Back

Improving replicability using interaction with laboratories: a multi-lab experimental assessment

Jaljuli, I.; Kafkafi, N.; Giladi, E.; Golani, I.; Gozes, I.; Chesler, E.; Bogue, M. A.; Bemjamini, Y.

2021-12-07 animal behavior and cognition
10.1101/2021.12.05.471264 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Experimentation with mouse and rat models has become a central strategy for discovering mammalian gene function, and for preclinical testing of pharmacological treatments, yet the utility of any findings critically depends on their replicability in other laboratories. In previous publications we proposed a statistical approach for estimating the inter-laboratory replicability of novel discoveries made in a single laboratory. We demonstrated that previous phenotyping results from multi-lab databases can be used to derive a Genotype-by-Lab (GxL) adjustment factor to greatly enhance the replicability of the single-lab findings, for similarly measured phenotypes, even before making the effort of replicating these finding in additional laboratories. This demonstration, however, still raised several important questions that could only be answered by an additional large-scale prospective experiment: 1) Does GxL-adjustment work in single-lab experiments that were not intended to be standardized across laboratories, and with genotypes that were not included in the previous experiments? And 2) Can it be used to adjust the results of pharmacological experiments? We investigated these questions by attempting to replicate, across three laboratories, results from five single-lab studies in the Mouse Phenome Database (MPD), offering 212 comparisons, including 60 involving a pharmacological treatment: 18 mg/kg/day fluoxetine. In addition, we define and use a dimensionless GxL factor, by dividing the GxL variance by the standard deviation between animals within groups, as a more robust vehicle to transfer the adjustment from the multi-lab analysis to very different labs and genotypes. For genotype comparisons, GxL-adjustment reduced the rate of non-replicable discoveries from 60% to 12%, for the price of reducing the power to make replicable discoveries from 87% to 66%. In absolute numbers, the adjustment prevented 23 non-replicable discoveries for the price of missing only three replicated ones. Tools and data needed for deployment of this method across other mouse experiments are publicly available in MPD. Our results further point at some phenotypes as more prone to produce non-replicable results, while others, known to be more difficult to measure, are as likely to produce replicable results (once adjusted) such as the physiological measure, body weight.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.5%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 19%
9.7%
3
Genes, Brain and Behavior
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.3%
4
Behavior Research Methods
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
Frontiers in Pharmacology
111 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.6%
7
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 22%
4.4%
8
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 27%
4.4%
9
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
122 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.1%
10
Behavior Genetics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
11
European Journal of Neuroscience
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
12
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
13
Neuropsychopharmacology
153 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
14
Frontiers in Psychiatry
87 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
15
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.0%
16
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.9%
17
Animal Cognition
23 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
18
Open Research Europe
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
19
Disease Models & Mechanisms
119 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
20
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 39%
0.6%
21
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
22
Behavioural Processes
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%