Perspective | Published:

Environmental standardization: cure or cause of poor reproducibility in animal experiments?

Nature Methods volume 6, pages 257261 (2009) | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

It is widely believed that environmental standardization is the best way to guarantee reproducible results in animal experiments. However, mounting evidence indicates that even subtle differences in laboratory or test conditions can lead to conflicting test outcomes. Because experimental treatments may interact with environmental conditions, experiments conducted under highly standardized conditions may reveal local 'truths' with little external validity. We review this hypothesis here and present a proof of principle based on data from a multilaboratory study on behavioral differences between inbred mouse strains. Our findings suggest that environmental standardization is a cause of, rather than a cure for, poor reproducibility of experimental outcomes. Environmental standardization can contribute to spurious and conflicting findings in the literature and unnecessary animal use. This conclusion calls for research into practicable and effective ways of systematic environmental heterogenization to attenuate these scientific, economic and ethical costs.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Animal Welfare Act 22 (Riverdale: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1990).

  2. 2.

    NRC (National Research Council). Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Washington, National Academy Press, 1996).

  3. 3.

    , & Standardization of animal experimentation In Principles of Laboratory Animal Science (eds., van Zutphen, L.F.M., Baumans, V. & Beynen, A.C.) 103–110 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2003).

  4. 4.

    Good experimental design and statistics can save animals, but how can it be promoted? Altern. Lab. Anim. 32, 133–135 (2004).

  5. 5.

    Refinement and reduction through the control of variation. Altern. Lab. Anim. 32, 259–263 (2004).

  6. 6.

    & Hypothesis testing. In Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists (eds., Quinn, G.P. & Keough, M.J.) 32–57 (Cambridge University Press, 2002).

  7. 7.

    , & Genetics of mouse behaviour: interactions with laboratory environment. Science 284, 1670–1672 (1999).

  8. 8.

    Standardizing tests of mouse behavior: reasons, recommendations, and reality. Physiol. Behav. 73, 695–705 (2001).

  9. 9.

    Behavioral phenotyping enhanced—beyond (environmental) standardization. Genes Brain Behav. 1, 3–8 (2002).

  10. 10.

    Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychol. Bull. 54, 297–312 (1957).

  11. 11.

    Handbook of Ethological Methods, 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996).

  12. 12.

    Experimental localism and external validity. Philos. Sci. 70, 1195–1205 (2003).

  13. 13.

    Animal models of behavioral dysfunctions: Basic concepts and classifications, and an evaluation strategy. Brain Res. Brain Res. Rev. 52, 131–159 (2006).

  14. 14.

    , , & Resolving differences in GABAA receptor mutant mouse studies. Nat. Neurosci. 3, 1059 (2000).

  15. 15.

    , et al. Different data from different labs: lessons from studies of gene-environment interaction. J. Neurobiol. 54, 283–311 (2003).

  16. 16.

    et al. Laboratory animal welfare: cage enrichment and mouse behaviour. Nature 432, 821–822 (2004).

  17. 17.

    , , , & Genotype-environment interactions in mouse behavior: A way out of the problem. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 4619–4624 (2005).

  18. 18.

    et al. Environmental bias? Effects of housing conditions, laboratory environment and experimenter on behavioral tests. Genes Brain Behav. 5, 64–72 (2006).

  19. 19.

    et al. Reliability, robustness and reproducibility in mouse behavioral phenotyping: a cross-laboratory study. Physiol. Genomics 34, 243–255 (2008).

  20. 20.

    , , , & Identification and ranking of genetic and laboratory environment factors influencing a behavioral trait, thermal nociception, via computational analysis of a large data archive. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 26, 907–923 (2002).

  21. 21.

    et al. Genetic and environmental effects on complex traits in mice. Genetics 174, 959–984 (2006).

  22. 22.

    , , & Stability of inbred mouse strain differences in behavior and brain size between laboratories and across decades. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 16364–16369 (2006).

  23. 23.

    & Handling history of rats modifies behavioural effects of drugs in the elevated plus-maze test of anxiety. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 235, 109–112 (1993).

