Challenges and opportunities related to the clinical translation of nanomaterials is an area of intense research. In this blog post, qBionano’s Mattias discusses a recent article in Nature Biomedical Engineering on this important topic.
Earlier this week, John Ioannidis and colleagues published a perspective in Nature Biomedical Engineering entitled “How to design preclinical studies in nanomedicine and cell therapy to maximize the prospects of clinical translation”. The full-text is freely available via the following link and is well worth a read for any researcher in bio-nano science and nanomedicine: https://rdcu.be/ba6ZE
Ioannidis’ article provides a substantial and important contribution in relation to similar ongoing efforts in for example the fields of bio-nano science and cancer nanomedicine. One of the key challenges in these areas is facilitating the incorporation of emerging good practices into current workflows.
Inspired by minimum reporting guidelines in areas such as microarray analysis and quantitative biochemical modelling, and the broad support among researchers for reporting checklists, we recently developed a “minimum information standard” for bio-nano science and nanomedicine. This reporting standard, called MIRIBEL, comes with a companion checklist (available via the supplementary information of the original paper or via an online repository) which any researcher can quickly and easily go through and tick off during the preparation of a manuscript to help ensure that a range of relevant areas have been considered.
MIRIBEL includes the areas of material characterization, biological characterization and experimental details and refers to ongoing efforts attempting to develop good practices (in for example material synthesis and purification, or cancer nanomedicine evaluation and benchmarking) without mandating any specific approaches. This simple checklist is made available in the online repository under a CC BY license, allowing it to be freely re-used (or adapted) by any researchers and/or journals, which we encourage.
While reporting guidelines and checklists only addresses part of the important challenges raised by Ioannidis et al., we believe they are a useful tool for researchers that want to quickly and easily implement some of these emerging good practices into their workflows.
The feature image at the top of this blog post is from the recent Langmuir paper.