Guidance for Good In Vitro Reporting Standards (GIVReSt) – A draft for stakeholder discussion and background documentation (original) (raw)
Authors
- Ronit Mohapatra Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Marcel Leist CAAT-Europe, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany; Doerenkamp-Zbinden Chair of in-vitro Toxicology and Biomedicine, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3778-8693
- Sonja von Aulock ALTEX, Zurich, Switzerland
- Thomas Hartung Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; CAAT-Europe, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany; Johns Hopkins University, Doerenkamp-Zbinden Chair for Evidence-based Toxicology, Baltimore, MD, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1359-7689
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2507041
Keywords:
reproducibility, publication guidance, quality assurance, scientific writing
Abstract
Reproducibility of cell culture experiments between laboratories needs to be improved by ensuring more complete reporting of methodology in scientific papers. The minimum reporting standards suggested here cover various cell culture methods including monolayers, stem cells, organoids, and microphysiological systems (MPS). The standards build on existing guidance like Good Cell Culture Practice (GCCP 2.0) and OECD test reporting guidelines on how to quality-assure in vitro work, focusing on transparency and completeness of reporting. Key elements to be reported include full details of cell source and identity, cell quality control and characterization, materials and reagents used, culture conditions and protocols, experimental design, data analysis, data availability, and legal and ethical aspects. For complex models, additional details need to be provided such as cell ratios, microenvironment conditions, functional characterization, etc. The guidance for Good In Vitro Reporting Standards (GIVReSt) is part of a broader initiative of evidence-based toxicology encompassing the improvement of the quality of in vitro studies for safety assessments and regulatory decisions. In summary, GIVReSt addresses incomplete reporting as a major factor affecting reproducibility of cell culture experiments by providing clear standards around transparency and rigor in reporting. The integration of agentic artificial intelligence (AI) is envisioned to streamline compliance checking, providing real-time feedback and accelerating scientific discovery by making high-quality evidence more accessible. This should lead to more reliable cell culture research overall.
Plain language summary Cell culture experiments are vital in life science research, offering insights and toxicity testing without animal models. However, poor reproducibility of experiments owing to incomplete descriptions in scientific papers is a critical concern and wastes resources. The Good In Vitro Reporting Standards (GIVReSt) introduced here promote rigorous reporting of cell culture experiments. These standards apply to various methods using cell and tissue models of different complexity. GIVReSt seeks to elevate reporting standards for authors, reviewers, and journals, ultimately improving research reliability.
References
Aisenbrey, E. A. and Murphy, W. L. (2020). Synthetic alternatives to Matrigel. Nat Rev Mater 5, 539-551. doi:10.1038/s41578-020-0199-8
Almeida, J. L., Cole, K. D. and Plant, A. L. (2016). Standards for cell line authentication and beyond. PLoS Biol 14, e1002476. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002476
Altman, D. G. (1998). Statistical reviewing for medical journals. Stat Med 17, 2661-2674. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981215)17:23<2661::aid-sim33>3.0.co;2-b
Antes, G. (2010). The new CONSORT statement. BMJ 340, c1432-c1432. doi:10.1136/bmj.c1432
Bai, J. and Wang, C. (2020). Organoids and microphysiological systems: New tools for ophthalmic drug discovery. Front Pharmacol 11, 407. doi:10.3389/fphar.2020.00407
Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533, 452-454. doi:10.1038/533452a
Bandrowski, A., Brush, M., Grethe, J. S. et al. (2016). The resource identification initiative: A cultural shift in publishing. J Comp Neurol 524, 8-22. doi:10.1002/cne.23913
Blum, J., Brüll, M., Hengstler, J. G. et al. (2025). The long way from raw data to NAM-based information: Overview on data layers and processing steps. ALTEX 42, 167-180. doi:10.14573/altex.2412171
Brazma, A., Hingamp, P., Quackenbush, J. et al. (2001). Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME) – Toward standards for microarray data. Nat Genet 29, 365-371. doi:10.1038/ng1201-365
Callaway, E. (2014). Contamination hits cell work. Nature 511, 518-518. doi:10.1038/511518a
Camp, J. G., Badsha, F., Florio, M. et al. (2015). Human cerebral organoids recapitulate gene expression programs of fetal neocortex development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112, 15672-15677. doi:10.1073/pnas.1520760112
Carrillo-Ávila, J. A., de la Fuente, A., Aguilar-Quesada, R. et al. (2023). Development and evaluation of a new qPCR assay for the detection of mycoplasma in cell cultures. Curr Issues Mol Biol 45, 6903-6915. doi:10.3390/cimb45080435
Castro-Viñuelas, R., Sanjurjo-Rodríguez, C., Piñeiro-Ramil, M. et al. (2021). Tips and tricks for successfully culturing and adapting human induced pluripotent stem cells. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev 23, 569-581. doi:10.1016/j.omtm.2021.10.013
Chen, G., Gulbranson, D. R., Hou, Z. et al. (2011). Chemically defined conditions for human iPSC derivation and culture. Nat Methods 8, 424-429. doi:10.1038/nmeth.1593
Ciaccio, E. J. (2023). Use of artificial intelligence in scientific paper writing. Inform Med Unlocked 41, 101253. doi:10.1016/j.imu.2023.101253
Coecke, S., Balls, M., Bowe, G. et al. (2005). Guidance on good cell culture practice: A report of the second ECVAM task force on good cell culture practice. Altern Lab Anim 33, 261-287. doi:10.1177/026119290503300313
d’Aquin, M., Kirstein, F., Oliveira, D. et al. (2023). FAIREST: A framework for assessing research repositories. Data Intell 5, 202-241. doi:10.1162/dint_a_00159
Dijkstra, K. K., Monkhorst, K., Schipper, L. J. et al. (2020). Challenges in establishing pure lung cancer organoids limit their utility for personalized medicine. Cell Rep 31, 107588. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107588
Dirks, W. G., Macleod, R. A. F., Nakamura, Y. et al. (2010). Cell line cross-contamination initiative: An interactive reference database of STR profiles covering common cancer cell lines. Int J Cancer 126, 303-304. doi:10.1002/ijc.24999
Dirnagl, U. (2020). Preregistration of exploratory research: Learning from the golden age of discovery. PLoS Biol 18, e3000690. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000690
Drexler, H. G. and Uphoff, C. C. (2002). Mycoplasma contamination of cell cultures: Incidence, sources, effects, detection, elimination, prevention. Cytotechnology 39, 75-90. doi:10.1023/A:1022913015916
Ergir, E., Oliver-De La Cruz, J., Fernandes, S. et al. (2022). Generation and maturation of human iPSC-derived 3D organotypic cardiac microtissues in long-term culture. Sci Rep 12, 17409. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-22225-w
Festing, M. F. W. (2001). Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments in papers submitted to ATLA. Altern Lab Anim 29, 427-446. doi:10.1177/026119290102900409
Fowler, J. L., Ang, L. T. and Loh, K. M. (2019). A critical look: Challenges in differentiating human pluripotent stem cells into desired cell-types and organoids. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol 9, e368. doi:10.1002/wdev.368
Freedman, L. P., Cockburn, I. M. and Simcoe, T. S. (2015). The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol 13, e1002165. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165
