Dataset Information

Preclinical animal anxiety research - flaws and prejudices.

ABSTRACT: The current tests of anxiety in mice and rats used in preclinical research include the elevated plus-maze (EPM) or zero-maze (EZM), the light/dark box (LDB), and the open-field (OF). They are currently very popular, and despite their poor achievements, they continue to exert considerable constraints on the development of novel approaches. Hence, a novel anxiety test needs to be compared with these traditional tests, and assessed against various factors that were identified as a source of their inconsistent and contradictory results. These constraints are very costly, and they are in most cases useless as they originate from flawed methodologies. In the present report, we argue that the EPM or EZM, LDB, and OF do not provide unequivocal measures of anxiety; that there is no evidence of motivation conflict involved in these tests. They can be considered at best, tests of natural preference for unlit and/or enclosed spaces. We also argued that pharmacological validation of a behavioral test is an inappropriate approach; it stems from the confusion of animal models of human behavior with animal models of pathophysiology. A behavioral test is developed to detect not to produce symptoms, and a drug is used to validate an identified physiological target. In order to overcome the major methodological flaws in animal anxiety studies, we proposed an open space anxiety test, a 3D maze, which is described here with highlights of its various advantages over to the traditional tests.

SUBMITTER: Ennaceur A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4804324 | biostudies-other | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOnly a small proportion of preclinical research (research performed in animal models prior to clinical trials in humans) translates into clinical benefit in humans. Possible reasons for the lack of translation of the results observed in preclinical research into human clinical benefit include the design, conduct, and reporting of preclinical studies. There is currently no formal domain-based assessment of the clinical relevance of preclinical research. To address this issue, we have developed a tool for the assessment of the clinical relevance of preclinical studies, with the intention of assessing the likelihood that therapeutic preclinical findings can be translated into improvement in the management of human diseases.MethodsWe searched the EQUATOR network for guidelines that describe the design, conduct, and reporting of preclinical research. We searched the references of these guidelines to identify further relevant publications and developed a set of domains and signalling questions. We then conducted a modified Delphi-consensus to refine and develop the tool. The Delphi panel members included specialists in evidence-based (preclinical) medicine specialists, methodologists, preclinical animal researchers, a veterinarian, and clinical researchers. A total of 20 Delphi-panel members completed the first round and 17 members from five countries completed all three rounds.ResultsThis tool has eight domains (construct validity, external validity, risk of bias, experimental design and data analysis plan, reproducibility and replicability of methods and results in the same model, research integrity, and research transparency) and a total of 28 signalling questions and provides a framework for researchers, journal editors, grant funders, and regulatory authorities to assess the potential clinical relevance of preclinical animal research.ConclusionWe have developed a tool to assess the clinical relevance of preclinical studies. This tool is currently being piloted.

Project description:Machine perfusion (MP) is often referred to as one of the most promising advancements in liver transplantation research of the last few decades, with various techniques and modalities being evaluated in preclinical studies using animal models. However, low scientific rigor and subpar reporting standards lead to limited reproducibility and translational potential, hindering progress. This pre-registered systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42021234667) aimed to provide a thematic overview of the preclinical research landscape on MP in liver transplantation using in vivo transplantation models and to explore methodological and reporting standards, using the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) score. In total 56 articles were included. Studies were evenly distributed across Asia, Europe, and the Americas. Porcine models were used in 57.1% of the studies, followed by rats (39.3%) and dogs (3.6%). In terms of graft type, 55.4% of the studies used donation after cardiac death grafts, while donation after brain death grafts accounted for 37.5%. Regarding MP modalities, the distribution was as follows: 41.5% of articles utilized hypothermic MP, 21.5% normothermic MP, 13.8% subnormothermic MP, and 16.9% utilized hypothermic oxygenated MP. The stringent documentation of ARRIVE elements concerning precise experimental execution, group size and selection, the choice of statistical methods, as well as adherence to the principles of the 3Rs, was notably lacking in the majority of publications, with less than 30% providing comprehensive details. Postoperative analgesia and antibiotics treatment were not documented in 82.1% of all included studies. None of the analyzed studies fully adhered to the ARRIVE Guidelines. In conclusion, the present study emphasizes the importance of adhering to reporting standards to promote reproducibility and adequate animal welfare in preclinical studies in machine perfusion. At the same time, it highlights a clear deficiency in this field, underscoring the need for further investigations into animal welfare-related topics.

Dataset Information

Preclinical animal anxiety research - flaws and prejudices.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets