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

PLoS Biology

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2018, Pages

  Lazic, Stanley E ^a   Clarke Williams, Charlie J ^b   Munafò, Marcus R ^b  

^a ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL CELL; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER CELL LINE; CELL CULTURE; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CELL PROLIFERATION; DECISION MAKING; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; FEMALE; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; LUNG CANCER CELL LINE; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PROGENY; RANDOMIZATION; RAT; SAMPLE SIZE; SEX DIFFERENCE; ANIMAL; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION; ANIMALS; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85046350458     PISSN: 15449173     EISSN: 15457885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Dunn HL, Application of statistical methods in physiology. Physiological Reviews. 1929;9(2): 275–398.
2. Haseman JK, Hogan MD, Selection of the experimental unit in teratology studies. Teratology. 1975;12: 165–171. doi: 10.1002/tera.1420120209 1198327
3. Hurlbert SH, Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr. 1984;54(2): 187–211.
4. Prosser JI, Replicate or lie. Environ Microbiol. 2010;12(7): 1806–1810. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2010.02201.x 20438583
5. Ramirez CC, Fuentes-Contreras E, Rodriguez LC, Niemeyer HM, Pseudoreplication and its frequency in olfactometric laboratory studies. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2000;26(6): 1423–1431.
6. Morrison DA, Morris EC, Pseudoreplication in experimental designs for the manipulation of seed germination treatments. Austral Ecology. 2000;25(3): 292–296.
7. Lazic SE, The problem of pseudoreplication in neuroscientific studies: Is it affecting your analysis?BMC Neurosci. 2010;11: 5. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-11-5 20074371
8. Altman DG, Bland JM, Statistics notes. units of analysis. BMJ. Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Institute of Health Sciences, Oxford. 1997;314: 1874.
9. Fisher RA, The design of experiments. 8th ed. Hafner Publishing Company, NY; 1971.
10. Box GEP, Hunter JS, Hunter WG, Statistics for Experimenters: Design, Innovation, and Discovery. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2005.
11. Casella G, Statistical Design. New York, NY: Springer; 2008.
12. Hinkelmann K, Kempthorne O, Design and Analysis of Experiments, Volume 1: Introduction to Experimental Design. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2008.
13. Mead R, Gilmour SG, Mead A, Statistical Principles for the Design of Experiments: Applications to Real Experiments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
14. Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, Austin CP, Blumenstein R, Bradley EW, et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature. 2012;490: 187–191. doi: 10.1038/nature11556 23060188
15. Vaux DL, Fidler F, Cumming G, Replicates and repeats–what is the difference and is it significant? A brief discussion of statistics and experimental design. EMBO Rep. 2012;13(4): 291–296. doi: 10.1038/embor.2012.36 22421999
16. Vaux DL, Research methods: Know when your numbers are significant. Nature. 2012;492: 180–181. doi: 10.1038/492180a 23235861
17. Mundry R, Oelze VM, Who is who matters-The effects of pseudoreplication in stable isotope analyses. Am J Primatol. 2016;78(10): 1017–1030. doi: 10.1002/ajp.22499 26581644
18. Forstmeier W, Wagenmakers EJ, Parker TH, Detecting and avoiding likely false-positive findings—a practical guide. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2016;
19. Colegrave N, Ruxton GD, Statistical model specification and power: recommendations on the use of test-qualified pooling in analysis of experimental data. Proc Biol Sci. 2017;284.
20. Tincani FH, Galvan GL, Marques AEML, Santos GS, Pereira LS, da Silva TA, et al. Pseudoreplication and the usage of biomarkers in ecotoxicological bioassays. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2017;36(10): 2868–2874. doi: 10.1002/etc.3823 28402053
21. Lazic SE, Experimental Design for Laboratory Biologists: Maximising Information and Improving Reproducibility. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2016.
22. Goodman S, A dirty dozen: Twelve p-value misconceptions. Semin Hematol. 2008;45(3): 135–140. doi: 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2008.04.003 18582619
23. International Conference on Harmonisation. Detection of toxicity to reproduction for medicinal products and toxicity to male fertility. S5(R2). 1993; http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Safety/S5/Step4/S5_R2__Guideline.pdf. [cited 2018 Mar 26].
24. OECD. Guideline for the testing of chemicals: Developmental neurotoxicity study. 2007; 1–26. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/test-no-426-developmental-neurotoxicity-study_5l4fg25mnkxs.pdf;jsessionid=12ic71yg7bopl.delta?contentType=/ns/Book&itemId=/content/book/9789264067394-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/20745788&accessItemIds=&mimeType=application/pdf. [cited 2018 Mar 26].
25. Lazic SE, Essioux L, Improving basic and translational science by accounting for litter-to-litter variation in animal models. BMC Neurosci. 2013;14: 37. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-14-37 23522086
26. Bebarta V, Luyten D, Heard K, Emergency medicine animal research: Does use of randomization and blinding affect the results?Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10(6): 684–687. 12782533
27. Macleod MR, van der Worp HB, Sena ES, Howells DW, Dirnagl U, Donnan GA, Evidence for the efficacy of NXY-059 in experimental focal cerebral ischaemia is confounded by study quality. Stroke. 2008;39(10): 2824–2829. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.515957 18635842
28. Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, Festing MFW, Cuthill IC, Fry D, et al. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS ONE. 2009;4: e7824. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007824 19956596
29. Button KS, Ioannidis JPA, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ESJ, et al. Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14: 365–376. doi: 10.1038/nrn3475 23571845
30. Festing MFW, Principles: The need for better experimental design. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2003;24(7): 341–345. doi: 10.1016/S0165-6147(03)00159-7 12871666
31. Kalbassi S, Bachmann SO, Cross E, Roberton VH, Baudouin SJ, Male and female mice lacking neuroligin-3 modify the behavior of their wild-type littermates. eNeuro. 2017;4. doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0145-17.2017 28795135
32. Matthews JN, Altman DG, Campbell MJ, Royston P, Analysis of serial measurements in medical research. BMJ. 1990;300: 230–235. 2106931
33. Faraway JJ, Extending the Linear Model with R: Generalized Linear, Mixed Effects and Nonparametric Regression Models. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press; 2006.
34. Gelman A, Hill J, Data Analysis using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
35. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM, Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R. New York: Springer; 2009.
36. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, et al. Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009;24(3): 127–135. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008 19185386