Statistical practice and transparent reporting in the neurosciences: Preclinical motor behavioral experiments

IntelliCage: the development and perspectives of a mouse- and user-friendly automated behavioral test system

IntelliCage for mice is a rodent home-cage equipped with four corner structures harboring symmetrical double panels for operant conditioning at each of the two sides, either by reward (access to water) or by aversion (non-painful stimuli: air-puffs, LED lights). Corner visits, nose-pokes and actual licks at bottle-nipples are recorded individually using subcutaneously implanted transponders for RFID identification of up to 16 adult mice housed in the same home-cage. This allows for recording individual in-cage activity of mice and applying reward/punishment operant conditioning schemes in corners using workflows designed on a versatile graphic user interface. IntelliCage development had four roots: (i) dissatisfaction with standard approaches for analyzing mouse behavior, including standardization and reproducibility issues, (ii) response to handling and housing animal welfare issues, (iii) the increasing number of mouse models had produced a high work burden on classic manual behavioral phenotyping of single mice. and (iv), studies of transponder-chipped mice in outdoor settings revealed clear genetic behavioral differences in mouse models corresponding to those observed by classic testing in the laboratory. The latter observations were important for the development of home-cage testing in social groups, because they contradicted the traditional belief that animals must be tested under social isolation to prevent disturbance by other group members. The use of IntelliCages reduced indeed the amount of classic testing remarkably, while its flexibility was proved in a wide range of applications worldwide including transcontinental parallel testing. Essentially, two lines of testing emerged: sophisticated analysis of spontaneous behavior in the IntelliCage for screening of new genetic models, and hypothesis testing in many fields of behavioral neuroscience. Upcoming developments of the IntelliCage aim at improved stimulus presentation in the learning corners and videotracking of social interactions within the IntelliCage. Its main advantages are (i) that mice live in social context and are not stressfully handled for experiments, (ii) that studies are not restricted in time and can run in absence of humans, (iii) that it increases reproducibility of behavioral phenotyping worldwide, and (iv) that the industrial standardization of the cage permits retrospective data analysis with new statistical tools even after many years.

Statistical guidance provided to authors by clinical neurology and neuroscience journals

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Transparent reporting and appropriate interpretation of statistical methods and results are important to facilitate scientific evaluation and enable future replication. The goal of this study was to describe statistical reporting guidance provided to authors by clinical neurology and neuroscience journals.

METHODS

For first-quartile journals in each discipline (per Clarivate InCites), information collected from Instructions to Authors website sections included whether journals required presentation of sample size justification, estimates of precision, and method of checking assumptions; and guidance for interpretation of p-values and appropriate presentation of descriptive statistics and graphs. Journal endorsement of common but statistically nonspecific published transparent reporting guidelines for human and animal research was also collected, to capture the select statistical reporting items included in each guideline.

RESULTS

Journals (n = 85) frequently did not require/recommend sample size justifications (15% not required; 62% only required per external transparent reporting guideline), estimates of precision (15% not required; 41% only required per external guidelines), or disclosure of method of checking assumptions (46%); nor provide guidance for reporting/interpretation of p-values (71%), reporting of descriptive statistics (75%), or use of appropriate graphs (92%). Endorsement of statistically nonspecific standalone reporting guidelines ranged between 52% and 68%, depending on the guideline.

CONCLUSIONS

There is opportunity for journals to facilitate improvement in transparency of statistical methods and results for clinical neurology and neuroscience studies by providing guidelines and advice to authors at manuscript submission.

Disentangling the role of NAc D1 and D2 cells in hedonic eating

Overeating is driven by both the hedonic component ('liking') of food, and the motivation ('wanting') to eat it. The nucleus accumbens (NAc) is a key brain center implicated in these processes, but how distinct NAc cell populations encode 'liking' and 'wanting' to shape overconsumption remains unclear. Here, we probed the roles of NAc D1 and D2 cells in these processes using cell-specific recording and optogenetic manipulation in diverse behavioral paradigms that disentangle reward traits of 'liking' and 'wanting' related to food choice and overeating in healthy mice. Medial NAc shell D2 cells encoded experience-dependent development of 'liking', while D1 cells encoded innate 'liking' during the first food taste. Optogenetic control confirmed causal links of D1 and D2 cells to these aspects of 'liking'. In relation to 'wanting', D1 and D2 cells encoded and promoted distinct aspects of food approach: D1 cells interpreted food cues while D2 cells also sustained food-visit-length that facilitates consumption. Finally, at the level of food choice, D1, but not D2, cell activity was sufficient to switch food preference, programming subsequent long-lasting overconsumption. By revealing complementary roles of D1 and D2 cells in consumption, these findings assign neural bases to 'liking' and 'wanting' in a unifying framework of D1 and D2 cell activity.

Encouraging responsible reporting practices in the Instructions to Authors of neuroscience and physiology journals: There is room to improve

Journals can substantially influence the quality of research reports by including responsible reporting practices in their Instructions to Authors. We assessed the extent to which 100 journals in neuroscience and physiology required authors to report methods and results in a rigorous and transparent way. For each journal, Instructions to Authors and any referenced reporting guideline or checklist were downloaded from journal websites. Twenty-two questions were developed to assess how journal Instructions to Authors address fundamental aspects of rigor and transparency in five key reporting areas. Journal Instructions to Authors and all referenced external guidelines and checklists were audited against these 22 questions. Of the full sample of 100 Instructions to Authors, 34 did not reference any external reporting guideline or checklist. Reporting whether clinical trial protocols were pre-registered was required by 49 journals and encouraged by 7 others. Making data publicly available was encouraged by 64 journals; making (processing or statistical) code publicly available was encouraged by ∼30 of the journals. Other responsible reporting practices were mentioned by less than 20 of the journals. Journals can improve the quality of research reports by mandating, or at least encouraging, the responsible reporting practices highlighted here.