Recommendations for minimum information for publication of experimental pathology data: MINPEPA guidelines

Journal of Pathology

Volumn 238, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 359-367

  Scudamore, Cheryl L ^a   Soilleux, Elizabeth J ^b   Karp, Natasha A ^c   Smith, Ken ^d   Poulsom, Richard ^e   Simon Herrington, C ^f   Day, Michael J ^g   Brayton, Cory F ^h   Bolon, Brad ⁱ   Whitelaw, Bruce ^j   White, Eric S ^k   Everitt, Jeffrey I ^l   Arends, Mark J ^f  

^a MRC MAMMALIAN GENETICS UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c WELLCOME TRUST SANGER INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^d ROYAL VETERINARY COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

^e QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^h JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

ⁱ GEMpath Inc   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^k UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^l DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

ARRIVE; Experimental pathology; Guidelines; Review; Translational research

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL TISSUE; ANTIBODY LABELING; AUTOPSY; DATA PROCESSING; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; INFORMATION; MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY; NONHUMAN; PATHOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; SAMPLING; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; ANIMAL; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION; ANIMALS; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MODELS, ANIMAL; PATHOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PUBLICATIONS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH;

EID: 84951335178     PISSN: 00223417     EISSN: 10969896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/path.4642     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. McGonigle P, Ruggeri B,. Animal models of human disease: challenges in enabling translation. Biochem Pharmacol 2014; 87: 162-171.
2. Veazey RS,. Animal models for microbicide safety and efficacy testing. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2013; 8: 295-303.
3. Zambrowicz BP, Sands AT,. Knockouts model the 100 best-selling drugs-will they model the next 100? Nature Rev Drug Discov 2003; 2: 38-51.
4. Collins FS, Tabak LA,. Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature 2014; 505: 612-613.
5. Begley CG, Ioannidis JPA,. Reproducibility in science. Improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circ Res 2015; 116: 116-126.
6. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K,. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Rev Drug Discov 2011; 10: 712.
7. Mak IW, Evaniew N, Ghert M,. Lost in translation: animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment. Am J Transl Res 2014; 15: 114-118.
8. Scott S, Kranz JE, Cole J, et al., Design, power, and interpretation of studies in the standard murine model of ALS. Amyotroph Lateral Scler 2008; 9: 4-15.
9. Mergenthaler P, Meisel A,. Do stroke models model stroke? Dis Model Mech 2012; 5: 718-725.
10. Rangarajan A, Weinberg RA,. Opinion: Comparative biology of mouse versus human cells: modelling human cancer in mice. Nature Rev Cancer 2003; 3: 952-959.
11. Mestas J, Hughes CC,. Of mice and not men: differences between mouse and human immunology. J Immunol 2004; 172: 2731-2738.
12. Gigliuto C, De Gregori M, Malafoglia V, et al., Pain assessment in animal models: do we need further studies? J Pain Res 2014; 7: 227-236.
13. Cardiff RD, Ward JM, Barthold SW,. 'One medicine-one pathology': are human and veterinary pathology prepared? Lab Invest 2008; 88: 18-26.
14. Baker D, Kidster K, Sottomoyer A, et al., Two years later: journals are not yet enforcing the ARRIVE guidelines on reporting standards for pre-clinical animal studies. PLoS Biol 2014; 12: e1001756.
15. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, et al., Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 2010; 8: e1000412.
16. National Research Council, Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR). Guidance for the Description of Animal Research in Scientific Publications. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011.
17. [Reprinted in ILAR J 2014; 55: 536-540. doi:10.1093/ilar/ilu070.]
18. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research [Accessed 20 July 2015 ]. Available from: http://www.nih.gov/science/reproducibility/principles-guidelines.htm
19. Bustin SA, Benes V, Garson JA, et al., The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clin Chem 2009; 55: 611-622.
20. Huggett JF, Foy CA, Benes V, et al., The digital MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative digital PCR experiments. Clin Chem 2013; 59: 892-902.
21. True L., Methodological requirements for valid tissue-based biomarker studies that can be used in clinical practice. Virchows Arch 2014; 464: 257-263.
22. Stout D, Berr SS, LeBlanc A, et al., Guidance for methods descriptions used in preclinical imaging papers. Mol Imaging 2013; 12: 1-15.
23. Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath). Datasets and Tissue Pathways [Accessed 19 July 2015 ]. Available from: http://www.rcpath.org/publications-media/publications/datasets/datasets-TP.htm
24. Duggan MA, Goswami R, Magliocco AM, et al., Canadian Association of Pathologists (Association Canadienne des Pathologistes) Working Group. Guidelines for the review of pathology in the research context. Surgery 2013; 154: 111-115.
25. Scudamore CL, Smith K, Hodgson H, et al., The effect of post mortem delay on immunohistochemical staining-a short review. Comp Clin Pathol 2011; 20: 95-101.
26. Lum H, Mitzner W,. Effects of 10% formalin fixation on fixed lung volume and lung tissue shrinkage. A comparison of eleven laboratory species. Am Rev Respir Dis 1985; 132: 1078-1083
27. Sompuram SR, Vani K, Messana E, et al., A molecular mechanism of formalin fixation and antigen retrieval. Am J Clin Pathol 2004; 121: 190-199.
28. Suvarna KS, Layton C, Bancroft JD,. Bancroft's Theory and Practice of Histological Techniques (7th edn). Churchill Livingstone: Philadelphia, 2012.
29. Buesa RJ, Peshkov MV,. Histology without xylene. Ann Diagn Pathol 2009; 13: 246-256.
30. Willard MD, Moore GE, Denton BD, et al., Effect of tissue processing on assessment of endoscopic intestinal biopsies in dogs and cats. J Vet Intern Med 2010; 24: 84-89.
31. Smith NR, Womack C,. A matrix approach to guide IHC-based tissue biomarker development in oncology drug discovery. J Pathol 2014; 232: 190-198.
32. Brown NA, Betz BL, Weigelin HC, et al., Evaluation of allele-specific PCR and immunohistochemistry for the detection of BRAF V600E mutations in hairy cell leukemia. Am J Clin Pathol 2015; 143: 89-99.
33. Begley CG,. Reproducibility: six red flags for suspect work. Nature 2013; 497: 433-434
34. Hewitt SM, Baskin DG, Frevert CW, et al., Controls for immunohistochemistry: The Histochemical Society's standards of practice for validation of immunohistochemical assays. J Histochem Cytochem 2014; 62: 693-697.
35. Ramos-Vara JA, Miller MA,. When tissue antigens and antibodies get along: revisiting the technical aspects of immunohistochemistry-the red, brown, and blue technique. Vet Pathol 2014; 51: 42-87.
36. Werner M, Wilkens L, Aubele M, et al., Interphase cytogenetics in pathology: principles, methods, and applications of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Histochem Cell Biol 1997; 108: 3813-3890.
37. Horbinski C, Miller CR, Perry A,. Gone FISHing: clinical lessons learned in brain tumor molecular diagnostics over the last decade. Brain Pathol 2011; 21: 57-73.
38. McInnes EF,. Background Lesions in Laboratory Animals: A Color Atlas. Saunders, Elsevier: Edinburgh, 2011.
