Methods, techniques, assays and protocols

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-024-01199-2

IF: 28.1

2024-03-26

Nature Biomedical Engineering

Abstract:Applied biomedical research needs more of them to be more broadly useful, reproducible and robust.

engineering, biomedical

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

General Methods in Biomarker Research and their Applications

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7696-8

2015-01-01

Abstract:The well-being of humankind is dependent upon advances in biological and clinical sciences. For many diseases, an early diagnosis and objective measures of outcomes are essential for reducing mortality and morbidity. Part of this package entails the appropriate use of biomarkers. These are biological indicators which often are used routinely in the clinical setting. Recent advances in the chemical and physical sciences have enabled new biomarkers to be developed. This does not mean that traditional markers are redundant as detailed investigations have identified both limitations and advantages in their usage as well as new applications. This book General Methods in Biomarker Research and their Applications combines both traditional, new and emerging biomarkers in a single publication. The chapters contained in this book have wide applicability to many diseases.
Methods for screening and evaluation of antimicrobial activity: A review of protocols, advantages, and limitations

Tanim Jabid Hossain

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/1886.2024.00035

2024-04-22

Abstract:Infectious diseases pose a formidable global challenge, compounded by the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. Consequently, researchers are actively exploring novel antimicrobial compounds as potential solutions. This endeavor underscores the pivotal role of methods employed for screening and evaluating antimicrobial activity-a critical step in discovery and characterization of antimicrobial agents. While traditional techniques such as well-diffusion, disk-diffusion, and broth-dilution are commonly utilized in antimicrobial assays, they may encounter limitations concerning reproducibility and speed. Additionally, a diverse array of antimicrobial assays including cross-streaking, poisoned-food, co-culture, time-kill kinetics, resazurin assay, bioautography, etc., are routinely employed in antimicrobial evaluations. Advanced techniques such as flow-cytometry, impedance analysis, and bioluminescent technique may offer rapid and sensitive results, providing deeper insights into the impact of antimicrobials on cellular integrity. However, their higher cost and limited accessibility in certain laboratory settings may present challenges. This article provides a comprehensive overview of assays designed to characterize antimicrobial activity, elucidating their underlying principles, protocols, advantages, and limitations. The primary objective is to enhance understanding of the methodologies designed for evaluating antimicrobial agents in our relentless battle against infectious diseases. By selecting the appropriate antimicrobial testing method, researchers can discern suitable conditions and streamline the identification of effective antimicrobial agents.
Antibacterial Peptide Protocols

William M. Shafer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1385/0896034089

1997-07-08

Abstract:In Antibacterial Peptide Protocols, leading authorities review for the first time in one volume all the major biochemical, molecular, bacteriological, and physical techniques available to assess antimicrobial peptides. These state-of-the-art methods ensure easily reproducible results in such important procedures as the isolation and characterization of antimicrobial peptides, the molecular characterization of genes encoding antimicrobial peptides, and the use of expression systems to isolate peptides. Bioassays and microbial genetic techniques are also included, as are antibacterial assays as the final readout system. These methods detailed in Antibacterial Peptide Protocols will play an important role in the treatment of infectious diseases, particularly with the increasing problem of multidrug-resistant microbes and the relative dearth of new antibiotics being provided by pharmaceutical companies.
Tackling reproducibility: lessons for the proteomics community

Julian Uszkoreit,Magnus Palmblad,Veit Schwämmle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14789450.2024.2320166

2024-02-28

Expert Review of Proteomics

Abstract:KEYWORDS: The much reported 'reproducibility crisis' [ Citation 1 ] refers to the increasing perception across scientific domains, that many published results are not or only partly reproducible. In proteomics, particularly affinity methods suffer from poor reliability and unknown specificity of antibodies [ Citation 2 ]. Interpretation of common readouts such as Western blots is partially subjective. Mass spectrometry (MS) methods struggle with high variability in sample preparation, instrumentation and data analysis workflows, resulting in many false positives and poor reproducibility unless proper statistical controls are applied. Across branches of proteomics, there is growing emphasis on developing standardized protocols to reduce variability, including antibody validation/mass spectrometry system suitability testing, quality control and sharing data and procedures. A 2020 review of studies conducted by ABRF (Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities) Research Groups [ Citation 3 ] specifically highlighted the importance of community-based standards and sustainable frameworks for sharing best practices in methodology, standard operating procedures, and data management across all technologies and domains, including proteomics. In this editorial, we highlight the efforts made by the proteomics community and suggest future activities to tackle reproducibility problems and improve the quality of the scientific results generated. While we touch on some of the sample processing steps prior to data acquisition, the main focus is on the computational analysis.

biochemical research methods
Abstract IA01: New assays, old specimens: Multiplexing for plasma and urine.

