We would like to ask the ERC council to consider removing the ‘academic age limits’ as an eligibility criterion for applying for ERC Starting and Consolidator grants. The current “post 7 years” and “post 12 years” after PhD limits are extremely limiting and not in line with current timelines of research, especially in the Life Sciences. There are multiple reasons to ask for this (see examples below), but the main consensus is that such age limits select against social, economic, gender, ethnic and scientific diversity as it promotes people from privileged backgrounds, with straight forward and fast career paths, who are not necessarily the best scientists and mentors of future scientists. Scientific career paths are diverse, so putting one set of absolute time frames on different fields and different personal circumstances does not make sense. Experiments in animal models take much longer than theory. There may be delays due to different caring duties (of which child-birth is only one), illness, moving countries, changing fields, etc. With the current ‘age limits’, especially in countries where the ERC grants are the main source of large funding, once you ‘miss the boat’, you will never catch up, and your scientific career is severely impacted or prematurely ended. Should we be selecting scientific excellence based on speed, or quality?
We understand that to try to limit proposals submitted, and to have categories /cut offs to reflect career stage, there should be some ‘time-based’ criteria. Many countries, such as the UK, have removed these ‘absolute post PhD academic age limits’ on grants, and has thrived on new systems based on ‘new’, ‘mid’, or ‘senior’ investigators. If the ERC insists on having some time limits, we propose that a system such as this will be more inclusive:
– Starting Grant: up to 5 years since independence (defined as starting own group, faculty position, able to supervise PhD students independently, etc).
– Consolidator Grant: up to 12 years since independence.
– Advanced Grant: more than 12 years since independence. (the current extensions to the above due to child birth, illness, etc, should still be applied).
At the end of 2022 we launched our Node correspondent programme. We were looking for three researchers to help us develop and write content for the Node in 2023. The quality of the applications was extremely high, which made choosing our final three very difficult! We are delighted to announce that we have appointed Alex Bisia, Brent Foster and Dina Myasnikova as our correspondents for 2023. Our correspondents will benefit from a programme of writing groups, webinars and workshops coordinated by the in-house team at The Company of Biologists and will produce approximately six blog posts over the course of the year. We introduce our correspondents briefly below – stay tuned for longer interviews!
Alex is completing her DPhil (PhD) at the University of Oxford with Elizabeth Robertson, studying the role of Eomesodermin, a T-box transcription factor, in the trophoblast and definitive endoderm in the early mouse embryo. Alex has a strong interest in science communication; she won the BSCB writing competition in 2020 and has contributed articles to her departmental website. Look out for Alex’s posts on non-model organisms, science history and contributions of developmental and stem cell biology in medicine.
Brent is a technician at the University of Florida, working at the Whitney Laboratory for Marine Bioscience. Brent uses comb jellies and other marine invertebrates to study the evolutionary origin of nervous systems. He has previously written feature articles for his local newspaper, Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (SICB) blog posts, and has attended several science writing workshops. Brent has a keen interest in non-model organisms and tool and technique development and will post on these topics.
Dina is a Project Researcher at the Biohydrid System Laboratory at the University of Tokyo, where she is working on developing an organ-on-a-chip model of peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Having worked in an interdisciplinary team, she is keen to improve communication between scientists from different research backgrounds. As well as exploring interdisciplinary research, Dina is passionate about helping women in science and will post on this topic.
Welcome to our monthly trawl for developmental and stem cell biology (and related) preprints. Congratulations to all the researchers who kicked off 2023 by preprinting their research.
The preprints this month are hosted on bioRxiv – use these links to get to the section you want.
