BACKGROUND:Historically, systematic review studies of nonclinical published research articles around the life sciences have shown that the overall reporting of information on measures against bias is low. Measures such as randomization, blinding and sample size estimation are mentioned in the minority of the studies. The present study aims to provide an overview of the recent reporting standards in a large sample of nonclinical articles with focus on statistical information. METHODS:Journals were randomly selected from Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate). Biomedical research articles published in 2020 from 10 journals were analyzed for their reporting standards using a checklist. RESULTS:In total 860 articles; 320 articles describing in vivo methods, 187 articles describing in vitro methods and 353 articles including both in vivo and in vitro methods, were included in the study. The reporting rate of "randomization" ranged from 0%-63% between journals for in vivo articles and 0%-4% for in vitro articles. The reporting rate of "blinded conduct of the experiments" ranged from 11%-71% between journals for in vivo articles and 0%-86% for in vitro articles. CONCLUSION:The analysis showed that the reporting standards remained low, also when other statistical information is concerned. Additionally, our results suggest that the reporting in articles on in vivo experiments is better compared to articles on in vitro experiments. Furthermore, important differences in reporting standards between journals seem to exist.

Corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF, nomenclature as agreed by the NC-IUPHAR subcommittee on Corticotropin-releasing Factor Receptors [35]) receptors are activated by the endogenous peptides corticotrophin-releasing hormone, a 41 amino-acid peptide, urocortin 1, 40 amino-acids, urocortin 2, 38 amino-acids and urocortin 3, 38 amino-acids. CRF1 and CRF2 receptors are activated non-selectively by CRH and UCN. CRF2 receptors are selectively activated by UCN2 and UCN3. Binding to CRF receptors can be conducted using radioligands [125I]Tyr0-CRF or [125I]Tyr0-sauvagine with Kd values of 0.1-0.4 nM. CRF1 and CRF2 receptors are non-selectively antagonized by α-helical CRF, D-Phe-CRF-(12-41) and astressin. CRF1 receptors are selectively antagonized by small molecules NBI27914, R121919, antalarmin, CP 154,526, CP 376,395. CRF2 receptors are selectively antagonized by antisauvagine and astressin 2B. Although selective small molecule CRF1 receptor antagonists were not effective in treating major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, or alcohol use disorder in clinical trials, recent phase 2 studies have found that CRF1 receptor antagonists effectively reduce adrenocortical androgens and precursors in congentical adrenal hyperplasia [61].

AbstractThe laboratory animal science community is moving toward increasing the quality of their work. There are two main reasons for that: first, the objective of improving the care and use of the animals to ensure animal well-being; and second, the general trend by animal researchers toward enhancing the quality, reproducibility, and translatability of the research outcome. Therefore, animal care and use program managers are more and more involved, by personal and/or institutional commitment, in the implementation of quality practices in all animal program areas. In addition to internal quality measures, that may or may not be imposed by regulations, there are several external quality systems that can, and have been traditionally applied, to animal care and use programs. The practical aspects of the implementation of the three most common quality systems in the animal research environment (AAALAC International, GLP, and ISO) are described.

The EQIPD Quality System was designed with the ultimate mission to provide a framework to ensure the quality and integrity of non-regulated preclinical biomedical research. For research quality to be sustained over time, it is crucial to have continuous improvement mechanisms that routinely monitor the research-related processes and enable solutions for identified issues. The present article is focused on these monitoring and assessment procedures that make the EQIPD Quality System a fully functional 'system' (as opposed to a mere collection of guidelines, work instructions and policies). In this context, a critical instrument are the internal and external assessments of the EQIPD Quality System performance described in detail. The assessment procedures emphasize the unique nature of the EQIPD Quality System being user-friendly, flexible and fit-for-purpose. By undergoing the (voluntary) external EQIPD assessment (leading to the EQIPD certification after all EQIPD core requirements have been implemented), a research unit: (i) secures confidence in the quality of data generated, (ii) ensures continuous improvement of research processes, and (iii) obtains an independent seal of quality communicating commitment to best research practices to the research community.

Recently, many funding agencies have released guidelines on the importance of considering sex as a biological variable (SABV) as an experimental factor, aiming to address sex differences and avoid possible sex biases to enhance the reproducibility and translational relevance of preclinical research. In neuroscience and pharmacology, the female sex is often omitted from experimental designs, with researchers generalizing male-driven outcomes to both sexes, risking a biased or limited understanding of disease mechanisms and thus potentially ineffective therapeutics. Herein, we describe key methodological aspects that should be considered when sex is factored into in vitro and in vivo experiments and provide practical knowledge for researchers to incorporate SABV into preclinical research. Both age and sex significantly influence biological and behavioral processes due to critical changes at different timepoints of development for males and females and due to hormonal fluctuations across the rodent lifespan. We show that including both sexes does not require larger sample sizes, and even if sex is included as an independent variable in the study design, a moderate increase in sample size is sufficient. Moreover, the importance of tracking hormone levels in both sexes and the differentiation between sex differences and sex-related strategy in behaviors are explained. Finally, the lack of robust data on how biological sex influences the pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD), or toxicological effects of various preclinically administered drugs to animals due to the exclusion of female animals is discussed, and methodological strategies to enhance the rigor and translational relevance of preclinical research are proposed.

Disappointments in translating preclinical findings into clinical efficacy have triggered a number of changes in neuroscience drug discovery ranging from investments diverted to other therapeutic areas to reduced reliance on efficacy claims derived from preclinical models. In this chapter, we argue that there are several existing examples that teach us on what needs to be done to improve the success rate. We advocate the reverse engineering approach that shifts the focus from preclinical efforts to "model" human disease states to pharmacodynamic activity as a common denominator in the journey to translate clinically validated phenomena to preclinical level and then back to humans. Combined with the research rigor, openness, and transparency, this reverse engineering approach is well set to bring new effective and safe medications to patients in need.

The EQIPD framework for rigor in animal experiments aims to unify current recommendations based on evidence behind their rationale and was prospectively tested for feasibility in multicenter animal experiments.

Laboratory workflows and preclinical models have become increasingly diverse and complex. Confronted with the dilemma of a multitude of information with ambiguous relevance for their specific experiments, scientists run the risk of overlooking critical factors that can influence the planning, conduct and results of studies and that should have been considered a priori. To address this problem, we developed “PEERS” (Platform for the Exchange of Experimental Research Standards), an open-access online platform that is built to aid scientists in determining which experimental factors and variables are most likely to affect the outcome of a specific test, model or assay and therefore ought to be considered during the design, execution and reporting stages. The PEERS database is categorized into in vivo and in vitro experiments and provides lists of factors derived from scientific literature that have been deemed critical for experimentation. The platform is based on a structured and transparent system for rating the strength of evidence related to each identified factor and its relevance for a specific method/model. In this context, the rating procedure will not solely be limited to the PEERS working group but will also allow for a community-based grading of evidence. We here describe a working prototype using the Open Field paradigm in rodents and present the selection of factors specific to each experimental setup and the rating system. PEERS not only offers users the possibility to search for information to facilitate experimental rigor, but also draws on the engagement of the scientific community to actively expand the information contained within the platform. Collectively, by helping scientists search for specific factors relevant to their experiments, and to share experimental knowledge in a standardized manner, PEERS will serve as a collaborative exchange and analysis tool to enhance data validity and robustness as well as the reproducibility of preclinical research. PEERS offers a vetted, independent tool by which to judge the quality of information available on a certain test or model, identifies knowledge gaps and provides guidance on the key methodological considerations that should be prioritized to ensure that preclinical research is conducted to the highest standards and best practice.

While high risk of failure is an inherent part of developing innovative therapies, it can be reduced by adherence to evidence-based rigorous research practices. Supported through the European Union’s Innovative Medicines Initiative, the EQIPD consortium has developed a novel preclinical research quality system that can be applied in both public and private sectors and is free for anyone to use. The EQIPD Quality System was designed to be suited to boost innovation by ensuring the generation of robust and reliable preclinical data while being lean, effective and not becoming a burden that could negatively impact the freedom to explore scientific questions. EQIPD defines research quality as the extent to which research data are fit for their intended use. Fitness, in this context, is defined by the stakeholders, who are the scientists directly involved in the research, but also their funders, sponsors, publishers, research tool manufacturers, and collaboration partners such as peers in a multi-site research project. The essence of the EQIPD Quality System is the set of 18 core requirements that can be addressed flexibly, according to user-specific needs and following a user-defined trajectory. The EQIPD Quality System proposes guidance on expectations for quality-related measures, defines criteria for adequate processes (i.e. performance standards) and provides examples of how such measures can be developed and implemented. However, it does not prescribe any pre-determined solutions. EQIPD has also developed tools (for optional use) to support users in implementing the system and assessment services for those research units that successfully implement the quality system and seek formal accreditation. Building upon the feedback from users and continuous improvement, a sustainable EQIPD Quality System will ultimately serve the entire community of scientists conducting non-regulated preclinical research, by helping them generate reliable data that are fit for their intended use.

