Cargando…
What exactly is ‘N’ in cell culture and animal experiments?
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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5902037/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29617358 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282 |
_version_ | 1783314694321209344 |
---|---|
author | Lazic, Stanley E. Clarke-Williams, Charlie J. Munafò, Marcus R. |
author_facet | Lazic, Stanley E. Clarke-Williams, Charlie J. Munafò, Marcus R. |
author_sort | Lazic, Stanley E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5902037 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59020372018-05-04 What exactly is ‘N’ in cell culture and animal experiments? Lazic, Stanley E. Clarke-Williams, Charlie J. Munafò, Marcus R. PLoS Biol Perspective 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. Public Library of Science 2018-04-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5902037/ /pubmed/29617358 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282 Text en © 2018 Lazic et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Perspective Lazic, Stanley E. Clarke-Williams, Charlie J. Munafò, Marcus R. What exactly is ‘N’ in cell culture and animal experiments? |
title | What exactly is ‘N’ in cell culture and animal experiments? |
title_full | What exactly is ‘N’ in cell culture and animal experiments? |
title_fullStr | What exactly is ‘N’ in cell culture and animal experiments? |
title_full_unstemmed | What exactly is ‘N’ in cell culture and animal experiments? |
title_short | What exactly is ‘N’ in cell culture and animal experiments? |
title_sort | what exactly is ‘n’ in cell culture and animal experiments? |
topic | Perspective |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5902037/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29617358 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lazicstanleye whatexactlyisnincellcultureandanimalexperiments AT clarkewilliamscharliej whatexactlyisnincellcultureandanimalexperiments AT munafomarcusr whatexactlyisnincellcultureandanimalexperiments |