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.

Two years later: journals are not yet enforcing the ARRIVE guidelines on reporting standards for pre-clinical animal studies.

There is growing concern that poor experimental design and lack of transparent reporting contribute to the frequent failure of pre-clinical animal studies to translate into treatments for human disease. In 2010, the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines were introduced to help improve reporting standards. They were published in PLOS Biology and endorsed by funding agencies and publishers and their journals, including PLOS, Nature research journals, and other top-tier journals. Yet our analysis of papers published in PLOS and Nature journals indicates that there has been very little improvement in reporting standards since then. This suggests that authors, referees, and editors generally are ignoring guidelines, and the editorial endorsement is yet to be effectively implemented.

Lesional-targeting of neuroprotection to the inflammatory penumbra in experimental multiple sclerosis.

Progressive multiple sclerosis is associated with metabolic failure of the axon and excitotoxicity that leads to chronic neurodegeneration. Global sodium-channel blockade causes side effects that can limit its use for neuroprotection in multiple sclerosis. Through selective targeting of drugs to lesions we aimed to improve the potential therapeutic window for treatment. This was assessed in the relapsing-progressive experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis ABH mouse model of multiple sclerosis using conventional sodium channel blockers and a novel central nervous system-excluded sodium channel blocker (CFM6104) that was synthesized with properties that selectively target the inflammatory penumbra in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis lesions. Carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine were not immunosuppressive in lymphocyte-driven autoimmunity, but slowed the accumulation of disability in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis when administered during periods of the inflammatory penumbra after active lesion formation, and was shown to limit the development of neurodegeneration during optic neuritis in myelin-specific T cell receptor transgenic mice. CFM6104 was shown to be a state-selective, sodium channel blocker and a fluorescent p-glycoprotein substrate that was traceable. This compound was >90% excluded from the central nervous system in normal mice, but entered the central nervous system during the inflammatory phase in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis mice. This occurs after the focal and selective downregulation of endothelial p-glycoprotein at the blood-brain barrier that occurs in both experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis and multiple sclerosis lesions. CFM6104 significantly slowed down the accumulation of disability and nerve loss in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. Therapeutic-targeting of drugs to lesions may reduce the potential side effect profile of neuroprotective agents that can influence neurotransmission. This class of agents inhibit microglial activity and neural sodium loading, which are both thought to contribute to progressive neurodegeneration in multiple sclerosis and possibly other neurodegenerative diseases.

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.

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 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.

Cage aggression in group-housed laboratory male mice: an international data crowdsourcing project.

Aggression in group-housed laboratory mice is a serious animal welfare concern. Further understanding of the causes of mouse aggression could have a significant impact on a large number of laboratory animals. The NC3Rs led a crowdsourcing project to collect data on the prevalence and potential triggers of aggression in laboratory mice. The crowdsourcing approach collected data from multiple institutions and is the first time such an approach has been applied to a laboratory animal welfare problem. Technicians observed group-housed, male mice during daily routine cage checks and recorded all incidents of aggression-related injuries. In total, 44 facilities participated in the study and data was collected by 143 animal technicians. A total of 788 incidents of aggression-related injuries were reported across a sample population of 137,580 mice. The mean facility-level prevalence of aggression-related incidents reported across facilities was equivalent to 15 in 1,000 mice. Key factors influencing the prevalence of aggression included strain; number of mice per cage; how mice were selected into a cage; cage cleaning protocols; and transfer of nesting material. Practical recommendations have been provided to minimise aggressive behaviour in group-housed, male mice based upon the results of the study and taking into consideration the current published literature.

Improving quality of science through better animal welfare: the NC3Rs strategy.

Good animal welfare is linked to the quality of research data derived from laboratory animals, their validity as models of human disease, the number of animals required to reach statistical significance and the reproducibility of in vivo studies. Identifying new ways of understanding and improving animal welfare, and promoting these in the scientific community, is therefore a key part of the work of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs). Our strategy for animal welfare includes funding research to generate an evidence base to support refinements, office-led data sharing to challenge existing practices, events and networks to raise awareness of the evidence base, and the creation of online and other resources to support practical implementation of refinement opportunities.

Opportunities for improving animal welfare in rodent models of epilepsy and seizures.

