Beyond compliance: harmonising research and husbandry practices to improve experimental reproducibility using fish models

Reproducibility in animal research is impacted by the environment, by husbandry practices in the laboratory and by the animals' provenance. These factors, however, are often not adequately considered by researchers. A disconnect between researchers and animal care staff can result in inappropriate housing and husbandry decisions for scientific studies with those animals. This is especially the case for the research in neuro-behaviour, epigenetics, and the impact of climate change, as heritable phenotypic, behavioural or physiological changes are known to result from the animals' environmental housing, husbandry, provenance and prior experience. This can lead to greater variation (even major differences) in data outcomes among studies, driving scientific uncertainties. Herein, we illustrate some of the endpoints measured in fish studies known to be intrinsically linked to the environment and husbandry conditions and assess the significance of housing and husbandry practice decisions for research adopting these endpoints for different fish species. We highlight the different priorities and challenges faced by researchers and animal care staff and how harmonising their activities and building greater understanding of how husbandry practices affect the fish will improve reproducibility in research outcomes. We furthermore illustrate how improving engagement between stakeholders, including regulatory bodies, can better underpin fish husbandry decisions and where researchers could help to drive best husbandry practices through their own research with fish models.

Frameworks for evaluation and integration of data in regulatory evaluations: The need for excellence in regulatory toxicology

Following a number of published expressions of concern about the reliability of experimental science and the implications of non-reproducibility for regulatory toxicology, the European Risk Forum undertook to consider what practises might improve the basis on which regulatory decisions might be made. Guidelines which may be useful in assessments are presented. The document acknowledges the value of the experimental standards used in most regulatory studies but indicates how these may fail to provide the ‘best outcome’ and how imperfect studies based on outdated views of pathophysiology of disease in H. Sapiens may offer little of predictive value.

Improving Quality in Nanoparticle-Induced Cytotoxicity Testing by a Tiered Inter-Laboratory Comparison Study

The quality and relevance of nanosafety studies constitute major challenges to ensure their key role as a supporting tool in sustainable innovation, and subsequent competitive economic advantage. However, the number of apparently contradictory and inconclusive research results has increased in the past few years, indicating the need to introduce harmonized protocols and good practices in the nanosafety research community. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate if best-practice training and inter-laboratory comparison (ILC) of performance of the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium (MTS) assay for the cytotoxicity assessment of nanomaterials among 15 European laboratories can improve quality in nanosafety testing. We used two well-described model nanoparticles, 40-nm carboxylated polystyrene (PS-COOH) and 50-nm amino-modified polystyrene (PS-NH2). We followed a tiered approach using well-developed standard operating procedures (SOPs) and sharing the same cells, serum and nanoparticles. We started with determination of the cell growth rate (tier 1), followed by a method transfer phase, in which all laboratories performed the first ILC on the MTS assay (tier 2). Based on the outcome of tier 2 and a survey of laboratory practices, specific training was organized, and the MTS assay SOP was refined. This led to largely improved intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility in tier 3. In addition, we confirmed that PS-COOH and PS-NH2 are suitable negative and positive control nanoparticles, respectively, to evaluate impact of nanomaterials on cell viability using the MTS assay. Overall, we have demonstrated that the tiered process followed here, with the use of SOPs and representative control nanomaterials, is necessary and makes it possible to achieve good inter-laboratory reproducibility, and therefore high-quality nanotoxicological data.

The uncertainty with nanosafety: Validity and reliability of published data

Use and production of chemicals and new materials are always reasons for concern especially with regard to human health and the environmental impacts. Over the past few decades occupational safety is a greater focus for toxicologists and of national and international registration programs for new products. Thus, the careful investigation of the biological effects of new chemicals and materials is critical. However, the hype around "The Nanotechnology" has boosted a competition for public funds and thereby the number of publications on this "nanotoxicology" topic has exploded. For more than two decades the public discussion around the special effects of nanomaterials or nanoparticles is ongoing without a final conclusion regarding an existing issue of a "nano-specific effect". Facing the situation of a dramatic increase in the number of publications (>4400 PubMed references in 2017 alone!); the quality of the findings appears to be questionable, particularly with regard to the implementation of risk assessment for nanomaterials. Most of the published nanotoxicology studies are associated with fundamental deficiencies in the experimental design of these investigations, including 1) a lack of rigorous and adequate physicochemical characterization of the test materials; 2) the absence of adequate particle controls; and 3) the implementation of high dose experiments, designed to produce toxicological effects - which are publishable (and sensational). As a consequence, the "toxicology" results have limited utility, and therefore must be critically (re)evaluated. This service is provided by the internet knowledge base DaNa (www.nanoobjects.info). On this website a criteria catalogue for the re-evaluation of scientific publications has been published and if these criteria are utilized > 60 70% of reported study findings are not acceptable and cannot be taken into consideration for risk assessment criteria.

The dangers of hazards

Concerns about the quality and reproducibility of scientific papers have emphasised the uncertainty of observations in the biological sciences. Focussing on this problem in the types of science that often underlie regulations affecting population exposures has clear implications for regulatory studies. Recent comments on the IARC process of hazard identification in the field of carcinogenesis have identified problems in dealing with public information content and regulatory value of the Monograph system. What is the value of a system that does not clearly identify its methodology for defining a hazard and which does not provide realistic estimates of risk?