![Sample our Sports and Leisure journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5949/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Sports-Leisure.jpg"})
Abstract
The golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus) is one of the most frequently used laboratory animals, particularly in chronobiological studies. One reason is its very robust and predictable rhythms, although the question arises whether this is an inbreeding effect or rather is typical for the species. We compared the daily (circadian) activity rhythms of wild and laboratory golden hamsters. The laboratory hamsters were derived from our own outbred stock (Zoh:GOHA). The wild hamsters included animals captured in Syria and their descendants (F1). Experiments were performed under entrained (light: dark [LD] 14h:10h) and under free-running (constant darkness, DD) conditions. Locomotor activity was recorded using passive infrared detectors. Under entrained conditions, the animals had access to a running wheel for a certain time to induce additional activity. After 3 weeks in constant darkness, a light pulse (15 min, 100 lux) was applied at circadian time 14 (CT14). Both laboratory and wild hamsters showed well-pronounced and very similar activity rhythms. Under entrained conditions, all hamsters manifested about 80% of their total 24h activity during the dark portion of the LD cycle. The robustness of the daily rhythms was also similar. However, interindividual variability was higher in wild hamsters for both measures. All animals used the running wheels almost exclusively during the dark portion of the LD cycle, although the wild hamsters were three times more active. The period length, measured in constant darkness, was significantly shorter in wild (23.93h ± 0.10h) than in laboratory hamsters (24.06 ± 0.07h). The light-induced phase changes were not different (about 1.5h). In summary, these results indicate that the laboratory hamster is not much different from the wild type. (Chronobiology International, 18(6), 921–932, 2001)