Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Academic Publishing’ Category


Multiple Major Scientific Journals Will Fully Adopt Open Access Under Plan S

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

More university library systems have been pressuring major scientific publishing houses to adopt an open access strategy in order to reduce the library system’s budgetary burdens.  In fact some major universities like the California system of universities (University of California and other publicly funded universities in the state as well as Oxford University in the UK, even MIT have decided to become their own publishing houses in a concerted effort to fight back against soaring journal subscription costs as well as the costs burdening individual scientists and laboratories (some of the charges to publish one paper can run as high as $8000.00 USD while the journal still retains all the rights of distribution of the information).  Therefore more and more universities, as well as concerted efforts by the European Union and the US government are mandating that scientific literature be published in an open access format.

The results of this pressure are evident now as major journals like Nature, JBC, and others have plans to go fully open access in 2021.  Below is a listing and news reports of some of these journals plans to undertake a full Open Access Format.

 

Nature to join open-access Plan S, publisher says

09 APRIL 2020 UPDATE 14 APRIL 2020

Springer Nature says it commits to offering researchers a route to publishing open access in Nature and most Nature-branded journals from 2021.

Richard Van Noorden

After a change in the rules of the bold open-access (OA) initiative known as Plan S, publisher Springer Nature said on 8 April that many of its non-OA journals — including Nature — were now committed to joining the plan, pending discussion of further technical details.

This means that Nature and other Nature-branded journals that publish original research will now look to offer an immediate OA route after January 2021 to scientists who want it, or whose funders require it, a spokesperson says. (Nature is editorially independent of its publisher, Springer Nature.)

“We are delighted that Springer Nature is committed to transitioning its journals to full OA,” said Robert Kiley, head of open research at the London-based biomedical funder Wellcome, and the interim coordinator for Coalition S, a group of research funders that launched Plan S in 2018.

But Lisa Hinchliffe, a librarian at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, says the changed rules show that publishers have successfully pushed back against Plan S, softening its guidelines and expectations — in particular in the case of hybrid journals, which publish some content openly and keep other papers behind paywalls. “The coalition continues to take actions that rehabilitate hybrid journals into compliance rather than taking the hard line of unacceptability originally promulgated,” she says.

 

 

 

 

What is Plan S?

The goal of Plan S is to make scientific and scholarly works free to read as soon as they are published. So far, 17 national funders, mostly in Europe, have joined the initiative, as have the World Health Organization and two of the world’s largest private biomedical funders — the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Wellcome. The European Commission will also implement an OA policy that is aligned with Plan S. Together, this covers around 7% of scientific articles worldwide, according to one estimate. A 2019 report published by the publishing-services firm Clarivate Analytics suggested that 35% of the research content published in Nature in 2017 acknowledged a Plan S funder (see ‘Plan S papers’).

PLAN S PAPERS

Journal Total papers in 2017 % acknowledging Plan S funder
Nature 290 35%
Science 235 31%
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 639 20%

Source: The Plan S footprint: Implications for the scholarly publishing landscape (Institute for Scientific Information, 2019)

 

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01066-5

Opening ASBMB publications freely to all

 

Lila M. Gierasch, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Biological Chemistry

Nicholas O. Davidson

Kerry-Anne Rye, Editors-in-Chief, Journal of Lipid Research and 

Alma L. Burlingame, Editor-in-Chief, Molecular and Cellular Proteomics

 

We are extremely excited to announce on behalf of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) that the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC), Molecular & Cellular Proteomics (MCP), and the Journal of Lipid Research (JLR) will be published as fully open-access journals beginning in January 2021. This is a landmark decision that will have huge impact for readers and authors. As many of you know, many researchers have called for journals to become open access to facilitate scientific progress, and many funding agencies across the globe are either already requiring or considering a requirement that all scientific publications based on research they support be published in open-access journals. The ASBMB journals have long supported open access, making the accepted author versions of manuscripts immediately and permanently available, allowing authors to opt in to the immediate open publication of the final version of their paper, and endorsing the goals of the larger open-access movement (1). However, we are no longer satisfied with these measures. To live up to our goals as a scientific society, we want to freely distribute the scientific advances published in JBC, MCP, and JLR as widely and quickly as possible to support the scientific community. How better can we facilitate the dissemination of new information than to make our scientific content freely open to all?

For ASBMB journals and others who have contemplated or made the transition to publishing all content open access, achieving this milestone generally requires new financial mechanisms. In the case of the ASBMB journals, the transition to open access is being made possible by a new partnership with Elsevier, whose established capabilities and economies of scale make the costs associated with open-access publication manageable for the ASBMB (2). However, we want to be clear: The ethos of ASBMB journals will not change as a consequence of this new alliance. The journals remain society journals: The journals are owned by the society, and all scientific oversight for the journals will remain with ASBMB and its chosen editors. Peer review will continue to be done by scientists reviewing the work of scientists, carried out by editorial board members and external referees on behalf of the ASBMB journal leadership. There will be no intervention in this process by the publisher.

Although we will be saying “goodbye” to many years of self-publishing (115 in the case of JBC), we are certain that we are taking this big step for all the right reasons. The goal for JBC, MCP, and JLR has always been and will remain to help scientists advance their work by rapidly and effectively disseminating their results to their colleagues and facilitating the discovery of new findings (13), and open access is only one of many innovations and improvements in science publishing that could help the ASBMB journals achieve this goal. We have been held back from fully exploring these options because of the challenges of “keeping the trains running” with self-publication. In addition to allowing ASBMB to offer all the content in its journals to all readers freely and without barriers, the new partnership with Elsevier opens many doors for ASBMB publications, from new technology for manuscript handling and production, to facilitating reader discovery of content, to deploying powerful analytics to link content within and across publications, to new opportunities to improve our peer review mechanisms. We have all dreamed of implementing these innovations and enhancements (45) but have not had the resources or infrastructure needed.

A critical aspect of moving to open access is how this decision impacts the cost to authors. Like most publishers that have made this transition, we have been extremely worried that achieving open-access publishing would place too big a financial burden on our authors. We are pleased to report the article-processing charges (APCs) to publish in ASBMB journals will be on the low end within the range of open-access fees: $2,000 for members and $2,500 for nonmembers. While slightly higher than the cost an author incurs now if the open-access option is not chosen, these APCs are lower than the current charges for open access on our existing platform.

References

1.↵ Gierasch, L. M., Davidson, N. O., Rye, K.-A., and Burlingame, A. L. (2019) For the sake of science. J. Biol. Chem. 294, 2976 FREE Full Text

2.↵ Gierasch, L. M. (2017) On the costs of scientific publishing. J. Biol. Chem. 292, 16395–16396 FREE Full Text

3.↵ Gierasch, L. M. (2020) Faster publication advances your science: The three R’s. J. Biol. Chem. 295, 672 FREE Full Text

4.↵ Gierasch, L. M. (2017) JBC is on a mission to facilitate scientific discovery. J. Biol. Chem. 292, 6853–6854 FREE Full Text

5.↵ Gierasch, L. M. (2017) JBC’s New Year’s resolutions: Check them off! J. Biol. Chem. 292, 21705–21706 FREE Full Text

 

Source: https://www.jbc.org/content/295/22/7814.short?ssource=mfr&rss=1

 

Open access publishing under Plan S to start in 2021

BMJ

2019; 365 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l2382 (Published 31 May 2019)Cite this as: BMJ 2019;365:l2382

From 2021, all research funded by public or private grants should be published in open access journals, according to a group of funding agencies called coALition S.1

The plan is the final version of a draft that was put to public consultation last year and attracted 344 responses from institutions, almost half of them from the UK.2 The responses have been considered and some changes made to the new system called Plan S, a briefing at the Science Media Centre in London was told on 29 May.

The main change has been to delay implementation for a year, to 1 January 2021, to allow more time for those involved—researchers, funders, institutions, publishers, and repositories—to make the necessary changes, said John-Arne Røttingen, chief executive of the Research Council of Norway.

“All research contracts signed after that date should include the obligation to publish in an open access journal,” he said. T……

(Please Note in a huge bit of irony this article is NOT Open Access and behind a paywall…. Yes an article about an announcement to go Open Access is not Open Access)

Source: https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2382.full

 

 

Plan S

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Not to be confused with S-Plan.

Plan S is an initiative for open-access science publishing launched in 2018[1][2] by “cOAlition S”,[3] a consortium of national research agencies and funders from twelve European countries. The plan requires scientists and researchers who benefit from state-funded research organisations and institutions to publish their work in open repositories or in journals that are available to all by 2021.[4] The “S” stands for “shock”.[5]

Principles of the plan[edit]

The plan is structured around ten principles.[3] The key principle states that by 2021, research funded by public or private grants must be published in open-access journals or platforms, or made immediately available in open access repositories without an embargo. The ten principles are:

  1. authors should retain copyrighton their publications, which must be published under an open license such as Creative Commons;
  2. the members of the coalition should establish robust criteria and requirements for compliant open access journals and platforms;
  3. they should also provide incentives for the creation of compliant open access journals and platforms if they do not yet exist;
  4. publication fees should be covered by the funders or universities, not individual researchers;
  5. such publication fees should be standardized and capped;
  6. universities, research organizations, and libraries should align their policies and strategies;
  7. for books and monographs, the timeline may be extended beyond 2021;
  8. open archives and repositories are acknowledged for their importance;
  9. hybrid open-access journalsare not compliant with the key principle;
  10. members of the coalition should monitor and sanction non-compliance.

Member organisations

Organisations in the coalition behind Plan S include:[14]

International organizations that are members:

Plan S is also supported by:

 

Other articles on Open Access on this Open Access Journal Include:

MIT, guided by open access principles, ends Elsevier negotiations, an act followed by other University Systems in the US and in Europe

 

Open Access e-Scientific Publishing: Elected among 2018 Nature’s 10 Top Influencers – ROBERT-JAN SMITS: A bureaucrat launched a drive to transform science publishing

 

Electronic Scientific AGORA: Comment Exchanges by Global Scientists on Articles published in the Open Access Journal @pharmaceuticalintelligence.com – Four Case Studies

 

Mozilla Science Lab Promotes Data Reproduction Through Open Access: Report from 9/10/2015 Online Meeting

 

Elsevier’s Mendeley and Academia.edu – How We Distribute Scientific Research: A Case in Advocacy for Open Access Journals

 

The Fatal Self Distraction of the Academic Publishing Industry: The Solution of the Open Access Online Scientific Journals
PeerJ Model for Open Access Scientific Journal
“Open Access Publishing” is becoming the mainstream model: “Academic Publishing” has changed Irrevocably
Open-Access Publishing in Genomics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


Recent Grim COVID-19 Statistics in U.S. and Explanation from Dr. John Campbell: Why We Need to be More Proactive

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

In case you have not been following the excellent daily YouTube sessions on COVID-19 by Dr. John Campbell I am posting his latest video on how grim the statistics have become and the importance of using proactive measures (like consistent use of facial masks, proper social distancing) instead of relying on reactive measures (e.g. lockdowns after infection spikes).  In addition, below the video are some notes from his presentation and some links to sites discussed within the video.

 

Notes from the video:

  • approaching 5 million confirmed cases in US however is probably an underestimation
  • 160,00 deaths as of 8/08/2020

From the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle WA

  • 295,000 US COVID-19 related deaths estimated by December 1, 2020
  • however if 95% of people in US consistently and properly wear masks could save 66,000 lives
  • however this will mean a remaining 228,271 deaths which is a depressing statistic
  • Dr. John Campbell agrees with Dr. Christopher Murray, director of the Institute for Health Metrics that “people’s inconsistent use of these measures (face masks, social distancing) is a serious problem”
  • States with increasing transmission like Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Virginia are suggested to have a lockdown when death rate reaches 8 deaths per million population however it seems we should be also focusing on population densities rather than geographic states
  • Dr. Campbell and Dr. Murray stress more proactive measures than reactive ones like lockdowns
  • if mask usage were to increase to 95% usage reimposition to shutdown could be delayed 6 to 8 weeks

 

New IHME COVID-19 Forecasts See Nearly 300,000 Deaths by December 1

SEATTLE (August 6, 2020) – America’s COVID-19 death toll is expected to reach nearly 300,000 by December 1; however, consistent mask-wearing beginning today could save about 70,000 lives, according to new data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington’s School of Medicine.The US forecast totals 295,011 deaths by December. As of today, when, thus far, 158,000 have died, IHME is projecting approximately 137,000 more deaths. However, starting today, if 95% of the people in the US were to wear masks when leaving their homes, that total number would decrease to 228,271 deaths, a drop of 49%. And more than 66,000 lives would be saved.Masks and other protective measures against transmission of the virus are essential to staying COVID-free, but people’s inconsistent use of those measures is a serious problem, said IHME Director Dr. Christopher Murray.

“We’re seeing a rollercoaster in the United States,” Murray said. “It appears that people are wearing masks and socially distancing more frequently as infections increase, then after a while as infections drop, people let their guard down and stop taking these measures to protect themselves and others – which, of course, leads to more infections. And the potentially deadly cycle starts over again.”

Murray noted that there appear to be fewer transmissions of the virus in Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas, but deaths are rising and will continue to rise for the next week or two. The drop in infections appears to be driven by the combination of local mandates for mask use, bar and restaurant closures, and more responsible behavior by the public.

“The public’s behavior had a direct correlation to the transmission of the virus and, in turn, the numbers of deaths,” Murray said. “Such efforts to act more cautiously and responsibly will be an important aspect of COVID-19 forecasting and the up-and-down patterns in individual states throughout the coming months and into next year.”

Murray said that based on cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, several states are seeing increases in the transmission of COVID-19, including Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Virginia.

“These states may experience increasing cases for several weeks and then may see a response toward more responsible behavior,” Murray said.

In addition, since July 15, several states have added mask mandates. IHME’s statistical analysis suggests that mandates with no penalties increase mask wearing by 8 percentage points. But mandates with penalties increase mask wearing by 15 percentage points.

“These efforts, along with media coverage and public information efforts by state and local health agencies and others, have led to an increase in the US rate of mask wearing by about 5 percentage points since mid-July,” Murray said. Mask-wearing increases have been larger in states with larger epidemics, he said.

