4.8 Article

Replication Study: Intestinal inflammation targets cancer-inducing activity of the microbiota

期刊

ELIFE
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELIFE SCIENCES PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.34364

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Laura and John Arnold Foundation Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As part of the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology we published a Registered Report (Eaton et al., 2015) that described how we intended to replicate selected experiments from the paper Intestinal Inflammation Targets Cancer-Inducing Activity of the Microbiota (Arthur et al., 2012). Here we report the results. We observed no impact on bacterial growth or colonization capacity when the polyketide synthase (pks) genotoxic island was deleted from E. coli NC101, similar to the original study (Supplementary Figure 7; Arthur et al., 2012). However, for the experiment that compared inflammation, invasion, and neoplasia in azoxymethane (AOM)-treated interleukin-10-deficient mice mono-associated with NC101 or NC101 Delta pks the experimental timing of the replication attempt was longer than that of the original study. This difference was because in the original study the methodology was not clearly stated and likely led to the increased mortality and severity of inflammation observed in this replication attempt. Additionally, early death occurred during AOM treatment with higher mortality observed in NC101 Delta pks mono-associated mice compared to NC101, which was in the same direction, but more severe than the original study (Suppleme1ntal Figure 10; Arthur et al., 2012). A meta-analysis suggests that mice mono-associated with NC101 Delta pks have higher mortality compared to NC101. While these data were unable to address whether, under the conditions of the original study, NC101 and NC101 Delta pks differ in inflammation, invasion, and neoplasia this replication attempt demonstrates that clear description of experimental methods is essential to ensure accurate reproduction of experimental studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据