A recent report by DeGroot et al. ( 1 DeGroot S.R. Zhao-Shea R. Chung L. Klenowski P.M. Sun F. Molas S. et al. Midbrain dopamine controls anxiety-like behavior by engaging unique interpeduncular nucleus microcircuitry. Biol Psychiatry. 2020; 88: 855-866 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar ) described how ventral tegmental area dopamine engages dopamine D1 receptor–expressing neurons in the caudal interpeduncular nucleus that innervate ventral neuronal populations of this nucleus, thereby amplifying the ventral tegmental area signal to modulate certain aspects of behavior in mice in the commonly used elevated plus maze and open field tests. Reported experiments employed cutting-edge technologies to deliver a convincing set of results.

Animal care and use play a pivotal role in the research process. Ethical concerns on the use of animals in research have promoted the creation of a legal framework in many geographical areas that researchers must comply with, and professional organizations continuously develop recommendations on specific areas of laboratory animal science. Scientific evidence demonstrates that many aspects of animal care and use which are beyond the legal requirements have direct impact on research results. Therefore, the review and oversight of animal care and use programs are essential to identify, define, control, and improve all of these aspects to promote the reproducibility, validity, and translatability of animal-based research outcomes. In this chapter, we summarize the ethical principles driving legislation and recommendations on animal care and use, as well as some of these laws and international recommendations. Examples of the impact of specific animal care and use aspects on research, as well as systems of internal and external oversight of animal care and use programs, are described.

Over the last two decades, awareness of the negative repercussions of flaws in the planning, conduct and reporting of preclinical research involving experimental animals has been growing. Several initiatives have set out to increase transparency and internal validity of preclinical studies, mostly publishing expert consensus and experience. While many of the points raised in these various guidelines are identical or similar, they differ in detail and rigour. Most of them focus on reporting, only few of them cover the planning and conduct of studies. The aim of this systematic review is to identify existing experimental design, conduct, analysis and reporting guidelines relating to preclinical animal research. A systematic search in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science retrieved 13 863 unique results. After screening these on title and abstract, 613 papers entered the full-text assessment stage, from which 60 papers were retained. From these, we extracted unique 58 recommendations on the planning, conduct and reporting of preclinical animal studies. Sample size calculations, adequate statistical methods, concealed and randomised allocation of animals to treatment, blinded outcome assessment and recording of animal flow through the experiment were recommended in more than half of the publications. While we consider these recommendations to be valuable, there is a striking lack of experimental evidence on their importance and relative effect on experiments and effect sizes.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into two sets, the 'ARRIVE Essential 10', which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the 'Recommended Set', which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research is a major challenge. Transparent and accurate reporting is vital to this process; it allows readers to assess the reliability of the findings and repeat or build upon the work of other researchers. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) were developed in 2010 to help authors and journals identify the minimum information necessary to report in publications describing in vivo experiments. Despite widespread endorsement by the scientific community, the impact of ARRIVE on the transparency of reporting in animal research publications has been limited. We have revised the ARRIVE guidelines to update them and facilitate their use in practice. The revised guidelines are published alongside this paper. This explanation and elaboration document was developed as part of the revision. It provides further information about each of the 21 items in ARRIVE 2.0, including the rationale and supporting evidence for their inclusion in the guidelines, elaboration of details to report, and examples of good reporting from the published literature. This document also covers advice and best practice in the design and conduct of animal studies to support researchers in improving standards from the start of the experimental design process through to publication.

There has been increasing evidence in recent years that research in life sciences is lacking in reproducibility and data quality. This raises the need for effective systems to improve data integrity in the evolving non-GxP research environment. This chapter describes the critical elements that need to be considered to ensure a successful implementation of research quality standards in both industry and academia. The quality standard proposed is founded on data integrity principles and good research practices and contains basic quality system elements, which are common to most laboratories. Here, we propose a pragmatic and risk-based quality system and associated assessment process to ensure reproducibility and data quality of experimental results while making best use of the resources.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.