Patrick M. Sluss

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.gwas-ia01

2012-11-01

Abstract:Abstract A key concept in medical science is that by comparing DNA, RNA, or proteins from healthy and diseased individuals, insight can be gained into the etiology of disease leading to better diagnostics and therapeutics. In this context, biorepositories have long played a key role by allowing the accumulation of biological fluids and tissues from large numbers of individuals for longitudinal or cross-sectional comparisons. Approaches to understanding human disease are based on the central dogma that information flow in living systems is from DNA to RNA to protein. At all levels, aberrations could indicate either the presence of disease or suggest underlying mechanisms of disease. However, historically DNA and RNA have been more useful for identifying risk of disease than the presence of disease, except in surgical specimens. Proteins in biological fluids [blood, urine, aspirates, etc.] have played a more prominent role in diagnostics. Indeed given that proteins are in essence the effectors of gene expression a long held goal has been to associate specific proteins in peripheral circulation that indicate the presence of disease, e.g. biomarkers of disease, especially early disease before the appearance of symptoms or other clinical indicators. This presentation will focus on issues associated with the use of biorepository fluids in this context. Three issues are fundamental: 1) specimen volume is limited and precious, 2) specimen processing requirements are not known a'priori, and 3) analytical targets are often not precisely defined. Limited specimen volume is an inherent problem because each blood draw represents a discrete end point. Unlike nucleic acids, proteins are subject to numerous post-translational biological modifications and to extensive, often rapid, degradation post specimen collection. These issues drive method development and validation, ultimately determining the amount and quality of data that can be obtained from biorepository specimens. Protein analytical methods will be reviewed from this perspective with emphasis on recent developments in multi-analyte systems and newer, highly sensitive methods. Citation Format: Patrick M. Sluss. New assays, old specimens: Multiplexing for plasma and urine. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Post-GWAS Horizons in Molecular Epidemiology: Digging Deeper into the Environment; 2012 Nov 11-14; Hollywood, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012;21(11 Suppl):Abstract nr IA01.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Impact of quality and transparency in scientific writing on the reduction of animal usage in experimental protocols: a review based in pertinent literature

Matheus M. Neves,Sandra G. Klein,Ray C. Silva,Lucas M. M. Bernardes,Serena M. Malta,Thiago N. Vieira,Rafael B. Rosa,Isabela L. Lima,Flávia B. Ferreira,Murilo V. Silva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1394113

IF: 3.471

2024-05-30

Frontiers in Veterinary Science

Abstract:The irreproducibility in scientific research has become a critical issue. Despite the essential role of rigorous methodology in constructing a scientific article, more than half of publications, on average, are considered non-reproducible. The implications of this irreproducibility extend to reliability problems, hindering progress in technological production and resulting in substantial financial losses. In the context of laboratory animal research, this work emphasizes the importance of choosing an appropriate experimental model within the 3R's principle (Refine, Reduce, Replace). This study specifically addresses a deficiency in data specification in scientific articles, revealing inadequacies in the description of crucial details, such as environmental conditions, diet, and experimental procedures. For this purpose, 124 articles from journals with relevant impact factors were analyzed, conducting a survey of data considered important for the reproducibility of studies. Important flaws in the presentation of data were identified in most of the articles evaluated. The results of this study highlight the need to improve the description of essential information, standardizing studies, and ensuring the reproducibility of experiments in areas such as metabolism, immunity, hormones, stress, among others, to enhance the reliability and reproduction of experimental results, aligning with international guidelines such as ARRIVE and PREPARE.

veterinary sciences
Improving reproducibility in animal research

Florian Frommlet

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76398-3

IF: 4.6

2020-11-06

Scientific Reports

Abstract:There have been increasingly lively discussions about many published scientific results failing validation by independent studies. This so-called reproducibility crisis has led to particularly strong criticism of methodological weaknesses in animal research. Inappropriate statistical methods, poor experimental design, and extreme standardization in trial design are some contributing factors to the problem. The purpose of this Collection is to present original methodologies to improve the status quo and additionally to report meta-research about the reproducibility of published animal research.

multidisciplinary sciences
Automation in the Life Science Research Laboratory

Ian Holland,Jamie A. Davies

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.571777

IF: 5.7

2020-11-13

Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology

Abstract:Protocols in the academic life science laboratory are heavily reliant on the manual manipulation of tools, reagents and instruments by a host of research staff and students. In contrast to industrial and clinical laboratory environments, the usage of automation to augment or replace manual tasks is limited. Causes of this 'automation gap' are unique to academic research, with rigid short-term funding structures, high levels of protocol variability and a benevolent culture of investment in people over equipment. Automation, however, can bestow multiple benefits through improvements in reproducibility, researcher efficiency, clinical translation, and safety. Less immediately obvious are the accompanying limitations, including obsolescence and an inhibitory effect on the freedom to innovate. Growing the range of automation options suitable for research laboratories will require more flexible, modular and cheaper designs. Academic and commercial developers of automation will increasingly need to design with an environmental awareness and an understanding that large high-tech robotic solutions may not be appropriate for laboratories with constrained financial and spatial resources. To fully exploit the potential of laboratory automation, future generations of scientists will require both engineering and biology skills. Automation in the research laboratory is likely to be an increasingly critical component of future research programs and will continue the trend of combining engineering and science expertise together to answer novel research questions.

multidisciplinary sciences
Automated Microsampling Technologies and Enhancements in the 3Rs

L David Hopper

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar/ilw020

Abstract:Data collected in vivo is essential for advising decisions on drug screening and development and basic research, and animal models are used extensively for acquiring experimental measurements. Traditionally, collection of specimens has been invasive, stressful to animal subjects, labor intensive, time-consuming and costly, and required many animals when using small models with low fluid volumes, such as rats or mice. Utilizing automated microsampling (AMS) alone or in an integrative pharmacology approach to evaluate multiple physiological, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic endpoints simultaneously in the same animal accomplishes multiple experimental goals. Use of AMS robotics and associated instrumentation can assist in achieving significant reduction and refinement of animal use. Automated robotic instrumentation for specimen collection from living animal models can now be used to provide better quality pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, reduce time, provide more data with less variability, reduce animal use, and refine animal model use to reduce pain and stress. Instrumentation in common use for automated sampling and dosing is briefly discussed. In parallel with advances in automated instrumentation, recent advances in analytical detection methods complement the use of automated technology for data and specimen collection. Methods requiring much smaller volumes can now be utilized. Microsampling (small biological samples in volumes of 5-100 μL) can facilitate reduction in animal numbers while minimizing stresses associated with excessive fluid volume removal. Innovations in automation, microsampling techniques, and analytical methods have facilitated advances in data collection that allow for more robust and accurate data, reduction in animal use, and refinement in techniques that improve animal welfare. These innovations offer opportunities for wider application in nonclinical investigations by collection of multiple data streams simultaneously from individual animals. Many benefits are achievable through the use integrative pharmacology designs utilizing AMS, including decreased time for completion of composite data collection, decreased personnel resources, lower costs, improved safety, higher quality and multiple data-sets, and improvements in aspects of the 3Rs.
Biologically grounded scientific methods: The challenges ahead for combating epidemics

Ariel L Rivas,Almira L Hoogesteijn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2021.09.001

