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

This article updates the guidance published in 2015 for authors submitting papers to British Journal of Pharmacology (Curtis et al., 2015) and is intended to provide the rubric for peer review. Thus, it is directed towards authors, reviewers and editors. Explanations for many of the requirements were outlined previously and are not restated here. The new guidelines are intended to replace those published previously. The guidelines have been simplified for ease of understanding by authors, to make it more straightforward for peer reviewers to check compliance and to facilitate the curation of the journal's efforts to improve standards.

Abstract-Diets rich in fruits and vegetables reduce blood pressure (BP) and the risk of adverse cardiovascular events.However, the mechanisms of this effect have not been elucidated. Certain vegetables possess a high nitrate content, and we hypothesized that this might represent a source of vasoprotective nitric oxide via bioactivation. In healthy volunteers, approximately 3 hours after ingestion of a dietary nitrate load (beetroot juice 500 mL), BP was substantially reduced (⌬ max Ϫ10.4/8 mm Hg); an effect that correlated with peak increases in plasma nitrite concentration. The dietary nitrate load also prevented endothelial dysfunction induced by an acute ischemic insult in the human forearm and significantly attenuated ex vivo platelet aggregation in response to collagen and ADP. Interruption of the enterosalivary conversion of nitrate to nitrite (facilitated by bacterial anaerobes situated on the surface of the tongue) prevented the rise in plasma nitrite, blocked the decrease in BP, and abolished the inhibitory effects on platelet aggregation, confirming that these vasoprotective effects were attributable to the activity of nitrite converted from the ingested nitrate. These findings suggest that dietary nitrate underlies the beneficial effects of a vegetable-rich diet and highlights the potential of a "natural" low cost approach for the treatment of cardiovascular disease. Key Words: diet Ⅲ nitric oxide Ⅲ blood pressure Ⅲ hypertension Ⅲ ischemia/reperfusion Ⅲ platelets Ⅲ endothelium P erhaps the largest public health initiative in the Western world has focused on improvement of diet, particularly in those with a high risk of cardiovascular disease. Trials have shown that diets rich in fruits and vegetables reduce blood pressure (BP; Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension; DASH, Vegetarian Diet and BP) 1,2 and adverse cardiovascular events. [3][4][5][6][7] These protective effects have previously been attributed to the high antioxidant vitamin content, yet large clinical trials have failed to provide evidence in support of this thesis. 8,9 The greatest protection against coronary heart disease afforded by a change in diet is that associated with the consumption of green leafy vegetables (eg, spinach, lettuce). 6 Such vegetables, also including beetroot, commonly have a high inorganic nitrate (NO 3 Ϫ ) content. 10,11 In humans, after absorption through the stomach wall, Ϸ25% of consumed nitrate enters the enterosalivary circulation where it is reduced to nitrite (NO 2 Ϫ ) by bacterial nitrate reductases from facultative anaerobes on the dorsal surface of the tongue. [12][13][14] This nitrite is swallowed and in the acidic environment of the stomach is reduced to nitric oxide (NO) or re-enters the circulation as nitrite. Indeed, it has been hypothesized that dietary nitrate represents an intravascular source of the pleiotropic, vasoprotective molecule NO, which supplements conventional NO generation by NO synthases (NOS). 15 Endothelium-derived NO is a potent dilator, governs systemic BP, and retards atheroge...

Linked EditorialsThis Editorial is part of a series. To view the other Editorials in this series, visit: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.12956/abstract; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.12954/abstract; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.12955/abstract and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.13112/abstract

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.

No abstract

Reproducibility is a current concern for everyone involved in the conduct and publication of biomedical research. Recent attempts testing reproducibility, particularly the reproducibility project in cancer biology published in elife (https://elifesciences.org/collections/9b1e83d1/reproducibility-project-cancer-biology), have exposed major difficulties in repeating published preclinical experimental work. It is thought that some of these difficulties relate to uncertainty about the provenance of tools, lack of clarity in methodology and use of inappropriate approaches for analysis; the latter particularly related to untoward manipulation of images. In the past, some of these so-called untoward practices were considered the 'norm'; however, today, the landscape is different. The expectations, not only of the readers of the published scientific word but also of the publishers and funders of research, have changed. This collective group now expects that any published data should be reproducible; but for this to be possible, experimental detail, confirmation of selectivity and quality of reagents/ tools, analytical and statistical methods used need to be described adequately. Two powerful methodologies often used to support researchers' findings allow the detection of changes in protein expression, that is, immunoblotting (widely known as Western blotting) and immunohistochemistry. Undeniably, as a result of unintentional mistakes (often related to lack of antibody specificity; Baker, 2015), but, in some cases, deliberate alterations and questionable interpretations of results, the use of these two methods has led to many high profile retractions. Indeed, such images have driven the retractions that have occurred in BJP over the last two years.Today, immunoblotting and immunohistochemistry serve as primary methodologies for the detection and quantification of molecular signalling pathways and identification of therapeutic targets. This necessitates clear guidance for the application of these techniques, the need for controls (both positive and negative) and the most appropriate methods for quantification. Indeed, this need has spawned a number of initiatives to support researchers in assessing the validity of antibody resources including antibodypedia (Bjorling and Uhlen, 2008) and the resources available within 'The Human Protein Atlas' (Thul et al., 2017). The aim of this article is to outline the rationale for, and the expectations of, the BJP with respect to work published in the Journal that includes immunoblotting or immunohistochemical data. In creating these guidelines, our aim is to reduce potential misinterpretations and to maximise the communication and transparency of essential information, particularly with respect to the methodologies employed.We have generated the guidelines below for the benefit of authors, editors and reviewers. While we recognise other recently published guidelines (Uhlen et al., 2016) and indeed we have incorporated some of the advice provided in such reports, we focus, here, on th...

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.