Knockout or inhibition of USP30 protects dopaminergic neurons in a Parkinson's disease mouse model.

Mutations in SNCA, the gene encoding α-synuclein (αSyn), cause familial Parkinson's disease (PD) and aberrant αSyn is a key pathological hallmark of idiopathic PD. This α-synucleinopathy leads to mitochondrial dysfunction, which may drive dopaminergic neurodegeneration. PARKIN and PINK1, mutated in autosomal recessive PD, regulate the preferential autophagic clearance of dysfunctional mitochondria ("mitophagy") by inducing ubiquitylation of mitochondrial proteins, a process counteracted by deubiquitylation via USP30. Here we show that loss of USP30 in Usp30 knockout mice protects against behavioral deficits and leads to increased mitophagy, decreased phospho-S129 αSyn, and attenuation of SN dopaminergic neuronal loss induced by αSyn. These observations were recapitulated with a potent, selective, brain-penetrant USP30 inhibitor, MTX115325, with good drug-like properties. These data strongly support further study of USP30 inhibition as a potential disease-modifying therapy for PD.

Statistical simulations show that scientists need not increase overall sample size by default when including both sexes in in vivo studies.

In recent years, there has been a strong drive to improve the inclusion of animals of both sexes in the design of in vivo research studies, driven by a need to increase sex representation in fundamental biology and drug development. This has resulted in inclusion mandates by funding bodies and journals, alongside numerous published manuscripts highlighting the issue and providing guidance to scientists. However, progress is slow and barriers to the routine use of both sexes remain. A frequent, major concern is the perceived need for a higher overall sample size to achieve an equivalent level of statistical power, which would result in an increased ethical and resource burden. This perception arises from either the belief that sex inclusion will increase variability in the data (either through a baseline difference or a treatment effect that depends on sex), thus reducing the sensitivity of statistical tests, or from misapprehensions about the correct way to analyse the data, including disaggregation or pooling by sex. Here, we conduct an in-depth examination of the consequences of including both sexes on statistical power. We performed simulations by constructing artificial datasets that encompass a range of outcomes that may occur in studies studying a treatment effect in the context of both sexes. This includes both baseline sex differences and situations in which the size of the treatment effect depends on sex in both the same and opposite directions. The data were then analysed using either a factorial analysis approach, which is appropriate for the design, or a t test approach following pooling or disaggregation of the data, which are common but erroneous strategies. The results demonstrate that there is no loss of power to detect treatment effects when splitting the sample size across sexes in most scenarios, providing that the data are analysed using an appropriate factorial analysis method (e.g., two-way ANOVA). In the rare situations where power is lost, the benefit of understanding the role of sex outweighs the power considerations. Additionally, use of the inappropriate analysis pipelines results in a loss of statistical power. Therefore, we recommend analysing data collected from both sexes using factorial analysis and splitting the sample size across male and female mice as a standard strategy.

Impact of repeated micro and macro blood sampling on clinical chemistry and haematology in rats for toxicokinetic studies.

Non-clinical rodent safety studies are essential in the development of new medicines to assess for potential adverse effects. Typically, toxicokinetic samples are collected from a satellite group. AstraZeneca implemented repeated microsampling of main study animals as standard in the one-month small molecule regulatory toxicology studies. A retrospective analysis of the clinical chemistry and haematology data collected in 52 independent studies from the adult rat controls explored the impact of micro and macro sampling of main study animals. For the majority of variables, the blood sampling technique had no significant impact on the mean or range. For microsampling, a few variables had statistically significant effects on the mean signal but these were considered to have limited biological relevance and would therefore not introduce a meaningful bias to any toxicological evaluation. The macrosampling had the expected effects on the red cell parameters of haemoglobin, haematocrit and red blood count due to the larger blood volume draw. In contrast, microsampling showed no such changes. In conclusion, this large-scale retrospective analysis supports the use of microsampling, for toxicokinetics, of main study animals and enables us to conduct rodent toxicology studies without satellite animals and further reduce the number of animals used in toxicological assessments.

Correction: Do multiple experimenters improve the reproducibility of animal studies?

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001564.].

A qualitative study of the barriers to using blinding in in vivo experiments and suggestions for improvement.