IF: 4.647

Methods

Abstract:The protracted COVID 19 pandemic may indicate failures of scientific methodologies. Hoping to facilitate the evaluation and/or update of methods relevant in Biomedicine, several aspects of scientific processes are here explored. First, the background is reviewed. In particular, eight topics are analyzed: (i) the history of Higher Education models in reference to the pursuit of science and the type of student cognition pursued, (ii) whether explanatory or actionable knowledge is emphasized depending on the well- or ill-defined nature of problems, (iii) the role of complexity and dynamics, (iv) how differences between Biology and other fields influence methodologies, (v) whether theory, hypotheses or data drive scientific research, (vi) whether Biology is reducible to one or a few factors, (vii) the fact that data, to become actionable knowledge, require structuring, and (viii) the need of inter-/trans-disciplinary knowledge integration. To illustrate how these topics interact, a second section describes four temporal stages of scientific methods: conceptualization, operationalization, validation and evaluation. They refer to the transition from abstract (non-measurable) concepts (such as 'health') to the selection of concrete (measurable) operations (such as 'quantification of ́anti-virus specific antibody titers'). Conceptualization is the process that selects concepts worth investigating, which continues as operationalization when data-producing variables viewed to reflect critical features of the concepts are chosen. Because the operations selected are not necessarily valid, informative, and may fail to solve problems, validations and evaluations are critical stages, which require inter/trans-disciplinary knowledge integration. It is suggested that data structuring can substantially improve scientific methodologies applicable in Biology, provided that other aspects here mentioned are also considered. The creation of independent bodies meant to evaluate biologically oriented scientific methods is recommended.
Promoting reusable and open methods and protocols (PRO-MaP) can improve methodological reporting in the life sciences

Sofia Batista Leite,Matthew A. Brooke,Annamaria Carusi,Andy Collings,Pierre Deceuninck,Jean-François Dechamp,Bronwen Dekker,Elisa De Ranieri,Emma Ganley,Annalisa Gastaldello,Fanglian He,Marcel LaFlamme,Ingrid Langezaal,James Morris,David Pamies,Monica Piergiovanni,Bernd Pulverer,David Sadler,Caroline Shamu,Vivian Siegel,Marco Straccia,Tracey L. Weissgerber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002835

IF: 9.8

2024-09-20

PLoS Biology

Abstract:Detailed method descriptions are essential for reproducibility, research evaluation, and effective data reuse. We summarize the key recommendations for life sciences researchers and research institutions described in the European Commission PRO-MaP report.

biochemistry & molecular biology,biology
Best Practices for Data Management and Sharing in Experimental Biomedical Research

Teresa Cunha-Oliveira,John P.A. Ioannidis,Paulo J. Oliveira

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00043.2023

IF: 46.5

2024-03-08

Physiological Reviews

Abstract:Effective data management is crucial for scientific integrity and reproducibility, a cornerstone of scientific progress. Well-organized and well-documented data enable validation and building upon results. Data management encompasses activities including organization, documentation, storage, sharing, and preservation. Robust data management establishes credibility, fostering trust within the scientific community and benefiting researchers' careers. In experimental biomedicine, comprehensive data management is vital due to the typically intricate protocols, extensive metadata, and large datasets. Low-throughput experiments, in particular, require careful management to address variations and errors in protocols and raw data quality. Transparent and accountable research practices rely on accurate documentation of procedures, data collection, and analysis methods. Proper data management ensures long-term preservation and accessibility of valuable datasets. Well-managed data can be revisited, contributing to cumulative knowledge and potential new discoveries. Publicly funded research has an added responsibility for transparency, resource allocation, and avoiding redundancy. Meeting funding agency expectations increasingly requires rigorous methodologies, adherence to standards, comprehensive documentation, and widespread sharing of data, code, and other auxiliary resources. This review provides critical insights into raw and processed data, metadata, high-throughput versus low-throughput datasets, a common language for documentation, experimental and reporting guidelines, efficient data management systems, sharing practices, and relevant repositories. We systematically present available resources and optimal practices for wide use by experimental biomedical researchers.

physiology
Repetition and reproduction of preclinical medical studies: taking a leaf from the plant sciences with consideration of generalised systematic errors

Jeremy S. C. Clark,Anna Salacka,Agnieszka Boron,Thierry van de Wetering,Konrad Podsiadlo,Kamila Rydzewska,Krzysztof Safranow,Kazimierz Ciechanowski,Leszek Domanski,Andrzej Ciechanowicz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2201.10960

2022-01-26

Abstract:Reproduction of pre-clinical results has a high failure rate. The fundamental methodology including replication ("protocol") for hypothesis testing/validation to a state allowing inference, varies within medical and plant sciences with little justification. Here, five protocols are distinguished which deal differently with systematic/random errors and vary considerably in result veracity. Aim: to compare prevalence of protocols (defined in text). Medical/plant science articles from 2017/2019 were surveyed: 713 random articles assessed for eligibility for counts: first (with p-values): 1) non-replicated; 2) global; 3) triple-result protocols; second: 4) replication-error protocol; 5) meta-analyses. Inclusion criteria: human/plant/fungal studies with categorical groups. Exclusion criteria: phased clinical trials, pilot studies, cases, reviews, technology, rare subjects, -omic studies. Abbreviated PICOS question: which protocol was evident for a main result with categorically distinct group difference(s) ? Electronic sources: Journal Citation Reports 2017/2019, Google. Triplication prevalence differed dramatically between sciences (both years p<10-16; cluster-adjusted chi-squared tests): From 320 studies (80/science/year): in 2017, 53 (66%, 95% confidence interval (C.I.) 56%:77%) and in 2019, 48 (60%, C.I. 49%:71%) plant studies had triple-result or triplicated global protocols, compared with, in both years, 4 (5%, C.I. 0.19%:9.8%) medical studies. Plant sciences had a higher prevalence of protocols more likely to counter generalised systematic errors (the most likely cause of false positives) and random error than non-replicated protocols, without suffering from serious flaws found with random-Institutes protocols. It is suggested that a triple-result (organised-reproduction) protocol, with Institute consortia, is likely to solve most problems connected with the replicability crisis.

Quantitative Methods
Guidelines on Antibody Use for Physiology Research

Heddwen L. Brooks,Lisandra E. de Castro Brás,Keith R. Brunt,Megan A. Sylvester,Michelle S. Parvatiyar,Padmini Sirish,Shyam S. Bansal,Rasheed Sule,Ashley L. Eadie,Mark A. Knepper,Robert A. Fenton,Merry L. Lindsey,Kristine Y. DeLeon-Pennell,Aldrin V. Gomes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1152/ajprenal.00347.2023

2024-01-19

American Journal of Physiology - Renal Physiology

Abstract:Antibodies are one of the most used reagents in scientific laboratories and are critical components for a multitude of experiments in physiology research. Over the last decade, concerns about many biological methods, including those that use antibodies, have arisen as many labs were unable to reproduce the scientific data obtained in other laboratories. While some of the lack of reproducibility may be due to inadequate reporting of detailed methods, the use of unvalidated antibodies was identified as a major source of results that lacked reproducibility. The goal of this guidelines article is to review current use and provide best practice guidelines on commonly used techniques involving antibodies, including immunoblotting, immunohistochemistry, and flow cytometry. Knowledge and use of these practices will increase the rigor and reproducibility of these techniques and elevate the quality of physiology research.

urology & nephrology,physiology
Challenges and best practices in omics benchmarking

Thomas G. Brooks,Nicholas F. Lahens,Antonijo Mrčela,Gregory R. Grant

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-023-00679-6

IF: 59.581

2024-01-14

Nature Reviews Genetics

Abstract:Technological advances enabling massively parallel measurement of biological features — such as microarrays, high-throughput sequencing and mass spectrometry — have ushered in the omics era, now in its third decade. The resulting complex landscape of analytical methods has naturally fostered the growth of an omics benchmarking industry. Benchmarking refers to the process of objectively comparing and evaluating the performance of different computational or analytical techniques when processing and analysing large-scale biological data sets, such as transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics. With thousands of omics benchmarking studies published over the past 25 years, the field has matured to the point where the foundations of benchmarking have been established and well described. However, generating meaningful benchmarking data and properly evaluating performance in this complex domain remains challenging. In this Review, we highlight some common oversights and pitfalls in omics benchmarking. We also establish a methodology to bring the issues that can be addressed into focus and to be transparent about those that cannot: this takes the form of a spreadsheet template of guidelines for comprehensive reporting, intended to accompany publications. In addition, a survey of recent developments in benchmarking is provided as well as specific guidance for commonly encountered difficulties.

