|
1
|
Gulinello M, Mitchell HA, Chang Q, Timothy O'Brien W, Zhou Z, Abel T, Wang L, Corbin JG, Veeraragavan S, Samaco RC, Andrews NA, Fagiolini M, Cole TB, Burbacher TM, Crawley JN. Rigor and reproducibility in rodent behavioral research. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2019; 165:106780. [PMID: 29307548 PMCID: PMC6034984 DOI: 10.1016/j.nlm.2018.01.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2017] [Revised: 12/22/2017] [Accepted: 01/03/2018] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
Behavioral neuroscience research incorporates the identical high level of meticulous methodologies and exacting attention to detail as all other scientific disciplines. To achieve maximal rigor and reproducibility of findings, well-trained investigators employ a variety of established best practices. Here we explicate some of the requirements for rigorous experimental design and accurate data analysis in conducting mouse and rat behavioral tests. Novel object recognition is used as an example of a cognitive assay which has been conducted successfully with a range of methods, all based on common principles of appropriate procedures, controls, and statistics. Directors of Rodent Core facilities within Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Centers contribute key aspects of their own novel object recognition protocols, offering insights into essential similarities and less-critical differences. Literature cited in this review article will lead the interested reader to source papers that provide step-by-step protocols which illustrate optimized methods for many standard rodent behavioral assays. Adhering to best practices in behavioral neuroscience will enhance the value of animal models for the multiple goals of understanding biological mechanisms, evaluating consequences of genetic mutations, and discovering efficacious therapeutics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Gulinello
- IDDRC Behavioral Core Facility, Neuroscience Department, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY 10461, USA
| | - Heather A Mitchell
- IDD Models Core, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI 53705, USA
| | - Qiang Chang
- IDD Models Core, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI 53705, USA
| | - W Timothy O'Brien
- IDDRC Preclinical Models Core, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - Zhaolan Zhou
- IDDRC Preclinical Models Core, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - Ted Abel
- IDDRC Preclinical Models Core, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Current affiliation: Iowa Neuroscience Institute, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
| | - Li Wang
- IDDRC Neurobehavioral Core, Center for Neuroscience Research, Children's National Health System, Washington, DC 20010, USA
| | - Joshua G Corbin
- IDDRC Neurobehavioral Core, Center for Neuroscience Research, Children's National Health System, Washington, DC 20010, USA
| | - Surabi Veeraragavan
- IDDRC Neurobehavioral Core, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Rodney C Samaco
- IDDRC Neurobehavioral Core, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Nick A Andrews
- IDDRC Neurodevelopmental Behavior Core, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA
| | - Michela Fagiolini
- IDDRC Neurodevelopmental Behavior Core, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA
| | - Toby B Cole
- IDDRC Rodent Behavior Laboratory, Center on Human Development and Disability, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Thomas M Burbacher
- IDDRC Rodent Behavior Laboratory, Center on Human Development and Disability, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Jacqueline N Crawley
- IDDRC Rodent Behavior Core, MIND Institute, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Abstract
In light of an enhanced awareness of ethical questions and ever increasing costs when working with animals in biomedical research, there is a dedicated and sometimes fierce debate concerning the (lack of) reproducibility of animal models and their relevance for human inflammatory diseases. Despite evident advancements in searching for alternatives, that is, replacing, reducing, and refining animal experiments-the three R's of Russel and Burch (1959)-understanding the complex interactions of the cells of the immune system, the nervous system and the affected tissue/organ during inflammation critically relies on in vivo models. Consequently, scientific advancement and ultimately novel therapeutic interventions depend on improving the reproducibility of animal inflammation models. As a prelude to the remaining hands-on protocols described in this volume, here, we summarize potential pitfalls of preclinical animal research and provide resources and background reading on how to avoid them.
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Tran US, Stieger S, Voracek M. Latent variable analysis indicates that seasonal anisotropy accounts for the higher prevalence of left-handedness in men. Cortex 2014; 57:188-97. [DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.04.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/26/2013] [Revised: 03/24/2014] [Accepted: 04/25/2014] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
|