Editorial: preclinical data reproducibility for R&amp;D - the challenge for neuroscience

Steckler, Thomas

doi:10.1186/2193-1801-4-1

Cited by 221 publications

(196 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

185

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, in common with many fields of R&D, there is a need for more rigorous confirmation of novel preclinical observations, especially concerning putative new drug targets and pathophysiological mechanisms underpinning psychiatric disorders (Ionnadis 2005(Ionnadis , 2014Prinz et al, 2011;Segalat, 2010: Steckler, 2015. This is especially true when they are unveiled by studies of sometimes Byzantine complexity employing a palette of high-tech techniques.…”

Section: Reproducibility; Inter-individual Differences and Genuine Exmentioning

confidence: 98%

Learning from the past and looking to the future: Emerging perspectives for improving the treatment of psychiatric disorders

Millan¹,

Goodwin²,

Meyer‐Lindenberg³

et al. 2015

European Neuropsychopharmacology

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Reproducibility; Inter-individual Differences and Genuine Exmentioning

confidence: 98%

Learning from the past and looking to the future: Emerging perspectives for improving the treatment of psychiatric disorders

Millan¹,

Goodwin²,

Meyer‐Lindenberg³

et al. 2015

European Neuropsychopharmacology

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It hampers scientific and medical progress and leads to translational failure through misguided research efforts (e.g. [3,18–21]). It also increases R&D costs in drug development [22], resulting in higher health care costs (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In light of the many studies published on poor reporting of measures against bias and the level of attention they received [5,7,18,42], it is surprising that so far no study has investigated the relationship between what researchers do in the laboratory and what they report in their publications. The primary aim of the present study, therefore, was to assess the researchers’ view of the quality of experimental conduct and how this relates to what they report in the primary literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Researchers’ View of Scientific Rigor—Survey on the Conduct and Reporting of In Vivo Research

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reproducibility in animal research is alarmingly low, and a lack of scientific rigor has been proposed as a major cause. Systematic reviews found low reporting rates of measures against risks of bias (e.g., randomization, blinding), and a correlation between low reporting rates and overstated treatment effects. Reporting rates of measures against bias are thus used as a proxy measure for scientific rigor, and reporting guidelines (e.g., ARRIVE) have become a major weapon in the fight against risks of bias in animal research. Surprisingly, animal scientists have never been asked about their use of measures against risks of bias and how they report these in publications. Whether poor reporting reflects poor use of such measures, and whether reporting guidelines may effectively reduce risks of bias has therefore remained elusive. To address these questions, we asked in vivo researchers about their use and reporting of measures against risks of bias and examined how self-reports relate to reporting rates obtained through systematic reviews. An online survey was sent out to all registered in vivo researchers in Switzerland (N = 1891) and was complemented by personal interviews with five representative in vivo researchers to facilitate interpretation of the survey results. Return rate was 28% (N = 530), of which 302 participants (16%) returned fully completed questionnaires that were used for further analysis. According to the researchers’ self-report, they use measures against risks of bias to a much greater extent than suggested by reporting rates obtained through systematic reviews. However, the researchers’ self-reports are likely biased to some extent. Thus, although they claimed to be reporting measures against risks of bias at much lower rates than they claimed to be using these measures, the self-reported reporting rates were considerably higher than reporting rates found by systematic reviews. Furthermore, participants performed rather poorly when asked to choose effective over ineffective measures against six different biases. Our results further indicate that knowledge of the ARRIVE guidelines had a positive effect on scientific rigor. However, the ARRIVE guidelines were known by less than half of the participants (43.7%); and among those whose latest paper was published in a journal that had endorsed the ARRIVE guidelines, more than half (51%) had never heard of these guidelines. Our results suggest that whereas reporting rates may underestimate the true use of measures against risks of bias, self-reports may overestimate it. To a large extent, this discrepancy can be explained by the researchers’ ignorance and lack of knowledge of risks of bias and measures to prevent them. Our analysis thus adds significant new evidence to the assessment of research integrity in animal research. Our findings further question the confidence that the authorities have in scientific rigor, which is taken for granted in the harm-benefit analyses on which approval of animal experiments is based. Furthermore, they suggest that b...

show abstract

“…eDNA from saliva has been used to identify ungulates [4] and test ungulate resource use [5] and browsing preferences [6], but there have been relatively few studies on the success of obtaining carnivore DNA from saliva, and no studies have yet used eDNA from saliva as a tool for density estimation. Williams et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental DNA from Residual Saliva for Efficient Noninvasive Genetic Monitoring of Brown Bears (Ursus arctos)

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Noninvasive genetic sampling is an important tool in wildlife ecology and management, typically relying on hair snaring or scat sampling techniques, but hair snaring is labor and cost intensive, and scats yield relatively low quality DNA. New approaches utilizing environmental DNA (eDNA) may provide supplementary, cost-effective tools for noninvasive genetic sampling. We tested whether eDNA from residual saliva on partially-consumed Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) carcasses might yield suitable DNA quality for noninvasive monitoring of brown bears (Ursus arctos). We compared the efficiency of monitoring brown bear populations using both fecal DNA and salivary eDNA collected from partially-consumed salmon carcasses in Southeast Alaska. We swabbed a range of tissue types from 156 partially-consumed salmon carcasses from a midseason run of lakeshore-spawning sockeye (O. nerka) and a late season run of stream-spawning chum (O. keta) salmon in 2014. We also swabbed a total of 272 scats from the same locations. Saliva swabs collected from the braincases of salmon had the best amplification rate, followed by swabs taken from individual bite holes. Saliva collected from salmon carcasses identified unique individuals more quickly and required much less labor to locate than scat samples. Salmon carcass swabbing is a promising method to aid in efficient and affordable monitoring of bear populations, and suggests that the swabbing of food remains or consumed baits from other animals may be an additional cost-effective and valuable tool in the study of the ecology and population biology of many elusive and/or wide-ranging species.

show abstract

Editorial: preclinical data reproducibility for R&D - the challenge for neuroscience

Cited by 221 publications

References 39 publications

Learning from the past and looking to the future: Emerging perspectives for improving the treatment of psychiatric disorders

Learning from the past and looking to the future: Emerging perspectives for improving the treatment of psychiatric disorders

The Researchers’ View of Scientific Rigor—Survey on the Conduct and Reporting of In Vivo Research

Environmental DNA from Residual Saliva for Efficient Noninvasive Genetic Monitoring of Brown Bears (Ursus arctos)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About