2020
DOI: 10.1038/s41583-020-0313-3
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation

Abstract: Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
247
0
2

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 256 publications
(284 citation statements)
references
References 124 publications
6
247
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, this model can also be used in laboratories that do not have an animal experimental unit. Due to a high biological variation, animal experimentation is influenced by both genotype and environmental conditions resulting in an impaired reproducibility 62 , 63 . Standardization of experimental setup may be one way to address this problem 64 , 65 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, this model can also be used in laboratories that do not have an animal experimental unit. Due to a high biological variation, animal experimentation is influenced by both genotype and environmental conditions resulting in an impaired reproducibility 62 , 63 . Standardization of experimental setup may be one way to address this problem 64 , 65 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More recently, single cell transcriptional profiling of aging C57BL/6NJ mice has been reported for multiple tissues, including kidney [6]. When aging studies are carried out in single inbred strains, they may display specific and idiosyncratic patterns of aging and thus lack generalizability beyond the particular strain studied [7]. In order to capture the full range of pathologies associated with the aging kidney, a genetically diverse set of animals is required.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Changes in average relative abundances are just presented descriptively, changes over time and comparisons between groups should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of individuals in each group. We did not conduct statistical tests to assess changes in relative abundance due to the low statistical power, inter-individual variability, and large number of relevant comparisons [36]. The most abundant phyla in the oral and faecal microbiota of both cows and calves were Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria and Bacteroidetes; the changes in the relative abundance of these phyla between calving and four-weeks are displayed in Supplementary Figure 1.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%