A new edition of
@molbiosystems
is in the books!
#mbiosys23
We thank all speakers and participants for attending the Molecular Biosystems Conference in Puerto Varas, Chile🇨🇱 for exciting discussions on gene regulation. Below are a few highlights.
Years ago, my PhD advisor had to write an email to IT to ask that the word "f*ck" was not used to block emails, because he was not getting those which included mentions to one of the organisms the lab was studying, "Botryotinia fuckeliana".
IT escalated. It was fun.
Just accepted a paper that while it had many shortcomings, the authors transparently and honestly acknowledged and discussed all of the limitations. I like that papers in medicine usually have a "Limitations" section. Maybe papers in the life sciences would benefit from that too
🚨BREAKING 🚨
I'm thrilled to announce that I'll be joining
@CSHL
@CSHLPress
as Executive Editor, where I will run CSH Protocols, both the lab manuals & the journal. Incredibly excited about this opportunity to be closer to the community and collaborate with you!
"Each slide you show should have a title, and the title should be the conclusion you wish us to draw from the slide"
Yes, exactly. Even if some self-proclaimed talk "gurus" hate this.
A new fluorescent RNA tag, developed based on a natural adenine-sensing riboswitch and named Squash, offers superior imaging properties and accurate quantification in living cells.
A third of verified gene KO with CRISPR still show residual protein expression owing to translation reinitiation or exon skipping. Several proteins are still functional. The authors call for a systematic analysis of protein levels after genome editing
Reviewers can ask for whatever they want; we are asking for their thoughts and opinions. It is the role of the *Editor* to then make a decision on what would be needed for publication, and to disregard requests that are unnecessary or out of scope
Not every paper requires a mechanism.
And it is certainly not a good idea to force authors to explore something just for a relatively weak Fig 5 just to say that the paper "has mechanistic insights"
Beautiful work combining long-read sequencing with ChIP-seq and chromatin fiber FISH to characterize Drosophila centromeres. After many years of work! From
@centromellone
.
Big.
Everyone is smart, everyone works hard. Not everyone has the same chances or happens to be at the right place at the right time. Not everyone gets to meet the same people. It plays a big role.
Did you have a paper accepted? A grant? Were you invited to give a talk, or did it go well already? Was your abstract selected? Did an experiment work? Did you solve that bug in the code?Many of us would love to know &congratulate you! We should have a # for all those good things
Don't write 'mammals' in the title if you mean mice. Don't write 'plants' if you mean A. thaliana. Don't write 'metazoans' if you mean C elegans.
C'mon, people.
I've always wondered how the *other* people in the lab feel when a PI tweets "this is the best/most interesting paper from my lab" or similar when announcing a new publication.
NIH advisory group recommends $14,000 boost in postdoc pay.
Researchers shouldn’t be in postdoc positions for more than 5 years, the group also suggests.
I don't have a problem with p-values per se. It's the culture of using arbitrary thresholds for yes/no calls that has to go, together w/ the associated pressure for "significant" results for publishing. Let's embrace uncertainty and the limitations of our studies.
We want to change the way recruitment for scientific jobs is done to save labs and funders money.
jobRxiv is free and easy to use
If you’re currently advertising
#ScienceJobs
, please post them on jobRxiv now!
#OpenScience
What would be the best way to tell a PI that you'd be happy to join their lab as a postdoc, but only if they can pay you rather than relying on you getting a grant? Like, you'd be happy to apply for funding, but want to make sure you'd have a job even if those don't go through
There was never a time in which all non-coding DNA was dismissed as nonfunctional. Ever.
So, all of these articles on "hey, wait! it's not junk, you were wrong" are tiresome.
Are you a new PI in the life sciences?
I'm putting together a webinar series & I'm looking for researchers who want to talk about their work! We want to help you reach a wide audience & feature your exciting work.
Interested? Sign up below or DM me! Please RT
cc
@NewPI_Slack
Some people complain that using BioRender makes all papers look the same, but this is the alternative 😅...
In any case, if the point made is clear, I don't really mind.
How would you like to publish in Nature Cell and Science?🤣 All at the same time! Does it count as three CNS publications at a time?
Spherical spam in vacuum, the classic
When I just started twitter I saw someone said that they don’t cut bands in gels and do gel purification then PCR - just use a toothpick to poke the correct band and dip it into PCR directly. With lots of doubt, I tried this out today very casually, and….
THIS MAGIC WORKS. 🤯
When I first saw the table of contents, I was gonna say "hey, that thing after the colon is a very bold thing to write in a title". Then I noticed it was written by Bruce Alberts. And I have no problem with it anymore
"Euchromatin and heterochromatin have very similar accessibilities, suggesting that transcription factors can penetrate heterochromatin. Thus, DNA accessibility is not likely to be the primary determinant of gene regulation."
I wonder if people would be interested in a new edition of this, both as contributors and as readers...
In addition to the book, all content would be available via our journal, CSH Protocols (), and indexed/discoverable in PubMed
It's odd when authors complain about reviewers as if they are a separate group, when reviewers are part of the same pool of researchers and authors themselves. Also, it's quite shocking how standards can change depending on whether you are an author or reviewer. Interesting thing