Gagnier, J. J., Kienle, G., Altman, D. G. et al. (2013). The CARE guidelines: Consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. Glob Adv Health Med 2, 38-43. doi:10.7453/gahmj.2013.008
Gosselin, R.-D., Gervais, S. and Bernard, C. (2021). Insufficient transparency of statistical reporting in preclinical research: A scoping review. Sci Rep 11, 3335. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-83006-5
Hartung, T., Bremer, S., Casati, S. et al. (2004). A modular approach to the ECVAM principles on test validity. Altern Lab Anim 32, 467-472. doi:10.1177/026119290403200503
Hartung, T. (2007). Food for thought ... on cell culture. ALTEX 24, 143-152. doi:10.14573/altex.2007.3.143
Hartung, T. (2013). Look back in anger – What clinical studies tell us about preclinical work. ALTEX 30, 275-291. doi:10.14573/altex.2013.3.275
Hartung, T. (2015). The human whole blood pyrogen test – Lessons learned in twenty years. ALTEX 32, 79-100. doi:10.14573/altex.1503241
Hartung, T., De Vries, R., Hoffmann, S. et al. (2019). Toward good in vitro reporting standards. ALTEX 36, 3-17. doi:10.14573/altex.1812191
Hartung, T. (2021). Pyrogen testing revisited on occasion of the 25th anniversary of the whole blood test. ALTEX 38, 3-19. doi:10.14573/altex.2101051
Hartung, T. (2024). The validation of regulatory test methods – Conceptual, ethical, and philosophical foundations. ALTEX 41, 525-544. doi:10.14573/altex.2409271
Hartung, T. and Tsaioun, K. (2024). Evidence-based approaches in toxicology: Their origins, challenges, and future directions. Evid Based Toxicol 2, 2421187. doi:10.1080/2833373X.2024.2421187
Hartung, T. (2025). The turning point: April 2025 marks historic shift in US animal testing policy. ALTEX 43, 536-537. doi:10.14573/altex.2504301
Hartung, T. and Smirnova, L. (2025). A path forward advancing microphysiological systems. ALTEX 42, 183-203. doi:10.14573/altex.2504091
Hartung, T., Hoffmann, S. and Whaley, P. (2025). Assessing risk of bias in toxicological studies in the era of artificial intelligence. Arch Toxicol, online ahead of print. doi:10.1007/s00204-025-03978-5
Heydarkhan-Hagvall, S., Gluck, J. M., Delman, C. et al. (2012). The effect of vitronectin on the differentiation of embryonic stem cells in a 3D culture system. Biomaterials 33, 2032-2040. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.11.065
Hirsch, C. and Schildknecht, S. (2019). In vitro research reproducibility: Keeping up high standards. Front Pharmacol 10, 1484. doi:10.3389/fphar.2019.01484
Hofer, M. and Lutolf, M. P. (2021). Engineering organoids. Nat Rev Mater 6, 402-420. doi:10.1038/s41578-021-00279-y
Hoffmann, S., de Vries, R. B. M., Stephens, M. L. et al. (2017). A primer on systematic reviews in toxicology. Arch Toxicol 91, 2551-2575. doi:10.1007/s00204-017-1980-3
Holzer, A.-K., Dreser, N., Pallocca, G. et al. (2023). Acceptance criteria for new approach methods in toxicology and human health-relevant life science research – part I. ALTEX 40, 706-712. doi:10.14573/altex.2310021
Jacobsen, A., de Miranda Azevedo, R., Juty, N. et al. (2020). FAIR principles: Interpretations and implementation considerations. Data Intell 2, 10-29. doi:10.1162/dint_r_00024
Kee, N., Sivalingam, S., Boonstra, R. et al. (2002). The utility of Ki-67 and BrdU as proliferative markers of adult neurogenesis. J Neurosci Meth 115, 97-105. doi:10.1016/S0165-0270(02)00007-9
Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C. et al. (2010). Animal research: Reporting in vivo experiments: The ARRIVE guidelines. PLoS Biol 8, e1000412. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412
Kleensang, A., Vantangoli, M., Odwin-DaCosta, S. et al. (2016). Genetic variability in a frozen batch of MCF-7 cells invisible in routine authentication affecting cell function. Sci Rep 6, 28994-28994. doi:10.1038/srep28994
Kloss, L. L., Brodnik, M. S. and Rinehart-Thompson, L. A. (2018). Access and disclosure of personal health information: A challenging privacy landscape in 2016-2018. Yearb Med Inform 27, 60-66. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1667071
Krebs, A., Waldmann, T., Wilks, M. F. et al. (2019). Template for the description of cell-based toxicological test methods to allow evaluation and regulatory use of the data. ALTEX 36, 682-699. doi:10.14573/altex.1909271
Lai, T.-Y., Cao, J., Ou-Yang, P. et al. (2022). Different methods of detaching adherent cells and their effects on the cell surface expression of Fas receptor and Fas ligand. Sci Rep 12, 5713. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-09605-y
Leist, M., Hasiwa, M., Daneshian, M. et al. (2012). Validation and quality control of replacement alternatives – Current status and future challenges. Toxicol Res 1, 8. doi:10.1039/C2TX20011B
Leung, C. M., de Haan, P., Ronaldson-Bouchard, K. et al. (2022). A guide to the organ-on-a-chip. Nat Rev Methods Primer 2, 33. doi:10.1038/s43586-022-00118-6
Lord, S. J., Velle, K. B., Mullins, R. D. et al. (2020). SuperPlots: Communicating reproducibility and variability in cell biology. J Cell Biol 219, e202001064. doi:10.1083/jcb.202001064
Lovell-Badge, R., Anthony, E., Barker, R. A. et al. (2021). ISSCR guidelines for stem cell research and clinical translation: The 2021 update. Stem Cell Rep 16, 1398-1408. doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2021.05.012
Macleod, M., Collings, A. M., Graf, C. et al. (2021). The MDAR (materials design analysis reporting) framework for transparent reporting in the life sciences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 118, e2103238118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2103238118
Malik, N. and Rao, M. S. (2013). A review of the methods for human iPSC derivation. In U. Lakshmipathy and M. C. Vemuri (eds.), Pluripotent Stem Cells: Methods and Protocols (23-33). Totowa, NJ, USA: Humana Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-62703-348-0_3
Marx, U., Beken, S., Chen, Z. et al. (2025). Biology-inspired dynamic microphysiological system approaches to revolutionize basic research, healthcare and animal welfare. ALTEX 42, 204-223. doi:10.14573/altex.2410112
Marx, V. (2014). Cell-line authentication demystified. Nat Methods 11, 483-488. doi:10.1038/nmeth.2932
Masuadi, E., Mohamud, M., Almutairi, M. et al. (2021). Trends in the usage of statistical software and their associated study designs in health sciences research: A bibliometric analysis. Cureus 13, e12639. doi:10.7759/cureus.12639
Mebane, C. A., Sumpter, J. P., Fairbrother, A. et al. (2019). Scientific integrity issues in environmental toxicology and chemistry: Improving research reproducibility, credibility, and transparency. Integr Environ Assess Manag 15, 320-344. doi:10.1002/ieam.4119
Menke, J., Roelandse, M., Ozyamak, E. et al. (2024). Biomedical researchers’ perspectives on the reproducibility of research. PLoS Biol 22, e3002870. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002870
Midway, S., Robertson, M., Flinn, S. et al. (2020). Comparing multiple comparisons: Practical guidance for choosing the best multiple comparisons test. PeerJ 8, e10387. doi:10.7717/peerj.10387
Miller, J. N. (2005). Fluorescence | Quantitative Analysis. In P. Worsfold, A. Townshend and C. Poole (eds.), Encyclopedia of Analytical Science (163-170). 2nd edition. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B0-12-369397-7/00165-5
Mohan, S. and Foley, P. L. (2019). Everything you need to know about satisfying IACUC protocol requirements. ILAR J 60, 50-57. doi:10.1093/ilar/ilz010
Morales Pantoja, I. E., Ding, L., Leite, P. E. C. et al. (2024). A novel approach to increase glial cell populations in brain microphysiological systems. Adv Biol 8, 2300198. doi:10.1002/adbi.202300198
Morrison, G., Liu, C., Wing, C. et al. (2015). Evaluation of inter-batch differences in stem-cell derived neurons. Stem Cell Res 16, 140-148. doi:10.1016/j.scr.2015.12.025
NASEM – National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2021). Microphysiological Systems: Bridging Human and Animal Research: Proceedings of a Workshop –In Brief. Washington, DC, USA: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/26124
NIEHS – National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (2023). NIEHS standard data management and sharing plans. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/od/osec/osim/data (accessed 06.03.2025)
Niepel, M., Hafner, M., Mills, C. E. et al. (2019). A multi-center study on the reproducibility of drug-response assays in mammalian cell lines. Cell Syst 9, 35-48.e5. doi:10.1016/j.cels.2019.06.005
Nims, R. W. and Reid, Y. (2017). Best practices for authenticating cell lines. Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim 53, 880-887. doi:10.1007/s11626-017-0212-8
OECD (2018). Guidance Document on Good In Vitro Method Practices (GIVIMP). OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 286. OECD Publishing, Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264304796-en
Okumura, A., Aoshima, K. and Tanimizu, N. (2024). Generation of in vivo-like multicellular liver organoids by mimicking developmental processes: A review. Regen Ther 26, 219-234. doi:10.1016/j.reth.2024.05.020
Olarerin-George, A. O. and Hogenesch, J. B. (2015). Assessing the prevalence of mycoplasma contamination in cell culture via a survey of NCBI’s RNA-seq archive. Nucleic Acids Res 43, 2535-2542. doi:10.1093/nar/gkv136
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M. et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372, n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
Pamies, D., Bal-Price, A., Simeonov, A. et al. (2017a). Good cell culture practice for stem cells and stem-cell-derived models. ALTEX 34, 95-132. doi:10.14573/altex.1607121
Pamies, D., Barrera, P., Block, K. et al. (2017b). A human brain microphysiological system derived from induced pluripotent stem cells to study neurological diseases and toxicity. ALTEX 34, 362-376. doi:10.14573/altex.1609122
Pamies, D., Bal-Price, A., Chesne, C. et al. (2018). Advanced good cell culture practice for human primary, stem cell-derived and organoid models as well as microphysiological systems. ALTEX 35, 353-378. doi:10.14573/altex.1710081
Pamies, D., Leist, M., Coecke, S. et al. (2020). Good cell and tissue culture practice 2.0 (GCCP 2.0) – Draft for stakeholder discussion and call for action. ALTEX 37, 490-492. doi:10.14573/altex.2007091
Pamies, D., Leist, M., Coecke, S. et al. (2022). Guidance document on good cell and tissue culture practice 2.0 (GCCP 2.0). ALTEX 39, 30-70. doi:10.14573/altex.2111011
Pamies, D., Ekert, J., Zurich, M.-G. et al. (2024). Recommendations on fit-for-purpose criteria to establish quality management for microphysiological systems (MPS) and for monitoring of their reproducibility. Stem cell reports, recommendations on fit-for-purpose criteria to establish quality management for microphysiological systems and for monitoring their reproducibility. Stem Cell Rep 19, 604-617. doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2024.03.009
Percie du Sert, N., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A. et al. (2020). The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 40, 1769-1777. doi:10.1177/0271678X20943823
Petersen, E. J., Nguyen, A., Brown, J. et al. (2021). Characteristics to consider when selecting a positive control material for an in vitro assay. ALTEX 38, 365-376. doi:10.14573/altex.2102111
Quintard, C., Tubbs, E., Jonsson, G. et al. (2024). A microfluidic platform integrating functional vascularized organoids-on-chip. Nat Commun 15, 1452. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-45710-4
Richter, M., Piwocka, O., Musielak, M. et al. (2021). From donor to the lab: A fascinating journey of primary cell lines. Front Cell Dev Biol 9, 711381. doi:10.3389/fcell.2021.711381
Riss, T. L., Moravec, R. A., Niles, A. L. et al. (2004). Cell viability assays. In S. Markossian, A. Grossman, M. Arkin et al. (eds.), Assay Guidance Manual. Bethesda, MD, USA: Eli Lilly & Company and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK144065/ (accessed 19.10.2024)
Rottem, S. and Barile, M. F. (1993). Beware of mycoplasmas. Trends Biotechnol 11, 143-151. doi:10.1016/0167-7799(93)90089-8
Samuel, G. O., Hoffmann, S., Wright, R. et al. (2016). Guidance on assessing the methodological and reporting quality of toxicologically relevant studies: A scoping review. Environ Int 92-93, 630-646. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2016.03.010
Schwaller, M. (2004). Uniform biological material transfer agreements: An argument for uniform use. Houst Bus Tax Law J 4, 190-230. https://hbtlj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Schwaller.pdf
Sozzi, E., Kajtez, J., Bruzelius, A. et al. (2022). Silk scaffolding drives self-assembly of functional and mature human brain organoids. Front Cell Dev Biol 10, 1023279. doi:10.3389/fcell.2022.1023279
Sullivan, K. M., Ko, E., Kim, E. M. et al. (2022). Extracellular microenvironmental control for organoid assembly. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 28, 1209-1222. doi:10.1089/ten.teb.2021.0186
Takahashi, K., Tanabe, K., Ohnuki, M. et al. (2007). Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 131, 861-872. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2007.11.019
Taylor, C. F., Field, D., Sansone, S. A. et al. (2008). Promoting coherent minimum reporting guidelines for biological and biomedical investigations: The MIBBI project. Nat Biotechnol 26, 889-896. doi:10.1038/nbt.141
The International Stem Cell Initiative (2007). Characterization of human embryonic stem cell lines by the international stem cell initiative. Nat Biotechnol 25, 803-816. doi:10.1038/nbt1318
The River Working Group (2023). Reporting in vitro experiments responsibly – The RIVER recommendations. MetaArXiv Preprints. doi:10.31222/osf.io/x6aut
Thomas, R. A., Sirois, J., Li, S. et al. (2024). CelltypeR: A flow cytometry pipeline to characterize single cells from brain organoids. iScience 27, 110613, doi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.110613
Tigges, J., Bielec, K., Brockerhoff, G. et al. (2021). Academic application of good cell culture practice for induced pluripotent stem cells. ALTEX 38, 595-614. doi:10.14573/altex.2101221
van der Valk, J., Bieback, K., Buta, C. et al. (2018). Fetal bovine serum (FBS): Past – Present – Future. ALTEX 35, 99-118. doi:10.14573/altex.1705101
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M. et al. (2007). The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. The Lancet 370, 1453-1457. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X
WHO (2001). Handbook: Good Laboratory Practice (GLP): Quality Practices for Regulated Non-clinical Research and Development. World Health Organization. https://tdr.who.int/publications/m/item/2001-01-01-handbook-good-laboratory-practice
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J. et al. (2016). The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 3, 160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18
Yamamoto, T., Arita, M., Kuroda, H. et al. (2022). Improving the differentiation potential of pluripotent stem cells by optimizing culture conditions. Sci Rep 12, 14147. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-18400-8
Young, L., Sung, J., Stacey, G. et al. (2010). Detection of mycoplasma in cell cultures. Nat Protoc 5, 929-934. doi:10.1038/nprot.2010.4318-0316-z
Zimmer, B., Kuegler, P. B., Baudis, B. et al. (2011). Coordinated waves of gene expression during neuronal differentiation of embryonic stem cells as basis for novel approaches to developmental neurotoxicity testing. Cell Death Differ 18, 383-395. doi:10.1038/cdd.2010.109