Optimal experimental design for efficient toxicity testing in microphysiological systems: A bone marrow application.

Introduction: Microphysiological systems (MPS; organ-on-a-chip) aim to recapitulate the 3D organ microenvironment and improve clinical predictivity relative to previous approaches. Though MPS studies provide great promise to explore treatment options in a multifactorial manner, they are often very complex. It is therefore important to assess and manage technical confounding factors, to maximise power, efficiency and scalability. Methods: As an illustration of how MPS studies can benefit from a systematic evaluation of confounders, we developed an experimental design approach for a bone marrow (BM) MPS and tested it for a specified context of use, the assessment of lineage-specific toxicity. Results: We demonstrated the accuracy of our multicolour flow cytometry set-up to determine cell type and maturity, and the viability of a "repeated measures" design where we sample from chips repeatedly for increased scalability and robustness. Importantly, we demonstrated an optimal way to arrange technical confounders. Accounting for these confounders in a mixed-model analysis pipeline increased power, which meant that the expected lineage-specific toxicities following treatment with olaparib or carboplatin were detected earlier and at lower doses. Furthermore, we performed a sample size analysis to estimate the appropriate number of replicates required for different effect sizes. This experimental design-based approach will generalise to other MPS set-ups. Discussion: This design of experiments approach has established a groundwork for a reliable and reproducible in vitro analysis of BM toxicity in a MPS, and the lineage-specific toxicity data demonstrate the utility of this model for BM toxicity assessment. Toxicity data demonstrate the utility of this model for BM toxicity assessment.

Flexible Fitting of PROTAC Concentration-Response Curves with Changepoint Gaussian Processes.

A proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC) is a new technology that marks proteins for degradation in a highly specific manner. During screening, PROTAC compounds are tested in concentration-response (CR) assays to determine their potency, and parameters such as the half-maximal degradation concentration (DC50) are estimated from the fitted CR curves. These parameters are used to rank compounds, with lower DC50 values indicating greater potency. However, PROTAC data often exhibit biphasic and polyphasic relationships, making standard sigmoidal CR models inappropriate. A common solution includes manual omitting of points (the so-called masking step), allowing standard models to be used on the reduced data sets. Due to its manual and subjective nature, masking becomes a costly and nonreproducible procedure. We therefore used a Bayesian changepoint Gaussian processes model that can flexibly fit both nonsigmoidal and sigmoidal CR curves without user input. Parameters such as the DC50, maximum effect Dmax, and point of departure (PoD) are estimated from the fitted curves. We then rank compounds based on one or more parameters and propagate the parameter uncertainty into the rankings, enabling us to confidently state if one compound is better than another. Hence, we used a flexible and automated procedure for PROTAC screening experiments. By minimizing subjective decisions, our approach reduces time and cost and ensures reproducibility of the compound-ranking procedure. The code and data are provided on GitHub (https://github.com/elizavetasemenova/gp_concentration_response).

Tumor genomic, transcriptomic, and immune profiling characterizes differential response to first-line platinum chemotherapy in high grade serous ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: In high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), there is a spectrum of sensitivity to first line platinum-based chemotherapy. This study molecularly characterizes HGSOC patients from two distinct groups of chemotherapy responders (good vs. poor). METHODS: Following primary debulking surgery and intravenous carboplatin/paclitaxel, women with stage III-IV HGSOC were grouped by response. Patients in the good response (GR) and poor response (PR) groups respectively had a progression-free intervals (PFI) of ≥12 and ≤6 months. Analysis of surgical specimens interrogated genomic and immunologic features using whole exome sequencing. RNA-sequencing detected gene expression outliers and inference of immune infiltrate, with validation by targeted NanoString arrays. PD-L1 expression was scored by immunohistochemistry (IHC). RESULTS: A total of 39 patient samples were analyzed (GR = 20; PR = 19). Median PFI for GR and PR patient cohorts was 32 and 3 months, respectively. GR tumors were enriched for loss-of-function BRCA2 mutations and had a significantly higher nonsynonymous mutation rate compared to PR tumors (p = 0.001). Samples from the PR cohort were characterized by mutations in MGA and RAD51B and trended towards a greater rate of amplification of PIK3CA, MECOM, and ATR in comparison to GR tumors. Gene expression analysis by NanoString correlated increased PARP4 with PR and increased PD-L1 and EMSY with GR. There was greater tumor immune cell infiltration and higher immune cell PD-L1 protein expression in the GR group. CONCLUSIONS: Our research demonstrates that tumors from HGSOC patients responding poorly to first line chemotherapy have a distinct molecular profile characterized by actionable drug targets including PARP4.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0.

Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research is a major challenge. Transparent and accurate reporting is vital to this process; it allows readers to assess the reliability of the findings and repeat or build upon the work of other researchers. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) were developed in 2010 to help authors and journals identify the minimum information necessary to report in publications describing in vivo experiments. Despite widespread endorsement by the scientific community, the impact of ARRIVE on the transparency of reporting in animal research publications has been limited. We have revised the ARRIVE guidelines to update them and facilitate their use in practice. The revised guidelines are published alongside this paper. This explanation and elaboration document was developed as part of the revision. It provides further information about each of the 21 items in ARRIVE 2.0, including the rationale and supporting evidence for their inclusion in the guidelines, elaboration of details to report, and examples of good reporting from the published literature. This document also covers advice and best practice in the design and conduct of animal studies to support researchers in improving standards from the start of the experimental design process through to publication.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the 'ARRIVE Essential 10,' which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the 'Recommended Set,' which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

Determining organ weight toxicity with Bayesian causal models: Improving on the analysis of relative organ weights.

Regulatory authorities require animal toxicity tests for new chemical entities. Organ weight changes are accepted as a sensitive indicator of chemically induced organ damage, but can be difficult to interpret because changes in organ weight might reflect chemically-induced changes in overall body weight. A common solution is to calculate the relative organ weight (organ to body weight ratio), but this inadequately controls for the dependence on body weight - a point made by statisticians for decades, but which has not been widely adopted. The recommended solution is an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), but it is rarely used, possibly because both the method of statistical correction and the interpretation of the output may be unclear to those with minimal statistical training. Using relative organ weights can easily lead to incorrect conclusions, resulting in poor decisions, wasted resources, and an ethically questionable use of animals. We propose to cast the problem into a causal modelling framework as it directly assesses questions of scientific interest, the results are easy to interpret, and the analysis is simple to perform with freely available software. Furthermore, by taking a Bayesian approach we can model unequal variances, control for multiple testing, and directly provide evidence of safety.

A multi-batch design to deliver robust estimates of efficacy and reduce animal use - a syngeneic tumour case study.

Phenotypic plasticity, the ability of a living organism to respond to the environment, can lead to conclusions from experiments that are idiosyncratic to a particular environment. The level of environmental responsiveness can result in difficulties in reproducing studies from the same institute with the same standardised environment. Here we present a multi-batch approach to in-vivo studies to improve replicability of the results for a defined environment. These multi-batch experiments consist of small independent mini-experiments where the data are combined in an integrated data analysis to appropriately assess the treatment effect after accounting for the structure in the data. We demonstrate the method on two case studies with syngeneic tumour models which are challenging due to high variability both within and between studies. Through simulations and discussions, we explore several data analysis options and the optimum design that balances practical constraints of working with animals versus sensitivity and replicability. Through the increased confidence from the multi-batch design, we reduce the need to replicate the experiment, which can reduce the total number of animals used.

A Bayesian predictive approach for dealing with pseudoreplication.

Pseudoreplication occurs when the number of measured values or data points exceeds the number of genuine replicates, and when the statistical analysis treats all data points as independent and thus fully contributing to the result. By artificially inflating the sample size, pseudoreplication contributes to irreproducibility, and it is a pervasive problem in biological research. In some fields, more than half of published experiments have pseudoreplication - making it one of the biggest threats to inferential validity. Researchers may be reluctant to use appropriate statistical methods if their hypothesis is about the pseudoreplicates and not the genuine replicates; for example, when an intervention is applied to pregnant female rodents (genuine replicates) but the hypothesis is about the effect on the multiple offspring (pseudoreplicates). We propose using a Bayesian predictive approach, which enables researchers to make valid inferences about biological entities of interest, even if they are pseudoreplicates, and show the benefits of this approach using two in vivo data sets.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into two sets, the 'ARRIVE Essential 10', which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the 'Recommended Set', which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

Predicting Drug-Induced Liver Injury with Bayesian Machine Learning.

Drug induced liver injury (DILI) can require significant risk management in drug development and on occasion can cause morbidity or mortality, leading to drug attrition. Optimizing candidates preclinically can minimize hepatotoxicity risk, but it is difficult to predict due to multiple etiologies encompassing DILI, often with multifactorial and overlapping mechanisms. In addition to epidemiological risk factors, physicochemical properties, dose, disposition, lipophilicity, and hepatic metabolic function are also relevant for DILI risk. Better human-relevant, predictive models are required to improve hepatotoxicity risk assessment in drug discovery. Our hypothesis is that integrating mechanistically relevant hepatic safety assays with Bayesian machine learning will improve hepatic safety risk prediction. We present a quantitative and mechanistic risk assessment for candidate nomination using data from in vitro assays (hepatic spheroids, BSEP, mitochondrial toxicity, and bioactivation), together with physicochemical (cLogP) and exposure (Cmaxtotal) variables from a chemically diverse compound set (33 no/low-, 40 medium-, and 23 high-severity DILI compounds). The Bayesian model predicts the continuous underlying DILI severity and uses a data-driven prior distribution over the parameters to prevent overfitting. The model quantifies the probability that a compound falls into either no/low-, medium-, or high-severity categories, with a balanced accuracy of 63% on held-out samples, and a continuous prediction of DILI severity along with uncertainty in the prediction. For a binary yes/no DILI prediction, the model has a balanced accuracy of 86%, a sensitivity of 87%, a specificity of 85%, a positive predictive value of 92%, and a negative predictive value of 78%. Combining physiologically relevant assays, improved alignment with FDA recommendations, and optimal statistical integration of assay data leads to improved DILI risk prediction.

Conclusions from a behavioral aging study on male and female F2 hybrid mice on age-related behavior, buoyancy in water-based tests, and an ethical method to assess lifespan.

Due to strain-specific behavioral idiosyncrasies, inbred mouse strains are suboptimal research models for behavioral aging studies. The aim of this study is to determine age-related behavioral changes of F2 hybrid C57BL/6NxBALB/c male and female mice. Lifespan was followed (nmales=48, nfemales=51) and cohorts of mature adult (7 months), middle-aged (15 months), and old mice (22 months of age; n=7-12 per group) were assessed regarding open-field activity, exploration, passive avoidance learning/memory, and depressive-like behavior. We found that both males and females demonstrated decreased exploratory behavior with age, while memory and depressive-like behavior were maintained. Females exhibited enhanced depressive-like behavior compared to males; however, a correlation between fat mass and swimming activity in the test directly accounted for 30-46% of this behavioral sex difference. In addition, we suggest a method to qualitatively estimate natural lifespan from survival analyses in which animals with signs of pain or severe disease are euthanized. This is, to our knowledge, the first behavioral study to consider both sex and aging in hybrid mice. We here define decreased exploratory behavior as a conserved hallmark of aging independent of sex, highlight the effect of buoyancy in water tests, and provide a method to assay lifespan with reduced animal suffering.

Integrated in vitro models for hepatic safety and metabolism: evaluation of a human Liver-Chip and liver spheroid.

Drug-induced liver injury remains a frequent reason for drug withdrawal. Accordingly, more predictive and translational models are required to assess human hepatotoxicity risk. This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of two promising models to assess mechanistic hepatotoxicity, microengineered Organ-Chips and 3D hepatic spheroids, which have enhanced liver phenotype, metabolic activity and stability in culture not attainable with conventional 2D models. Sensitivity of the models to two hepatotoxins, acetaminophen (APAP) and fialuridine (FIAU), was assessed across a range of cytotoxicity biomarkers (ATP, albumin, miR-122, α-GST) as well as their metabolic functionality by quantifying APAP, FIAU and CYP probe substrate metabolites. APAP and FIAU produced dose- and time-dependent increases in miR-122 and α-GST release as well as decreases in albumin secretion in both Liver-Chips and hepatic spheroids. Metabolic turnover of CYP probe substrates, APAP and FIAU, was maintained over the 10-day exposure period at concentrations where no cytotoxicity was detected and APAP turnover decreased at concentrations where cytotoxicity was detected. With APAP, the most sensitive biomarkers were albumin in the Liver-Chips (EC50 5.6 mM, day 1) and miR-122 and ATP in the liver spheroids (14-fold and EC50 2.9 mM, respectively, day 3). With FIAU, the most sensitive biomarkers were albumin in the Liver-Chip (EC50 126 µM) and miR-122 (15-fold) in the liver spheroids, both on day 7. In conclusion, both models exhibited integrated toxicity and metabolism, and broadly similar sensitivity to the hepatotoxicants at relevant clinical concentrations, demonstrating the utility of these models for improved hepatotoxicity risk assessment.

Training in experimental design and statistics is essential: Response to Jordan.

This Formal Comment responds to Jordan et al., and stresses that if scientific findings are to be robust, training in experimental design and statistics is critical to ensure that research questions, design considerations, and analyses are aligned.

Four simple ways to increase power without increasing the sample size.

Underpowered experiments have three problems: true effects are harder to detect, the true effects that are detected tend to have inflated effect sizes and as power decreases so does the probability that a statistically significant result represents a true effect. Many biology experiments are underpowered and recent calls to change the traditional 0.05 significance threshold to a more stringent value of 0.005 will further reduce the power of the average experiment. Increasing power by increasing the sample size is often the only option considered, but more samples increases costs, makes the experiment harder to conduct and is contrary to the 3Rs principles for animal research. We show how the design of an experiment and some analytical decisions can have a surprisingly large effect on power.

What exactly is 'N' in cell culture and animal experiments?

Biologists determine experimental effects by perturbing biological entities or units. When done appropriately, independent replication of the entity-intervention pair contributes to the sample size (N) and forms the basis of statistical inference. If the wrong entity-intervention pair is chosen, an experiment cannot address the question of interest. We surveyed a random sample of published animal experiments from 2011 to 2016 where interventions were applied to parents and effects examined in the offspring, as regulatory authorities provide clear guidelines on replication with such designs. We found that only 22% of studies (95% CI = 17%-29%) replicated the correct entity-intervention pair and thus made valid statistical inferences. Nearly half of the studies (46%, 95% CI = 38%-53%) had pseudoreplication while 32% (95% CI = 26%-39%) provided insufficient information to make a judgement. Pseudoreplication artificially inflates the sample size, and thus the evidence for a scientific claim, resulting in false positives. We argue that distinguishing between biological units, experimental units, and observational units clarifies where replication should occur, describe the criteria for genuine replication, and provide concrete examples of in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo experimental designs.