IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/2005282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What exactly is ‘N’ in cell culture and animal experiments?

Author

Listed:
  • Stanley E Lazic
  • Charlie J Clarke-Williams
  • Marcus R Munafò

Abstract

Biologists determine experimental effects by perturbing biological entities or units. When done appropriately, independent replication of the entity–intervention pair contributes to the sample size (N) and forms the basis of statistical inference. If the wrong entity–intervention pair is chosen, an experiment cannot address the question of interest. We surveyed a random sample of published animal experiments from 2011 to 2016 where interventions were applied to parents and effects examined in the offspring, as regulatory authorities provide clear guidelines on replication with such designs. We found that only 22% of studies (95% CI = 17%–29%) replicated the correct entity–intervention pair and thus made valid statistical inferences. Nearly half of the studies (46%, 95% CI = 38%–53%) had pseudoreplication while 32% (95% CI = 26%–39%) provided insufficient information to make a judgement. Pseudoreplication artificially inflates the sample size, and thus the evidence for a scientific claim, resulting in false positives. We argue that distinguishing between biological units, experimental units, and observational units clarifies where replication should occur, describe the criteria for genuine replication, and provide concrete examples of in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo experimental designs.

Suggested Citation

  • Stanley E Lazic & Charlie J Clarke-Williams & Marcus R Munafò, 2018. "What exactly is ‘N’ in cell culture and animal experiments?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-14, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:2005282
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carol Kilkenny & Nick Parsons & Ed Kadyszewski & Michael F W Festing & Innes C Cuthill & Derek Fry & Jane Hutton & Douglas G Altman, 2009. "Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using Animals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(11), pages 1-11, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dean A Fergusson & Marc T Avey & Carly C Barron & Mathew Bocock & Kristen E Biefer & Sylvain Boet & Stephane L Bourque & Isidora Conic & Kai Chen & Yuan Yi Dong & Grace M Fox & Ronald B George & Neil , 2019. "Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Yali Liu & Xingxing Zhao & Yuefen Mai & Xinxin Li & Jin Wang & Lili Chen & Jing Mu & Gengxue Jin & Hongping Gou & Wanting Sun & Yuchen Feng, 2016. "Adherence to ARRIVE Guidelines in Chinese Journal Reports on Neoplasms in Animals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-12, May.
    3. Konrad Neumann & Ulrike Grittner & Sophie K Piper & Andre Rex & Oscar Florez-Vargas & George Karystianis & Alice Schneider & Ian Wellwood & Bob Siegerink & John P A Ioannidis & Jonathan Kimmelman & Ul, 2017. "Increasing efficiency of preclinical research by group sequential designs," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-9, March.
    4. Vivian Leung & Frédérik Rousseau-Blass & Guy Beauchamp & Daniel S J Pang, 2018. "ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesi," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, May.
    5. Beverly S Muhlhausler & Frank H Bloomfield & Matthew W Gillman, 2013. "Whole Animal Experiments Should Be More Like Human Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-6, February.
    6. Marc T Avey & David Moher & Katrina J Sullivan & Dean Fergusson & Gilly Griffin & Jeremy M Grimshaw & Brian Hutton & Manoj M Lalu & Malcolm Macleod & John Marshall & Shirley H J Mei & Michael Rudnicki, 2016. "The Devil Is in the Details: Incomplete Reporting in Preclinical Animal Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-13, November.
    7. Rebecca Tuvel, 2015. "Against the Use of Knowledge Gained from Animal Experimentation," Societies, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-25, March.
    8. Chunyan Cai & Jin Piao & Jing Ning & Xuelin Huang, 2018. "Efficient Two-Stage Designs and Proper Inference for Animal Studies," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 10(1), pages 217-232, April.
    9. Jonathan Kimmelman & Alex John London, 2011. "Predicting Harms and Benefits in Translational Trials: Ethics, Evidence, and Uncertainty," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-5, March.
    10. Malcolm R Macleod & Aaron Lawson McLean & Aikaterini Kyriakopoulou & Stylianos Serghiou & Arno de Wilde & Nicki Sherratt & Theo Hirst & Rachel Hemblade & Zsanett Bahor & Cristina Nunes-Fonseca & Aparn, 2015. "Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-12, October.
    11. David Baker & Katie Lidster & Ana Sottomayor & Sandra Amor, 2014. "Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-6, January.
    12. Catriona J MacCallum, 2010. "Reporting Animal Studies: Good Science and a Duty of Care," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-2, June.
    13. Nicole Fenwick & Peter Danielson & Gilly Griffin, 2011. "Survey of Canadian Animal-Based Researchers' Views on the Three Rs: Replacement, Reduction and Refinement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-14, August.
    14. Carol Kilkenny & William J Browne & Innes C Cuthill & Michael Emerson & Douglas G Altman, 2010. "Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-5, June.
    15. Jonathan A Eisen & Emma Ganley & Catriona J MacCallum, 2014. "Open Science and Reporting Animal Studies: Who's Accountable?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-3, January.
    16. Carlijn R Hooijmans & Rob B M de Vries & Maroeska M Rovers & Hein G Gooszen & Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga, 2012. "The Effects of Probiotic Supplementation on Experimental Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-12, November.
    17. Stanley E Lazic & Johannes Fuss & Peter Gass, 2014. "Quantifying the Behavioural Relevance of Hippocampal Neurogenesis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-14, November.
    18. Judith van Luijk & Brenda Bakker & Maroeska M Rovers & Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga & Rob B M de Vries & Marlies Leenaars, 2014. "Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies; Missing Link in Translational Research?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-5, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:2005282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.