Animal models of epilepsy and seizures, mostly involving mice and rats, are used to understand the pathophysiology of the different forms of epilepsy and their comorbidities, to identify biomarkers, and to discover new antiepileptic drugs and treatments for comorbidities. Such models represent an important area for application of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement of animal use). This report provides background information and recommendations aimed at minimising pain, suffering and distress in rodent models of epilepsy and seizures in order to improve animal welfare and optimise the quality of studies in this area. The report includes practical guidance on principles of choosing a model, induction procedures, in vivo recordings, perioperative care, welfare assessment, humane endpoints, social housing, environmental enrichment, reporting of studies and data sharing. In addition, some model-specific welfare considerations are discussed, and data gaps and areas for further research are identified. The guidance is based upon a systematic review of the scientific literature, survey of the international epilepsy research community, consultation with veterinarians and animal care and welfare officers, and the expert opinion and practical experience of the members of a Working Group convened by the United Kingdom's National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs).

Ensuring transparency and minimization of methodologic bias in preclinical pain research: PPRECISE considerations.

There is growing concern about lack of scientific rigor and transparent reporting across many preclinical fields of biological research. Poor experimental design and lack of transparent reporting can result in conscious or unconscious experimental bias, producing results that are not replicable. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sponsored a consensus meeting of the Preclinical Pain Research Consortium for Investigating Safety and Efficacy (PPRECISE) Working Group. International participants from universities, funding agencies, government agencies, industry, and a patient advocacy organization attended. Reduction of publication bias, increasing the ability of others to faithfully repeat experimental methods, and increased transparency of data reporting were specifically discussed. Parameters deemed essential to increase confidence in the published literature were clear, specific reporting of an a priori hypothesis and definition of primary outcome measure. Power calculations and whether measurement of minimal meaningful effect size to determine these should be a core component of the preclinical research effort provoked considerable discussion, with many but not all agreeing. Greater transparency of reporting should be driven by scientists, journal editors, reviewers, and grant funders. The conduct of high-quality science that is fully reported should not preclude novelty and innovation in preclinical pain research, and indeed, any efforts that curtail such innovation would be misguided. We believe that to achieve the goal of finding effective new treatments for patients with pain, the pain field needs to deal with these challenging issues.

Imidazol-1-ylethylindazole voltage-gated sodium channel ligands are neuroprotective during optic neuritis in a mouse model of multiple sclerosis.

A series of imidazol-1-ylethylindazole sodium channel ligands were developed and optimized for sodium channel inhibition and in vitro neuroprotective activity. The molecules exhibited displacement of a radiolabeled sodium channel ligand and selectivity for blockade of the inactivated state of cloned neuronal Nav channels. Metabolically stable analogue 6 was able to protect retinal ganglion cells during optic neuritis in a mouse model of multiple sclerosis.

Neuroprotection in a novel mouse model of multiple sclerosis.

Multiple sclerosis is an immune-mediated, demyelinating and neurodegenerative disease that currently lacks any neuroprotective treatments. Innovative neuroprotective trial designs are required to hasten the translational process of drug development. An ideal target to monitor the efficacy of strategies aimed at treating multiple sclerosis is the visual system, which is the most accessible part of the human central nervous system. A novel C57BL/6 mouse line was generated that expressed transgenes for a myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein-specific T cell receptor and a retinal ganglion cell restricted-Thy1 promoter-controlled cyan fluorescent protein. This model develops spontaneous or induced optic neuritis, in the absence of paralytic disease normally associated with most rodent autoimmune models of multiple sclerosis. Demyelination and neurodegeneration could be monitored longitudinally in the living animal using electrophysiology, visual sensitivity, confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy and optical coherence tomography all of which are relevant to human trials. This model offers many advantages, from a 3Rs, economic and scientific perspective, over classical experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis models that are associated with substantial suffering of animals. Optic neuritis in this model led to inflammatory damage of axons in the optic nerve and subsequent loss of retinal ganglion cells in the retina. This was inhibited by the systemic administration of a sodium channel blocker (oxcarbazepine) or intraocular treatment with siRNA targeting caspase-2. These novel approaches have relevance to the future treatment of neurodegeneration of MS, which has so far evaded treatment.

Optical coherence tomography detection of neurodegeneration in multiple sclerosis.

The pathophysiology of multiple sclerosis (MS) is typically characterised by inflammation and demyelination leading to neurodegeneration, which is associated with disability and the progressive stages of MS. The visual system is a valuable tool for studying neurodegeneration and potential neuroprotection in the central nervous system due to its ease of accessibility. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a non-invasive tool, which can be used to measure the thickness of the retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL). The thickness of RNFL is reduced following the development of MS and optic neuritis and can therefore be used as a correlate of global axonal loss. OCT is currently being investigated as a structural outcome measure for neuroprotective clinical trials of MS. This review describes the relationship between MS and optic neuritis and the associated RNFL thinning, the technology and advancements of OCT, the role of OCT in clinical trials for new neuroprotective therapies in MS and the future role of OCT in MS research.