Do multiple experimenters improve the reproducibility of animal studies?

The credibility of scientific research has been seriously questioned by the widely claimed "reproducibility crisis". In light of this crisis, there is a growing awareness that the rigorous standardisation of experimental conditions may contribute to poor reproducibility of animal studies. Instead, systematic heterogenisation has been proposed as a tool to enhance reproducibility, but a real-life test across multiple independent laboratories is still pending. The aim of this study was therefore to test whether heterogenisation of experimental conditions by using multiple experimenters improves the reproducibility of research findings compared to standardised conditions with only one experimenter. To this end, we replicated the same animal experiment in 3 independent laboratories, each employing both a heterogenised and a standardised design. Whereas in the standardised design, all animals were tested by a single experimenter; in the heterogenised design, 3 different experimenters were involved in testing the animals. In contrast to our expectation, the inclusion of multiple experimenters in the heterogenised design did not improve the reproducibility of the results across the 3 laboratories. Interestingly, however, a variance component analysis indicated that the variation introduced by the different experimenters was not as high as the variation introduced by the laboratories, probably explaining why this heterogenisation strategy did not bring the anticipated success. Even more interestingly, for the majority of outcome measures, the remaining residual variation was identified as an important source of variance accounting for 41% (CI95 [34%, 49%]) to 72% (CI95 [58%, 88%]) of the observed total variance. Despite some uncertainty surrounding the estimated numbers, these findings argue for systematically including biological variation rather than eliminating it in animal studies and call for future research on effective improvement strategies

The rearing environment persistently modulates mouse phenotypes from the molecular to the behavioural level.

The phenotype of an organism results from its genotype and the influence of the environment throughout development. Even when using animals of the same genotype, independent studies may test animals of different phenotypes, resulting in poor replicability due to genotype-by-environment interactions. Thus, genetically defined strains of mice may respond differently to experimental treatments depending on their rearing environment. However, the extent of such phenotypic plasticity and its implications for the replicability of research findings have remained unknown. Here, we examined the extent to which common environmental differences between animal facilities modulate the phenotype of genetically homogeneous (inbred) mice. We conducted a comprehensive multicentre study, whereby inbred C57BL/6J mice from a single breeding cohort were allocated to and reared in 5 different animal facilities throughout early life and adolescence, before being transported to a single test laboratory. We found persistent effects of the rearing facility on the composition and heterogeneity of the gut microbial community. These effects were paralleled by persistent differences in body weight and in the behavioural phenotype of the mice. Furthermore, we show that environmental variation among animal facilities is strong enough to influence epigenetic patterns in neurons at the level of chromatin organisation. We detected changes in chromatin organisation in the regulatory regions of genes involved in nucleosome assembly, neuronal differentiation, synaptic plasticity, and regulation of behaviour. Our findings demonstrate that common environmental differences between animal facilities may produce facility-specific phenotypes, from the molecular to the behavioural level. Furthermore, they highlight an important limitation of inferences from single-laboratory studies and thus argue that study designs should take environmental background into account to increase the robustness and replicability of findings

Structural enrichment for laboratory mice: exploring the effects of novelty and complexity

Providing structural enrichment is a widespread refinement method for laboratory rodents and other animals in captivity. So far, animal welfare research has mostly focused on the effect of increased complexity either by accumulating or combining different enrichment items. However, increasing complexity is not the only possibility to refine housing conditions. Another refinement option is to increase novelty by regularly exchanging known enrichment items with new ones. In the present study, we used pair-housed non-breeding female C57BL/6J and DBA/2N mice to investigate the effect of novelty when applying structural enrichment. We used a double cage system, in which one cage served as home cage and the other as extra cage. While the home cage was furnished in the same way for all mice, in the extra cage we either provided only space with no additional enrichment items (space), a fixed set of enrichment items (complexity), or a changing set of enrichment items (novelty). Over 5  weeks, we assessed spontaneous behaviors, body weight, and extra cage usage as indicators of welfare and preference. Our main results showed that mice with access to structurally enriched extra cages (complexity and novelty) spent more time in their extra cages and complexity mice had lower latencies to enter their extra cages than mice with access to the extra cages without any structural enrichment (space). This indicates that the mice preferred the structurally enriched extra cages over the structurally non-enriched space cages. We found only one statistically significant difference between the novelty and complexity condition: during week 3, novelty mice spent more time in their extra cages than complexity mice. Although we did not detect any other significant differences between the novelty and complexity condition in the present study, more research is required to further explore the potential benefits of novelty beyond complexity

Correction: Do multiple experimenters improve the reproducibility of animal studies?

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001564.]