Minimum Information and Quality Standards for Conducting, Reporting, and Organizing In Vitro Research

Abstract

Insufficient description of experimental practices can contribute to difficulties in reproducing research findings. In response to this, "minimum information" guidelines have been developed for different disciplines. These standards help ensure that the complete experiment is described, including both experimental protocols and data processing methods, allowing a critical evaluation of the whole process and the potential recreation of the work. Selected examples of minimum information checklists with relevance for in vitro research are presented here and are collected by and registered at the MIBBI/FAIRsharing Information Resource portal. In addition, to support integrative research and to allow for comparisons and data sharing across studies, ontologies and vocabularies need to be defined and integrated across areas of in vitro research. As examples, this chapter addresses ontologies for cells and bioassays and discusses their importance for in vitro studies. Finally, specific quality requirements for important in vitro research tools (like chemical probes, antibodies, and cell lines) are suggested, and remaining issues are discussed.

Insufficient transparency of statistical reporting in preclinical research: a scoping review

“…Scores of guidelines exist, many of which being compiled on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR, https ://www.equat or-netwo rk.org/) network. The leading guidelines used in preclinical research is the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), which has been recently updated (ARRIVE 2.0 version) 5,6 but other official guidelines exist such as the one published by the American Physiological Society 7 , the Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies (CRIS) guidelines 8 and the checklist by Emmerich and Harris for in vitro research 9 . However, series of scoping reviews have documented that unclear and non-transparent reporting of statistical methods remain in the life preclinical literature 2,[10][11][12][13] , prompting the conclusion that these guidelines have had limited impact thus far [14][15][16] .…”

A Family Affair: Addressing the Challenges of Factor H and the Related Proteins

“…When asked about the cause, a proportion pointed towards poorly-characterized tools leading to ambiguous findings, which results in an unstable knowledge foundation that is then built upon. Since this survey, different guidelines for in vitro and in vivo research have been suggested, issued and published ( 125 , 126 ). Characterization of antibodies as well as validation of tools to quantify proteins is vital for every field, but particularly for the FH protein family considering the high risk of cross-reactivity due to their homology.…”

Health effects of WiFi radiation: a review based on systematic quality evaluation

“…Another aspect is reporting, which was insufficient for many studies. Thus, papers should be checked prior to publication whether they adhere to well accepted reporting guidelines such as STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) (von Elm et al 2007) or CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) (Schulz et al 2010), ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) (Kilkenny et al, 2010;Percie Du Sert et al, 2020), and MIBBI (Minimum Information for Biological and Biomedical Investigations (Taylor et al 2008;Emmerich & Harris, 2020).…”