The Influence of Behavioral, Social, and Environmental Factors on Reproducibility and Replicability in Aquatic Animal Models

The publication of reproducible, replicable, and translatable data in studies utilizing animal models is a scientific, practical, and ethical necessity. This requires careful planning and execution of experiments and accurate reporting of results. Recognition that numerous developmental, environmental, and test-related factors can affect experimental outcomes is essential for a quality study design. Factors commonly considered when designing studies utilizing aquatic animal species include strain, sex, or age of the animal; water quality; temperature; and acoustic and light conditions. However, in the aquatic environment, it is equally important to consider normal species behavior, group dynamics, stocking density, and environmental complexity, including tank design and structural enrichment. Here, we will outline normal species and social behavior of 2 commonly used aquatic species: zebrafish (Danio rerio) and Xenopus (X. laevis and X. tropicalis). We also provide examples as to how these behaviors and the complexity of the tank environment can influence research results and provide general recommendations to assist with improvement of reproducibility and replicability, particularly as it pertains to behavior and environmental complexity, when utilizing these popular aquatic models. © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. All rights reserved.A.V.K. research was supported by the Russian Science Foundation grant 19-15-00053. He is the Chair of the International Zebrafish Neuroscience Research Consortium (ZNRC). This collaboration was supported, in part, through the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748. The authors would like to thank Gregory Paull for sharing his photographs and insight into the natural habitat of zebrafish in Bangladesh

What should we be selecting for? A systematic approach for determining which personal characteristics to assess for during admissions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Admission committees are responsible for creating fair, defensible, reliable, and valid processes that assess those attributes considered important for professional success. There is evidence for the continuing use of academic ability as a selection criterion for health professional schools; however, there is little evidence for the reliability and validity of measures currently in place to assess personal characteristics. The Ontario Veterinary College (OVC) initiated a review of its admissions criteria in order to implement an evidence-based method to determine which characteristics veterinary stakeholders consider important to assess for admission.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eleven characteristics were identified by the OVC Admissions Committee and a survey was sent to all licensed veterinarians in Ontario (n=4,068), OVC students (n=450), and OVC faculty, interns and residents (n=192). A paired comparison method was used to identify the relative rank order of the characteristics, and multivariate analysis of variance with post hoc analyses was used to determine between group differences in the returned survey data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Surveys were returned from 1,312 participants (27.86% response rate; female 59.70%). The relative rank of the characteristics was reasonably consistent among participant groups, with ethical behaviour, sound judgment, communication, and critical and creative thinking being ranked as the top four. However, the importance of certain characteristics like communication and empathy were perceived differently by groups. For instance, females scored communication (<it>F</it>(1, 1289) = 20.24, <it>p</it> < .001, <it>d</it> = .26) and empathy (<it>F</it>(1, 1289) = 55.41, <it>p</it> < .001, <it>d</it> = 0.42) significantly higher than males, while males scored knowledge of profession (<it>F</it>(1, 1289) = 12.81, <it>p</it> < .001, <it>d</it> = 0.20), leadership (<it>F</it>(1, 1289) = 10.28, <it>p</it> = .001, <it>d</it> = 0.18), and sound judgment (<it>F</it>(1, 1289) = 13.56, <it>p</it> < .001, <it>d</it> = 0.21) significantly higher than females.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The data from the paired comparison method provide convergent evidence for the characteristics participant groups identify as most important in determining who should be admitted to a veterinary program. The between group analyses provides important information regarding characteristics most important to various subgroups; this has implications for what characteristics are selected for at admission as well as on who is selecting for them.</p