4.4 Review

Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS NEUROSCIENCE
卷 21, 期 7, 页码 384-393

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41583-020-0313-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [IZSEZ0_184010, 310030_179254]
  2. European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
  3. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (Innovative Medicines Initiative, IMI2) [777364]
  4. Linnaeus University
  5. German Research Foundation [INST 215/543-1, 396782608]
  6. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [310030_179254, IZSEZ0_184010] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this Perspective, Hanno Wurbel and colleagues argue that a disregard for incorporating biological variation in study design is an important cause of poor reproducibility in animal research. They put the case for the use of systematic heterogenization of study samples and conditions in studies to improve reproducibility. Context-dependent biological variation presents a unique challenge to the reproducibility of results in experimental animal research, because organisms' responses to experimental treatments can vary with both genotype and environmental conditions. In March 2019, experts in animal biology, experimental design and statistics convened in Blonay, Switzerland, to discuss strategies addressing this challenge. In contrast to the current gold standard of rigorous standardization in experimental animal research, we recommend the use of systematic heterogenization of study samples and conditions by actively incorporating biological variation into study design through diversifying study samples and conditions. Here we provide the scientific rationale for this approach in the hope that researchers, regulators, funders and editors can embrace this paradigm shift. We also present a road map towards better practices in view of improving the reproducibility of animal research.

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

4.4
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