• HOME
  • NEWS
    • BIOENGINEERING
    • SCIENCE NEWS
  • EXPLORE
    • CAREER
      • Companies
      • Jobs
    • EVENTS
    • iGEM
      • News
      • Team
    • PHOTOS
    • VIDEO
    • WIKI
  • BLOG
  • COMMUNITY
    • FACEBOOK
    • FORUM
    • INSTAGRAM
    • TWITTER
  • CONTACT US
Friday, May 20, 2022
BIOENGINEER.ORG
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • HOME
  • NEWS
    • BIOENGINEERING
    • SCIENCE NEWS
  • EXPLORE
    • CAREER
      • Companies
      • Jobs
        • Lecturer
        • PhD Studentship
        • Postdoc
        • Research Assistant
    • EVENTS
    • iGEM
      • News
      • Team
    • PHOTOS
    • VIDEO
    • WIKI
  • BLOG
  • COMMUNITY
    • FACEBOOK
    • FORUM
    • INSTAGRAM
    • TWITTER
  • CONTACT US
  • HOME
  • NEWS
    • BIOENGINEERING
    • SCIENCE NEWS
  • EXPLORE
    • CAREER
      • Companies
      • Jobs
        • Lecturer
        • PhD Studentship
        • Postdoc
        • Research Assistant
    • EVENTS
    • iGEM
      • News
      • Team
    • PHOTOS
    • VIDEO
    • WIKI
  • BLOG
  • COMMUNITY
    • FACEBOOK
    • FORUM
    • INSTAGRAM
    • TWITTER
  • CONTACT US
No Result
View All Result
Bioengineer.org
No Result
View All Result
Home NEWS Science News Chemistry

Animal research: Influence of experimenters on results less strong than expected

Bioengineer by Bioengineer
May 10, 2022
in Chemistry
0
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare on RedditShare on Telegram

For more than ten years now, scientists have been discussing the so-called reproducibility crisis: often, scientific findings cannot be reproduced at a later time and/or in other laboratories, although the studies are carried out under highly standardised conditions. Thereby, standardisation includes for example the use of genetically identical animals, keeping the animals in identically equipped cages, and carrying out the experiments in always the same way. To uncover sources of poor reproducibility, researchers usually try to identify potential confounding factors in the experimental conditions. Thereby, confounding factor Number One is the experimenter – in other words, the person conducting the experiment. A team headed by behavioural biologists Dr Vanessa von Kortzfleisch and Prof Helene Richter from the University of Münster (Germany) has now studied precisely this factor in behavioural experiments on mice carried out simultaneously at three different locations. Their study has now been published in the journal PLOS Biology.

Mice

Credit: University of Münster – Department of Behavioural Biology

For more than ten years now, scientists have been discussing the so-called reproducibility crisis: often, scientific findings cannot be reproduced at a later time and/or in other laboratories, although the studies are carried out under highly standardised conditions. Thereby, standardisation includes for example the use of genetically identical animals, keeping the animals in identically equipped cages, and carrying out the experiments in always the same way. To uncover sources of poor reproducibility, researchers usually try to identify potential confounding factors in the experimental conditions. Thereby, confounding factor Number One is the experimenter – in other words, the person conducting the experiment. A team headed by behavioural biologists Dr Vanessa von Kortzfleisch and Prof Helene Richter from the University of Münster (Germany) has now studied precisely this factor in behavioural experiments on mice carried out simultaneously at three different locations. Their study has now been published in the journal PLOS Biology.

To the researchers’ surprise, the influence of different experimenters on the test results was not as pronounced as earlier studies suggested. By contrast, the researchers detected other confounding factors. Thus, what plays a much greater role than the experimenter was the factor “laboratory”. Most importantly, however, most variation was explained by inexplicable differences between the individual mice. More precisely, this proportion of “unexplained variance” in the data was between 41 and 72 percent. “This is especially surprising,” says lead author Vanessa von Kortzfleisch, “when you consider that the animals were tested under highly standardised conditions within the same testing cohort – in other words, by the same experimenter in the same lab and under exactly the same conditions.”