IHME’s model assumes that states will reimpose a series of mandates, including non-essential business closures and stay-at-home orders, when the daily death rate reaches 8 per million. This threshold is based on data regarding when states and/or communities imposed mandates in March and April, and implies that many states will have to reimpose mandates.

As a result, the model suggests which states will need to reimpose mandates and when:

  • August – Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina
  • September – Georgia and Texas
  • October – Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, and Oregon.
  • November – Alabama, Arkansas, California, Iowa, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.

However, if mask use is increased to 95%, the re-imposition of stricter mandates could be delayed 6 to 8 weeks on average.

Source: http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/new-ihme-covid-19-forecasts-see-nearly-300000-deaths-december-1

 

Read Full Post »


WordCloud Visualization of LPBI’s Top Twelve Articles by Views at All Time and their Research Categories in the Ontology of PharmaceuticalIntelligence.com

Curators: Daniel Menzin, Noam Steiner-Tomer, Zach Day, Ofer Markman, PhD, Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Article Name
Live Link
Views
All Time
Categories of Research 


#1



Is the Warburg Effect the Cause or the Effect of Cancer: A 21st Century View?





17,140Biological NetworksCANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer TherapyCell BiologyDisease BiologyGenome BiologyImaging-based Cancer Patient ManagementInternational Global Work in PharmaceuticalLiver & Digestive Diseases ResearchMetabolomicsMolecular Genetics & PharmaceuticalNutritionPharmaceutical Industry Competitive IntelligencePharmaceutical R&D InvestmentPopulation Health ManagementProteomicsStem Cells for Regenerative MedicineTechnology Transfer: Biotech and Pharmaceutical | Tagged Adenosine triphosphateATPGlycolysisHypoxia-inducible factorsKrebLactate dehydrogenaseMammalian target of rapamycinMitochondrionWarburg Effect


#2



Recent comprehensive review on the role of ultrasound in breast cancer management





14,553Biomarkers & Medical DiagnosticsHealth Economics and Outcomes ResearchHealthcare costs and reimbursementImaging-based Cancer Patient ManagementMedical Device Therapies for Altzheimer’s DiseaseMedical Devices R&D InvestmentMedical Imaging Technology, Image Processing/Computing, MRI, CT, Nuclear Medicine, Ultra Sound | Tagged breast biopsiesbreast cancerbreast cancer managementbreast cancer screeningbreast cystbreast lesionsbreast ultrasoundmammographyMRIPersonalized medicinePETsupport breast cancertomosynthesisyale university schoolyale university school of medicine 

#3

Do Novel Anticoagulants Affect the PT/INR? The Cases of XARELTO (rivaroxaban) and PRADAXA (dabigatran)


13,893Coagulation Therapy and Internal BleedingElectrophysiologyFDA Regulatory AffairsOrigins of Cardiovascular DiseasePharmacotherapy of Cardiovascular Disease | Tagged Academic Medical CenterAmsterdamAnticoagulantApixabanDabigatranDirect thrombin inhibitorDirect Xa inhibitorFood and Drug AdministrationNew England Journal of MedicineNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugNortheastern UniversityPRADAXAProthrombin timeRivaroxabanVTEWarfarin 

#4

Paclitaxel vs Abraxane (albumin-bound paclitaxel)cent comprehensive review on the role of ultrasound in breast cancer management


13,878BioSimilarsCANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer TherapyDisease Biology, Small Molecules in Development of Therapeutic DrugsNanotechnology for Drug DeliveryPharmaceutical AnalyticsPharmaceutical R&D InvestmentRegulated Clinical Trials: Design, Methods, Components and IRB related issues | Tagged Abraxanealbumin-bound paclitaxelbreast cancerclinical studiesFREE paclitaxellinear PKnon-linear PKPaclitaxelPharmacokineticsPKside effectsTaxol 


#5


Apixaban (Eliquis): Mechanism of Action, Drug Comparison and Additional Indications

8,367Coagulation Therapy and Internal BleedingFrontiers in Cardiology and Cardiovascular DisordersOrigins of Cardiovascular DiseasePharmacotherapy of Cardiovascular Disease, tagged Dabigatranrivaroxaban and apixaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation 

#6

Clinical Indications for Use of Inhaled Nitric Oxide (iNO) in the Adult Patient Market: Clinical Outcomes after Use, Therapy Demand and Cost of Care

8,068Medical Devices R&D InvestmentNitric Oxide in Health and DiseaseTechnology Transfer: Biotech and Pharmaceutical | Tagged ARDSAviva Lev-AriInhaled Nitric Oxidenitric oxideprostacyclinPulmonary hypertensionRespiratory failure 
#7

Our Team

6,553LPBI Group, e-Scientific Media, DFP, R&D-M3DP, R&D-Drug Discovery, US Patents: SOPs and Team Management 
#8
Mesothelin: An early detection biomarker for cancer (By Jack Andraka)
6,545Advanced Drug Manufacturing TechnologyBio Instrumentation in Experimental Life Sciences ResearchBiological Networks, Gene Regulation and EvolutionBiomarkers & Medical DiagnosticsBioSimilarsCANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer TherapyCancer Prevention: Research & ProgramsCell Biology, Signaling & Cell CircuitsDisease Biology, Small Molecules in Development of Therapeutic DrugsHealth Economics and Outcomes ResearchMedical Devices R&D InvestmentNanotechnology for Drug DeliveryPharmaceutical R&D InvestmentPopulation Health Management, Genetics & PharmaceuticalRegulated Clinical Trials: Design, Methods, Components and IRB related issuesTechnology Transfer: Biotech and Pharmaceutical | Tagged Blood testcarbon nanotubesearly detectionMesothelinPancreatic cancer 




#9






Biochemistry of the Coagulation Cascade and Platelet Aggregation: Nitric Oxide: Platelets, Circulatory Disorders, and Coagulation Effects










5,235Aortic Valve: TAVR, TAVI vs Open Heart SurgeryBiomarkers & Medical DiagnosticsCell Biology, Signaling & Cell CircuitsChemical Biology and its relations to Metabolic DiseaseCoagulation Therapy and Internal BleedingDisease Biology, Small Molecules in Development of Therapeutic DrugsMetabolomicsMitral Valve: Repair and ReplacementNitric Oxide in Health and DiseasePersonalized and Precision Medicine & Genomic ResearchPharmaceutical Industry Competitive IntelligencePharmacotherapy of Cardiovascular DiseasePopulation Health Management, Nutrition and PhytochemistryProteomics | Tagged anti-inflammatoryanti-TNFAnticoagulantAntithrombinblood flow resistancecell junctionscellular adhesionCoumadinEndothelial cellsFactor IX and IXaFactor VII and VIIaFactor VIII and Factor VIIIaFactor X and XafibrinogenfibrinolysisheparinHypoxia-inducible factorsNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugPartial thromboplastin timePhysiologyplasminplatelet aggregationplateletsprothrombinsoluble fibrinsubendothelial matrixThrombinthrombomodulinThrombustissue factorTNF-aVon Willebrand factorWH Seegers 
#10

Interaction of enzymes and hormones

5,173Cell Biology, Signaling & Cell CircuitsChemical Biology and its relations to Metabolic DiseaseMetabolomicsPopulation Health Management, Genetics & PharmaceuticalPopulation Health Management, Nutrition and PhytochemistryReproductive Andrology, Embryology, Genomic Endocrinology, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Reproductive Genomics | Tagged active compoundsenzymehormoneinteractionMetabolismTherapy 

#11

Akt inhibition for cancer treatment, where do we stand today?


4,865CANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer TherapyCell Biology, Signaling & Cell Circuits | Tagged Cancer researchcancer therapyCell BiologymTORNF-κBPI3K/AKT pathwayPTENSignal transduction 

 

#12

The History and Creators of Total Parenteral Nutrition

 

4,660

 

Disease BiologyGastroenterologyUncategorized | Tagged Amino acidsenteral nutritionNutritionTPN

 

#1

Is the Warburg Effect the Cause or the Effect of Cancer: A 21st Century View?

Article #1: WordCloud by DM

#2

Recent comprehensive review on the role of ultrasound in breast cancer management

Article #2: WordCloud by NT

#3

Do Novel Anticoagulants Affect the PT/INR? The Cases of XARELTO (rivaroxaban) and PRADAXA (dabigatran)

Article #3: WordCloud by ZD

#4

Paclitaxel vs Abraxane (albumin-bound paclitaxel)cent comprehensive review on the role of ultrasound in breast cancer management

Article #4: WordCloud by DM

#5

Apixaban (Eliquis): Mechanism of Action, Drug Comparison and Additional Indications

Article #5: WordCloud by ZD

#6

Clinical Indications for Use of Inhaled Nitric Oxide (iNO) in the Adult Patient Market: Clinical Outcomes after Use, Therapy Demand and Cost of Care

Article #6: WordCloud by NT

#7

Our Team

Article #7: WordCloud by DM

Read Full Post »


The Castleman Disease Research Network publishes Phase 1 Results of Drug Repurposing Database for COVID-19

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD.

 

From CNN at https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/27/health/coronavirus-treatment-fajgenbaum-drug-review-scn-wellness/index.html

Updated 8:17 AM ET, Sat June 27, 2020

(CNN)Every morning, Dr. David Fajgenbaum takes three life-saving pills. He wakes up his 21-month-old daughter Amelia to help feed her. He usually grabs some Greek yogurt to eat quickly before sitting down in his home office. Then he spends most of the next 14 hours leading dozens of fellow researchers and volunteers in a systematic review of all the drugs that physicians and researchers have used so far to treat Covid-19. His team has already pored over more than 8,000 papers on how to treat coronavirus patients.

The 35-year-old associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine leads the school’s Center for Cytokine Storm Treatment & Laboratory. For the last few years, he has dedicated his life to studying Castleman disease, a rare condition that nearly claimed his life. Against epic odds, he found a drug that saved his own life six years ago, by creating a collaborative method for organizing medical research that could be applicable to thousands of human diseases. But after seeing how the same types of flares of immune-signaling cells, called cytokine storms, kill both Castleman and Covid-19 patients alike, his lab has devoted nearly all of its resources to aiding doctors fighting the pandemic.

A global repository for Covid-19 treatment data

Researchers working with his lab have reviewed published data on more than 150 drugs doctors around the world have to treat nearly 50,000 patients diagnosed with Covid-19. They’ve made their analysis public in a database called the Covid-19 Registry of Off-label & New Agents (or CORONA for short).
It’s a central repository of all available data in scientific journals on all the therapies used so far to curb the pandemic. This information can help doctors treat patients and tell researchers how to build clinical trials.The team’s process resembles that of the coordination Fajgenbaum used as a medical student to discover that he could repurpose Sirolimus, an immunosuppressant drug approved for kidney transplant patients, to prevent his body from producing deadly flares of immune-signaling cells called cytokines.The 13 members of Fajgenbaum’s lab recruited dozens of other scientific colleagues to join their coronavirus effort. And what this group is finding has ramifications for scientists globally.
This effort by Dr. Fajgenbaum’s lab and the resultant collaborative effort shows the power and speed at which a coordinated open science effort can achieve goals. Below is the description of the phased efforts planned and completed from the CORONA website.

CORONA (COvid19 Registry of Off-label & New Agents)

Drug Repurposing for COVID-19

Our overarching vision:  A world where data on all treatments that have been used against COVID19 are maintained in a central repository and analyzed so that physicians currently treating COVID19 patients know what treatments are most likely to help their patients and so that clinical trials can be appropriately prioritized.

 

Phase 1: COMPLETED

Our team reviewed 2500+ papers & extracted data on over 9,000 COVID19 patients. We found 115 repurposed drugs that have been used to treat COVID19 patients and analyzed data on which ones seem most promising for clinical trials. This data is open source and can be used by physicians to treat patients and prioritize drugs for trials. The CDCN will keep this database updated as a resource for this global fight. Repurposed drugs give us the best chance to help COVID19 as quickly as possible! As disease hunters who have identified and repurposed drugs for Castleman disease, we’re applying our ChasingMyCure approach to COVID19.

Read our systematic literature review published in Infectious Diseases and Therapy at the following link: Treatments Administered to the First 9152 Reported Cases of COVID-19: A Systematic Review

From Fajgenbaum, D.C., Khor, J.S., Gorzewski, A. et al. Treatments Administered to the First 9152 Reported Cases of COVID-19: A Systematic Review. Infect Dis Ther (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-020-00303-8

The following is the Abstract and link to the metastudy.  This study was a systematic review of literature with strict inclusion criteria.  Data was curated from these published studies and a total of 9152 patients were evaluated for treatment regimens for COVID19 complications and clinical response was curated for therapies in these curated studies.  Main insights from this study were as follows:

Key Summary Points

Why carry out this study?
  • Data on drugs that have been used to treat COVID-19 worldwide are currently spread throughout disparate publications.
  • We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify drugs that have been tried in COVID-19 patients and to explore clinically meaningful response time.
What was learned from the study?
  • We identified 115 uniquely referenced treatments administered to COVID-19 patients. Antivirals were the most frequently administered class; combination lopinavir/ritonavir was the most frequently used treatment.
  • This study presents the latest status of off-label and experimental treatments for COVID-19. Studies such as this are important for all diseases, especially those that do not currently have definitive evidence from randomized controlled trials or approved therapies.

Treatments Administered to the First 9152 Reported Cases of COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Abstract

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2/2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has created a global pandemic with no approved treatments or vaccines. Many treatments have already been administered to COVID-19 patients but have not been systematically evaluated. We performed a systematic literature review to identify all treatments reported to be administered to COVID-19 patients and to assess time to clinically meaningful response for treatments with sufficient data. We searched PubMed, BioRxiv, MedRxiv, and ChinaXiv for articles reporting treatments for COVID-19 patients published between 1 December 2019 and 27 March 2020. Data were analyzed descriptively. Of the 2706 articles identified, 155 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 9152 patients. The cohort was 45.4% female and 98.3% hospitalized, and mean (SD) age was 44.4 years (SD 21.0). The most frequently administered drug classes were antivirals, antibiotics, and corticosteroids, and of the 115 reported drugs, the most frequently administered was combination lopinavir/ritonavir, which was associated with a time to clinically meaningful response (complete symptom resolution or hospital discharge) of 11.7 (1.09) days. There were insufficient data to compare across treatments. Many treatments have been administered to the first 9152 reported cases of COVID-19. These data serve as the basis for an open-source registry of all reported treatments given to COVID-19 patients at www.CDCN.org/CORONA. Further work is needed to prioritize drugs for investigation in well-controlled clinical trials and treatment protocols.

