Table 3 Summary of genes and nutrition publication guidelines

1. Standardization/reproducibility of data and findings. Manuscripts submitted to G&N should contain the necessary information allowing evaluation of alignment with widely accepted best practices (see Table 2 for specific guidelines). These standards include descriptions of reference materials and reagents, study design, laboratory protocols, data analysis, and reporting. We recommend authors to refer to the MIBBI Portal (Minimum Information for Biological and Biomedical Investigations) for prescriptive checklists for reporting biological and biomedical research where applicable.

2. Gene variants. G&N manuscripts reporting associations between single SNPs and complex phenotypes or single SNPs and response to diet will not be sent for peer review unless (i) the effect size is large, (ii) p values significant and corrected for multiple comparison, and (iii) replicated in a second study. Complex phenotypes include diseases, anthropometric measures (e.g., body weight or body mass index), and intermediate risk factors (e.g., levels or changes in fasting blood parameters).

3. Women’s health research. Sexual dimorphism in metabolic response should be assessed, and when possible, the phase of the menstrual cycle phase analyzed by one of the six methods described in [1].

4. Animal genetics. G&N will require strain designations and their commercial source for all studies.

5. Animal diets. Different lots of chow diets vary in chemical composition with the best examples being fatty acid composition [55] and estrogenic isoflavones [6, 18]. Ricci and Ulman (principals of Research Diets, Inc, New Brunswick, NJ) have developed what should be a simple meme for writing descriptions of experimental diets [80]

6. Peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PMBC) analysis. The accessibility of PBMCs for studies of transcriptomic and DNA methylation analysis in response to diet and other environmental factors is highly tempting. PBMCs, however, are a highly diverse ecosystem. Isolation procedures for distinct subsets of PBMC have been described (e.g., [33]), and methods have been developed to deconvolute PBMC expression [4] and DNA methylation [51] profiles to (albeit large) functional subgroups of cells.

7. Cell line authentication. Different laboratories may have no or different quality control procedures and hence the “same” cell lines may differ significantly [23]. The authentication and purity of cell lines are often undervalued by many researchers, who are frequently not aware of specific standards and guidelines ([9] and http://iclac.org/databases/cross-contaminations/). Alignment to good cell culture practices [12] published by the International Cell Line Authentication Committee is a prerequisite read for successful use of mammalian cell models in all branches of biomedical research.

8. Microbiome. A primer for researchers for conducting a microbiome study has recently been published [27] and refinements in standards are likely to be developed as this field matures.

9. Natural compounds. Studies dealing with the effect of natural compounds or food/botanical extracts should report characterization and standardization of the material utilized to allow reproducibility as a prerequisite for peer reviewing. Standard reporting methods are described in [72].

10. Data standards. Compliance of submissions with standards of good data practices, such as FAIR guidelines (data is required to be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable—[107]) is essential.