The results do certainly not mean that the experimenter do not represent a decisive factor. What they do indicate, though, is that the different test conditions in the labs – despite standardised conditions –have a considerably greater influence on the outcome than the experimenter. These conditions might include for example small differences in ambient sounds or smells. “But what our results show above all is that biological variation plays a key role in animal research – even when the animals come from inbred lines. In future, we will need better strategies for integrating this variation in a controlled way into the experimental design,” says Vanessa von Kortzfleisch.

Twelve experimenters at three locations

The background: Contrary to the dogma of strict standardisation, there are alternative suggestions for integrating variation systematically into the experimental design to improve reproducibility. In order to investigate whether involving multiple experimenters in a single study can increase the external validity, and hence improve the reproducibility of the outcome, this latest study was conducted by twelve different experimenters in Münster, Osnabrück and Bern, all carrying out the same behavioural test battery with mice of two inbred strains. Such phenotyping experiments are widely used in biomedical research to study the effects of different genotypes on the animals’ behaviour and, thereby, draw conclusions about the genetic basis of certain human diseases. For example, in a so-called Open-Field test, researchers check whether a mouse is more or less anxious when exploring a new environment.

Specifically, the team of researchers investigated whether a strictly standardised experimental design, in which all the animals are tested by one experimenter, differs in terms of reproducibility from an experimental design in which the animals are tested by multiple experimenters. The team compared the experimental designs to see which of them yielded the more consistent results across the three different laboratories. In addition, the researchers investigated which other influencing factors might explain the variation in the data. One result was that at all three locations the researchers were not able to reproduce some of the results, regardless of whether the experiment was conducted by just one or several experimenters.

Besides the team from the Department of Behavioural Biology at Münster, other researchers involved in the study are from the Universities of Osnabrück and Bern (Switzerland), the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna (Austria) and the AstraZeneca company in Cambridge (UK).



Journal

PLoS Biology

DOI

10.1371/journal.pbio.3001564

Method of Research

Experimental study

Subject of Research

Animals

Article Title

Do multiple experimenters improve the reproducibility of animal studies?

Article Publication Date

5-May-2022

Share12Tweet7Share2ShareShareShare1

Related Posts

The main principles of binary hologram with drug-elution capabilities.

Biocompatible binary hologram with drug-elution capabilities

May 20, 2022
Since 2016, CARB-X has funneled funding and expertise to companies developing life-saving new antibiotics

Can we prevent antibiotic resistance?

May 19, 2022

Using everyday WiFi to help robots see and navigate better indoors

May 19, 2022

A gene-targeted approach may help prevent or recover neonatal brain injuries

May 19, 2022

POPULAR NEWS

  • Weybourne Atmospheric Observatory

    Breakthrough in estimating fossil fuel CO2 emissions

    46 shares
    Share 18 Tweet 12
  • Hidden benefit: Facemasks may reduce severity of COVID-19 and pressure on health systems, researchers find

    44 shares
    Share 18 Tweet 11
  • Discovery of the one-way superconductor, thought to be impossible

    43 shares
    Share 17 Tweet 11
  • Sweet discovery could drive down inflammation, cancers and viruses

    43 shares
    Share 17 Tweet 11

About

We bring you the latest biotechnology news from best research centers and universities around the world. Check our website.

Follow us

Tags

Violence/CriminalsVaccineUrbanizationUniversity of WashingtonWeather/StormsUrogenital SystemWeaponryVirologyVaccinesVirusVehiclesZoology/Veterinary Science

Recent Posts

  • ‘Traffic calming’ boosts breeding on coral reefs
  • Snake trade in Indonesia is not sustainable enough — but it could be
  • ‘Moth motorways’ could help resist climate change impact
  • Satellites and drones can help save pollinators
  • Contact Us

© 2019 Bioengineer.org - Biotechnology news by Science Magazine - Scienmag.

No Result
View All Result
  • Homepages
    • Home Page 1
    • Home Page 2
  • News
  • National
  • Business
  • Health
  • Lifestyle
  • Science

© 2019 Bioengineer.org - Biotechnology news by Science Magazine - Scienmag.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
Posting....