Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect ( p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δ r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols ( r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols ( r = .04) and the original RP:P replications ( r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies ( r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19–.50).
This study analyzed the antioxidant properties of Portulaca oleracea L., known as purslane. The samples (leaves, flowers and stems) were collected at two different locations in Portugal: Tavira (L1) and Vendas Novas (L2). Assays for total antioxidant activity, total phenolic content and ferric-reducing antioxidant power were conducted and, for both locations, significantly higher values (P<0,05) were observed for stems (508.8 and 982.3 mg AAE/100 g DW, 1008.6 and 2285.5 mg GAE/100 g DW, 121.0 and 166.3 mg TE/100 g DW, respectively for each location), than in leaves or flowers. In the DPPH assay, the three-plant parts from L2 reached the 50% inhibition rate in lower concentrations than plants from L1. On the other hand, higher concentrations of total monomeric anthocyanins were found in samples from L1 (95.5, 88.8 and 86.0 mg/L) than in samples from L2 (81.7, 70.5 and 59.8 mg/L). The same was true for phenolic acids, estimated by liquid-chromatography, where methanol extracts were used. Phenolic extracts from all three-plant parts from both locations showed protective effects on DNA against hydroxyl radicals. This work suggests the possibility of benefit to human health from its consumption, related to the high antioxidant activity of purslane, even the stems, usually discarded in daily consumption.
To address the metabolic potential of symbiotic Aquimarina spp., we report here the genome sequence of Aquimarina sp. strain EL33, a bacterium isolated from the gorgonian coral Eunicella labiata. This first-described (to our knowledge) animal-associated Aquimarina genome possesses a sophisticated repertoire of genes involved in drug/antibiotic resistance and biosynthesis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.