Search

Abstract Recently, several genome-wide association studies identified PHACTR1 as key locus for five diverse vascular disorders: coronary artery disease, migraine, fibromuscular dysplasia, cervical artery dissection and hypertension. Although these represent significant risk factors or comorbidities for ischemic stroke, PHACTR1 role in brain small vessel ischemic disease and ischemic stroke most important survival mechanism, such as the recruitment of brain collateral arteries like posterior communicating arteries (PcomAs), remains unknown. Therefore, we applied exome and genome sequencing in a multi-ethnic cohort of 180 early-onset independent familial and apparently sporadic brain small vessel ischemic disease and CADASIL-like Caucasian patients from US, Portugal, Finland, Serbia and Turkey and in 2 C57BL/6J stroke mouse models (bilateral common carotid artery stenosis [BCCAS] and middle cerebral artery occlusion [MCAO]), characterized by different degrees of PcomAs patency. We report 3 very rare coding variants in the small vessel ischemic disease-CADASIL-like cohort (p.Glu198Gln, p.Arg204Gly, p.Val251Leu) and a stop-gain mutation (p.Gln273*) in one MCAO mouse. These coding variants do not cluster in PHACTR1 known pathogenic domains and are not likely to play a critical role in small vessel ischemic disease or brain collateral circulation. We also exclude the possibility that copy number variants (CNVs) or a variant enrichment in Phactr1 may be associated with PcomA recruitment in BCCAS mice or linked to diverse vascular traits (cerebral blood flow pre-surgery, PcomA size, leptomeningeal microcollateral length and junction density during brain hypoperfusion) in C57BL/6J mice, respectively. Genetic variability in PHACTR1 is not likely to be a common susceptibility factor influencing small vessel ischemic disease in patients and PcomA recruitment in C57BL/6J mice. Nonetheless, rare variants in PHACTR1 RPEL domains may influence the stroke outcome and are worth investigating in a larger cohort of small vessel ischemic disease patients, different ischemic stroke subtypes and with functional studies.

How much can we rely on whether what was reported in a study was actually done? Systematic and independent examination of records, documents and processes through audits are a central element of quality management systems. In the context of current concerns about the robustness and reproducibility of experimental biomedical research audits have been suggested as a remedy a number of times. However, audits are resource intense and time consuming, and due to their very nature may be perceived as inquisition. Consequently, there is very little experience or literature on auditing and assessments in the complex preclinical biomedical research environment. To gain some insight into which audit approaches might best suit biomedical research in academia, in this study we have applied a number of them in a typical academic neuroscience environment consisting of twelve research groups with about 100 researchers, students and technicians, utilizing the full gamut of state-of-the-art methodology. Several types of assessments and internal as well as external audits (including the novel format of a peer audit) were systematically explored by a team of quality management specialists. An experimental design template was developed (and is provided here) that takes into account and mitigates difficulties, risks and systematic errors that may occur during the course of a study. All audits were performed according to a pre-defined workflow developed by us. Outcomes were assessed qualitatively. We asked for feedback from participating employees in every final discussion of an audit and documented this in the audit reports. Based on these reports follow-up audits were improved. We conclude that several realistic options for auditing exist which have the potential to improve preclinical biomedical research in academia, and have listed specific recommendations regarding their benefits and provided practical resources for their implementation (e.g. study design and audit templates, audit workflow).