Preclinical research trials are know to be performed on a single lab creature such as rodent, pig, fruit fly, or monkey. Most recent research appears that having an animal model and conditional differences in the studies can progress the quality of research. For example, in the event that a lab conducts a study on a rodent at that point another lab must consider the same trial but individual conditions and share their data and performance in collaboration, this will decrease the time and cost used. How can animal variety influence reproducibility of pre-clinical research?
The animal variety can influence the reproducibility of a pre-clinical research because the models are different. How a medication works in on animal may not work the same way in another animal. This is one the major challenges that pharmaceutical companies face when trying to replicate the results seen in animal models in humans. The interaction are just not the same some times.
Preclinical research trials are know to be performed on a single lab creature such as rodent, pig, fruit fly, or monkey. Most recent research appears that having an animal model and conditional differences in the studies can progress the quality of research. For example, in the event that a lab conducts a study on a rodent at that point another lab must consider the same trial but individual conditions and share their data and performance in collaboration, this will decrease the time and cost used. How can animal variety influence reproducibility of pre-clinical research?
The animal variety can influence reproducibility because not all animals are made the same. Some react different different therapies. Also, illness, tumors, etc. are formed differently in different animals because of their anatomy. No two animals will produces the same results because of these facts. For instance, even though a lot of labs use rats to test cancer drugs, they can not be 100% sure what type of effect that drug will have in a human because it could work in a rat but not a human.
@rajamharrison I think you did a great job highlighting an important idea that interspecies differences does exist. Even within humans we've seen remarkable differences in who presents Covid symptoms, who is asymptomatic, who survives, and who dies from the virus. If we as a species are so different from one another, we can only imagine what possibilities exist among other species. Medicine today has been based largely upon data with male bias which is why oftentimes women don't respond as positively to treatments. Even car seat belts have been designed for male bodies in collisions and severely underestimates the impact it can have on women as their data sets have not even been considered. It is unfair to assume that data collected from men will be sufficient for application in women and similarly data collected from another species may not be enough to apply to humans directly with all the possibilities of variation that can exist.
Preclinical research trials are know to be performed on a single lab creature such as rodent, pig, fruit fly, or monkey. Most recent research appears that having an animal model and conditional differences in the studies can progress the quality of research. For example, in the event that a lab conducts a study on a rodent at that point another lab must consider the same trial but individual conditions and share their data and performance in collaboration, this will decrease the time and cost used. How can animal variety influence reproducibility of pre-clinical research?
I believe this is an interesting topic. You may order a shipment of several guinea pigs from one breeder, however, the results of which you are referencing may have purchased their shipment from a different one. Despite both labs ordering the same type, due to the fact that they have come from different litters or bloodlines, may impact the differences in results. One litter may be bred with genetic issue in their blood which appears from time to time with generation, this we may call litter A. While the other litter may have a history of a degenerative bone disorder, this we may call litter B. For one study, litter A may do well for studies regarding the integrity of their bones. However, should anything need to be done regarding their blood, results may be skewed. The same scenario may be applied to litter B in vice versa.
@ridmehta I completely agree with your point about the male bias in research and medicine. Another important point to add to your argument is that it was not until 2016, only five years ago, that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) mandated that female animals be included in pre-clinical trials (Miller, Kenneth. “How Health Care Fails Women.” Prevention 70, no. 6 (June 2018): 46–53.). Even today, most animals used are male, which makes the actual clinical trials more dangerous for women as they do not know how medications will act differently for them if they do not test them on female animals first. It is important to make sure each animal study is diverse in having an equal amount of male and female animals to ensure safety for any women in future human clinical trials, or as future consumers of the researched product.
Preclinical research trials are know to be performed on a single lab creature such as rodent, pig, fruit fly, or monkey. Most recent research appears that having an animal model and conditional differences in the studies can progress the quality of research. For example, in the event that a lab conducts a study on a rodent at that point another lab must consider the same trial but individual conditions and share their data and performance in collaboration, this will decrease the time and cost used. How can animal variety influence reproducibility of pre-clinical research?
While all animals share a degree of genetic similarity, as we go further down the classification system, those similarities increase. Humans share approximately ninety-eight percent genetic similarity with pigs and almost ninety-nine percent with chimpanzees. Animal studies and trials that utilize these mammals generally portray accurate representations of how the mechanisms and reactions to a drug or substance may translate in human subjects. That being said, it is difficult to ascertain exactly how every individual will tolerate anything even with great or identical genetic similarity especially across sex. Animal variety can influence the reproducibility of pre-clinical trials in that using different animals to reproduce studies may present a more well rounded picture of how a medication may effect the end-user, which are usually humans. For example if a drug is tested in rodents initially and the study is reproduced in pigs, there may be differences in the pathways, tolerances, and metabolism of the drug within the different organisms. This can help researchers see how it may effect humans should the drug be advanced to human trials and certain side effects can be expected to occur. Variety in animals results in variety in outcomes which in clinical research is invaluable as it can determine if the drug is suitable for human consumption.
I believe animal diversity can have a very positive influence on the pre-clinical trials of any drug or device. Since many of the animals used in research, such as pigs, rodents, and rabbits, are similar in physiology and genetic make up, this can allow researchers to compare and contrast the side effects and efficacies of drugs in each type of animal to establish a reference to how the drug would perform in humans.
Diversity in clinical trials is as close as we can get to emulating diversity amongst humans. We know that the body does not react the same to drugs or therapies based on ethnic backgrounds and diverse genomes. Diversity in animals used in clinical trials allows for variations in data sets. The variations in the data sets result in variations of results. Therefore, a variety of treatments can be offered and a better representation of side effects can be included in the risk of that specific treatment, therapy or drug.
Animal diversity can have a significant impact on the reproducibility of preclinical research, and I've seen this firsthand in my work. When we conduct preclinical trials using a single lab creature, such as rodents, pigs, fruit flies, or monkeys, there are inherent limitations to the generalizability of our findings. Different species can react differently to the same treatment or intervention due to their unique biology, genetics, and physiology.
For instance, if one lab conducts a study on a particular drug using only rodents, and then another lab attempts to replicate the study but with different conditions or a different animal model, there is a risk that the results may not align. This discrepancy can be attributed to variations in how different species metabolize drugs, respond to diseases, or exhibit certain behaviors.
To address this issue, collaboration among labs is crucial. Sharing data and methodologies while using diverse animal models can indeed improve the quality and reproducibility of research. When labs work together and collectively consider various conditions and animal species, it becomes easier to identify the broader patterns and mechanisms underlying the treatments or interventions being studied. This collaborative approach can help ensure that research findings are not just specific to one particular model or set of conditions but have a broader applicability.
Moreover, by using a diverse range of animal models and conditions, researchers can uncover potential side effects or variations in treatment responses that may not be evident when using a single model. This can lead to more comprehensive safety evaluations and a better understanding of how interventions might impact different patient populations.
In conclusion, embracing animal diversity in preclinical research is a valuable strategy to enhance reproducibility. It acknowledges the complexity of biological systems and helps ensure that research findings are robust, reliable, and applicable to a wider range of situations. It's a practice I believe should be encouraged and adopted more widely in the scientific community.
Preclinical research trials are know to be performed on a single lab creature such as rodent, pig, fruit fly, or monkey. Most recent research appears that having an animal model and conditional differences in the studies can progress the quality of research. For example, in the event that a lab conducts a study on a rodent at that point another lab must consider the same trial but individual conditions and share their data and performance in collaboration, this will decrease the time and cost used. How can animal variety influence reproducibility of pre-clinical research?
I think another thing to add about animal variety is the different genetic differences between species. There are many studies that have been published using lab rats with a higher propensity for certain behaviors than others... some even being genetically bred for the purposes of these experiments (Fischer F344 rats). These rats were inbred purposely to cause defects such as increased seizures and unacceptable levels of tumor growth (to name a few of the many increased health complications of inbreeding). If someone were to use THESE rats in a study to justify why certain activities cause cancer/health issues, what's stopping them from comparing them to "control group" healthy rats that have no genetic variation whatsoever. Or perhaps one can use the example of the Naked Mole Rat, a species that has been known to be incredibly cancer resistant, and use that in their studies to prove their "medicine" works in preventing cancer. Obviously there are many checks and balances in place to avoid this, and many different reviewers constantly poking holes in others' articles for this very reason. I mention this only to reference how variety GENETICALLY in animals can also make a drastic impact on pre-clinical research to either massively hinder/support one's own biases towards their research.