  24. 24.

    et al. Enrichment induces structural changes and recovery from nonspatial memory deficits in CA1 NMDAR1-knockout mice. Nat. Neurosci. 3, 238–244 (2000).

  25. 25.

    , , & Abolition and reversal of strain differences in behavioural responses to drugs of abuse after brief experience. Science 289, 463–465 (2000).

  26. 26.

    & Dissecting complex behaviours in the post-genomic era. Trends Neurosci. 27, 366–369 (2004).

  27. 27.

    , , & Common variations in the pretest environment influence genotypic comparisons in models of anxiety. Genes Brain Behav. 4, 412–419 (2005).

  28. 28.

    & Animal definition: a necessity for the validity of animal experiments. Lab. Anim. 34, 121–130 (2000).

  29. 29.

    & Behavioural phenotyping of mouse mutants. Behav. Brain Res. 125, 3–12 (2001).

  30. 30.

    & The fallacy of behavioral phenotyping without standardisation. Genes Brain Behav. 1, 9–13 (2002).

  31. 31.

    Behaviour and the standardization fallacy. Nat. Genet. 26, 263 (2000).

  32. 32.

    Phenotypic Plasticity. Functional and Conceptual Approaches. (Oxford University Press, 2004).

  33. 33.

    & From house mouse to mouse house: the behavioural biology of free-living Mus musculus and its implications in the laboratory. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 86, 261–289 (2004).

  34. 34.

    Mouse genetics: concepts and applications (Oxford University Press, New York, 1995).

  35. 35.

    , et al. Mutant mice and neuroscience: recommendations concerning genetic background. Neuron 19, 755–759 (1997).

  36. 36.

    , & Design of animal experiments In Principles of Laboratory Animal Science (eds., van Zutphen, L.F.M., Baumans, V. & Beynen, A.C.) 219–249 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2003).

  37. 37.

    Reproducibility of SELDI-TOF protein patterns in serum: comparing datasets from different experiments. Bioinformatics 20, 777 (2004).

  38. 38.

    , & Research in the psychological laboratory: truth or triviality? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 8, 3–9 (1999).

  39. 39.

    , , & The validity of laboratory research in social and behavioral science. Qual. Quant. 35, 129–145 (2001).

  40. 40.

    et al. Learning and memory in autoimmune BXSB mouse: Effects of neocorticaol ectopias and environmental enrichment. Brain Res. 726, 11–22 (1996).

  41. 41.

    , , & Rearing environmental enrichment in two inbred strain of mice: 1. Effects on emotional reactivity. Behav. Genet. 29, 41–46 (1999).

  42. 42.

    , , & Knockout mice: is it just genetics? Effect of enriched housing on Fibulin-4+/− mice. PLoS ONE 2, e229, (2007).

  43. 43.

    , & Influence of age on behavioural response in the light/dark paradigm. Physiol. Behav. 66, 567–570 (1999).

  44. 44.

    , , , & Influence of age and gender on performance of rats in the elevated plus maze apparatus. Behav. Brain Res. 56, 177–180 (1993).

  45. 45.

    et al. Effect of cage size on ultradian locomotor rhythms of laboratory mice. Physiol. Behav. 62, 1253–1258 (1997).

  46. 46.

    , , & Behavioural and glial changes in old rats following environmental enrichment. Behav. Brain Res. 101, 37–49 (1999).

  47. 47.

    , , & Strain specific behavioral response to environmental enrichment in the mouse. J. Exp. Anim. Sci. 36, 117–127 (1994).

  48. 48.

    & The principles of humane experimental technique (Methuen, London, 1959).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Project Wu 494/2-1) and the 3R Research Foundation Switzerland (3R Project 77-01). We thank K. Failing for help with data analysis, and M. Dawkins and P. Bateson for their comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Animal Welfare and Ethology, Justus-Liebig-University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany.

    • S Helene Richter
    •  & Hanno Würbel
  2. Behavioural Biology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.

    • S Helene Richter
  3. Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.

    • Joseph P Garner

Authors

  1. Search for S Helene Richter in:

  2. Search for Joseph P Garner in:

  3. Search for Hanno Würbel in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanno Würbel.

About this article

Publication history

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1312

Further reading