The Mercurial Nature of Lab Materials: Using RRIDs Increases Findability and Stability

Non-findable lab materials are the largest source of irreproducible research and represent a huge economic burden and loss of scientific advancement.^1-4 While it can be time-consuming to track down and record the vendor, catalog number, and persistent identifier of every material used in an experiment, unambiguously identifying lab materials in a publication is critical for reproducibility. Below, we make the case for why ASAP requires persistent identifiers to be shared for all lab materials used in a publication and that all newly-generated materials be registered and assigned an RRID to ensure the replicability of experiments. 

Faithfully Identifying Lab Materials  

One study conducted prior to the introduction of research resource identifiers (RRIDs), found that only 46% of lab materials were identifiable.² There are similar rates of poor identification across types of lab materials (only 43% of cell lines and 55.5% of antibodies can be uniquely identified).²

• 46% of lab materials are uniquely identifiable in publications
• 43% of cell lines can be uniquely identified
• 55.5% of antibodies are uniquely identified

“Perhaps the most basic requirement for reproducibility holds that the materials reported in a study can be uniquely identified and obtained, such that experiments can be reproduced as faithfully as possible…The inability to uniquely identify research resources, such as antibodies and model organisms, makes it difficult or impossible to reproduce experiments even where the science is otherwise sound.²”

Sharing of RRIDs is key to uniquely identifying lab materials. The use of RRIDs has been shown to increase the findability of lab materials by 30%.^3-4 RRIDs are unique and stable identifiers of lab materials, while identifiers like catalog number, product name, and/or URL may change or be lost over time.^3,5 Additionally, there is not always standard nomenclature for lab materials, making it difficult or impossible to find and obtain the same resource through searching by name.

“We have witnessed firsthand the mercurial nature of digital resources…[they] constantly change.⁵”

ASAP’s Approach to the Mercurial Nature of Lab Materials

Due to the “mercurial nature” of identifiers for lab materials, ensuring that lab materials are unambiguously identified using an RRID in a publication is critical for reproducibility and replicability.⁵ In an effort to improve the replicability of ASAP-generated research, ASAP requires grantees to share the RRID, source, and catalog number for all lab materials used or generated in a study. This includes organisms, cell lines, plasmids, viruses, and antibodies. We also recommend storing this information in a Key Resource Table that is included in the publication. Assessment of ASAP-funded publications revealed that implementation of this policy resulted in an increase in the number of unambiguously identified lab materials at the time of publication when compared to the first ASAP-funded publications. In the first year of ASAP policy implementation, 22.36% of reused lab materials were shared in the final publication. By contrast, in 2024, 76% of lab materials were unambiguously identified in ASAP-funded publications, a 239.89% increase (22.36% to 76%) in lab material sharing.

To learn more about sharing lab materials and the ASAP Open Science Policy, see below:

• ASAP Open Science Policy
• Tool Registration Guide: This is a step-by-step guide for how to register antibodies, cell lines, plasmids/viruses, and rodent models. 
• MJFF Sponsored Tools Program: The Michael J. Fox Foundation (MJFF) covers the cost and serves as the coordinator for the transfer of your tool/model to our repository partner.
• Key Resource Table Guide: This is a guidance document that describes how to create a key resource table for documenting lab materials.

References

[1] Freedman, et al. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol 13(6): e1002165 (2015). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26057340/

[2] Vasilevsky, et al. On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature. PeerJ 5(1): e148 (2013). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24032093/

[3] Bandrowski, et al. The resource identification initiative: A cultural shift in publishing. F1000Res 29(4):143 (2015). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26594330/

[4] Piękniewska, et al. Do organisms need an impact factor? Citations of key biological resources including model organisms reveal usage patterns and impact. bioRxiv (2024). https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.01.15.575636v1.full

[5] Ozyurt, et al. Resource disambiguator for the web: Extracting biomedical resources and their citations from the scientific literature. PLoS One 11(1): e0146300 (2016). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26730820/