Search

Contains fulltext : 291249.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Pluripotency describes the ability of stem cells to differentiate into derivatives of the three germ layers. In reporting new human pluripotent stem cell lines, their clonal derivatives or the safety of differentiated derivatives for transplantation, assessment of pluripotency is essential. Historically, the ability to form teratomas in vivo containing different somatic cell types following injection into immunodeficient mice has been regarded as functional evidence of pluripotency. In addition, the teratomas formed can be analyzed for the presence of malignant cells. However, use of this assay has been subject to scrutiny for ethical reasons on animal use and due to the lack of standardization in how it is used, therefore questioning its accuracy. In vitro alternatives for assessing pluripotency have been developed such as ScoreCard and PluriTest. However, it is unknown whether this has resulted in reduced use of the teratoma assay. Here, we systematically reviewed how the teratoma assay was reported in publications between 1998 (when the first human embryonic stem cell line was described) and 2021. Our analysis of >400 publications showed that in contrast to expectations, reporting of the teratoma assay has not improved: methods are not yet standardized, and malignancy was examined in only a relatively small percentage of assays. In addition, its use has not decreased since the implementation of the ARRIVE guidelines on reduction of animal use (2010) or the introduction of ScoreCard (2015) and PluriTest (2011). The teratoma assay is still the preferred method to assess the presence of undifferentiated cells in a differentiated cell product for transplantation since the in vitro assays alone are not generally accepted by the regulatory authorities for safety assessment. This highlights the remaining need for an in vitro assay to test malignancy of stem cells.

Contains fulltext : 286723.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Animal models continue to be used to investigate cartilage repair strategies. Adequate anaesthesia and pain management are essential in order to guarantee acceptable animal welfare as well as reproducible experimental results. This systematic review evaluates reporting of anaesthesia and pain management in surgical large animal models (horse, pig, dog, goat and sheep) of (osteo)chondral repair. Manuscripts published between 2015 and 2020 were included after a comprehensive search strategy. Data were evaluated using descriptive statistics and qualitative review. Out of 223 eligible studies, 220 studies contained incomplete information on anaesthetic and pain management. Pre-, intra- and post-operative analgesia were not mentioned in 68%, 94%, and 64% of manuscripts respectively. A total of 176 studies reported that animals underwent general anaesthesia during surgery. Surprisingly, 30% of these articles did not provide any detail on anaesthetic management, while 37% reported using inhalant, hypnotic or sedative drugs only, without mention of analgesics. Pain monitoring was not reported in 87% of manuscripts. The vast majority of preclinical large animal studies on cartilage repair did not meet veterinary clinical standards for anaesthesia and analgesia, and failed to report according to the ARRIVE international guidelines. In light of serious welfare, ethical and translational validity concerns, improvement is urgently needed.

Contains fulltext : 286739.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Objectives The ultimate goal of biomedical research is the development of new treatment options for patients. Animal models are used if questions cannot be addressed otherwise. Currently, it is widely believed that a large fraction of performed studies are never published, but there are no data that directly address this question. Methods We have tracked a selection of animal study protocols approved in the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands, to assess whether these have led to a publication with a follow-up period of 7 years. Results We found that 60% of all animal study protocols led to at least one publication (full text or abstract). A total of 5590 animals were used in these studies, of which 26% was reported in the resulting publications. Conclusions The data presented here underline the need for preclinical preregistration, in view of the risk of reporting and publication bias in preclinical research. We plea that all animal study protocols should be prospectively registered on an online, accessible platform to increase transparency and data sharing. To facilitate this, we have developed a platform dedicated to animal study protocol registration: www.preclinicaltrials.eu.

Implementation of reliable methodologies allowing Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement (3Rs) of animal testing is a process that takes several decades and is still not complete. Reliable methods are essential for regulatory hazard assessment of chemicals where differences in test protocol can influence the test outcomes and thus affect the confidence in the predictive value of the organisms used as an alternative for mammals. Although test guidelines are common for mammalian studies, they are scarce for non-vertebrate organisms that would allow for the 3Rs of animal testing. Here, we present a set of 30 reporting criteria as the basis for such a guideline for Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology (DART) testing in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Small organisms like C. elegans are upcoming in new approach methodologies for hazard assessment; thus, reliable and robust test protocols are urgently needed. A literature assessment of the fulfilment of the reporting criteria demonstrates that although studies describe methodological details, essential information such as compound purity and lot/batch number or type of container is often not reported. The formulated set of reporting criteria for C. elegans testing can be used by (i) researchers to describe essential experimental details (ii) data scientists that aggregate information to assess data quality and include data in aggregated databases (iii) regulators to assess study data for inclusion in regulatory hazard assessment of chemicals. ispartof: TOXICOLOGY RESEARCH vol:10 issue:6 pages:1202-1210 ispartof: location:England status: published

Contains fulltext : 220922.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Various animal models are used to study pharmacokinetics (PK) of drugs in development. Human renal clearance (CLr) should be predictable through interpolation from animal data by allometric scaling. Based on this premise, we quantified interspecies differences in CLr, and related them to drug properties. Using PubMed and EMBASE, we systematically reviewed literature on human and animal CLr measures for 20 renally excreted drugs, calculated average fold errors, and quantified mean differences between animals and humans. Our results show that animal models are generally good predictors for human drug clearance using simple allometry, except for rats, with which human CLr is significantly overestimated.

Background: Findings from in vivo research may be less reliable where studies do not re-port measures to reduce risks of bias. The experimental stroke community has been at the forefront of implementing changes to improve reporting, but it is not known whether these efforts are associated with continuous improvements. Our aims here were firstly to validate an automated tool to assess risks of bias in published works, and secondly to assess the reporting of measures taken to reduce the risk of bias within recent literature for two exper-imental models of stroke.Methods: We developed and used text analytic approaches to automatically ascertain re-porting of measures to reduce risk of bias from full-text articles describing animal experi-ments inducing middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) or modelling lacunar stroke.Results: Compared with previous assessments, there were improvements in the reporting of measures taken to reduce risks of bias in the MCAO literature but not in the lacunarstroke literature. Accuracy of automated annotation of risk of bias in the MCAO literature was86% (randomization), 94% (blinding) and 100% (sample size calculation); and in the lacunar stroke literature accuracy was 67% (randomization), 91% (blinding) and 96% (sample size calculation).Discussion: There remains substantial opportunity for improvement in the reporting of an-imal research modelling stroke, particularly in the lacunar stroke literature. Further, auto-mated tools perform sufficiently well to identify whether studies report blinded assessment of outcome, but improvements are required in the tools to ascertain whether randomization and a sample size calculation were reported.

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Findings from in vivo research may be less reliable where studies do not report measures to reduce risks of bias. The experimental stroke community has been at the forefront of implementing changes to improve reporting, but it is not known whether these efforts are associated with continuous improvements. Our aims here were firstly to validate an automated tool to assess risks of bias in published works, and secondly to assess the reporting of measures taken to reduce the risk of bias within recent literature for two experimental models of stroke. METHODS: We developed and used text analytic approaches to automatically ascertain reporting of measures to reduce risk of bias from full-text articles describing animal experiments inducing middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) or modelling lacunar stroke. RESULTS: Compared with previous assessments, there were improvements in the reporting of measures taken to reduce risks of bias in the MCAO literature but not in the lacunar stroke literature. Accuracy of automated annotation of risk of bias in the MCAO literature was 86% (randomization), 94% (blinding) and 100% (sample size calculation); and in the lacunar stroke literature accuracy was 67% (randomization), 91% (blinding) and 96% (sample size calculation). DISCUSSION: There remains substantial opportunity for improvement in the reporting of animal research modelling stroke, particularly in the lacunar stroke literature. Further, automated tools perform sufficiently well to identify whether studies report blinded assessment of outcome, but improvements are required in the tools to ascertain whether randomization and a sample size calculation were reported.

Contains fulltext : 153647.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) The separation-induced vocalization test in guinea pig pups is one of many that has been used to screen for anxiolytic-like properties of drugs. The test is based on the cross-species phenomenon that infants emit distress calls when placed in social isolation. Here we report a systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacological intervention in the separation-induced vocalization test in guinea pig pups. Electronic databases were searched for original research articles, yielding 32 studies that met inclusion criteria. We extracted data on pharmacological intervention, animal and methodological characteristics, and study quality indicators. Meta-analysis showed that the different drug classes in clinical use for the treatment of anxiety disorders, have comparable effects on vocalization behaviour, irrespective of their mechanism of action. Of the experimental drugs, nociception (NOP) receptor agonists proved very effective in this test. Analysis further indicated that the commonly used read-outs total number and total duration of vocalizations are equally valid. With regard to methodological characteristics, repeated testing of pups as well as selecting pups with moderate or high levels of vocalization were associated with larger treatment effects. Finally, reporting of study methodology, randomization and blinding was poor and Egger's test for small study effects showed that publication bias likely occurred. This review illustrates the value of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in improving translational value and methodological aspects of animal models. It further shows the urgent need to implement existing publication guidelines to maximize the output and impact of experimental animal studies.

Objective: Within the last years, there has been growing awareness of the negative repercussions of unstandardized planning, conduct and reporting of preclinical and biomedical research. Several initiatives have set the aim of increasing validity and reliability in reporting of studies and publications, and publishers have formed similar groups. Additionally, several groups of experts across the biomedical spectrum have published experience and opinion-based guidelines and guidance on potential standardized reporting. While all these guidelines cover reporting of experiments, an important step prior to this should be rigours planning and conduction of studies. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and harmonize existing experimental design, conduct and analysis guidelines relating to internal validity and reproducibility of preclinical animal research. The review will also identify literature describing risks of bias pertaining to the design, conduct and analysis of preclinical biomedical research. Search strategy: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science will be searched systematically to identify guidelines published in English language in peer-reviewed journals before January 2018 (box 1). All articles or systematic reviews in English language that describe or review guidelines on the internal validity and reproducibility of animal studies will be included. Google search for guidelines published on the websites of major funders and professional organisations can be found in (Box 2). Screening and annotation: Unique references will be screened in two phases: screening for eligibility based on title and abstract, followed by screening for definitive inclusion based on full text. Screening will be performed in SyRF (http://syrf.org.uk). Each reference will be randomly presented to two independent reviewers. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by additional screening of the reference by a third, senior researcher. Data management and reporting: All data, including extracted text and guidelines, will be stored in the SyRF platform. Elements of the included guidelines will be identified using a standardized extraction form. Reporting will follow the PRISMA guidelines as far as applicable.