In animal experiments, blinding (also known as masking) is a methodological strategy to reduce the risk that scientists, animal care staff, or other staff involved in the research may consciously or subconsciously influence the outcome. Lack of masking has been shown to correlate with an overestimation of treatment efficacy and false positive findings. We conducted exploratory interviews across academic and a commercial setting to discuss the implementation of masking at four stages of the experiment: during allocation and intervention, during the conduct of the experiment, during the outcome assessment, and during the data analysis. The objective was to explore the awareness, engagement, perceptions, and the barriers to implementing masking in animal experiments. We conducted multiple interviews, to explore 30 different experiments, and found examples of excellent practice but also areas where masking was rarely implemented. Significant barriers arose from the operational and informatic systems implemented. These systems have prioritised the management of welfare without considering how to allow researchers to use masking in their experiments. For some experiments, there was a conflict between the management of welfare for an individual animal versus delivering a robust experiment where all animals are treated in the same manner. We identified other challenges related to the level of knowledge on the purpose of masking or the implementation and the work culture. The exploration of these issues provides insight into how we, as a community, can identify the most significant barriers in a given research environment. Here, we offer practical solutions to enable researchers to implement masking as standard. To move forward, we need both the individual scientists to embrace the use of masking and the facility managers and institutes to engage and provide a framework that supports the scientists.

Do multiple experimenters improve the reproducibility of animal studies?

The credibility of scientific research has been seriously questioned by the widely claimed "reproducibility crisis". In light of this crisis, there is a growing awareness that the rigorous standardisation of experimental conditions may contribute to poor reproducibility of animal studies. Instead, systematic heterogenisation has been proposed as a tool to enhance reproducibility, but a real-life test across multiple independent laboratories is still pending. The aim of this study was therefore to test whether heterogenisation of experimental conditions by using multiple experimenters improves the reproducibility of research findings compared to standardised conditions with only one experimenter. To this end, we replicated the same animal experiment in 3 independent laboratories, each employing both a heterogenised and a standardised design. Whereas in the standardised design, all animals were tested by a single experimenter; in the heterogenised design, 3 different experimenters were involved in testing the animals. In contrast to our expectation, the inclusion of multiple experimenters in the heterogenised design did not improve the reproducibility of the results across the 3 laboratories. Interestingly, however, a variance component analysis indicated that the variation introduced by the different experimenters was not as high as the variation introduced by the laboratories, probably explaining why this heterogenisation strategy did not bring the anticipated success. Even more interestingly, for the majority of outcome measures, the remaining residual variation was identified as an important source of variance accounting for 41% (CI95 [34%, 49%]) to 72% (CI95 [58%, 88%]) of the observed total variance. Despite some uncertainty surrounding the estimated numbers, these findings argue for systematically including biological variation rather than eliminating it in animal studies and call for future research on effective improvement strategies.

Sex differences and sex bias in human circadian and sleep physiology research.

Growing evidence shows that sex differences impact many facets of human biology. Here we review and discuss the impact of sex on human circadian and sleep physiology, and we uncover a data gap in the field investigating the non-visual effects of light in humans. A virtual workshop on the biomedical implications of sex differences in sleep and circadian physiology led to the following imperatives for future research: i) design research to be inclusive and accessible; ii) implement recruitment strategies that lead to a sex-balanced sample; iii) use data visualization to grasp the effect of sex; iv) implement statistical analyses that include sex as a factor and/or perform group analyses by sex, where possible; v) make participant-level data open and available to facilitate future meta-analytic efforts.

Statistical reproducibility for pairwise t-tests in pharmaceutical research.

This paper investigates statistical reproducibility of the t-test. We formulate reproducibility as a predictive inference problem and apply the nonparametric predictive inference method. Within our research framework, statistical reproducibility provides inference on the probability that the same test outcome would be reached, if the test were repeated under identical conditions. We present an nonparametric predictive inference algorithm to calculate the reproducibility of the t-test and then use simulations to explore the reproducibility both under the null and alternative hypotheses. We then apply nonparametric predictive inference reproducibility to a real-life scenario of a preclinical experiment, which involves multiple pairwise comparisons of test groups, where different groups are given a different concentration of a drug. The aim of the experiment is to decide the concentration of the drug which is most effective. In both simulations and the application scenario, we study the relationship between reproducibility and two test statistics, the Cohen's d and the p-value. We also compare the reproducibility of the t-test with the reproducibility of the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test. Finally, we examine reproducibility for the final decision of choosing a particular dose in the multiple pairwise comparisons scenario. This paper presents advances on the topic of test reproducibility with relevance for tests used in pharmaceutical research.

