Affiliation:
1. Department of Biological Sciences, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USA
Abstract
Data variability complicates reproducibility and the interpretation of experimental results. Different animal models have been employed to decrease variability to enhance experimental power. However, variation frequently persists among and within strains/lines. In zebrafish (Danio rerio), inbred lines (e.g., NHGRI-1) derived from wild-type lines have been produced to greatly decrease genetic variation, with the goal of providing better understanding of genetic backgrounds that may influence the experimental outcome of studies employing such lines. We hypothesized that variations in morphological phenotypes shaped by environmental stressors early in development are correlated with the intrinsic degree of genetic variability of zebrafish lines. We compared morphological variability (yolk–chorion ratio, body mass, embryo mass, total length, condition factor, and specific growth rate) in wild-type AB and NHGRI-1 zebrafish lines as a function of their responses to altered temperature and oxygen availability during the first 7 days post-fertilization. Overall, both lines showed similar developmental trajectories for yolk–chorion ratio, embryo mass, and total length. Additionally, condition factor and specific growth rate showed similar responses within each line, regardless of temperature and hypoxia. Importantly, the coefficient of variation for each variable was significantly lower in NHGRI-1 than AB larvae for 151 of 187 assessed morphological endpoints. Thus, the low-heterozygosity NHGRI-1 zebrafish line can be useful for decreasing inter-individual variation in morphological responses to environmental stressors, thereby aiding in the interpretation of results and enhancing experimental reproducibility.
Funder
National Science Foundation
Reference123 articles.
1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Policy and Global Affairs, Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Public Policy, Board on Research Data and Information, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, Board on Mathematical Sciences and Analytics, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, and Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences (2019). Reproducibility and Replicability in Science, National Academies Press (US).
2. 1500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility;Baker;Nature,2016
3. Ioannidis, J.P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med., 2.
4. Insufficient reporting of experimental variables as a cause for nonreproducibility in animal physiology? A case study;Burggren;Am. J. Physiol.-Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.,2022
5. Workshop Report: Zebrafish and Other Fish Models-Description of Extrinsic Environmental Factors for Rigorous Experiments and Reproducible Results;Varga;Zebrafish,2018