Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies?

H. Bart van der Worp and colleagues discuss the controversies and possibilities of translating the results of animal experiments into human clinical trials

A major genetic locus in <i>Trypanosoma brucei</i> is a determinant of host pathology

The progression and variation of pathology during infections can be due to components from both host or pathogen, and/or the interaction between them. The influence of host genetic variation on disease pathology during infections with trypanosomes has been well studied in recent years, but the role of parasite genetic variation has not been extensively studied. We have shown that there is parasite strain-specific variation in the level of splenomegaly and hepatomegaly in infected mice and used a forward genetic approach to identify the parasite loci that determine this variation. This approach allowed us to dissect and identify the parasite loci that determine the complex phenotypes induced by infection. Using the available trypanosome genetic map, a major quantitative trait locus (QTL) was identified on T. brucei chromosome 3 (LOD = 7.2) that accounted for approximately two thirds of the variance observed in each of two correlated phenotypes, splenomegaly and hepatomegaly, in the infected mice (named &lt;i&gt;TbOrg1&lt;/i&gt;). In addition, a second locus was identified that contributed to splenomegaly, hepatomegaly and reticulocytosis (&lt;i&gt;TbOrg2&lt;/i&gt;). This is the first use of quantitative trait locus mapping in a diploid protozoan and shows that there are trypanosome genes that directly contribute to the progression of pathology during infections and, therefore, that parasite genetic variation can be a critical factor in disease outcome. The identification of parasite loci is a first step towards identifying the genes that are responsible for these important traits and shows the power of genetic analysis as a tool for dissecting complex quantitative phenotypic traits

Some salt with your statin, professor?

We know that clinical trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry are likely to exaggerate benefit and minimise harms. But do these biases extend to their sponsorship of non-human animal research? Using systematic review and meta-analysis Bero and colleagues show that, in the case of statins, things are a little more complicated. While the conclusions of industry-sponsored studies were indeed more enthusiastic than warranted by their data, the data themselves painted a picture more conservative than was seen in non-industry-sponsored studies. This behaviour is consistent with maximising the return on investment, seeking robust data before embarking on a clinical trial, and, once that investment has been made, making every effort to “prove” that the drug is safe and effective if this is at all credible. The findings suggest that there is something different about industry-sponsored non-human animal research, perhaps reflecting higher standards than is the case elsewhere. Perhaps the academic community can learn something from our colleagues in the commercial sector

Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Neural Stem Cells therapy for experimental ischemia stroke in preclinical studies

To evaluate the preclinical studies using NSCs transplantation therapy for experimental ischemic stroke, and determine the effect size of NSCs therapy and the correlations between different clinical measures. We firstly searched literatures to identify studies of NSCs therapy in animal cerebral ischemia models, and then calculated the quality score of studies, assessed the effect size of NSCs therapy relative to behavioral and histologic endpoints by meta-analysis. A total of 37 studies and 54 independent treated interventions were used for systematic review and meta-analysis. The median quality score was 5 of 10. 36 studies (53 intervention arms) reported functional outcome, 22 studies (34 intervention arms) reported structural outcome. After adjusted by subgroup and sensitivity analysis, the mean effect sizes were improved by 1.35 for mNSS, 1.84 for rotarod test, 0.61 for cylinder test, and 0.84 for infarct volume. Furthermore, effect size had a certain interaction with clinical variables, for example early NSCs therapy etc. In this preclinical studies, we demonstrated that transplanted NSCs significantly improved outcomes (both functional and structural outcome) in ischemic stroke. It is suggested that future preclinical animal model studies of stroke should improve study quality validity and reduce potentially confounded publication bias

Are Trp53 rescue of Brca1 embryonic lethality and Trp53/Brca1 breast cancer association related?

