that do adapt to
tissue-culture conditions to maintain adequate production of mAb
poses a serious problem.
-
In applications where several different mouse mAb at high
concentrations are required for injection into mice, the in
vitro method can be inefficient.
b.
Justification must address the following:
-
If low antibody production is obtained using the in vitro method in an investigator's laboratory, is the mAb
available commercially?
-
Is supporting data available to demonstrate that
insufficient antibody production was obtained by the
investigator and/or an outside source using the in
vitro method?
-
What technical reasons resulted in difficulties obtaining
the required level of antibody yield using the in
vitro method? Specify culture conditions, medium, culture
systems, cell lines, and indicate whether cell lines were tested
for mycoplasma.
3. Problems with Antibody Purity/Activity Using In Vitro
Methods
a.
Examples:
-
Downstream purification or concentration from in
vitro systems can lead to protein denaturation and decreased
antibody activity.
-
Tissue-culture methods can yield mAb that do not reflect
the normal modification of proteins with sugars, and this
abnormality might influence binding capacity and other critical
biologic functions of mAb.
b.
Justification must address the following:
-
What
technical reasons specific to the study resulted in difficulty
obtaining the required antibody using the in
vitro method?
4. Cost
a.
Examples:
b.
Justification must address the following:
-
If cost is used as a justification, the source of this
information and a cost estimation for producing the total amount
of antibody required must be included.
When providing this information, please include:
-
your estimated cost for the in
vivo and in vitro
methods. In estimating your cost, please include the cost of
maintaining and housing animals, labor associated with animal
care, and purification of the mAb; and
-
vendor's
cost for both the in vivo and in vitro
methods.
5. In Vivo Monoclonal Antibody Production at Other
Institutions
Please
provide the following information:
II. RESOURCES
A listing of
commercial sources of in
vitro production methods and commercial sources of mAbs is
available at http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/antibody/company.htm.
III. ALTERNATIVES
Federal regulations require investigators to consider
alternatives to procedures that may cause more than momentary or
slight pain or distress to animals.
As ascites production in mice may cause more than
momentary or slight pain or distress to animals, scientists are
obligated to consider alternatives to the ascites method.
Failure to use in vitro
methods in favor of the in
vivo method must be scientifically justified, and the ARC
will not approve the use of the mouse ascites method in the
absence of such a justification.
At a minimum, federal regulations require that
investigators provide a written narrative with the following
information: date(s) of the most recent literature search, years
covered by the search, keywords used to search for alternatives,
and the databases or sources consulted to support the conclusion
that no alternatives are applicable (e.g., Medline Plus, BIOSIS,
PsycINFO, Current Contents, etc.).
Several resources
are available to assist investigators in the search for
alternatives. Please
visit the Office of Animal Research Oversight website at
http://oaro.research.ucla.edu/alternatives
for more information.
*Alternatives
include methods that reduce, refine, or replace the use of
animals in research, teaching, and testing.
IV. GUIDELINES FOR THE ASCITES METHOD
1. Pain Categorization
Provided that animals are
monitored appropriately and that ascites fluid is tapped before
the animals are expected to experience unalleviated pain or
discomfort as a result of the accumulation of fluid in the
peritoneal cavity, the ARC has determined that animals used for
ascites production may be listed under Pain Category D
(pain/distress relieved by use of appropriate anesthetics,
analgesics, tranquilizers, or by euthanasia). However, if
the experiments are expected to produce significant inflammation
or otherwise result in unrelieved pain, Pain Category E
(pain/distress cannot be relieved by use of anesthetics,
analgesics, or tranquilizers, as the use of these agents would
interfere with the experimental design) may be appropriate.
2. Priming
Pristane, the most commonly used priming agent for ascites
production, is believed to act by inducing a granulomatous
reaction and by interfering with peritoneal fluid drainage.
A dose of 0.5 ml i.p. may cause noticeable distress,
which is not seen with the equally efficacious dose of 0.1 to
0.2 ml. Therefore, pristane-priming must be performed with doses no
greater than 0.2 ml per injection unless scientifically
justified in the animal use protocol.
Scientific justification must be provided in the animal use
protocol for the use of priming agents other than pristane.
3.
Inoculation
Tumor cell lines should be tested for murine virus.
Untested mice, or those contaminated with murine viruses,
must be isolated. Hybridoma
cell suspensions in 0.5 ml of media is recommended for increased
mAb production.
