Practical guidelines for rigor and reproducibility in preclinical and clinical studies on cardioprotection

The potential for ischemic preconditioning to reduce infarct size was first recognized more than 30 years ago. Despite extension of the concept to ischemic postconditioning and remote ischemic conditioning and literally thousands of experimental studies in various species and models which identified a multitude of signaling steps, so far there is only a single and very recent study, which has unequivocally translated cardioprotection to improved clinical outcome as the primary endpoint in patients. Many potential reasons for this disappointing lack of clinical translation of cardioprotection have been proposed, including lack of rigor and reproducibility in preclinical studies, and poor design and conduct of clinical trials. There is, however, universal agreement that robust preclinical data are a mandatory prerequisite to initiate a meaningful clinical trial. In this context, it is disconcerting that the CAESAR consortium (Consortium for preclinicAl assESsment of cARdioprotective therapies) in a highly standardized multi-center approach of preclinical studies identified only ischemic preconditioning, but not nitrite or sildenafil, when given as adjunct to reperfusion, to reduce infarct size. However, ischemic preconditioning—due to its very nature—can only be used in elective interventions, and not in acute myocardial infarction. Therefore, better strategies to identify robust and reproducible strategies of cardioprotection, which can subsequently be tested in clinical trials must be developed. We refer to the recent guidelines for experimental models of myocardial ischemia and infarction, and aim to provide now practical guidelines to ensure rigor and reproducibility in preclinical and clinical studies on cardioprotection. In line with the above guideline, we define rigor as standardized state-of-the-art design, conduct and reporting of a study, which is then a prerequisite for reproducibility, i.e. replication of results by another laboratory when performing exactly the same experiment

Potential use of forage-legume intercropping technologies to adapt to climate-change impacts on mixed crop-livestock systems in Africa: a review

This paper summarizes effects of forage-legume intercropping on grain and fodder yield, land equivalent ratio, residual soil fertility, disease and insect pest reduction in mixed crop-livestock systems in Africa. In particular, it discusses the potential benefit of forage-legume intercropping in improving productivity, resource use efficiency and resilience of the system under climate change, which enhances adaptation to climate change and possibly provides the co-benefit of reducing greenhouse gases in sub-Saharan Africa. Research undertaken in Africa demonstrates that intercropping forage legumes with cereals improves overall yield and soil fertility, and reduces the risk of crop failure owing to rainfall variability, diseases, weeds and pests. When the forage from intercropped legumes is provided to animals it improves the digestibility of poor-quality feed, animal performance and efficiency of roughage feed utilization by ruminants. Additional role that legumes may play include lowering erosion and the loss of organic matter, reducing nitrogen leaching and carbon losses, and promoting carbon sequestration. Nitrogen fixed by legumes is safer than nitrogen from inorganic fertilizers. Despite the many benefits of forage legume intercropping the current adoption rate in sub-Saharan Africa is very low. Future research aimed at selection of compatible varieties, appropriate plant geometry and temporal arrangement of the various intercrops under different locations and management scenarios, as well as minimizing the confounding effects of water, soil, light, microclimate, and seeds could enhance adoption of the technology in Africa.http://link.springer.com/journal/101132018-08-30hb2017Animal and Wildlife SciencesPlant Production and Soil Scienc