Read the Press Release from PennMedicine at the following link: PennMedicine Press Release

Phase 2: Continue to update CORONA

Our team continues to work diligently to maintain an updated listing of all treatments reported to be used in COVID19 patients from papers in PubMed. We are also re-analyzing publicly available COVID19 single cell transcriptomic data alongside our iMCD data to search for novel insights and therapeutic targets.

You can visit the following link to access a database viewer built and managed by Matt Chadsey, owner of Nonlinear Ventures.

If you are a physician treating COVID19 patients, please visit the FDA’s CURE ID app to report de-identified information about drugs you’ve used to treat COVID19 in just a couple minutes.

For more information on COVID19 on this Open Access Journal please see our Coronavirus Portal at

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/coronavirus-portal/

Read Full Post »


A Group of Leading Scientists is calling on PNAS to retract a Nobel Laureate’s paper

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

 

Mario Molina, winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995, was the lead author of the paper now being questioned.

A group of leading scientists is calling on PNAS to retract a paper on the effectiveness of masks, saying the study has “egregious errors” and contains numerous “verifiably false” statements.

The scientists wrote a letter to the journal editors on Thursday, asking them to retract the study immediately “given the scope and severity of the issues we present, and the paper’s outsized and immediate public impact.”

The letter follows heated criticism of two other major coronavirus studies in May, which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. Both papers were retracted amid concerns that a rush to publish coronavirus research had eroded safeguards at prestigious journals.

The study now under fire was published on June 11 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The lead author is Mario Molina, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995, with two other scientists, for finding a link between man-made chemicals and depletion of the atmosphere’s ozone layer.

Read More

REFERENCES

Mario J. Molina

 

Original Article under fire

Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19

Renyi ZhangYixin LiAnnie L. ZhangYuan Wang, and Mario J. Molina
  1. Contributed by Mario J. Molina, May 16, 2020 (sent for review May 14, 2020; reviewed by Manish Shrivastava and Tong Zhu)

 

Two major study retractions in one month have left researchers wondering if the peer review process is broken.

SOURCE

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/health/virus-journals.html

 

Scientists Letter to the Editor of PNAS

Click to access e7ef6fc5-c7c6-42f1-922b-a7788161af37.pdf

SOURCE

From: eScience <escienceinfo@comcast.net>

Subject: A group of leading scientists is calling on PNAS to retract a Nobel Laureate’s paper

Date: June 21, 2020 at 5:30:40 PM PDT

To: mfeldman@stanford.edu

Reply-To: escienceinfo@comcast.net

Read Full Post »


MIT, guided by open access principles, ends Elsevier negotiations, an act followed by other University Systems in the US and in Europe

Institute ends negotiations for a new journals contract in the absence of a proposal aligning with the MIT Framework for Publisher Contracts.

MIT Libraries
June 11, 2020

MIT, Elsevier Stop Talking

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has ended its journal subscription contract negotiations with Elsevier, according to the school.

It adds that the publisher did not provide a contract that was in line with the MIT Framework for Publisher Contracts, which advocates for the open sharing of research and educational material. Part of that policy, Inside Higher Ed notes, is the requirement that researchers must be able to retain copyright of their work, and it suspects that “may have been a sticking point in MIT’s negotiations with Elsevier.”

“I am disappointed that we were not able to reach a contract with Elsevier that honors the principles of the MIT Framework, but I am proud knowing that the MIT community — as well as hundreds of colleagues across the country — stand by the importance of these principles for advancing the public good and the progress of science,” Chris Bourg, director of the MIT Libraries, says in a statement. “In the face of these unprecedented global challenges, equitable and open access to knowledge is more critical than ever.”

Other institutions like the University of California as well as the State University of New York and the University of North Carolina have similarly ended contract negotiations with Elsevier, IHE adds.

https://www.genomeweb.com/scan/mit-elsevier-stop-talking?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Scan%20Fri%202020-06-12&utm_term=The%20Scan%20Bulletin#.XwykwZNKgdU

http://news.mit.edu/2020/guided-by-open-access-principles-mit-ends-elsevier-negotiations-0611

 

See

University of California accounts for nearly 10% of all published research in the United States. It’s also a significant partner of Elsevier, which publishes about 18% of all UC output and collects more than 25% of the university’s $40-million overall subscription budget.

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2018/12/09/university-of-california-accounts-for-nearly-10-of-all-published-research-in-the-united-states-its-also-a-significant-partner-of-elsevier-which-publishes-about-18-of-all-uc-o/

Read Full Post »

US Responses to Coronavirus Outbreak Expose Many Flaws in Our Medical System


US Responses to Coronavirus Outbreak Expose Many Flaws in Our Medical System

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

The  coronavirus pandemic has affected almost every country in every continent however, after months of the novel advent of novel COVID-19 cases, it has become apparent that the varied clinical responses in this epidemic (and outcomes) have laid bare some of the strong and weak aspects in, both our worldwide capabilities to respond to infectious outbreaks in a global coordinated response and in individual countries’ response to their localized epidemics.

 

Some nations, like Israel, have initiated a coordinated government-private-health system wide action plan and have shown success in limiting both new cases and COVID-19 related deaths.  After the initial Wuhan China outbreak, China closed borders and the government initiated health related procedures including the building of new hospitals. As of writing today, Wuhan has experienced no new cases of COVID-19 for two straight days.

 

However, the response in the US has been perplexing and has highlighted some glaring problems that have been augmented in this crisis, in the view of this writer.    In my view, which has been formulated after social discussion with members in the field ,these issues can be centered on three major areas of deficiencies in the United States that have hindered a rapid and successful response to this current crisis and potential future crises of this nature.

 

 

  1. The mistrust or misunderstanding of science in the United States
  2. Lack of communication and connection between patients and those involved in the healthcare industry
  3. Socio-geographical inequalities within the US healthcare system

 

1. The mistrust or misunderstanding of science in the United States

 

For the past decade, anyone involved in science, whether directly as active bench scientists, regulatory scientists, scientists involved in science and health policy, or environmental scientists can attest to the constant pressure to not only defend their profession but also to defend the entire scientific process and community from an onslaught of misinformation, mistrust and anxiety toward the field of science.  This can be seen in many of the editorials in scientific publications including the journal Science and Scientific American (as shown below)

 

Stepping Away from Microscopes, Thousands Protest War on Science

Boston rally coincides with annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference and is a precursor to the March for Science in Washington, D.C.

byLauren McCauley, staff writer

Responding to the troubling suppression of science under the Trump administration, thousands of scientists, allies, and frontline communities are holding a rally in Boston’s Copley Square on Sunday.