After inoculation with ascites-producing tumor lines, mice
must be observed at least
twice daily
(including weekends and holidays) to monitor the degree of
abdominal distention and for signs of clinical abnormalities and
distress (e.g., hunched posture, rough haircoat, dehydration, or
difficulty in ambulation). The animals must be weighed at least
every other day beginning seven days after hybridoma injection.
Animals having difficulty reaching their food or water should
have food pellets and Napa Nectar (or other water source) placed
inside their cage.
4.
Harvesting Ascites Fluid
Accumulation of fluid in the peritoneal cavity causes
abdominal distention, discomfort, and in extreme cases may even
cause respiratory distress.
Ascites fluid must be removed before abdominal distention
is such as to cause discomfort, tachypnea, or interference with
normal activity. Any animal with a grossly distended abdomen, one in which the
skin is drawn tight, must be tapped and/or euthanized.
Animals must be tapped before ascites fluid volumes exceed 20% of the animal's
baseline body weight prior to hybridoma cell inoculation.
Ascites fluid may be collected with a sterile 18-22 gauge
hypodermic needle (glass syringes have been found to be more
effective for this procedure than plastic).
Passive flow from the needle usually works best.
The collection procedure should be performed using
aseptic techniques, including clipping or shaving the fur from
the injection area, preparation of the site with 3 alternating
washes of both betadine and 70% ethanol, and using a new,
sterile hypodermic needle for each mouse.
To minimize discomfort, the needle should be inserted
lateral to the bladder and parallel to the body wall.
Anesthesia is not normally required if those performing
the collection are experienced.
The animals should be anesthetized if new personnel are
being trained.
Animals must be observed continuously by trained personnel at least 30 minutes
immediately following abdominal paracentesis for signs of
hypovolemic shock and distress.
If an animal appears hunched or lethargic, an equal
volume of warm saline should be administered subcutaneously.
At a maximum, animals may be tapped twice and allowed to
recover. The third
tap, if one occurs, must be conducted following euthanasia.
5.
Euthanasia
Animals bearing ascites tumors must not be maintained past a
point where they are in good health.
Animals must be euthanized promptly if they display
severe signs of pain or distress or exhibit severe or persistent
clinical abnormalities (ruffled coat, hunched posture, anorexia,
dehydration, pallor, weight loss, inactivity, difficulty in
ambulation, tachypnea, or dyspnea). Any animal in the moribund condition must be euthanized.
REFERENCES
Amyx, H.L. 1987. Control of animal pain and distress in
antibody production and infectious disease studies. JAVMA
191(10):1287-1289.
Brodeur, B.R., Tsang, P. and Larose, Y. 1984. Parameters
affecting ascites tumor formation in mice and monoclonal
antibody production. J. Immunol. Methods 86:239-241.
Colwell, D.E., Michalek, S.M. and McGhee, J.R. 1986. Method
for generating a high frequency of hybridomas producing
monoclonal IgA antibodies. Methods Enzymol. 121:42-51.
Jackson, L.R. and Fox, J.G. 1995. Institutional policies and
guidelines on adjuvants and antibody production. ILAR Journal
37(3):141-152.
Jackson, L.R., Trudel, L.J., Fox, J.G., et al. Monoclonal
antibody production in murine ascites II. Production
characteristics. Laboratory Animal Science 49(1):81-86.
McGuill, M.W. and Rowan, A.N. 1989. Refinement of monoclonal
antibody production and animal well-being. ILAR News
31(1):7-10.
Monoclonal Antibody Production Guidelines, Animal Care and
Use Administrative Committee (AUCAAC), University of California,
Davis, 8/12/99.
Production of Monoclonal Antibodies Using Mouse Ascites
Method. OPRR Reports, Number 98-01, Animal
Welfare, National Institutes of Health, November 17, 1999.
Ward, P.A., Adams, J., Faustman, D., et al. Monoclonal
Antibody Production: A Report of the Committee on Methods of
Producing Monoclonal Antibodies. Institute for Laboratory Animal
Research, National Research Council, National Academy Press,
Washington D.C. 1999.
Guidelines for Ascites
Production in Mice.
http://oacu.od.nih.gov/documents/Ascites.pdf, last revision
9/12/07.
Approved
2/14/00
Revised
11/13/00, 3/22/04, 4/26/10 |