Poor Reporting Quality in Basic Nutrition Research: A Case Study Based on a Scoping Review of Recent Folate Research in Mouse Models (2009-2021)

Timing of standard chow exposure determines the variability of mouse phenotypic outcomes and gut microbiota profile

Standard chow diet contributes to reproducibility in animal model experiments since chows differ in nutrient composition, which can independently influence phenotypes. However, there is little evidence of the role of timing in the extent of variability caused by chow exposure. Here, we measured the impact of diet (5V5M, 5V0G, 2920X, and 5058) and timing of exposure (adult exposure (AE), lifetime exposure (LE), and developmental exposure (DE)) on growth & development, metabolic health indicators, and gut bacterial microbiota profiles across genetically identical C57BL6/J mice. Diet drove differences in macro- and micronutrient intake for all exposure models. AE had no effect on measured outcomes. However, LE mice exhibited significant sex-dependent diet effects on growth, body weight, and body composition. LE effects were mostly absent in the DE model, where mice were exposed to chow differences from conception to weaning. Both AE and LE models exhibited similar diet-driven beta diversity profiles for the gut bacterial microbiota, with 5058 diet driving the most distinct profile. Diet-induced beta diversity profiles were sex-dependent for LE mice. Compared to AE, LE drove 9X more diet-driven differentially abundant genera, majority of which were the result of inverse effects of 2920X and 5058. Our findings demonstrate that lifetime exposure to different chow diets has the greatest impact on reproducibility of experimental measures that are common components of preclinical mouse model studies. Importantly, weaning DE mice onto a uniform diet is likely an effective way to reduce unwanted phenotypic variability among experimental models.

A Meta-Epidemiological Study of Positive Results in Clinical Nutrition Research: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Statistically Significant Findings

Positive (statistically significant) findings are easily produced in nutrition research when specific aspects of the research design and analysis are not accounted for. To address this issue, recently, a pledge was made to reform nutrition research and improve scientific trust on the science, encompass research transparency and achieve reproducibility. The aim of the present meta-epidemiological study was to evaluate the statistical significance status of research items published in three academic journals, all with a focus on clinical nutrition science and assessing certain methodological/transparency issues. All research items were published between the years 2015 and 2019. Study design, primary and secondary findings, sample size and age group, funding sources, positivist findings, the existence of a published research protocol and the adjustment of nutrients/dietary indexes to the energy intake (EI) of participants, were extracted for each study. Out of 2127 studies in total, those with positive findings consisted of the majority, in all three journals. Most studies had a published research protocol, however, this was mainly due to the randomized controlled trials and not to the evidence-synthesis studies. No differences were found in the distribution of positive findings according to the existence/inexistence of a published research protocol. In the pooled sample of studies, positive findings differed according to study design and more significant findings were reported by researchers failing to report any funding source. The majority of items published in the three journals (65.9%) failed to account for the EI of participants. The present results indicate that there is still room for the improvement of nutrition research in terms of design, analyses and reporting.