The Future of Preclinical Animal Models in Pharmaceutical Discovery and Development:A Need to Bring In Cerebro to the In Vivo Discussions

Toxicologic Pathology

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 70-77

  Everitt, Jeffrey I ^a  

^a GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United States)

Author keywords

3Rs; animal model; ARRIVE guideline; reproducibility; study bias

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL RESEARCH REPORTING IN VIVO EXPERIMENTS; ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVE; ANIMAL TESTING REDUCTION; ANIMAL TESTING REFINEMENT; ANIMAL TESTING REPLACEMENT; ANIMAL WELFARE; ARTICLE; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SCREENING; EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL; IN VIVO STUDY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; NONHUMAN; PATHOLOGIST; PLANNING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRECLINICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); ANIMAL; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; MOUSE; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; TOXICITY TESTING;

ANIMALIA;

ANIMALS; DRUG DISCOVERY; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; MICE; MODELS, ANIMAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 84921779373     PISSN: 01926233     EISSN: 15331601     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0192623314555162     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Alfaro V. (2005). Specification of laboratory animal use in scientific articles: Current low detail in the journals’ instructions for authors and some proposals. Meth Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 27, 495–502.
2. Baker D. Lidster K. Sottomayor A. Amor S. (2014). Two years later: Journals are not yet enforcing the ARRIVE guidelines on reporting standards for pre-clinical animal studies. PloS Biol 12, e1001756.
3. Begley C. G. (2013). Reproducibility: Six red flags for suspect work. Nature 497, 433–34.
4. Begley C. G. Ellis M. (2012). Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531–33.
5. Chapman K. L. Holsgrefe H. Black L. E. Brown M. Chellman C. Copeman C. Couch J. Creton S. Gehen S. Hoberman A. Kinter L. B. Madden S. Mattis C. Stemple H. A. Wilson S. (2013). Pharmaceutical toxicology: Designing studies to reduce animal use while maximizing human translation. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 66, 88–103.
6. Couzin-Frankel J. (2013). When mice mislead. Science 342, 922–25.
7. Dodd D. C. (1988). Blind slide reading or the uninformed versus the informed pathologist. Comment on Toxicol 2, 81–91.
8. Editorial Board. (2012). The three “Is” of animal experimentation. Nat Genet 44, 611.
9. Ellery A. W. (1985). Guidelines for specification of animals and husbandry methods when reporting the results of animal experiments. Working Committee for the Biological Characterization of Laboratory Animals/GV-SOLAS. Lab Anim 19, 106–8.
10. Emerson M. (2010). Refinement, reduction and replacement approaches to in vivo cardiovascular research. British J Pharmacol 161, 749–54.
11. Fenwick N. Danielson P. Griffen G. (2011). Survey of Canadian animal-based researchers’ views on the three Rs: Replacement, reduction and refinement. PLoS One 8, e22478.
12. Festing M. F. Altman D. G. (2002). Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals. ILAR J 43, 244–58.
13. Hackam D. (2007). Translating animal research into clinical benefit. BMJ 334, 163.
14. Henderson V. C. Kimmelman J. Fergusson D. Grimshaw J. M. Hackam D. G. (2013). Threats to validity in the design and conduct of preclinical efficacy studies: A systematic review of guidelines for in vivo animal experiments. PLoS Med 10, e1001489.
15. Hess K. R. (2011). Statistical design considerations in animal studies published recently in Cancer Research. Cancer Res 71, 625.
16. Hooijmans C. R. de Vries R. Leenaars M. Curfs J. Ritskes-Hoitinga M. (2011). Improving planning, design, reporting and scientific quality of animal experiments by using the Gold Standard Publication Checklist, in addition to the ARRIVE guidelines. Br J Pharmacol 162, 1259–60.
17. Hooijmans C. R. Leenaars M. Ritskes-Hoitinga M. (2010). A gold standard publication checklist to improve the quality of animal studies, to fully integrate the three Rs, and to make systematic reviews more feasible. Altern Lab Anim 38, 167–82.
18. C.R., Hooijmans, M.M., Rovers, R.R.M., de Vries, M., Leenaars, M., Ritskes-Hoitinga, M.W., Langendam, SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies, BMC Med Res Method, doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-43, (2014), 14, 43
19. Howells D. W. Macleod M. R. (2013). Evidence-based translational medicine. Stroke 44, 1466–71.
20. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, National Research Council. 2011. Guidance for the Description of Animal Research in Scientific Publications. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
21. Kilkenny C. Browne W. J. Cuthill I. C. Emerson M. Altman D. G. (2010). Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PloS Biol 8, e1000412.
22. Kilkenny C. Parsons N. Kadyszewski E. Festing M. F. Cuthill I. C. Fry D. Hutton J. Altman D. G. (2009). Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS One 4, e7824.
23. Korevaar D. A. Hooft L. Ter Riet G. (2011). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: Publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Lab Anim 45, 225–30.
24. Landis S. C. Amara S. G. Asadullah K. Austin C. P. Blumenstein R. Bradley E. W. Crystal R. G. Darnell R. B. Ferrante R. J. Fillit H. Finkelstein R. Fisher M. Gendelman H. E. Golub R. M. Goudreau J. L. Gross R. A. Gubitz A. K. Hesterlee S. E. Howells D. W. Huguenard J. Kelner K. Koroshetz W. Krainc D. Lazic S. E. Levine M. S. Macleod M. R. McCall J. M. Moxley R. T. Narasimhan K. Noble L. J. Perrin S. Porter J. D. Steward O. Unger E. Utz U. Silberber S. D. (2012). A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature 490, 187–91.
25. Lindner M. D. (2007). Clinical attrition due to biased preclinical assessments of potential efficacy. Pharmacol Ther 115, 148–75.
26. Macleod M. (2011). Why animal research needs to improve. Nature 477, 511.
27. Macleod M. R. Fisher M. O’Collins V. Sena E. S. Dirnagl U. Bath P. M. Buchan A. van der Worp H. B. Traystman R. J. Minematsu K. Donnan G. A. Howells D. W. (2009). Good laboratory practice: Preventing introduction of bias at the bench. Int J Stroke 4, 3–5.
28. J.C., Madden, M., Hewitt, K., Pryzbylak, R.J., Vandebriel, A.H., Piersma, M.M.D., Cronin, Strategies for the optimisation of in vivo experiments in accordance with the 3Rs philosophy, Reg Toxicol Pharmacol, (2012), 63, 140-154
29. Mella J. R. Chiswick E. L. King E. Remick D. G. (2014). Location, location, location: Cytokine concentrations are dependent on blood sampling site. Shock 42, 337–42.
30. Mestas J. Hughes C. C. (2004). Of mice and not men: Differences between mouse and human immunology. J Immunol 172, 2731.
31. Muhlhausler B. S. Bloomfield F. H. Gillman M. W. (2013). Whole animal experiments should be more like human randomized controlled trials. PLoS Biol 11, e1001481.
32. Osuchkowski M. F. Remick D. G. Lederer J. A. Lang C. H. Aasen A. O. Aibiki M. Azevedo L. C. Bahrami S. Boros M. Cooney R. Cuzzocrea S. Jiang Y. Junger W. G. Hirasawa H. Hotchkiss R. S. Li X. A. Radermacher P. Redl H. Salomao R. Soebandrio A. Thiemermann C. Vincent J. L. Ward P. Yao Y. M. Yu H. P. Zingarelli B. Chaudry I. H. (2014). Abandon the mouse research ship? Not just yet! Shock 41, 463–75.
33. Perel P. Roberts I. Sena E. Wheble P. Briscoe C. Sandercock P. Macleod M. Mignini L. E. Jayaram P. Khan K. S. (2007). Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials. Systematic review. BMJ 334, 197.
34. Perrin S. (2014). Preclinical research: Make mouse studies work. Nature 507, 423–25.
35. Portaluppi F. Touitou Y. Smolensky M. H. (2008). Ethical and methodological standards for laboratory and medical biological rhythm research. Chronobiol Int 25, 999–1016.
36. Pound P. Bracken M. B. (2014). Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research. BMJ 348, g3387.
37. Pound P. Ebrahim S. Sandercock P. Bracken M. Roberts I. (2004). Where is the evidence that animal research benefits. BMJ 328, 514–17.
38. Prinz F. Schlange T. Asadullah K. (2011). Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov 10, 712.
39. Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Leenaars M. Avey M. Rovers M. Scholten R. (2014). Systematic reviews of preclinical animal studies can make significant contributions to health care and more transparent translational medicine. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 28, ED000078.
40. Scott S. Kranz J. E. Cole J. Lincecum J. M. Thompson K. Kelly N. Bostrom A. Theodoss J. Al-Nakhala B. M. Vieira F. G. Ramasubbu J. Heywood J. A. (2008). Design, power, and interpretation of studies in the standard murine model of ALS. Amyotroph Lateral Scler 9, 4–15.
41. Sena E. van derWorp H. B. Howells D. Macleod M. (2007). How can we improve the pre-clinical development of drugs for stroke? Trends Neurosci 30, 433–9.
42. Sena E. S. Currie G. L. McCann S. K. Macleod M. R. Howells D. W. (2014). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of preclinical studies: Why perform them and how to appraise them critically. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 34, 737–42.
43. Sena E. S. van der Worp H. B. Bath P. M. Howells D. W. Macleod M. R. (2010). Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol 8, e1000344.
44. Seok J. Warren H. W. Cuenca A. G. Mindrinos M. N. Baker H. V. Xu W. Richard D. R. McDonald-Smith G. P. Gao H. Hennessy L. Finnerty C. C. Lopez C. M. Honari S. Moore E. E. Minei J. P. Cuschieri J. Bankey P. E. Johnson J. L. Sperry J. Nathens A. B. Billiear T. R. West M. A. Jeschke M. G. Klein M. B. Gamelli R. L. Gibran N. S. Brownstein B. H. Miller-Graziano C. Calvano S. E. Mason P. H. Cobb J. P. Rame L. G. Lowry S. F. Maier R. V. Moldawer L. L. Herndon D. N. Davis R. W. Xiao W. Tompkins R. G. (2013). Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases. PNAS 110, 3507–12.
45. Shineman D. W. Basi G. S. Bizon J. L. Colton C. A. Greenberg B. D. Hollister B. A. Lincecum J. Leblanc G. G. Lee L. H. Luo F. Morgan D. Morse I. Refolo L. F. Riddell D. R. Scearce-Levie K. Sweeney P. Yrjanheikki J. Fillit H. M. (2011). Accelerating drug discovery for Alzheimer’s disease: Best practices for preclinical animal studies. Alzheimers Res Ther 3, 28–41.
46. Sorge R. E. Martin L. J. Isbester K. A. Sotocinal S. G. Rosen S. Tuttle A. H. Wieskopf J. S. Acland E. L. Dokova A. Kadoura B. Leger P. Mappebeck J. C. McPhail M. Delaney A. Wigerblad G. Schumann A. P. Quinn T. Frasnelli J. Svensson C. L. Sternberg W. F. Mogil J. S. (2014). Olfactory exposure to males, including men, causes stress and related analgesia in rodents. Nat Methods 11, 629–32.
47. Stout D. Ber S. S. LeBlanc A. Kalen J. D. Osborne D. Price J. Schiffer W. Kuntner C. Wall J. (2013). Guidance for methods descriptions used in preclinical imaging papers. Mol Imaging 12, 1–15.
48. Sundberg J. P. Roopenian D. C. Liu E. T. Schofield P. N. (2013). The Cinderella effect: Searching for the best fit between mouse models and human diseases. J Invest Dermatol 133, 2509–13.
49. Swaim L. D. Taylor H. W. Jersey G. C. (1985). The effects of handling techniques on serum ALT in mice. J Appl Toxicol 5, 160–62.
50. Taylor C. F. Field D. Sansone S. A. Aerts J. Apweiler R. Ashburner M. Ball C. A. Binz P. A. Bogue M. Booth T. Brazma A. Brinkman R. R. Clark A. M. Deutsch E. W. Fiehn O. Fostel J. Ghazal P. Gibson F. Gray T. Grimes G. Hancock J. M. Hardy N. W. Hermjakob H. Julian R. K. Jr Kane M. Kettner C. Kinsinger C. Kolker E. Kuiper M. Le Novère N. Leebens-Mack J. Lewis S. E. Lord P. Mallon A. M. Marthandan N. Masuya H. McNally R. Mehrle A. Morrison N. Orchard S. Quackenbush J. Reecy J. M. Robertson D. G. Rocca-Serra P. Rodriguez H. Rosenfelder H. Santoyo-Lopez J. Scheuermann R. H. Schober D. Smith B. Snape J. Stoeckert C. J. Jr Tipton K. Sterk P. Untergasser A. Vandesompele J. Wiemann S. (2008). Promoting coherent minimum reporting guidelines for biological and biomedical investigations: The MIBBI project. Nat Biotechnol 26, 889–96.
51. Temple R. Fairweather W. R. Glocklin V. C. O’Neill R. T. (1988). The case for blinded slide reading. Comment on Toxicol 2, 99–109.
52. G., Ter Riet, D.A., Korevaar, M., Leenaars, P.J., Sterk, C.C.F., VanNoorden, L.M., Bouter, R., Lutter, R.R.O., Elferink, L., Hooft, Publication bias in laboratory animal research: A survey on magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions, PLoS One, (2012), 7, e43404
53. K.K., Tsilidis, O.A., Panagiotou, E.S., Sena, E., Aretouli, E., Evangelou, D.W., Howells, R.A., Salman, M.R., Macleod, J.J.A., Ioannidis, Evaluation of excess significance bias in animal studies of neurological diseases, PLoS One, (2013), 11, e1001609
54. van der Worp H. B. (2010). Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Med 7, e100024.
55. van der Worp H. B. Macleod M. R. (2011). Preclinical studies of human disease: Time to take methodological quality seriously. J Mol Cell Cardiol 51, 449–50.
56. Van Luijk J. Bakker B. Rovers M. M. Ritskes-Hoitinga M. de Vries R. B. Leenaars M. (2014). Systematic reviews of animal studies; missing link in translational research? PLoS One 9, e89981.
57. Vesterinen H. V. Egan K. Deister A. Schlattmann P. Macleod M. R. Dirnagl U. (2011). Systematic survey of the design, statistical analysis, and reporting of studies published in the 2008 volume of the Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 31, 1064–72.
58. Vesterinen H. M. Sena E. S. Egan K. J. Hirst T. C. Churolov L. Currie G. L. Antonic A. Howells D. W. Macleod M. R. (2014). Meta-analysis of data from animal studies: A practical guide. J Neurosci Meth 221, 92–102.