Transparency of Reporting in Molecular Diagnostics

Abstract

The major advances made over the past few years in molecular and cell biology are providing a progressively more detailed understanding of the molecular pathways that control normal processes and become dysregulated in disease [1]. This has resulted in the documentation of numerous genetic, epigenetic, transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic biomarkers that promise earlier disease detection, more accurate patient stratification and better prognosis [2–5]. Furthermore, molecular fingerprinting of diseases can be predictive of drug response and so assist with specific targeting of drugs against disease-associated molecules and function [6]. [...

Variability of the Reverse Transcription Step: Practical Implications

“…In addition, there is a lack of transparency in the reporting of experimental detail (15 ), which calls into question the reliability of conclusions on the basis of data obtained from RT-qPCR (16,29 ). The implications with regard to reproducibility, robustness, and accuracy of RTase-based assays are clear.…”

Talking the talk, but not walking the walk: RT-qPCR as a paradigm for the lack of reproducibility in molecular research

“…Indeed, Nature has acknowledged that editorial policies have contributed to ‘failures in the reliability and reproducibility of published research’ and admitted that journals ‘compound’ them by failing to ‘exert sufficient scrutiny’ and not publishing ‘enough information for other researchers to assess results properly’ , a message reaffirmed by many other Nature titles . However, the suggested paths to action have remained largely untrodden, over the last 5 years peer‐reviewed papers of dubious quality have continued to be published in low and high impact factor journals alike and the scientific literature continues to be filled with thousands of papers that report results that are at best ambiguous and, at worst, simply wrong . Regrettably, to date, the promises from many publishing houses to improve the transparency of reporting remain unfulfilled.…”

The reproducibility of biomedical research: Sleepers awake!

“…The number of citations of the original MIQE publication in the peer-reviewed literature has just passed 3000, it has been followed by several editorials on their implementation [26], [52], [53] and has encouraged the publication of the MIQE guidelines for digital PCR [54]. All major instrument and reagent manufacturers incorporate the guidelines into training their field application specialists, actively encourage their implementation, support and organise world-wide workshops and publish effective guides to help their realisation [55], [56].…”