IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/2005282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What exactly is ‘N’ in cell culture and animal experiments?

Author

Listed:
  • Stanley E Lazic
  • Charlie J Clarke-Williams
  • Marcus R Munafò

Abstract

Biologists determine experimental effects by perturbing biological entities or units. When done appropriately, independent replication of the entity–intervention pair contributes to the sample size (N) and forms the basis of statistical inference. If the wrong entity–intervention pair is chosen, an experiment cannot address the question of interest. We surveyed a random sample of published animal experiments from 2011 to 2016 where interventions were applied to parents and effects examined in the offspring, as regulatory authorities provide clear guidelines on replication with such designs. We found that only 22% of studies (95% CI = 17%–29%) replicated the correct entity–intervention pair and thus made valid statistical inferences. Nearly half of the studies (46%, 95% CI = 38%–53%) had pseudoreplication while 32% (95% CI = 26%–39%) provided insufficient information to make a judgement. Pseudoreplication artificially inflates the sample size, and thus the evidence for a scientific claim, resulting in false positives. We argue that distinguishing between biological units, experimental units, and observational units clarifies where replication should occur, describe the criteria for genuine replication, and provide concrete examples of in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo experimental designs.

Suggested Citation

  • Stanley E Lazic & Charlie J Clarke-Williams & Marcus R Munafò, 2018. "What exactly is ‘N’ in cell culture and animal experiments?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-14, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:2005282
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:2005282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.