Descending control of nociception in insects?

Modulation of nociception allows animals to optimize chances of survival by adapting their behaviour in different contexts. In mammals, this is executed by neurons from the brain and is referred to as the descending control of nociception. Whether insects have such control, or the neural circuits allowing it, has rarely been explored. Based on behavioural, neuroscientific and molecular evidence, we argue that insects probably have descending controls for nociception. Behavioural work shows that insects can modulate nocifensive behaviour. Such modulation is at least in part controlled by the central nervous system since the information mediating such prioritization is processed by the brain. Central nervous system control of nociception is further supported by neuroanatomical and neurobiological evidence showing that the insect brain can facilitate or suppress nocifensive behaviour, and by molecular studies revealing pathways involved in the inhibition of nocifensive behaviour both peripherally and centrally. Insects lack the endogenous opioid peptides and their receptors that contribute to mammalian descending nociception controls, so we discuss likely alternative molecular mechanisms for the insect descending nociception controls. We discuss what the existence of descending control of nociception in insects may reveal about pain perception in insects and finally consider the ethical implications of these novel findings.

The in vivo Tetrahymena thermophila extracellular glucose drop assay for characterization of mammalian insulin activity

Insulin activity is generally determined by an in vivo rabbit blood glucose drop assay in research and industriel laboratories. The humane experimental techniques imply the use of alternative invertebrate organisms in place of animals, known as replacement rule of the 3Rs. In this study, we report an alternative in vivo extracellular glucose drop assay using unicellular invertebrate Tetrahymena thermophila to replace the use of rabbit and mouse. This assay has four major steps; growing cells, starving cells, treatment of cells and measurement of glucose drop. In this assay, 0.2 mg/ml of human, porcine and bovine insulins dropped extracellular glucose level to 16%, 14% and 12%, respectively in ten minutes. In addition, mammalian insulins respectively increased the cell area about 19%, 15%, and 16% at 6th hour with statistically significant effect on the cell growth, but not in the cell viability. The results showed that the in vivo Tetrahymena thermophila extracellular glucose drop assay could be used as an alternative assay to replace the mouse or the rabbit insulin blood glucose drop assay.

Edible insects - defining knowledge gaps in biological and ethical considerations of entomophagy

While seeking novel food sources to feed the increasing population of the globe, several alternatives have been discussed, including algae, fungi or in vitro meat. The increasingly propagated usage of farmed insects for human nutrition raises issues regarding food safety, consumer information and animal protection. In line with law, insects like any other animals must not be reared or manipulated in a way that inflicts unnecessary pain, distress or harm on them. Currently, there is a great need for research in the area of insect welfare, especially regarding species-specific needs, health, farming systems and humane methods of killing. Recent results from neurophysiological, neuroanatomical and behavioral sciences prompt caution when denying consciousness and therefore the likelihood of presence of pain and suffering or something closely related to it to insects. From an animal protection point of view, these issues should be satisfyingly solved before propagating and establishing intensive husbandry systems for insects as a new type of mini-livestock factory farming.

Feeding live invertebrate prey in zoos and aquaria: Are there welfare concerns?

Invertebrates constitute more than 90% of all species on earth, however, as a rule, humans do not regard invertebrates as creatures that can suffer and they are generally seen as creatures that should be eliminated. As a result, the importance of their welfare may be grossly unappreciated. For instance, the feeding of live food is often viewed as a good method of enrichment and invertebrates are commonly used as live prey in many zoological facilities. As a result, zoos may send mixed messages to their patrons in that welfare is considered only for the invertebrates that are part of their zoological collection and not necessarily for the invertebrates used as feed. Research indicates that many invertebrates possess nociceptors, opioid receptors, and demonstrate behavioral responses indicative of pain sensation. In addition, in some taxa, there may be evidence of higher cognitive functions such as emotions and learning, although studies in this area of research are preliminary and sparse. Therefore, the possibility for suffering exists in many invertebrate species and as such, zoological facilities have an ethical responsibility to take their welfare into consideration. This paper discusses the current research regarding invertebrates' capacity for suffering and discusses methods facilities can use to improve the welfare of their invertebrate live prey.

Research ethics I: Responsible conduct of research (RCR)--historical and contemporary issues pertaining to human and animal experimentation

PURPOSE

In this series of articles--Research Ethics I, Research Ethics II, and Research Ethics III--the authors provide a comprehensive review of the 9 core domains for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) as articulated by the Office of Research Integrity. In Research Ethics I, they present a historical overview of the evolution of RCR in the United States then examine the evolution of human and animal experimentation from the birth of scientific medicine through World War II to the present day.

METHOD

They relied on authoritative documents, both historical and contemporary, insightful commentary, and empirical research in order to identify current issues and controversies of potential interest to both faculty and students.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors have written this article from a historical perspective because they think all readers interested in RCR should appreciate how the history of science and all the good--and harm--it has produced can inform how researchers practice responsible research in the 21st century and beyond.