#standupforscience Tweets

 

“Science serves the common good,” reads the call to action. “It protects the health of our communities, the safety of our families, the education of our children, the foundation of our economy and jobs, and the future we all want to live in and preserve for coming generations.”

It continues: 

But it’s under attack—both science itself, and the unalienable rights that scientists help uphold and protect. 

From the muzzling of scientists and government agencies, to the immigration ban, the deletion of scientific data, and the de-funding of public science, the erosion of our institutions of science is a dangerous direction for our country. Real people and communities bear the brunt of these actions.

The rally was planned to coincide with the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference, which draws thousands of science professionals, and is a precursor to the March for Science in Washington, D.C. and in cities around the world on April 22.

 

Source: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/02/19/stepping-away-microscopes-thousands-protest-war-science

https://images.app.goo.gl/UXizCsX4g5wZjVtz9

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/85438fbe-278d-11e7-928e-3624539060e8

 

 

The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) also had marches for public awareness of science and meaningful science policy at their annual conference in Washington, D.C. in 2017 (see here for free recordings of some talks including Joe Biden’s announcement of the Cancer Moonshot program) and also sponsored events such as the Rally for Medical Research.  This patient advocacy effort is led by the cancer clinicians and scientific researchers to rally public support for cancer research for the benefit of those affected by the disease.

Source: https://leadingdiscoveries.aacr.org/cancer-patients-front-and-center/

 

 

     However, some feel that scientists are being too sensitive and that science policy and science-based decision making may not be under that much of a threat in this country. Yet even as some people think that there is no actual war on science and on scientists they realize that the public is not engaged in science and may not be sympathetic to the scientific process or trust scientists’ opinions. 

 

   

From Scientific American: Is There Really a War on Science? People who oppose vaccines, GMOs and climate change evidence may be more anxious than antagonistic

 

Certainly, opponents of genetically modified crops, vaccinations that are required for children and climate science have become louder and more organized in recent times. But opponents typically live in separate camps and protest single issues, not science as a whole, said science historian and philosopher Roberta Millstein of the University of California, Davis. She spoke at a standing-room only panel session at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting, held in Washington, D.C. All the speakers advocated for a scientifically informed citizenry and public policy, and most discouraged broadly applied battle-themed rhetoric.

 

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/

 

      In general, it appears to be a major misunderstanding by the public of the scientific process, and principles of scientific discovery, which may be the fault of miscommunication by scientists or agendas which have the goals of subverting or misdirecting public policy decisions from scientific discourse and investigation.

 

This can lead to an information vacuum, which, in this age of rapid social media communication,

can quickly perpetuate misinformation.

 

This perpetuation of misinformation was very evident in a Twitter feed discussion with Dr. Eric Topol, M.D. (cardiologist and Founder and Director of the Scripps Research Translational  Institute) on the US President’s tweet on the use of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine based on President Trump referencing a single study in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.  The Twitter thread became a sort of “scientific journal club” with input from international scientists discussing and critiquing the results in the paper.  

 

Please note that when we scientists CRITIQUE a paper it does not mean CRITICIZE it.  A critique is merely an in depth analysis of the results and conclusions with an open discussion on the paper.  This is part of the normal peer review process.

 

Below is the original Tweet by Dr. Eric Topol as well as the ensuing tweet thread

 

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1241442247133900801?s=20

 

Within the tweet thread it was discussed some of the limitations or study design flaws of the referenced paper leading the scientists in this impromptu discussion that the study could not reasonably conclude that hydroxychloroquine was not a reliable therapeutic for this coronavirus strain.

 

The lesson: The public has to realize CRITIQUE does not mean CRITICISM.

 

Scientific discourse has to occur to allow for the proper critique of results.  When this is allowed science becomes better, more robust, and we protect ourselves from maybe heading down an incorrect path, which may have major impacts on a clinical outcome, in this case.

 

 

2.  Lack of communication and connection between patients and those involved in the healthcare industry

 

In normal times, it is imperative for the patient-physician relationship to be intact in order for the physician to be able to communicate proper information to their patient during and after therapy/care.  In these critical times, this relationship and good communication skills becomes even more important.

 

Recently, I have had multiple communications, either through Twitter, Facebook, and other social media outlets with cancer patients, cancer advocacy groups, and cancer survivorship forums concerning their risks of getting infected with the coronavirus and how they should handle various aspects of their therapy, whether they were currently undergoing therapy or just about to start chemotherapy.  This made me realize that there were a huge subset of patients who were not receiving all the information and support they needed; namely patients who are immunocompromised.

 

These are patients represent

  1. cancer patient undergoing/or about to start chemotherapy
  2. Patients taking immunosuppressive drugs: organ transplant recipients, patients with autoimmune diseases, multiple sclerosis patients
  3. Patients with immunodeficiency disorders

 

These concerns prompted me to write a posting curating the guidance from National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated cancer centers to cancer patients concerning their risk to COVID19 (which can be found here).

 

Surprisingly, there were only 14 of the 51 US NCI Cancer Centers which had posted guidance (either there own or from organizations like NCI or the National Cancer Coalition Network (NCCN).  Most of the guidance to patients had stemmed from a paper written by Dr. Markham of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle Washington, the first major US city which was impacted by COVID19.

 

Also I was surprised at the reactions to this posting, with patients and oncologists enthusiastic to discuss concerns around the coronavirus problem.  This led to having additional contact with patients and oncologists who, as I was surprised, are not having these conversations with each other or are totally confused on courses of action during this pandemic.  There was a true need for each party, both patients/caregivers and physicians/oncologists to be able to communicate with each other and disseminate good information.

 

Last night there was a Tweet conversation on Twitter #OTChat sponsored by @OncologyTimes.  A few tweets are included below

https://twitter.com/OncologyTimes/status/1242611841613864960?s=20

https://twitter.com/OncologyTimes/status/1242616756658753538?s=20

https://twitter.com/OncologyTimes/status/1242615906846547978?s=20

 

The Lesson:  Rapid Communication of Vital Information in times of stress is crucial in maintaining a good patient/physician relationship and preventing Misinformation.

 

3.  Socio-geographical Inequalities in the US Healthcare System

It has become very clear that the US healthcare system is fractioned and multiple inequalities (based on race, sex, geography, socio-economic status, age) exist across the whole healthcare system.  These inequalities are exacerbated in times of stress, especially when access to care is limited.

 

An example:

 

On May 12, 2015, an Amtrak Northeast Regional train from Washington, D.C. bound for New York City derailed and wrecked on the Northeast Corridor in the Port Richmond neighborhood of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Of 238 passengers and 5 crew on board, 8 were killed and over 200 injured, 11 critically. The train was traveling at 102 mph (164 km/h) in a 50 mph (80 km/h) zone of curved tracks when it derailed.[3]

Some of the passengers had to be extricated from the wrecked cars. Many of the passengers and local residents helped first responders during the rescue operation. Five local hospitals treated the injured. The derailment disrupted train service for several days. 

(Source Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Philadelphia_train_derailment)

What was not reported was the difficulties that first responders, namely paramedics had in finding an emergency room capable of taking on the massive load of patients.  In the years prior to this accident, several hospitals, due to monetary reasons, had to close their emergency rooms or reduce them in size. In addition only two in Philadelphia were capable of accepting gun shot victims (Temple University Hospital was the closest to the derailment but one of the emergency rooms which would accept gun shot victims. This was important as Temple University ER, being in North Philadelphia, is usually very busy on any given night.  The stress to the local health system revealed how one disaster could easily overburden many hospitals.

 

Over the past decade many hospitals, especially rural hospitals, have been shuttered or consolidated into bigger health systems.  The graphic below shows this

From Bloomberg: US Hospital Closings Leave Patients with Nowhere to go

 

 

https://images.app.goo.gl/JdZ6UtaG3Ra3EA3J8

 

Note the huge swath of hospital closures in the midwest, especially in rural areas.  This has become an ongoing problem as the health care system deals with rising costs.

 

Lesson:  Epidemic Stresses an already stressed out US healthcare system

 

Please see our Coronavirus Portal at

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/coronavirus-portal/

 

for more up-to-date scientific, clinical information as well as persona stories, videos, interviews and economic impact analyses

and @pharma_BI

Read Full Post »


Lesson 7 of Cell Signaling 7 Motility: Tubulin and Tutorial Quizes for #TUBiol3373

Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

This lesson (lesson 7) will discuss the last type of cytoskeletal structure: microtubules and tubulin.  In addition I want to go over the last quiz answers and also introduce some new poll quizes.

I had given the lecture 7 over Canvas and each of you can download and go over the lecture but I will highlight a few slides in the lecture.

Let’s first review:

Remember that microtubules are the largest of the three cytoskeletal structures:

actin microfilaments < intermediate filaments < microtubules

This is very important to understand as the microtubules, as shown later, shuttle organelles and cellular structures like synaptic vesicles, as well as forming the centrisome and spindle fibers of mitosis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now remember the quiz question from last time

Remember that actin monomers (the G actin binds ATP)  while tubulin, the protein which makes up the microtubules binds GTP {although it is a little more complex than that as the following diagram shows}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See how the growth at the plus end is dependent on tubulin heterodimer GTP while when GDP is only bound to tubulin (both forms) you get a destabilization of the plus end and removal of tubulin dimers (catastrophe) if there is no source of tubulin GTP dimers (alpha tubulin GTP with beta tubulin GTP).

 

 

 

 

Also remember that like actin microfilaments you can have treadmilling (the plus end  continues growing while minus end undergoes catasrophe).  The VIDEO below describes these processes:

 

 

 

Certain SNPs and mutants of tubulin are found and can result in drastic phenotypic changes in microtubule stability and structure. Below is an article where a mutation in tubulin can result in microtubule catastrophe or destabilization of microtubule structures.

 

From: A mutation uncouples the tubulin conformational and GTPase cycles, revealing allosteric control of microtubule dynamics;, E.A. Geyer et al..; elife 2015;4:e10113

Abstract

Microtubule dynamic instability depends on the GTPase activity of the polymerizing αβ-tubulin subunits, which cycle through at least three distinct conformations as they move into and out of microtubules. How this conformational cycle contributes to microtubule growing, shrinking, and switching remains unknown. Here, we report that a buried mutation in αβ-tubulin yields microtubules with dramatically reduced shrinking rate and catastrophe frequency. The mutation causes these effects by suppressing a conformational change that normally occurs in response to GTP hydrolysis in the lattice, without detectably changing the conformation of unpolymerized αβ-tubulin. Thus, the mutation weakens the coupling between the conformational and GTPase cycles of αβ-tubulin. By showing that the mutation predominantly affects post-GTPase conformational and dynamic properties of microtubules, our data reveal that the strength of the allosteric response to GDP in the lattice dictates the frequency of catastrophe and the severity of rapid shrinking.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10113.001

 

Remember the term allosterism: change in the affinity for binding of a ligand or substrate that is caused by the binding of another ligand away from the active site (for example like 2,3 DPG effect on oxygen binding to hemoglobin

 

Cellular transport of organelles and vesicles: a function of microtubules

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now the above figure (figure 9 in your Powerpoint) shows the movement of organelles and vesicles in two different types of cells along microtubules.

Note the magenta arrow which goes from the nucleus toward the plus end of the microtubule (at cell membrane) is referred to as anterograde transport and is movement away from center of cell to the periphery.  Retrograde transport is movement of organelles and vesicles from periphery of cell to the center of the cell.

Note that kinesin is involved in anterograde transport while dyenin is involved in retrograde transport

Also refer to the Wiki page which shows a nice cartoon of this walking down a microtubule on the right hand side of the page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axonal_transport

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cilia; a cellular structure of microtubules (we will talk about cilia later)

for more information on structure of Cillia please see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21698/

This is from a posting by Dr. Larry Bernstein of Yale University at https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2015/11/04/cilia-and-tubulin/

 

RESEARCHERS VIDEO AND MEASURE TUBULIN TRANSPORT IN CILIA FOR THE FIRST TIME.

http://health-innovations.org/2015/01/27/researchers-image-and-measure-tubulin-transport-in-cilia/

 

 

https://michellepetersen76.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/uga-researchers-image-and-measure-tubulin-transport-in-cilia-healthinnovations1.png

 

Defective cilia can lead to a host of diseases and conditions in the human body, from rare, inherited bone malformations to blindness, male infertility, kidney disease and obesity. It is known that these tiny cell organelles become deformed and cause these diseases because of a problem related to their assembly, which requires the translocation of vast quantities of the vital cell protein tubulin. What they didn’t know was how tubulin and another cell organelle known as flagella fit into the process.

Now, a new study from University of Georgia shows the mechanism behind tubulin transport and its assembly into cilia, including the first video imagery of the process. The study was published in the Journal of Cell Biology.

Cilia are found throughout the body, so defects in cilia formation affect cells that line airways, brain ventricles or the reproductive track.  One of the main causes of male infertility is the cilia won’t function properly.

The team used total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy to analyze moving protein particles inside the cilia of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, a green alga widely used as a model for cilia analysis.

The team exploited the natural behaviour of the organism, which is to attach by its cilia to a smooth surface, such as a microscope glass cover. This positions the cilia within the 200-nanometer reach of the total internal reflection fluorescence microscope allowing for the imaging of individual proteins as they move inside the cilia.  A video explaining the process was published along with the study.

Tubulin is transported by this process called intraflagellar transport, or IFT.  Though it has long been suspected in the field and there was indirect evidence to support the theory, this is the first time it has been shown directly, through live imaging, that IFT does function as a tubulin pump.  The team observed that about 400,000 tubulin dimers need to be transported within 60 minutes to assemble a single cilium. Being able to see tubulin moving into cilia allowed for first insights into how this transport is regulated to make sure cilia will have the correct size.

The new findings are expected to have wide implications for a variety of diseases and conditions related to cilia defects in the body.  The team state that they are on the very basic side of this research.  But because more and more diseases are being connected to cilia-related conditions, including obesity and even diabetes, the number of people working on cilia has greatly expanded over the last few years.

 

So here are the answer to last weeks polls

  1. Actin filaments are the SMALLEST of the cytoskeletal structures.  As shown in this lecture it is tubulin that binds GTP.  Actin binds ATP.
  2.  ARP2/3 or actin related proteins 2 and 3 are nucleating proteins that assist in initiating growth of branched chain micofiliment networks.  Formins are associated with unbranched actin formations.
  3.  The answer is GAPs or GTPase activating proteins.  Remember RAS in active state when GTP is bound and when you hydrolyze the GTP to GDP Ras is inactive state

 

 

 

 

 

4.  Okay so I did a type here but the best answer was acetylcholinesterase (AchE) degrading acetylcholine.  Acetylcholinesterase degrades the neurotransmitter acetylcholine into choline and acetate not as I accidentally put into acetylCoA.  The freed choline can then be taken back up into the presynaptic neuron and then, with a new acetyl group (with Coenzyme A) will form acetylcholine.

 

Synthesis of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine

 

 

 

The neuromuscular junction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks to all who took the quiz.  Remember it is for your benefit.

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


GenomeWeb acquisition by Crain Communication announced on 9/6/2019

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS INC ACQUIRES ONLINE NEWS ORGANIZATION GENOMEWEB

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 6, 2019

Crain Communications Inc has acquired GenomeWeb, an online news organization serving the global community of scientists, technology professionals and executives who use and develop the latest advanced tools in molecular biology research and molecular diagnostics.

GenomeWeb’s editorial mission is to cover the scientific and economic ecosystem spurred by the advent of high-throughput genome sequencing. The brand operates the largest online newsroom focused on advanced molecular research tools in order to provide readers with exclusive news and in-depth analysis of this rapidly evolving market.

“We are excited to add GenomeWeb to our family of brands,” said KC Crain, president and chief operating officer of Crain Communications. “GenomeWeb’s history and expertise in journalism, and their commitment to top-level reporting, makes it an attractive business and a perfect complement to our family of business-to-business brands.”

The GenomeWeb team (not including remote employees) in their New York office.

GenomeWeb was launched in 1997 and currently has a staff of 30 employees located in New York. GenomeWeb’s leadership team includes Bernadette Toner, chief executive officer, and Greg Anderson, chief operating officer.

“GenomeWeb is proud to be joining a company that has supported high-quality, independent business journalism for more than a century,” Toner said. “We look forward to working with the Crain Communications team to serve our growing readership in the life science and healthcare markets.”

The official acquisition date was September 1, 2019.

GenomeWeb will join Crain’s portfolio of brands, which includes: Ad Age, Creativity, Automotive News, Automotive News Canada, Automotive News China, Automotive News Europe, Automotive News Mexico, Automobilwoche, Autoweek, Crain’s Chicago Business, Crain’s Cleveland Business, Crain’s New York Business, Crain’s Detroit Business, Modern Healthcare, Staffing Industry Analysts, Pensions & Investments, Plastics News, Plastics News Europe, Plastics News China, Rubber & Plastics News, European Rubber Journal, Tire Business, Urethanes Technology International, and Plastics & Rubber World.

About GenomeWeb

GenomeWeb is an independent online news organization based in New York. Since 1997, GenomeWeb has served the global community of scientists, technology professionals, and executives who use and develop the latest advanced tools in molecular biology research and molecular diagnostics.

GenomeWeb’s editorial mission is to cover the scientific and economic ecosystem spurred by the advent of high-throughput genome sequencing. It operates the largest online newsroom focused on advanced molecular research tools in order to provide readers with exclusive news and in-depth analysis of this rapidly evolving market.

GenomeWeb users can be found in major scientific organizations around the world, including biopharmaceutical companies, research universities, biomedical institutes, clinical labs, and government laboratories. Advertisers include leading suppliers of research tools, analytical instruments, information technology and molecular diagnostics.

To learn more about GenomeWeb, visit genomeweb.com.

About Crain Communications

Crain Communications is a privately held media company that produces trusted and relevant news publications, lead generation, research and data products, digital platforms, custom publishing, and events with uncompromising integrity. Crain’s 23 brands reach 6 million business decision-makers and consumers across the United States and in select markets in Europe and Asia. Many of Crain’s brands are the most influential media properties in the verticals they serve including Automotive NewsAutoweekAd AgeModern HealthcarePlastics News, and Pensions & Investments. Headquartered in Detroit, the company has 650 employees in 10 locations delivering exceptional news content over a variety of platforms to empower the success of its readers and clients.

To learn more about Crain Communications Inc, visit crain.com.

Contact: Ariel Black
Corporate Communications
(313) 446-6065
corp_comm@crain.com

https://www.crain.com/news/crain-communications-inc-acquires-online-news-organization-genomeweb/

 

GenomeWeb Announcement

From: GenomeWeb <customerservice@genomeweb.com>

Subject: GenomeWeb Is Joining the Crain Communications Family

Date: September 5, 2019 at 9:00:26 AM PDT

 

I’m pleased to announce that GenomeWeb has been acquired by Crain Communications, a family owned media company with a 100-year history of supporting high-quality business journalism.

GenomeWeb will remain an independent business unit under Crain. All our operations and staff will remain unchanged, as will our commitment to independent reporting on the life science and healthcare markets.

We look forward to working with the Crain team to better serve our readers’ news and information needs.

Please feel free to contact me, the GenomeWeb editorial team (editorial@genomeweb.com), or your GenomeWeb sales representative with any questions.

Thanks for reading GenomeWeb!

Bernadette Toner

CEO

 

Other related articles published on e-Scientific Publishing in this Open Access Online Scientific Publishing include the following: 

GenomeWeb Daily News Index: Future is Better for Some than for Others NanoString, Accelerate, PacBio Shares Sharply up in September; Myriad, Sequenom Down

MEDIA organizations as Followers of @pharma_BI the Official Twitter Account of LPBI Group (136 out of 505 Followers): Number of Followers’ Followers, Institutions (I) and Individuals (Persons(P)), RED = Mostly Honored to be followed by

The Digital Age Gave Rise to New Definitions – New Benchmarks were born on the World Wide Web for the Intangible Asset of Firm’s Reputation: Pay a Premium for buying e-Reputation

e-Scientific Publishing: The Competitive Advantage of a Powerhouse for Curation of Scientific Findings and Methodology Development for e-Scientific Publishing – LPBI Group, A Case in Point

FIVE Forthcoming Books on CRISPR in 2019-2020: Flooded market or CRISPR-fatigued readers – Not to Worry !!!!!

Electronic Scientific AGORA: Comment Exchanges by Global Scientists on Articles published in the Open Access Journal @pharmaceuticalintelligence.com – Four Case Studies

 

Read Full Post »


@PharmaceuticalIntelligence.com Journal: Article Publication by LPBI Group’s FIT Members, January 2019 – June 2019

 

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

UPDATED on 2/24/2020

 

Curator’s Name

1/1/2019 – 6/30/2019

7/1/2019 – 12/31/2019

Dr. Sudipta Saha

20

11
Dr. Stephen J. Williams 37 17
Dr. Irina Robu

19

9
Dr. Dror Nir

4

2
Gail S. Thornton

7

6
Amnon Denzig

1

Rick Mandhal

1

Dr. Aviva Lev-Ari

94

[51.37%]

51

[53.6%]

Total for 2019:

281

183

97+1 (Joel) = 98

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »