Tissue Reaction to an Implantable Identification Device in Mice

Abstract

Long-term toxicity and carcinogenicity studies require positive identification of animals. Due to the unreliability of traditional methods, it was necessary to investigate more dependable identification methods that can be read directly or by electronic means. A two-year study to determine the stability of and tissue reaction to a microchip glass-sealed device implanted in subcutaneous tissue of mice was conducted. Seventy B6C3F1 mice of each sex were anesthetized and implanted with the microchip. The devices were read by an electronic detector and palpated at periodic intervals. Ten mice of each sex were necropsied at 3 months and at 15 months with the remaining animals necropsied at 24 months. Of the 140 devices implanted, 3 were lost and 4 failed during the 24-month study. Devices were palpable and appeared to be fixed at one location with no obvious swelling due to inflammation or palpable masses around the implants for 24 months. At the 3, 15, and 24 month necropsies, implants were encapsulated by connective tissue. Light microscopic evaluation indicated that the capsule around the implants was thin and composed of fibrocytes and mature collagen fibers, with minimal to mild inflammation and occasional granulomatous reaction. Neoplastic changes were not observed in the tissue around the glass-sealed devices with polypropylene cap for up to 24 months.

Keywords

Microchip implant glass-sealed implant polypropylene implant connective tissue capsule granulomatous reaction foreign body tissue reaction

References

1. Bischoff F and Bryson G (1964). Carcinogenesis through solid state surfaces. Prog. Exp. Tumor Res. 5: 85–133.

2. Brand KG (1982). Cancer associated with asbestosis, schistosomiasis, foreign bodies or scars. In: Cancer— A Comprehensive Treatise. Etiology: Chemical and Physical Carcinogenesis, FF Becker (ed). Plenum Press, New York, pp. 671–682.

3. Brand KG , Johnson KH , and Buoen LC (1976). Foreign body tumorigenesis. CRC Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 4: 353–394.

4. Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA) (1989). Good laboratory practice regulations. Fed. Regis. 54: 15923.

5. Haseman JK , Huff JE , Rao GN , Arnold JE , Boorman GA , and McConnell EE (1985). Neoplasms observed in untreated and corn oil gavage control groups of F344/N rats and (C57BL/6N x C3H/HeN)Fl (B6C3F1) mice. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 75: 975–984.

6. Knapka JJ , Smith PK , and Judge FJ (1974). Effect of open and closed formula rations on the performance of three strains of laboratory mice. Lab. Anim. Sci. 24: 480–487.

7. National Research Council (1985). Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. NIH publication 85–23. Washington, DC.

8. Waalkes MP , Rehm S , Kasprzak KS , and Issaq HJ (1987). Inflammatory, proliferative and neoplastic lesions at the site of metallic identification ear tags in Wistar [Crl:(WI)BR] rats. Cancer Res. 47: 2445–2450.