Guidelines for Biosafety in Teaching Laboratories Version 2.0: A Revised and Updated Manual for 2019.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Byrd JJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6914345 | biostudies-literature | 2019
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Guidelines for Biosafety in Teaching Laboratories Version 2.0: A Revised and Updated Manual for 2019.
Byrd Jeffrey J JJ Emmert Elizabeth E Maxwell Robert R Townsend Heather H
Journal of microbiology & biology education 20191218 3
The original <i>Guidelines for Biosafety in Teaching Laboratories</i> were developed in 2012 in response to an outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium tracked by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that originated from clinical and teaching microbiology laboratories. In the 7 years since the publication of the guidelines, there have been two subsequent CDC-reported <i>Salmonella</i> outbreaks originating from clinical and teaching microbiology laboratories. Use of and issues with the ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7610926 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7610696 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7359286 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7360023 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7393194 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The safe handling of microorganisms in the teaching laboratory is a top priority. However, in the absence of a standard set of biosafety guidelines tailored to the teaching laboratory, individual educators and institutions have been left to develop their own plans. This has resulted in a lack of consistency, and differing levels of biosafety practices across institutions. Influenced by the lack of clear guidelines and a recent outbreak of Salmonella infections that was traced back to teaching laboratory exposures, the Education Board of the American Society for Microbiology charged a task force to develop a uniform set of biosafety guidelines for working with microorganisms in the teaching laboratory. These guidelines represent best practices for safely handling microbes, based on the safety requirements found in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL). Guidelines for safely handling microbes at both biosafety level 1 (BSL1) and biosafety level 2 (BSL2) were developed. The guidelines are brief by design for ease of use and are accompanied by an extensive appendix containing explanatory notes, sample documents, and additional resources. These guidelines provide educators with a clear and consistent way to safely work with microorganisms in the teaching laboratory.
| S-EPMC3706168 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a hereditary tumor that exhibits autosomal dominant inheritance. LFS develops in individuals with a pathogenic germline variant of the cancer-suppressor gene, TP53 (individuals with TP53 pathogenic variant). The number of individuals with TP53 pathogenic variant among the general population is said to be 1 in 500 to 20,000. Meanwhile, it is found in 1.6% (median value, range of 0-6.7%) of patients with pediatric cancer and 0.2% of adult patients with cancer. LFS is diagnosed by the presence of germline TP53 pathogenic variants. However, patients can still be diagnosed with LFS even in the absence of a TP53 pathogenic variant if the familial history of cancers fit the classic LFS diagnostic criteria. It is recommended that TP53 genetic testing be promptly performed if LFS is suspected. Chompret criteria are widely used for the TP53 genetic test. However, as there are a certain number of cases of LFS that do not fit the criteria, if LFS is suspected, TP53 genetic testing should be performed regardless of the criteria. The probability of individuals with TP53 pathogenic variant developing cancer in their lifetime (penetrance) is 75% for men and almost 100% for women. The LFS core tumors (breast cancer, osteosarcoma, soft tissue sarcoma, brain tumor, and adrenocortical cancer) constitute the majority of cases; however, various types of cancers, such as hematological malignancy, epithelial cancer, and pediatric cancers, such as neuroblastoma, can also develop. Furthermore, approximately half of the cases develop simultaneous or metachronous multiple cancers. The types of TP53 pathogenic variants and factors that modify the functions of TP53 have an impact on the clinical presentation, although there are currently no definitive findings. There is currently no cancer preventive agent for individuals with TP53 pathogenic variant. Surgical treatments, such as risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy warrant further investigation. Theoretically, exposure to radiation could induce the onset of secondary cancer; therefore, imaging and treatments that use radiation should be avoided as much as possible. As a method to follow-up LFS, routine cancer surveillance comprising whole-body MRI scan, brain MRI scan, breast MRI scan, and abdominal ultrasonography (US) should be performed immediately after the diagnosis. However, the effectiveness of this surveillance is unknown, and there are problems, such as adverse events associated with a high rate of false positives, overdiagnosis, and sedation used during imaging as well as negative psychological impact. The detection rate of cancer through cancer surveillance is extremely high. Many cases are detected at an early stage, and treatments are low intensity; thus, cancer surveillance could contribute to an improvement in QOL, or at least, a reduction in complications associated with treatment. With the widespread use of genomic medicine, the diagnosis of LFS is unavoidable, and a comprehensive medical care system for LFS is necessary. Therefore, clinical trials that verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the program, comprising LFS registry, genetic counseling, and cancer surveillance, need to be prepared.
| S-EPMC8595164 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Disulphide bonds are stabilizing crosslinks in proteins and serve to enhance their thermal stability. In proteins that are small and rich in disulphide bonds, they could be the major determining factor for the choice of conformational state since their constraints on appropriate backbone conformation can be substantial. Such crosslinks and their positional conservation could itself enable protein family and functional association. Despite the importance of the field, there is no comprehensive database on disulphide crosslinks that is available to the public. Herein we provide information on disulphides in DSDBASE2.0, an updated and significantly expanded database that is freely available, fully annotated and manually curated database on native and modelled disulphides. The web interface also provides several useful computational tools that have been specifically developed for proteins containing disulphide crosslinks. The modelling of disulphide crosslinks is performed using stereochemical criteria, coded within our Modelling of Disulphides in Proteins (MODIP) algorithm. The inclusion of modelled disulphides potentially enhances the loop database substantially, thereby permitting the recognition of compatible polypeptide segments that could serve as templates for immediate modelling. The DSDBASE2.0 database has been updated to include 153,944 PDB entries, 216,096 native and 20,153,850 modelled disulphide bond segments from PDB January 2021 release. The current database also provides a resource to user-friendly search for multiple disulphide bond containing loops, along with annotation of their function using GO and subcellular localization of the query. Furthermore, it is possible to obtain the three-dimensional models of disulphide-rich small proteins using an independent algorithm, RANMOD, that generates and examines random, but allowed backbone conformations of the polypeptide. DSDBASE2.0 still remains the largest open-access repository that organizes all disulphide bonds of proteins on a single platform. The database can be accessed from http://caps.ncbs.res.in/dsdbase2.
| S-EPMC9216586 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the past several years, the science of health care improvement has advanced considerably. In this article, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts, and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasizes 3 key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value, and safety of health care: formal and informal theory in planning, implementing, and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done; and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve health care, recognizing that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (www.squire-statement.org).
| S-EPMC4620592 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe research evaluated participant satisfaction with the content and format of the "Web 2.0 101: Introduction to Second Generation Web Tools" course and measured the impact of the course on participants' self-evaluated knowledge of Web 2.0 tools.MethodsThe "Web 2.0 101" online course was based loosely on the Learning 2.0 model. Content was provided through a course blog and covered a wide range of Web 2.0 tools. All Medical Library Association members were invited to participate. Participants were asked to complete a post-course survey. Respondents who completed the entire course or who completed part of the course self-evaluated their knowledge of nine social software tools and concepts prior to and after the course using a Likert scale. Additional qualitative information about course strengths and weaknesses was also gathered.ResultsRespondents' self-ratings showed a significant change in perceived knowledge for each tool, using a matched pair Wilcoxon signed rank analysis (P<0.0001 for each tool/concept). Overall satisfaction with the course appeared high. Hands-on exercises were the most frequently identified strength of the course; the length and time-consuming nature of the course were considered weaknesses by some.ConclusionLearning 2.0-style courses, though demanding time and self-motivation from participants, can increase knowledge of Web 2.0 tools.
| S-EPMC2759158 | biostudies-literature