genetics & heredity
Antibody characterization is critical to enhance reproducibility in biomedical research

Richard A Kahn,Harvinder Virk,Carl Laflamme,Douglas W Houston,Nicole K Polinski,Rob Meijers,Allan I Levey,Clifford B Saper,Timothy M Errington,Rachel E Turn,Anita Bandrowski,James S Trimmer,Meghan Rego,Leonard P Freedman,Fortunato Ferrara,Andrew R M Bradbury,Hannah Cable,Skye Longworth

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.100211

IF: 7.7

2024-08-14

eLife

Abstract:Antibodies are used in many areas of biomedical and clinical research, but many of these antibodies have not been adequately characterized, which casts doubt on the results reported in many scientific papers. This problem is compounded by a lack of suitable control experiments in many studies. In this article we review the history of the 'antibody characterization crisis', and we document efforts and initiatives to address the problem, notably for antibodies that target human proteins. We also present recommendations for a range of stakeholders - researchers, universities, journals, antibody vendors and repositories, scientific societies and funders - to increase the reproducibility of studies that rely on antibodies.
Public data and open source tools for multi-assay genomic investigation of disease

Lavanya Kannan,Marcel Ramos,Angela Re,Nehme El-Hachem,Zhaleh Safikhani,Deena M.A. Gendoo,Sean Davis,David Gomez-Cabrero,Robert Castelo,Kasper D. Hansen,Vincent J. Carey,Martin Morgan,Aedín C. Culhane,Benjamin Haibe-Kains,Levi Waldron

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbv080

IF: 9.5

2015-10-12

Briefings in Bioinformatics

Abstract:Molecular interrogation of a biological sample through DNA sequencing, RNA and microRNA profiling, proteomics and other assays, has the potential to provide a systems level approach to predicting treatment response and disease progression, and to developing precision therapies. Large publicly funded projects have generated extensive and freely available multi-assay data resources; however, bioinformatic and statistical methods for the analysis of such experiments are still nascent. We review multi-assay genomic data resources in the areas of clinical oncology, pharmacogenomics and other perturbation experiments, population genomics and regulatory genomics and other areas, and tools for data acquisition. Finally, we review bioinformatic tools that are explicitly geared toward integrative genomic data visualization and analysis. This review provides starting points for accessing publicly available data and tools to support development of needed integrative methods.

biochemical research methods,mathematical & computational biology
Special Issue "Immunoanalytical and Bioinformatics Methods in Immunology Research"

Anton Popov,Almira Ramanaviciene

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25020979

IF: 5.6

2024-01-13

International Journal of Molecular Sciences

Abstract:To effectively control and prevent diseases on a global scale, it is essential to employ precise, sensitive, selective, and rapid immunoanalytical methods [...]

biochemistry & molecular biology,chemistry, multidisciplinary
Standards in semen examination: publishing reproducible and reliable data based on high-quality methodology