39. Mann PC, Vahle J, Keenan CM, et al., International harmonization of toxicologic pathology nomenclature: an overview and review of basic principles. Toxicol Pathol 2012; 40 (Suppl): 7S-13S.
40. Schofield PN, Sundberg JP, Sundberg BA, et al., The mouse pathology ontology, MPATH: structure and applications. J Biomed Semantics 2013; 4: 18.
41. Shackleford C, Long G, Wolf J, et al., Qualitative and quantitative analysis of nonneoplastic lesions in toxicology studies. Toxicol Pathol 2002; 30: 93-96.
42. Gibson-Corley KN, Olivier AK, Meyerholz DK,. Principles for valid histopathologic scoring in research. Vet Pathol 2013; 50: 1007-1015.
43. Klopfleisch R., Multiparametric and semiquantitative scoring systems for the evaluation of mouse model histopathology-a systematic review. BMC Vet Res 2013; 9: 123.
44. Morse HC, Anver MR, Fredrickson TN, et al., Hematopathology subcommittee of the Mouse Models of Human Cancers Consortium. Bethesda proposals for classification of lymphoid neoplasms in mice. Blood 2002; 100: 246-258.
45. Kogan SC, Ward JM, Anver MR, et al., Bethesda proposals for classification of lymphoid neoplasms in mice. Blood 2002; 100: 238-245.
46. Rousseaux CG, Gad SC,. Statistical assessment of toxicologic pathology studies. In Haschek and Rousseaux's Handbook of Toxicologic Pathology (3rd edn), Vol 2, Haschek WM, Rousseaux CG, Wallig MA, et al (eds). Academic Press (Elsevier): San Diego, 2013; 894-988.
47. Scudamore CL,. Practical approaches to reviewing and recording pathology data. In A Practical Guide to Histology of the Mouse, Scudamore CL, (ed). Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, 2014; 25-41.
48. Bebarta V, Luyten D, Heard K,. Emergency medicine animal research: does use of randomization and blinding affect the results? Acad Emerg Med 2003; 10: 684-687.
49. Burkhardt JE, Pandher K, Solter PF, et al., Recommendations for the evaluation of pathology data in nonclinical safety biomarker qualification studies. Toxicol Pathol 2011; 39: 1129-1137.
50. Neef N, Nikula K, Francke-Carroll S, et al., Regulatory forum opinion piece: blind reading of histopathology slides in general toxicology studies. Toxicol Pathol 2012; 40: 697-699.
51. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Guidance Document 116 on the Conduct and Design of Chronic Toxicity and Carcinogenicity Studies, Supporting Test Guidelines 451, 452 and 453, 2nd edn. Series on Testing and Assessment, No 116, 2014 [Accessed 20 July 2015]. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ENV/JM/MONO(2011(47&doclanguage=en
52. Holland T, Holland C,. Analysis of unbiased histopathology data from rodent toxicity studies (or, are these groups different enough to ascribe it to treatment?). Toxicol Pathol 2011; 39: 569-575.
53. Treuting PM, Dintzis SM, (eds). Comparative Anatomy and Histology: A Mouse and Human Atlas. Academic Press (Elsevier): London, 2012.
54. Bolon B, (ed). Pathology of the Developing Mouse: A Systematic Approach. CRC Press (Taylor & Francis): Boca Raton, FL, 2015.
55. Ince TA, Ward JM, Valli VE, et al., Do-it-yourself (DIY) pathology. Nature Biotechnol 2008; 26: 978-979.
56. Bolon B, Barale-Thomas E, Bradley A, et al., International recommendations for training future toxicologic pathologists participating in regulatory-type, nonclinical toxicity studies. Toxicol Pathol 2010; 38: 984-992.
57. Schofield PN, Brown SD, Sundberg JP, et al., PRIME importance of pathology expertise. Nature Biotechnol 2009; 27: 24-25.
58. McGavin MD,. Factors affecting visibility of a target tissue in histologic sections. Vet Pathol 2014; 51: 9-27.
59. Rossner M, Yamada KM,. What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation. J Cell Biol 2004; 166: 11-15.
60. Cromey DW,. Avoiding twisted pixels: ethical guidelines for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital images. Sci Eng Ethics 2010; 16: 639-667.
61. Lang TA, Talerico C, Siontis GCM,. Documenting clinical and laboratory images in publications: the CLIP principles. Chest 2012; 141: 1626-1632.