What is the optimum design for my animal experiment?

Within preclinical research, attention has focused on experimental design and how current practices can lead to poor reproducibility. There are numerous decision points when designing experiments. Ethically, when working with animals we need to conduct a harm-benefit analysis to ensure the animal use is justified for the scientific gain. Experiments should be robust, not use more or fewer animals than necessary, and truly add to the knowledge base of science. Using case studies to explore these decision points, we consider how individual experiments can be designed in several different ways. We use the Experimental Design Assistant (EDA) graphical summary of each experiment to visualise the design differences and then consider the strengths and weaknesses of each design. Through this format, we explore key and topical experimental design issues such as pseudo-replication, blocking, covariates, sex bias, inference space, standardisation fallacy and factorial designs. There are numerous articles discussing these critical issues in the literature, but here we bring together these topics and explore them using real-world examples allowing the implications of the choice of design to be considered. Fundamentally, there is no perfect experiment; choices must be made which will have an impact on the conclusions that can be drawn. We need to understand the limitations of an experiment's design and when we report the experiments, we need to share the caveats that inherently exist.

Preclinical Comparison of the Blood-brain barrier Permeability of Osimertinib with Other EGFR TKIs.

PURPOSE: Osimertinib is a potent and selective EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) of both sensitizing and T790M resistance mutations. To treat metastatic brain disease, blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeability is considered desirable for increasing clinical efficacy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We examined the level of brain penetration for 16 irreversible and reversible EGFR-TKIs using multiple in vitro and in vivo BBB preclinical models. RESULTS: In vitro osimertinib was the weakest substrate for human BBB efflux transporters (efflux ratio 3.2). In vivo rat free brain to free plasma ratios (Kpuu) show osimertinib has the most BBB penetrance (0.21), compared with the other TKIs (Kpuu ≤ 0.12). PET imaging in Cynomolgus macaques demonstrated osimertinib was the only TKI among those tested to achieve significant brain penetrance (C max %ID 1.5, brain/blood Kp 2.6). Desorption electrospray ionization mass spectroscopy images of brains from mouse PC9 macrometastases models showed osimertinib readily distributes across both healthy brain and tumor tissue. Comparison of osimertinib with the poorly BBB penetrant afatinib in a mouse PC9 model of subclinical brain metastases showed only osimertinib has a significant effect on rate of brain tumor growth. CONCLUSIONS: These preclinical studies indicate that osimertinib can achieve significant exposure in the brain compared with the other EGFR-TKIs tested and supports the ongoing clinical evaluation of osimertinib for the treatment of EGFR-mutant brain metastasis. This work also demonstrates the link between low in vitro transporter efflux ratios and increased brain penetrance in vivo supporting the use of in vitro transporter assays as an early screen in drug discovery.

Improving reproducibility in animal research by splitting the study population into several 'mini-experiments'.

In light of the hotly discussed 'reproducibility crisis', a rethinking of current methodologies appears essential. Implementing multi-laboratory designs has been shown to enhance the external validity and hence the reproducibility of findings from animal research. We here aimed at proposing a new experimental strategy that transfers this logic into a single-laboratory setting. We systematically introduced heterogeneity into our study population by splitting an experiment into several 'mini-experiments' spread over different time points a few weeks apart. We hypothesised to observe improved reproducibility in such a 'mini-experiment' design in comparison to a conventionally standardised design, according to which all animals are tested at one specific point in time. By comparing both designs across independent replicates, we could indeed show that the use of such a 'mini-experiment' design improved the reproducibility and accurate detection of exemplary treatment effects (behavioural and physiological differences between four mouse strains) in about half of all investigated strain comparisons. Thus, we successfully implemented and empirically validated an easy-to-handle strategy to tackle poor reproducibility in single-laboratory studies. Since other experiments within different life science disciplines share the main characteristics with the investigation reported here, these studies are likely to also benefit from this approach.

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.