Lars Björndahl,Christopher L R Barratt,David Mortimer,Ashok Agarwal,Robert J Aitken,Juan G Alvarez,Natalie Aneck-Hahn,Stefan Arver,Elisabetta Baldi,Lluís Bassas,Florence Boitrelle,Riana Bornman,Douglas T Carrell,José A Castilla,Gerardo Cerezo Parra,Jerome H Check,Patricia S Cuasnicu,Sally Perreault Darney,Christiaan de Jager,Christopher J De Jonge,Joël R Drevet,Erma Z Drobnis,Stefan S Du Plessis,Michael L Eisenberg,Sandro C Esteves,Evangelini A Evgeni,Alberto Ferlin,Nicolas Garrido,Aleksander Giwercman,Ilse G F Goovaerts,Trine B Haugen,Ralf Henkel,Lars Henningsohn,Marie-Claude Hofmann,James M Hotaling,Piotr Jedrzejczak,Pierre Jouannet,Niels Jørgensen,Jackson C Kirkman Brown,Csilla Krausz,Maciej Kurpisz,Ulrik Kvist,Dolores J Lamb,Hagai Levine,Kate L Loveland,Robert I McLachlan,Ali Mahran,Liana Maree,Sarah Martins da Silva,Michael T Mbizvo,Andreas Meinhardt,Roelof Menkveld,Sharon T Mortimer,Sergey Moskovtsev,Charles H Muller,Maria José Munuce,Monica Muratori,Craig Niederberger,Cristian O’Flaherty,Rafael Oliva,Willem Ombelet,Allan A Pacey,Michael A Palladino,Ranjith Ramasamy,Liliana Ramos,Nathalie Rives,Eduardo Rs Roldan,Susan Rothmann,Denny Sakkas,Andrea Salonia,Maria Cristina Sánchez-Pozo,Rosanna Sapiro,Stefan Schlatt,Peter N Schlegel,Hans-Christian Schuppe,Rupin Shah,Niels E Skakkebæk,Katja Teerds,Igor Toskin,Herman Tournaye,Paul J Turek,Gerhard van der Horst,Monica Vazquez-Levin,Christina Wang,Alex Wetzels,Theodosia Zeginiadou,Armand Zini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac189

IF: 6.1

2022-09-16

Human Reproduction

Abstract:Abstract Biomedical science is rapidly developing in terms of more transparency, openness and reproducibility of scientific publications. This is even more important for all studies that are based on results from basic semen examination. Recently two concordant documents have been published: the 6th edition of the WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen, and the International Standard ISO 23162:2021. With these tools, we propose that authors should be instructed to follow these laboratory methods in order to publish studies in peer-reviewed journals, preferable by using a checklist as suggested in an Appendix to this article.

obstetrics & gynecology,reproductive biology
Recommendations to enhance rigor and reproducibility in biomedical research

Jaqueline J. Brito,Jun Li,Jason H. Moore,Casey S. Greene,Nicole A. Nogoy,Lana X. Garmire,Serghei Mangul

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2001.05127

2020-07-28

Abstract:Computational methods have reshaped the landscape of modern biology. While the biomedical community is increasingly dependent on computational tools, the mechanisms ensuring open data, open software, and reproducibility are variably enforced by academic institutions, funders, and publishers. Publications may present academic software for which essential materials are or become unavailable, such as source code and documentation. Publications that lack such information compromise the role of peer review in evaluating technical strength and scientific contribution. Incomplete ancillary information for an academic software package may bias or limit any subsequent work produced with the tool. We provide eight recommendations across four different domains to improve reproducibility, transparency, and rigor in computational biology - precisely on the main values which should be emphasized in life science curricula. Our recommendations for improving software availability, usability, and archival stability aim to foster a sustainable data science ecosystem in biomedicine and life science research.

Other Quantitative Biology

Methods, techniques, assays and protocols

General Methods in Biomarker Research and their Applications

Methods for screening and evaluation of antimicrobial activity: A review of protocols, advantages, and limitations

Antibacterial Peptide Protocols

Tackling reproducibility: lessons for the proteomics community

Abstract IA01: New assays, old specimens: Multiplexing for plasma and urine.

Impact of quality and transparency in scientific writing on the reduction of animal usage in experimental protocols: a review based in pertinent literature

Improving reproducibility in animal research

Automation in the Life Science Research Laboratory

Automated Microsampling Technologies and Enhancements in the 3Rs

Biologically grounded scientific methods: The challenges ahead for combating epidemics

Promoting reusable and open methods and protocols (PRO-MaP) can improve methodological reporting in the life sciences

Best Practices for Data Management and Sharing in Experimental Biomedical Research

Repetition and reproduction of preclinical medical studies: taking a leaf from the plant sciences with consideration of generalised systematic errors

Guidelines on Antibody Use for Physiology Research

Challenges and best practices in omics benchmarking

Antibody characterization is critical to enhance reproducibility in biomedical research

Public data and open source tools for multi-assay genomic investigation of disease

Special Issue "Immunoanalytical and Bioinformatics Methods in Immunology Research"

Standards in semen examination: publishing reproducible and reliable data based on high-quality methodology

Recommendations to enhance rigor and reproducibility in biomedical research