Brca1 is involved in multiple biological pathways including DNA damage repair, transcriptional regulation, and cell-cycle progression. A complex pattern of interactions of Brca1 with Trp53 has also emerged. Xu and coworkers found that haploid loss of Trp53 significantly reduces the embryonic lethality observed in mice with a homozygous in-frame deletion of Brca1 exon 11. They report that widespread apoptosis correlates with the embryonic lethality resulting from this homozygous Δ11 Brca1 mutation. A mechanism responsible for Brca1-associated carcinogenesis is proposed. These experiments extend our knowledge of a complex Brca1/Trp53 relationship. However, the precise mechanisms through which Brca1 interacts with Trp53 to suppress mammary tumor formation have yet to be elucidated

A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research

The US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke convened major stakeholders in June 2012 to discuss how to improve the methodological reporting of animal studies in grant applications and publications. The main workshop recommendation is that at a minimum studies should report on sample-size estimation, whether and how animals were randomized, whether investigators were blind to the treatment, and the handling of data. We recognize that achieving a meaningful improvement in the quality of reporting will require a concerted effort by investigators, reviewers, funding agencies and journal editors. Requiring better reporting of animal studies will raise awareness of the importance of rigorous study design to accelerate scientific progress

Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews

In an effort to better utilize published evidence obtained from animal experiments, systematic reviews of preclinical studies are increasingly more common-along with the methods and tools to appraise them (e.g., SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation [SYRCLE's] risk of bias tool). We performed a cross-sectional study of a sample of recent preclinical systematic reviews (2015-2018) and examined a range of epidemiological characteristics and used a 46-item checklist to assess reporting details. We identified 442 reviews published across 43 countries in 23 different disease domains that used 26 animal species. Reporting of key details to ensure transparency and reproducibility was inconsistent across reviews and within article sections. Items were most completely reported in the title, introduction, and results sections of the reviews, while least reported in the methods and discussion sections. Less than half of reviews reported that a risk of bias assessment for internal and external validity was undertaken, and none reported methods for evaluating construct validity. Our results demonstrate that a considerable number of preclinical systematic reviews investigating diverse topics have been conducted; however, their quality of reporting is inconsistent. Our study provides the justification and evidence to inform the development of guidelines for conducting and reporting preclinical systematic reviews

The systematic guideline review: method, rationale, and test on chronic heart failure

Background: Evidence-based guidelines have the potential to improve healthcare. However, their de-novo-development requires substantial resources-especially for complex conditions, and adaptation may be biased by contextually influenced recommendations in source guidelines. In this paper we describe a new approach to guideline development-the systematic guideline review method (SGR), and its application in the development of an evidence-based guideline for family physicians on chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods: A systematic search for guidelines was carried out. Evidence-based guidelines on CHF management in adults in ambulatory care published in English or German between the years 2000 and 2004 were included. Guidelines on acute or right heart failure were excluded. Eligibility was assessed by two reviewers, methodological quality of selected guidelines was appraised using the AGREE instrument, and a framework of relevant clinical questions for diagnostics and treatment was derived. Data were extracted into evidence tables, systematically compared by means of a consistency analysis and synthesized in a preliminary draft. Most relevant primary sources were re-assessed to verify the cited evidence. Evidence and recommendations were summarized in a draft guideline. Results: Of 16 included guidelines five were of good quality. A total of 35 recommendations were systematically compared: 25/35 were consistent, 9/35 inconsistent, and 1/35 un-rateable (derived from a single guideline). Of the 25 consistencies, 14 were based on consensus, seven on evidence and four differed in grading. Major inconsistencies were found in 3/9 of the inconsistent recommendations. We re-evaluated the evidence for 17 recommendations (evidence-based, differing evidence levels and minor inconsistencies) - the majority was congruent. Incongruity was found where the stated evidence could not be verified in the cited primary sources, or where the evaluation in the source guidelines focused on treatment benefits and underestimated the risks. The draft guideline was completed in 8.5 man-months. The main limitation to this study was the lack of a second reviewer. Conclusion: The systematic guideline review including framework development, consistency analysis and validation is an effective, valid, and resource saving-approach to the development of evidence-based guidelines