Research ArticleExperimental Studies

Efficient Stool Collection Methods for Evaluating the Diarrhea Score in Mouse Diarrhea Models

SUNG KYUN YIM, SANG WOOK KIM and SOO TEIK LEE
In Vivo July 2021, 35 (4) 2115-2125; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.12481

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1.
    Figure 1.

    The paper towel method. The paper towel method was performed as follows (A). 1) Place paper towels on the experiment table. 2) Put the steel wire net floor (the bottom part of the mouse-dwelling portion of the metabolic cage) upside down on the paper towels. 3) Place the upper plastic cage (the upper plastic part of the mouse-dwelling portion of the metabolic cage) on the steel wire net floor. 4) Place mice in the cage and evaluate defecated stools seated on the paper towel by being dropped down through the steel wire net for required periods. Note water marks or diarrhea marks (thick arrows) generated on the paper towel by wet stools collected from mice of the 5-FU-induced diarrhea model on day 11 (B).

  • Figure 2.
    Figure 2.

    Differences in the size of water marks generated by the instilled water between the paper towel and the filter paper. Two minutes after instilling aliquots of 20 µl of water on the paper towel (A, upper) and the filter paper (A, lower), the longest diameter of the water marks generated on them was measured. A representative picture (A) and mean±SD of the sizes of the water marks (B) are presented. ***p<0.001.

  • Figure 3.
    Figure 3.

    Stools collected by using the regular cage containing bedding chips (A) vs. the paper towel method (B). Defecated stools were collected from mice of the 5-FU-induced diarrhea model on day 8. Note water marks or diarrhea marks (red arrows) generated on the paper towel by wet stools (B).

  • Figure 4.
    Figure 4.

    Stools collected by using the cage having a paper towel placed on its floor (A) vs. the paper towel method (B). Defecated stools were collected from mice of the 5-FU-induced diarrhea model on day 8.

  • Figure 5.
    Figure 5.

    Stools collected by using the fully equipped metabolic cage [sliding down side wall (A) and feces collection tube (B)] vs. the paper towel method (C). Defecated stools were collected for 2 h from mice, 1 h after the oral administration of castor oil.

  • Figure 6.
    Figure 6.

    The paper towel method (A), modified paper towel methods (B and C), and stools (D, E, and F) collected by using them (A, B, and C, respectively). Defecated stools were collected from mice of the 5-FU-induced diarrhea model on day 9.

  • Figure 7.
    Figure 7.

    Proposed examples of grade 1/normal (left), grade 2/wet (middle), and grade 3/watery (right) stools. Grade 1/normal stool (normal shaped stool without water mark on the paper towel), grade 2/wet stool (normal shaped stool with water mark beyond the edge of the stool on the paper towel), and grade 3/watery stool (unshaped stool with water mark beyond the edge of the stool on the paper towel or watery diarrhea with scanty formed components). Note the uppermost enlarged case. This stool is considered grade 2 (not grade 1) because it has a water mark slightly larger than the stool margin.

Tables

  • Table I.
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Reprints and Permissions
Efficient Stool Collection Methods for Evaluating the Diarrhea Score in Mouse Diarrhea Models
SUNG KYUN YIM, SANG WOOK KIM, SOO TEIK LEE
In Vivo Jul 2021, 35 (4) 2115-2125; DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12481
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Keywords