Items in cart [0] Questions? Call 888-624-8373

PAPERBACK list:$38.75 Web:$34.88 add to cart Rights & Permissions Free PDF Access Free Resources Sign in to download PDF book and chapters Display this book on your site! Related Titles The Infectious Etiology of Chronic Diseases: Defining the Relationship, Enhancing the Research, and Mitigating the Effects -- Workshop Summary Learning from SARS: Preparing for the Next Disease Outbreak -- Workshop Summary Other Related Titles Microbial Status and Genetic Evaluation of Mice and Rats: Proceedings of the 1999 US/Japan Conference (2000) Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR) Web Search Builder Use this book's key terms to search within this book, across our collection, or across the Web. Skim This Chapter Skim this chapter and use this chapter's key terms to search within this book. Reference Finder Paste in your own text to find books that relate to your topic. Page 6   E-mail  Facebook  Digg  Stumble  Twitter More The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. Introductory Comments on Microbiologic Testing of Laboratory Mice and Rats: Uniformity of Results Anton M. Allen Retired, National Institutes of Health and Microbiological Associates, Inc., Bethesda, MD Although the search for ways to improve the uniformity and correctness of test results produced by animal testing laboratories worldwide would appear to be a relatively simple aim, it involves difficult issues because laboratories around the world are managed differently. For example, such laboratories use a variety of tests for a given agent, a multiplicity of testing reagents of varying quality, and many types of equipment; and they have personnel with very different levels of training and expertise. These variables are not likely to be eliminated in the near future because of differences in resources among countries, cultural nuances, resistance to change, and so forth. However, we can still strive for more uniformity of testing even if the efforts must begin focally and spread to other areas at a later time. Initiatives of this type are no doubt occurring in a number of countries. In the United States, a few efforts have been made but have not been carried very far. The more formal approaches that come to mind include the program that Dr. Dennis Stark began at Rockefeller University, where multiple laboratories are invited to test a single sample and then compare results. Another approach was the development of 25 “monospecific” reference antibody reagents for use in helping to standardize antibody tests for infectious agents of mice and rats. Production of the reagents was accomplished by the combined efforts of the American Committee on Laboratory Animal Diseases (ACLAD) and Microbiological Associates (now BioReliance Corp). Our speakers are eminently qualified to discuss this subject and give their perspectives. Page 6 Front Matter (R1-R16) Opening Remarks, Judith Vaitukaitis (1-3) Opening Remarks, Shin-Ichi Ota (4-5) Introductory Comments on Microbiologic Testing of Laboratory Mice and Rats: Uniformity of Results (6-6) Development of a Performance Assessment Program for Research Animal Diagnostic Laboratories and Defining Microbiologic Testing Standards (7-10) Standardization of Rodent Health Surveillance: Regulation Versus Competition (11-15) Factors Causing Difficulties in Uniformity of Results Among Testing Facilities in Microbiologic Monitoring of Laboratory Animals (16-20) Necessity of Reexamining the Pathogenicity and Elimination of Parasites in Rats and Mice (21-26) Emerging (and Reemerging) Viruses of Laboratory Mice and Rats (27-34) Emerging Infections as a Cause of Concern (35-39) Emerging Diseases in Mice and Rats (40-43) Survey of Heliobacter Species in Laboratory Mice and Gerbils in Japan (44-46) Genetic Evaluation of Outbred Rats (47-50) Genetic Evaluation of Outbred Rats from the Breeder's Perspective (51-64) Concept for Establishment of Rat Outbred Global Standard Strains (65-76) Necessity of Genetic and Microbiologic Quality Network from the Pharmaceutical Industry's Perspective (77-84) International Harmonization of Laboratory Animals (85-96) Rat Genetics and Toxicology (97-104) A Phenotype-driven Approach to the Molecular and Functional Analysis of the Mouse Genome (105-115) Evaluation of Targeted Mutations (116-118) Defining Behavioral Phenotypes in Transgenic and Knockout Mice (119-129) Defining Phenotype in Genetically Engineered Mice (130-131) Development of the Mouse Model Dramatype for Human Clinical Benefit (132-136) Concluding Remarks (137-137) Implication of Wild-derived Genes, Mitochondria, and Chromosomes in the Genetic Background of Mouse Models for Diseases and Biologic Functions (138-141) Concluding Comments, John Strandberg (142-143) Concluding Remarks, John Vandenbergh (144-146) Appendix A (147-148) Appendix B (149-150)

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 6
Microbial Status and Genetic Evaluation of Mice and Rats: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1999 US/JAPAN CONFERENCE Introductory Comments on Microbiologic Testing of Laboratory Mice and Rats: Uniformity of Results Anton M. Allen Retired, National Institutes of Health and Microbiological Associates, Inc., Bethesda, MD Although the search for ways to improve the uniformity and correctness of test results produced by animal testing laboratories worldwide would appear to be a relatively simple aim, it involves difficult issues because laboratories around the world are managed differently. For example, such laboratories use a variety of tests for a given agent, a multiplicity of testing reagents of varying quality, and many types of equipment; and they have personnel with very different levels of training and expertise. These variables are not likely to be eliminated in the near future because of differences in resources among countries, cultural nuances, resistance to change, and so forth. However, we can still strive for more uniformity of testing even if the efforts must begin focally and spread to other areas at a later time. Initiatives of this type are no doubt occurring in a number of countries. In the United States, a few efforts have been made but have not been carried very far. The more formal approaches that come to mind include the program that Dr. Dennis Stark began at Rockefeller University, where multiple laboratories are invited to test a single sample and then compare results. Another approach was the development of 25 “monospecific” reference antibody reagents for use in helping to standardize antibody tests for infectious agents of mice and rats. Production of the reagents was accomplished by the combined efforts of the American Committee on Laboratory Animal Diseases (ACLAD) and Microbiological Associates (now BioReliance Corp). Our speakers are eminently qualified to discuss this subject and give their perspectives.

Representative terms from entire chapter:

rats dennis