Abstract

Good science can be lost in the final steps of an animal study. Poorly planned necropsies, inconsistent biosampling, unsuitable preservation or unclear scoring can compromise tissue-based data, waste animals and weaken reproducibility.

This webinar follows the pathology workflow from study design and clinical pathology sampling to necropsy, fixation, histology, assessment and reporting. Drawing on established recommendations for rigorous pathology practice and the MINPEPA reporting framework, Professor Jeffrey Everitt will examine where variability and bias arise, why pathology expertise should be involved early, and how study-specific protocols can improve consistency. The session will address tissue and fluid collection, preservation for morphological and molecular endpoints, lesion terminology and scoring, blinding, documentation, cost-conscious endpoint selection, and transparent reporting. Particular attention will be given to aligning methods with the scientific question and obtaining reliable information from each animal without unnecessary sampling or repeated studies.

Key references: 

1. Scudamore CL, Soilleux EJ, Karp NA, et al. Recommendations for minimum information for publication of experimental pathology data: MINPEPA guidelines. Journal of Pathology. 2016;238:359–367.

2. Brayton CF, Boyd KL, Everitt JL, Meyerholz DK, Treuting PM, Bolon B. An Introduction to Pathology in Biomedical Research: A Mission-Critical Specialty for Reproducibility and Rigor in Translational Research. ILAR Journal. 59(1):1–3.

3. Everitt JI, Treuting PM, Scudamore C, et al. Pathology Study Design, Conduct, and Reporting to Achieve Rigor and Reproducibility in Translational Research Using Animal Models. ILAR Journal. 59(1):4–12.

Learning outcomes

• Plan pathology input from the outset

• Match sampling methods to study endpoints

• Standardise necropsy and sample handling

• Apply consistent scoring and bias controls

• Report pathology data using MINPEPA principles