Literature DB >> 30980104

Benefits of a factorial design focusing on inclusion of female and male animals in one experiment.

Thorsten Buch1, Katharina Moos2,3, Filipa M Ferreira4, Holger Fröhlich5, Catherine Gebhard6, Achim Tresch7,8.   

Abstract

Disease occurrence, clinical manifestations, and outcomes differ between men and women. Yet, women and men are most of the time treated similarly, which is often based on experimental data over-representing one sex. Accounting for persisting sex bias in biomedical research is the misconception that the analysis of sex-specific effects would double sample size and costs. We designed an analysis to test the potential benefits of a factorial study design in the context of a study including male and female animals. We chose a 2 × 2 factorial design approach to study the effect of treatment, sex, and an interaction term of treatment and sex in a hypothetical situation. We calculated the sample sizes required to detect an effect of a given magnitude with sufficient power and under different experimental setups. We demonstrated that the inclusion of both sexes in experimental setups, without testing for sex effects, requires no or few additional animals in our scenarios. These experimental designs still allow for the exploration of sex effects at low cost. In a confirmatory instead of an exploratory design, we observed an increase in total sample sizes by 33%, at most. Since the complexities associated with this mathematical model require statistical expertise, we generated and provide a sample size calculator for planning factorial design experiments. For the inclusion of sex, a factorial design is advisable, and a sex-specific analysis can be performed without excessive additional effort. Our easy-to-use calculation tool provides help in designing studies with both sexes and addresses the current sex bias in preclinical studies. KEY MESSAGES: • Both sexes should be included into animal studies. • Exploratory study of sex effects can be conducted with no or small increase in animal number. • Confirmatory analysis of sex effects requires maximum 33% more animals per study. • Our calculation tool supports the design of studies with both sexes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Animal experimentation; Factorial design; Power; Sex

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30980104     DOI: 10.1007/s00109-019-01774-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Med (Berl)        ISSN: 0946-2716            Impact factor:   4.599


  18 in total

Review 1.  The scope for improving the design of laboratory animal experiments.

Authors:  M F Festing
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 2.471

2.  Inclusion of females does not increase variability in rodent research studies.

Authors:  Annaliese K Beery
Journal:  Curr Opin Behav Sci       Date:  2018-08-02

Review 3.  Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research.

Authors:  Annaliese K Beery; Irving Zucker
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2010-07-08       Impact factor: 8.989

Review 4.  Sex bias exists in basic science and translational surgical research.

Authors:  Dustin Y Yoon; Neel A Mansukhani; Vanessa C Stubbs; Irene B Helenowski; Teresa K Woodruff; Melina R Kibbe
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.982

5.  Policy: NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies.

Authors:  Janine A Clayton; Francis S Collins
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 6.  Considering sex as a biological variable in preclinical research.

Authors:  Leah R Miller; Cheryl Marks; Jill B Becker; Patricia D Hurn; Wei-Jung Chen; Teresa Woodruff; Margaret M McCarthy; Farida Sohrabji; Londa Schiebinger; Cora Lee Wetherington; Susan Makris; Arthur P Arnold; Gillian Einstein; Virginia M Miller; Kathryn Sandberg; Susan Maier; Terri L Cornelison; Janine A Clayton
Journal:  FASEB J       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 5.191

7.  Potential Sex Bias Exists in Orthopaedic Basic Science and Translational Research.

Authors:  Jessica Bryant; Paul Yi; Liane Miller; Kacy Peek; Daniel Lee
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2018-01-17       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Problems and Progress regarding Sex Bias and Omission in Neuroscience Research.

Authors:  Tyler R Will; Stephanie B Proaño; Anly M Thomas; Lindsey M Kunz; Kelly C Thompson; Laura A Ginnari; Clay H Jones; Sarah-Catherine Lucas; Elizabeth M Reavis; David M Dorris; John Meitzen
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2017-11-09

Review 9.  Methodological Rigor in Preclinical Cardiovascular Studies: Targets to Enhance Reproducibility and Promote Research Translation.

Authors:  F Daniel Ramirez; Pouya Motazedian; Richard G Jung; Pietro Di Santo; Zachary D MacDonald; Robert Moreland; Trevor Simard; Aisling A Clancy; Juan J Russo; Vivian A Welch; George A Wells; Benjamin Hibbert
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2017-04-03       Impact factor: 17.367

Review 10.  Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use.

Authors:  Shirin Heidari; Thomas F Babor; Paola De Castro; Sera Tort; Mirjam Curno
Journal:  Res Integr Peer Rev       Date:  2016-05-03
View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Sex bias and omission in neuroscience research is influenced by research model and journal, but not reported NIH funding.

Authors:  Gabriella M Mamlouk; David M Dorris; Lily R Barrett; John Meitzen
Journal:  Front Neuroendocrinol       Date:  2020-02-15       Impact factor: 8.606

2.  Sex: a key consideration in understanding the etiology of psychiatric disorders and improving treatment

Authors:  Cara Tannenbaum; Patricia Boksa
Journal:  J Psychiatry Neurosci       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 6.186

3.  Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation.

Authors:  Bernhard Voelkl; Naomi S Altman; Anders Forsman; Wolfgang Forstmeier; Jessica Gurevitch; Ivana Jaric; Natasha A Karp; Martien J Kas; Holger Schielzeth; Tom Van de Casteele; Hanno Würbel
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 34.870

Review 4.  Sex and gender analysis improves science and engineering.

Authors:  Cara Tannenbaum; Robert P Ellis; Friederike Eyssel; James Zou; Londa Schiebinger
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  The fraught quest to account for sex in biology research.

Authors:  Emily Willingham
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2022-09       Impact factor: 69.504

6.  Procedural and Methodological Quality in Preclinical Stroke Research-A Cohort Analysis of the Rat MCAO Model Comparing Periods Before and After the Publication of STAIR/ARRIVE.

Authors:  Jacqueline Friedrich; Ute Lindauer; Anke Höllig
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 4.086

Review 7.  The promises and pitfalls of sex difference research.

Authors:  Liisa A M Galea; Elena Choleris; Arianne Y K Albert; Margaret M McCarthy; Farida Sohrabji
Journal:  Front Neuroendocrinol       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 8.606

8.  An analysis of neuroscience and psychiatry papers published from 2009 and 2019 outlines opportunities for increasing discovery of sex differences.

Authors:  Rebecca K Rechlin; Tallinn F L Splinter; Travis E Hodges; Arianne Y Albert; Liisa A M Galea
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-04-19       Impact factor: 17.694

Review 9.  Differentiating Gender and Sex in Dental Research: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Alice Alberti; Benedetta Morandi; Luca Francetti; Silvio Taschieri; Stefano Corbella
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2022-08-23

Review 10.  Considerations and challenges for sex-aware drug repurposing.

Authors:  Jennifer L Fisher; Emma F Jones; Victoria L Flanary; Avery S Williams; Elizabeth J Ramsey; Brittany N Lasseigne
Journal:  Biol Sex Differ       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 5.027

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.