Rigor, Reproducibility, and Transparency in Shared Research Resources: Follow-Up Survey and Recommendations for Improvements.

Rigor, reproducibility, and transparency (RR&T) are essential components of all scientific pursuits. Shared research resources, also known as core facilities, are on the frontlines of ensuring robust RR&T practices. The Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities Committee on Core Rigor and Reproducibility conducted a follow-up survey 4 years after the initial 2017 survey to determine if core facilities have seen a positive impact of new RR&T initiatives (including guidance from the National Institutes of Health, new scientific journal requirements on transparency and data provenance, and educational tools from professional organizations). While there were fewer participants in the most recent survey, the respondents' opinions on the role of core facilities and level of best practices adoption remained the same. Overall, the respondents agreed that procedures should be implemented by core facilities to ensure scientific RR&T. They also indicated that there is a strong correlation between institutions that emphasize RR&T and core customers using this expertise in grant applications and publications. The survey also assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on core operations and RR&T. The answers to these pandemic-related questions revealed that many of the strategies aimed at increasing efficiencies are also best practices related to RR&T, including the development of standard operating procedures, supply chain management, and cross training. Given the consistent and compelling awareness of the importance of RR&T expressed by core directors in 2017 and 2021 contrasted with the lack of apparent improvements over this time period, the authors recommend an adoption of RR&T statements by all core laboratories. Adhering to the RR&T guidelines will result in more efficient training, better compliance, and improved experimental approaches empowering cores to become "rigor champions."

Addressing the Environmental Impact of Science Through a More Rigorous, Reproducible, and Sustainable Conduct of Research.

The pervasiveness of irreproducible research remains a thorny problem for the progress of scientific endeavor, spawning an abundance of opinion, investigation, and proposals for improvement. Irreproducible research has negative consequences beyond the obvious impact on achieving new scientific discoveries that can advance healthcare and enable new technologies. The conduct of science is resource intensive, resulting in a large environmental impact from even the smallest research programs. There is value in making explicit connections between the conduct of more rigorous, reproducible science and commitments to environmental sustainability. Shared research resources (also commonly known as cores) often have an institutional role in supporting researchers in the responsible conduct of research through training, informal mentorship, and services and are particularly well suited to promulgating essential principles of scientific rigor, reproducibility, and transparency. Shared research resources can also play a role in advancing sustainability by virtue of their inherently efficient science model in which singular shared equipment, technology, and expertise resources can serve many different research programs. Programs that elevate shared research resources, scientific rigor, reproducibility, transparency, and environment sustainability in harmony may achieve a unique synergy. Several case studies and quality paradigms are discussed that offer tools and concepts that can be adapted whole or in part by individual shared research resources or research-intensive institutions as part of an overall program of sustainability.

Establishing a national strategy for shared research resources in biomedical sciences.

Contemporary science has become increasingly multi-disciplinary and team-based, resulting in unprecedented growth in biomedical innovation and technology over the last several decades. Collaborative research efforts have enabled investigators to respond to the demands of an increasingly complex 21st century landscape, including pressing scientific challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic. A major contributing factor to the success of team science is the mobilization of core facilities and shared research resources (SRRs), the scientific instrumentation and expertise that exist within research organizations that enable widespread access to advanced technologies for trainees, faculty, and staff. For over 40 years, SRRs have played a key role in accelerating biomedical research discoveries, yet a national strategy that addresses how to leverage these resources to enhance team science and achieve shared scientific goals is noticeably absent. We believe a national strategy for biomedical SRRs-led by the National Institutes of Health-is crucial to advance key national initiatives, enable long-term research efficiency, and provide a solid foundation for the next generation of scientists.

A Review of the Scientific Rigor, Reproducibility, and Transparency Studies Conducted by the ABRF Research Groups.

Shared research resource facilities, also known as core laboratories (Cores), are responsible for generating a significant and growing portion of the research data in academic biomedical research institutions. Cores represent a central repository for institutional knowledge management, with deep expertise in the strengths and limitations of technology and its applications. They inherently support transparency and scientific reproducibility by protecting against cognitive bias in research design and data analysis, and they have institutional responsibility for the conduct of research (research ethics, regulatory compliance, and financial accountability) performed in their Cores. The Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities (ABRF) is a FASEB-member scientific society whose members are scientists and administrators that manage or support Cores. The ABRF Research Groups (RGs), representing expertise for an array of cutting-edge and established technology platforms, perform multicenter research studies to determine and communicate best practices and community-based standards. This review provides a summary of the contributions of the ABRF RGs to promote scientific rigor and reproducibility in Cores from the published literature, ABRF meetings, and ABRF RGs communications.

Survey on Scientific Shared Resource Rigor and Reproducibility.

Shared scientific resources, also known as core facilities, support a significant portion of the research conducted at biomolecular research institutions. The Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities (ABRF) established the Committee on Core Rigor and Reproducibility (CCoRRe) to further its mission of integrating advanced technologies, education, and communication in the operations of shared scientific resources in support of reproducible research. In order to first assess the needs of the scientific shared resource community, the CCoRRe solicited feedback from ABRF members via a survey. The purpose of the survey was to gain information on how U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) initiatives on advancing scientific rigor and reproducibility influenced current services and new technology development. In addition, the survey aimed to identify the challenges and opportunities related to implementation of new reporting requirements and to identify new practices and resources needed to ensure rigorous research. The results revealed a surprising unfamiliarity with the NIH guidelines. Many of the perceived challenges to the effective implementation of best practices (i.e., those designed to ensure rigor and reproducibility) were similarly noted as a challenge to effective provision of support services in a core setting. Further, most cores routinely use best practices and offer services that support rigor and reproducibility. These services include access to well-maintained instrumentation and training on experimental design and data analysis as well as data management. Feedback from this survey will enable the ABRF to build better educational resources and share critical best-practice guidelines. These resources will become important tools to the core community and the researchers they serve to impact rigor and transparency across the range of science and technology.

