Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

What's in a sample? Increasing transparency in biospecimen procurement methods

Nature Methods volume 15, pages 303–304 (2018)Cite this article

To the Editor:

Improving reproducibility and transparency in science requires increased attention to the details of research. We have previously reported that studies citing the inability to replicate findings in preclinical research reveal economic estimates in the billions of dollars wasted1. Preclinical research relies on the use of high-quality preserved tissue and fluid specimens to infer disease mechanisms and develop biomarkers for disease tracking. Patients generously donate samples with the hope of advancing the treatment of disease; improving reproducibility with clinical specimens affirms a commitment to those patients. Among the factors that contribute to irreproducibility is whether tissue samples are handled equivalently in different studies2.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Freedman, L.P., Cockburn, I.M. & Simcoe, T.S. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002165 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. LaBaer, J. J. Proteome Res. 11, 5592–5601 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sancesario, G.M. et al. Exp. Neurol. 223, 371–376 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mattsson, N. et al. Alzheimers Dement. 9, 251–261 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mertins, P. et al. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 13, 1690–1704 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Banks, R.E. et al. Clin. Chem. 51, 1637–1649 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bruegel, M. et al. J. Proteomics 72, 608–615 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Merino-Martinez, R. et al. Biopreserv. Biobank. 14, 298–306 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Moore, H.M. et al. J. Proteome Res. 10, 3429–3438 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Personalized Diagnostics, Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

    Joshua LaBaer & Joseph F Miceli III

  2. Global Biological Standards Institute, Washington, DC, USA

    Leonard P Freedman

Authors
  1. Joshua LaBaer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph F Miceli III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leonard P Freedman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua LaBaer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

LaBaer, J., Miceli, J. & Freedman, L. What's in a sample? Increasing transparency in biospecimen procurement methods. Nat Methods 15, 303–304 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4684

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4684

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing