Are in vitro and in silico approaches used appropriately for animal-based major depressive disorder research?

The current paradigm for biomedical research and drug testing postulates that in vitro and in silico data inform animal studies that will subsequently inform human studies. Recent evidence points out that animal studies have made a poor contribution to current knowledge of Major Depressive Disorder, whereas the contribution of in vitro and in silico studies to animal studies- within this research area- is yet to be properly quantified. This quantification is important since biomedical research and drug discovery and development includes two steps of knowledge transferability and we need to evaluate the effectiveness of both in order to properly implement 3R principles (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement). Here, we used the citation tracking facility within Web of Science to locate citations of original research papers on in vitro and in silico related to MDD published identified in PubMed by relevant search terms. 67 publications describing target papers were located. Both in vitro and in silico papers are more cited by human medical papers than by animal papers. The results suggest that, at least concerning MDD research, the current two steps of knowledge transferability are not being followed, indicating a poor compliance with the 3R principles.

[1]  Susana A M Varela,et al.  The Relevance of In Silico, In Vitro and Non-human Primate Based Approaches to Clinical Research on Major Depressive Disorder , 2019, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[2]  Ion Rogoveanu,et al.  Current understanding of the neurobiology of major depressive disorder. , 2015, Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie.

[3]  S. S. Olmsted,et al.  Mental Health Retrosight: Understanding the Returns From Research (Lessons From Schizophrenia): Policy Report. , 2014, Rand health quarterly.

[4]  Andrea Bergmann,et al.  Citation Indexing Its Theory And Application In Science Technology And Humanities , 2016 .

[5]  Carlijn R Hooijmans,et al.  A step-by-step guide to systematically identify all relevant animal studies , 2012, Laboratory animals.

[6]  Katy Taylor,et al.  Recent Developments in Alternatives to Animal Testing , 2019, Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change.

[7]  A. Balmain,et al.  Guidelines for the welfare and use of animals in cancer research , 2010, British Journal of Cancer.

[8]  R. Chanderbhan,et al.  From Classical Toxicology to Tox21: Some Critical Conceptual and Technological Advances in the Molecular Understanding of the Toxic Response Beginning From the Last Quarter of the 20th Century , 2018, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[9]  Kathrin Herrmann,et al.  Refinement on the Way Towards Replacement: Are We Doing What We Can? , 2019, Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change.

[10]  P. Sandercock,et al.  Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  W. Russell,et al.  Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research , 2011, PloS one.

[12]  A. Knight,et al.  Is Animal-based Biomedical Research Being Used in Its Original Context? , 2019, Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change.

[13]  Feng Zhu,et al.  VARIDT 1.0: variability of drug transporter database , 2019, Nucleic Acids Res..