Metrics for Success: Strategies for Enabling Core Facility Performance and Assessing Outcomes.

Core Facilities are key elements in the research portfolio of academic and private research institutions. Administrators overseeing core facilities (core administrators) require assessment tools for evaluating the need and effectiveness of these facilities at their institutions. This article discusses ways to promote best practices in core facilities as well as ways to evaluate their performance across 8 of the following categories: general management, research and technical staff, financial management, customer base and satisfaction, resource management, communications, institutional impact, and strategic planning. For each category, we provide lessons learned that we believe contribute to the effective and efficient overall management of core facilities. If done well, we believe that encouraging best practices and evaluating performance in core facilities will demonstrate and reinforce the importance of core facilities in the research and educational mission of institutions. It will also increase job satisfaction of those working in core facilities and improve the likelihood of sustainability of both facilities and personnel.

The biochemical effect of Ser167 phosphorylation on Chlamydomonas reinhardtii centrin.

Centrin is an EF-hand calcium-binding protein found in microtubule organizing centers of organisms ranging from algae and yeast to man. Phosphorylation in the centrin C-terminal domain occurs in mitosis and is associated with alterations in contractile fibers. To obtain insight into the structural basis for the functional effect of phosphorylation, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii centrin C-terminal domain phosphorylated at Ser167 (pCRC-C) has been produced and characterized. The structure of pCRC-C was compared to the unmodified protein by NMR spectroscopy. The effect of phosphorylation on target binding was examined for the complex of pCRC-C and a 19 residue centrin-binding fragment of Kar1. Remarkably, the efficient and selective phosphorylation by PKA was suppressed in the complex. Moreover, comparisons of NMR chemical shift differences induced by phosphorylation reveal a greater effect from phosphorylation in the context of the Kar1 complex than for the free protein. These results directly demonstrate that phosphorylation modulates the structure and biochemical activities of centrin.

Structure of the N-terminal calcium sensor domain of centrin reveals the biochemical basis for domain-specific function.

Centrin is an essential component of microtubule-organizing centers in organisms ranging from algae and yeast to humans. It is an EF-hand calcium-binding protein with homology to calmodulin but distinct calcium binding properties. In a previously proposed model, the C-terminal domain of centrin serves as a constitutive anchor to target proteins, and the N-terminal domain serves as the sensor of calcium signals. The three-dimensional structure of the N-terminal domain of Chlamydomonas rheinhardtii centrin has been determined in the presence of calcium by solution NMR spectroscopy. The domain is found to occupy an open conformation typical of EF-hand calcium sensors. Comparison of the N- and C-terminal domains of centrin reveals a structural and biochemical basis for the domain specificity of interactions with its cellular targets and the distinct nature of centrin relative to other EF-hand proteins. An NMR titration of the centrin N-terminal domain with a fragment of the known centrin target Sfi1 reveals binding of the peptide to a discrete site on the protein, which supports the proposal that the N-terminal domain serves as a calcium sensor in centrin.

In vivo metabolism of apolipoprotein E within the HDL subpopulations LpE, LpE:A-I, LpE:A-II and LpE:A-I:A-II.

High-density lipoproteins can be separated into distinct particles based on their apolipoprotein content. In the present study, the in vivo metabolism of apoE within the apoE-containing HDL particles LpE, LpE:A-I, LpE:A-II and LpE:A-I:A-II was assessed in control subjects and in patients with abetalipoproteinemia (ABL), in whom HDL are the sole plasma lipoproteins. The metabolism of apoE within these HDL subspecies was investigated in three separate studies which differed by donor or recipient status: (1) particles purified from normolipidemic plasma and reassociated with 125I or 131I-labeled apoE injected into normolipidemic subjects (study 1); (2) particles purified from ABL plasma injected into normolipidemic subjects (study 2); and (3) particles purified from ABL plasma injected into ABL subjects (study 3). The plasma residence times (RT, hours) in study 1 were 14.3+/-2.9, 11.3+/-3.4, and 9.1+/-1.2 for apoE within LpE:A-I:A-II, LpE:A-II and LpE:A-I, respectively, while those in study 2 were 10.1+/-2.2, 9.7+/-2.4, 7.9+/-1.0 and 7.3+/-0.8 for apoE within LpE:A-I:A-II, LpE:A-II, LpE:A-I and LpE, respectively. In study 3, RTs for apoE within LpE:A-I:A-II and LpE were 8.7+/-0.9 and 6.8+/-0.9, respectively. In comparison, RT for apoA-I on LpA-I:A-II has been reported to be 124.1+/-5.5 h and that for apoA-I on LpA-I 105.8+/-6.2 h. Thus, apoE within the different apoE-containing HDL particles was metabolized rapidly and at a similar rate in control and ABL subjects. The plasma RT of apoE was longest when injected on LpE:A-I:A-II particles and shortest when injected on LpE. In summary, our data show that: (1) the plasma RT of apoE within HDL is approximately ten times shorter than that of apoA-I within HDL, and (2) apoE within HDL is metabolized at a slower rate when apoproteins A-I and A-II are present (LpE:A-I:A-II RT>LpE:A-II>LpE:A-I>LpE). These differences were related to the lipid and apolipoprotein composition of the HDL subspecies, and, in control subjects, to the transfer of apoE from HDL subspecies to apoB-containing lipoproteins as well.