Whole transcriptome profiling of placental pathobiology in SARS-CoV-2 pregnancies identifies a preeclampsia-like gene signature Nataly Stylianou, Ismail Sebina, Nicholas Matigian, James Monkman, Hadeel Doehler, Joan Röhl, Mark Allenby, Andy Nam, Liuliu Pan, Anja Rockstroh, Habib Sadeghirad, Kimberly Chung, Thais Sobanski, Ken O’Byrne, Patricia Zadorosnei Rebutini, Cleber Machado-Souza, Emanuele Therezinha Schueda Stonoga, Majid E Warkiani, Carlos Salomon, Kirsty Short, Lana McClements, Lucia de Noronha, Ruby Huang, Gabrielle T. Belz, Fernando Souza-Fonseca-Guimaraes, Vicki Clifton, Arutha Kulasinghe
Nr5a2 is essential for morula development Nicola Festuccia, Sandrine Vandormael-Pournin, Almira Chervova, Anna Geiselman, Francina Langa-Vives, Rémi-Xavier Coux, Inma Gonzalez, Michel Cohen-Tannoudji, Pablo Navarro
Dominant-negative mutations in CBX1 cause a neurodevelopmental disorder Yukiko Kuroda, Aiko Iwata-Otsubo, Kerith-Rae Dias, Suzanna E.L. Temple, Koji Nagao, Lachlan De Hayr, Ying Zhu, Shin-Ya Isobe, Gohei Nishibuchi, Sarah K Fiordaliso, Yuki Fujita, Alyssa L. Rippert, Samuel W Baker, Marco L. Leung, Daniel C. Koboldt, Adele Harman, Beth A. Keena, Izumi Kazama, Gopinath Musuwadi Subramanian, Kandamurugu Manickam, Betsy Schmalz, Maeson Latsko, Elaine H Zackai, Matt Edwards, Carey-Anne Evans, Matthew C. Dulik, Michael F. Buckley, Toshihide Yamashita, W. Timothy O’Brien, Robert J. Harvey, Chikashi Obuse, Tony Roscioli, Kosuke Izumi
Establishment of cell transcriptional identity during seed germination Lim Chee Liew, Yue You, Marina Oliva, Marta Peirats-Llobet, Sophia Ng, Muluneh Tamiru-Oli, Oliver Berkowitz, Uyen Vu Thuy Hong, Asha Haslem, Tim Stuart, Matthew E. Ritchie, George W. Bassel, Ryan Lister, James Whelan, Quentin Gouil, Mathew G. Lewsey
Generation of human alveolar epithelial type I cells from pluripotent stem cells Claire L Burgess, Jessie Huang, Pushpinder Bawa, Konstantinos-Dionysios Alysandratos, Kasey Minakin, Michael P Morley, Apoorva Babu, Carlos Villacorta-Martin, Anne Hinds, Bibek R Thapa, Feiya Wang, Adeline M Matschulat, Edward E Morrisey, Xaralabos Varelas, Darrell N Kotton
Epithelioids: Self-sustaining 3D epithelial cultures to study long-term processes Albert Herms, David Fernandez-Antoran, Maria P. Alcolea, Argyro Kalogeropoulou, Ujjwal Banerjee, Gabriel Piedrafita, Emilie Abby, Jose Antonio Valverde-Lopez, Inês S. Ferreira, Stefan C. Dentro, Swee Hoe Ong, Bartomeu Colom, Kasumi Murai, Charlotte King, Krishnaa Mahbubani, Kourosh Saeb-Parsy, Alan R Lowe, Moritz Gerstung, Philip H Jones
Emergent dynamics of adult stem cell lineages from single nucleus and single cell RNA-Seq of Drosophila testes Amelie A. Raz, Gabriela S. Vida, Sarah R. Stern, Sharvani Mahadevaraju, Jaclyn M. Fingerhut, Jennifer M. Viveiros, Soumitra Pal, Jasmine R. Grey, Mara R. Grace, Cameron W. Berry, Hongjie Li, Jasper Janssens, Wouter Saelens, Zhantao Shao, Chun Hu, Yukiko M. Yamashita, Teresa M. Przytycka, Brian Oliver, Julie A. Brill, Henry M. Krause, Erika L. Matunis, Helen White-Cooper, Stephen DiNardo, Margaret T. Fuller
Yesterday was my last official day as the Community Manager of the Node, and I wanted to take this opportunity to thank all the Node community for being so welcoming over the last 18 months. I’ll still be moonlighting on the Node, alongside preLights Community Manager Reinier Prosée, until we have the new Community Manager in place. If you have any questions, comments and feedback, you can still contact us at thenode@biologists.com. It’s lucky that I get to hang around for a while longer, as we have been working on a couple of new projects that we hope to share with you in the next month. Watch this space!
One of the projects that we are working on is a collaboration between the Node and FocalPlane. FocalPlane will be my new home as I have moved across to join the Journal of Cell Science team as FocalPlane Community Manager. If you use microscopy as part of your work, or would like to get started, I recommend checking out our website! Like the Node, FocalPlane is driven by the community, so if you have any feedback, suggestions or comments please get in touch at focalplane@biologists.com or helen.zenner@biologists.com. If you would like to contribute to the site with a blog post, event listing, or job advert, you can register and request permission to write, and once approved you’ll be ready to go.
Thanks again for all the fun times on the Node. I’ve had the opportunity to interact with some amazing people, not least the wonderful team at Development – Alex, who puts up with all my ‘stupid’ questions (not sure this is going to stop), Seema, who helped me so much when I started, and Katherine, who is the most excellent manager! I’m now excited to try and bring some of ‘the Node spirit’ to FocalPlane and hope to see you there.
At the Joint Society for Developmental Biology (SDB) – Pan-American Society for Evolutionary Developmental Biology Meeting in 2022, I spoke to Christopher Wright, the winner of the 2022 SDB Victor Hamburger Outstanding Educator Prize. You can read the interview in Development, but Chris shared some stories that we couldn’t squeeze in, so with his permission I have reproduced a couple of examples here. I selected these stories as they show the fun side of doing science and the excitement for biology that Chris expressed throughout our interview.
Science on a whim
“When I was in Eddy de Robertis’ lab for my postdoc, we decided to start probing the organizer region – the Spemann-Mangold organizer – for homeobox genes. We did this on a whim when Eddy went on vacation, and when he came back several people in the lab were running around clearly excited running old-school “high-throughput” DNA sequencing by hand. We told Eddy what we’d done and he was somewhat shocked. But, in the end, organizer molecules were what set his lab moving forward for the next 10 or 15 years. Out of that work came goosecoid. A huge amount of work went on after I had left, but finding goosecoid and naming it, based on part of its homeodomain sequence resembling the fruit fly gene gooseberry and the other part bicoid, was great. We decided that ‘bicberry’ sounded wrong but goosecoid stuck. It felt like we had just joined the Drosophila community and could name things crazily! There was an important lesson in this situation: when working with postdocs, the challenge for the PI is to understand that there are often things that are done outside of the PI’s undoubted own brilliance. Great postdocs should be semi-independent almost straightaway. You want them to cause (almost) paroxysmal change in the lab. I think Eddy learnt that. And Eddy was phenomenal to just talk to about science, he was always asking, “what do you think this means?” I remember looking down the microscope together, at the first Xenopus nuclei ever labelled with antibodies I’d made to the homeodomain proteins. He jerked me up from the microscope and gave me a huge hug!”
Seeing is believing
“It is wonderful to look down the microscope at new findings. One fun time was when Yoshiya Kawaguchi, a terrific Japanese postdoc with me, did an experiment that would be the first time that lineage tracing was combined with a gene knockout in the endoderm. He took the pancreas master transcriptional regulator called Ptf1A and hooked it up to Cre. The Cre replaced the protein, so was essentially a knock-in as a knockout, and we had a ROSA26-lacZ reporter in there too. One day he came bowling into my office and said, “Chris, Chris, Chris, you have to come right now and look at this embryo (which had been stained with X-gal overnight). The mutant is amazing”. And I said, “yep, okay, I’m coming right now. I’m really excited. Let me just tell you what I think you have found, I bet you found that all the cells that were going to become pancreas have now become duodenum”. He was shocked, asking “how can you know that?” I said, “don’t let that disturb you. Let’s go and look together.” As soon as I looked down the microscope, I knew this was an important result and we were so excited. It’s a memory that sticks with me, seeing that result for the first time!
Another result that really stuck with me was when we got involved in cloning Nodal, cobbling it together using various parts of the mouse gene, and isolating the frog orthologs. We injected the mRNA into Xenopus embryos and when we came back the next day, well – they had made notochord everywhere. This started our move away from homeobox genes. Left-Right asymmetry patterns came up from our Nodal work early on. This time I absolutely couldn’t believe the result to start with and I told my postdoc (the wonderful Karuna Sampath) that the pattern must be due to the side the embryos were lying down, having had some horrible glass reaction. She very kindly said “No, no, it’s all on the left-hand side of the embryo irrespective of which side they were lying”. Again, off we charged to look down the microscope straight away!
Overall, I have so many exciting moments in my career, and I feel very privileged and fortunate to have been born at the right time, landed in the right place and then to have done at least some of the right experiments!”
Thanks to everyone who interacted with the Node in 2022, it been another fantastic year for the site. We have a few new initiatives that we’ll be announcing soon, but first let us look back on 2022!
What are you looking at…
>400,000 total page views
18,483 views of our jobs board
4,992 view of our event calendar
What’s being posted…
226 blog posts, including 7 SciArt profiles, 7 Featured resources, 12 behind the paper stories and 12 preprint lists
At number two on our list was the livestream from our Development meeting ‘From Stem Cells to Human Development. Setting this up was a little nerve wracking and it was fantastic to see so many people tuning in live and viewing the recording, which featured talks from Sarah Teichmann and Sergiu Pasca and a panel discussion on ‘Technical, ethical and legal challenges of studying early human development’.
The third most read post started on a whim, with Alex Eve converting his popular #wordcountchop tweetorial into a blog post. If you have written a tweetorial on a topic relevant to developmental and stem cell biologists and want to give it a more permanent home, do considering sharing it as a blog post on the Node
Voting for your favourite Development cover comes in as our 4th most read post. Everyone loves a competition, and we had a worthy winner with the Issue 21, the mouse lung lobe from Prashant Chandrasekaran, Nicholas Negretti, Aravind Sivakumar, Jennifer Sucre, David Frank and colleagues. Keep your eyes out for our next competition, which is coming soon!
Joachim Goedhart’s Protocols for data visualization came in at number five. In this post, Joachim shared an update on his book, which brings aims to lower the barrier for using R and the ggplot2 package for data visualization. Joachim’s post on Data Visualization with Flying Colours, published in 2019, was again our most read post with a massive 49,405 views!
We would love to hear feedback and suggestions on how we can make the Node better in 2023. You can contact us using our contact form and at thenode@biologists.com. We are always happy to discuss ideas, comment on drafts, or help with website gremlins. Finally, remember the Node is your site and, once registered, you can post freely.
“This description of the creation of the first humans – Adam and Eve – from the biblical book of Genesis is a cool story. But in my opinion, the scientific truth about the origins of humans is way cooler – and an awful lot messier”
Dr Kat Arney
In the latest episode of the Genetics Unzipped podcast, we’re going back to the very genesis of our species in search of the genetic Adam and Eve. Who were they? When and where did they live? Were there really just two of them? And how should we really be referring to these ancient ancestors anyway?
A survey of over 2000 British adults finds that trust in genetics is high, and went up significantly during the pandemic. It also finds that there is a hunger for more coverage of genetics.
The pandemic has gone hand-in-hand with a much-increased public profile of science – genetics in particular. Be it the prominence of PCR testing or the development of vaccines, genetics has been in the spotlight in an unprecedented way. Given this, researchers from the Universities of Bath, Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, and Aberdeen wanted to know what the public felt about genetics and whether this new exposure of the science has made a difference.
In a study funded by the Genetics Society, they commissioned a survey of over 2000 randomly selected British adults through public polling company Kantar Public. The researchers found that as a baseline most people were trusting of genetic technologies before the pandemic. Nearly half (45%) reported they trusted it to work for the societal good. 37% were neutral on this question, while 18% said they did not, and only very few (1-2%) were strongly distrusting. A descriptive report with all the answers from the questionnaire is now available on the Genetics Society website, along the technical report with panel sample and questionnaire: https://genetics.org.uk/public-perception-of-genetics/
When asked if their trust in genetics had gone up through the pandemic, four times more people said their trust had increased than those who reported that it had gone down. (as a control, the same increase in trust was not seen for sciences that were not involved in the pandemic but might be confused with genetics e.g. geologists not geneticists). Trust in science more generally had strongly gone up with a third saying it had increased. Not only has trust in science gone up, but people also want to hear more about it. Less than 10% thought that there is too much coverage of the science in the media, while 44% reported that they want to hear more about it.
Co-lead Professor Laurence Hurst of the Milner Centre for Evolution at the University of Bath commented “this is potentially important to know – scientists have a tendency to stick in their labs, but it looks like, for the most part, public not only trust us but that this trust has gone up somewhat and many want to hear more from us about our work.” As Professor Jonathan Pettitt, co-lead from the University of Aberdeen noted, “It is hard to see any upsides to the pandemic but perhaps this is one? We never knew that so many people wanted to hear more from scientists.” Prof Anne Ferguson-Smith, President of the Genetics Society and Professor in the Department of Genetics at Cambridge University reinforced this: “These results really challenge us to double our efforts. We need to rise to the new opportunity and the challenge created by the outcomes of this survey”.
However, co-lead Prof Alison Woollard of the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Oxford, cautioned: “We think we have established the limits of science communication. Despite all the talk of PCR over the last many months, we found that 30% hadn’t heard the term or knew it was a tool for testing for the virus. It is hard to see how any science can have more exposure than PCR has had. We need to be realistic and understand that, no matter what, we will never reach everyone. For informing people about things like vaccines this is important to know. Dr Adam Rutherford from the UCL department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, (and prominent public science communicator) notes that ‘We often hear that trust in science is at a low point, but what we found is that most people do trust the science of genetics as the basis of how we address global issues such as pandemics. However, scientists should not be complacent: we also found that the exposure of genetics during the pandemic made those suspicious of science more distrusting, despite the evidence. In a world where these voices can easily be amplified, we must be vigilant that our processes, methodologies and results are clearly and transparently communicated.
Dr Cristina Fonseca, project coordinator for the Genetics Society (the funders of the project), noted that “having a representative random survey is really vital and allows us insight into the true diversity of opinions.”
Why do people hold highly variable attitudes towards well-evidenced science? For many years researchers focused on what people know about science, thinking that “to know science is to love it”. But do people who think they know science actually know science? A new study publishing January 24th in the open access journal PLOS Biology by Cristina Fonseca of the Genetics Society, UK; Laurence Hurst of the Milner Centre for Evolution, University of Bath, UK; and colleagues, finds that people with strong attitudes tend to believe they understand science, while neutrals are less confident. Overall, the study revealed that that people with strong negative attitudes to science tend to be overconfident about their level of understanding.
Whether it be vaccines, climate change or GM foods, societally important science can evoke strong and opposing attitudes. Understanding how to communicate science requires an understanding of why people may hold such extremely different attitudes to the same underlying science. The new study performed a survey of over 2,000 UK adults, asking them both about their attitudes to science and their belief in their own understanding. A few prior analyses found that individuals that are negative towards science tend to have relatively low textbook knowledge but strong self-belief in their understanding. With this insight as foundational, the team sought to ask whether strong self-belief underpinned all strong attitudes. The team focused on genetic science and asked attitudinal questions, such as: “Many claims about the benefits of modern genetic science are greatly exaggerated.” People could say how much they agreed or disagreed with such a statement. They also asked questions about how much they believe they understand about such science, including: “When you hear the term DNA, how would you rate your understanding of what the term means.” All individuals were scored from zero (they know they have no understanding) to one (they are confident they understand). The team discovered that those at the attitudinal extremes – both strongly supportive and strongly anti-science – have very high self-belief in their own understanding, while those answering neutrally do not.
Psychologically, the team suggest, this makes sense: to hold a strong opinion you need to strongly believe in the correctness of your understanding of the basic facts. The current team could replicate the prior results finding that those most negative tend also not to have high textbook knowledge. By contrast, those more accepting of science both believe they understand it and scored well on the textbook fact (true/false) questions.
When it was thought that what mattered most for scientific literacy was scientific knowledge, science communication focused on passing information from scientists to the public. However, this approach may not be successful, and in some cases can backfire. The present work suggests that working to address the discrepancies between what people know and what they believe they know may be a better strategy.
Professor Anne Ferguson-Smith, President of the Genetics Society and co-author of the study comments, “Confronting negative attitudes towards science held by some people will likely involve deconstructing what they think they know about science and replacing it with more accurate understanding. This is quite challenging.” Hurst concludes, “Why do some people hold strong attitudes to science whilst others are more neutral? We find that strong attitudes, both for and against, are underpinned by strong self confidence in knowledge about science.”
The Genetics Society, established 1919, is one of the world’s oldest societies devoted to the study of genetics and to the public understanding of genetics. It is an independent and unaffiliated charity.
The application process for Principal Investigator positions can be daunting, especially if you don’t know what to expect and don’t have the necessary support. For this reason, Development has created a new scheme, our Pathway to Independence (PI) programme, which will provide support, mentorship and networking opportunities for the selected researchers (PI fellows).
While we are only able to select a small number of applicants for the programme, we have been looking for other ways to support those applying for group leader positions. We have come across some fantastic resources that already exist to help candidates through this process (often from new group leaders), and we thought that the Node would be a great place to collate this information. Below, we have included some of the advice that we have come across, and we would like your help in continuing to build this collection. If you have written, used or have come across any useful advice, please get in touch via our contact page, email us at thenode@biologists.com or use the comments section below. Once we have collated this information, we’ll create a new page in our Resources section, which we can continue to update. Thanks to Arjun, Jessica, Kara and Daniel for letting us share their advice!
I sought out a lot of advice last year before starting faculty interviews. After being lucky enough to be invited for several myself I found what worked for me (and what didn’t) so I thought I’d share as the next cohort gets started. In order of my perceived importance:
It's faculty interview season! My ramblings about my experiences on the job market (biology/biomedical tenure-track jobs, 2019-2020) and various things I learned about surviving in-person interviews are here:https://t.co/EkrwyAkQpOhttps://t.co/kMG9KUJIjJ
I wrote a blog post on the academic job market. This is mostly to share my own materials like research/teaching statements, chalk talk slides, startup budgets, etc. But along the way I also give my best notes. Hope it helps some of y'all out there!https://t.co/4TGA1rXYVn
Sfrp2 is a multifunctional regulator of rodent color patterns Matthew R. Johnson, Sha Li, Christian F. Guerrero-Juarez, Pearson Miller, Benjamin J. Brack, Sarah A. Mereby, Charles Feigin, Jenna Gaska, Qing Nie, Jaime A. Rivera-Perez, Alexander Ploss, Stanislav Y. Shvartsman, Ricardo Mallarino
ZBTB20 is Essential for Cochlear Maturation and Hearing in Mice Zhifang Xie, Xian-Hua Ma, Qiu-Fang Bai, Jie Tang, Jian-He Sun, Fei Jiang, Wei Guo, Chen-Ma Wang, Rui Yang, Yin-Chuan Wen, Fang-Yuan Wang, Yu-Xia Chen, Hai Zhang, David Z. He, Matthew W. Kelley, Shiming Yang, Weiping J. Zhang
Pleiotropy of autism-associated chromatin regulators Micaela Lasser, Nawei Sun, Yuxiao Xu, Karen Law, Silvano Gonzalez, Belinda Wang, Vanessa Drury, Sam Drake, Yefim Zaltsman, Jeanselle Dea, Ethel Bader, Kate E. McCluskey, Matthew W. State, A. Jeremy Willsey, Helen Rankin Willsey
Probing the evolutionary dynamics of whole-body regeneration within planarian flatworms Miquel Vila-Farré, Andrei Rozanski, Mario Ivanković, James Cleland, Jeremias N. Brand, Felix Thalen, Markus Grohme, Stephanie von Kannen, Alexandra Grosbusch, Han T-K Vu, Carlos E. Prieto, Fernando Carbayo, Bernhard Egger, Christoph Bleidorn, John E. J. Rasko, Jochen C. Rink
The developmental basis for scaling of mammalian tooth size Mona M. Christensen, Outi Hallikas, Rishi Das Roy, Vilma Väänänen, Otto E. Stenberg, Teemu J. Häkkinen, Jean-Christophe François, Robert J. Asher, Ophir D. Klein, Martin Holzenberger, Jukka Jernvall
Molecular and spatial design of early skin development Tina Jacob, Karl Annusver, Paulo Czarnewski, Tim Dalessandri, Maria Eleni Kastriti, Chiara Levra Levron, Marja L Mikkola, Michael Rendl, Beate M Lichtenberger, Giacomo Donati, Åsa Björklund, Maria Kasper
A cell atlas of human adrenal cortex development and disease Ignacio del Valle, Matthew D Young, Gerda Kildisiute, Olumide K Ogunbiyi, Federica Buonocore, Ian C Simcock, Eleonora Khabirova, Berta Crespo, Nadjeda Moreno, Tony Brooks, Paola Niola, Katherine Swarbrick, Jenifer P Suntharalingham, Sinead M McGlacken-Byrne, Owen J Arthurs, Sam Behjati, John C Achermann
Aging Fly Cell Atlas Identifies Exhaustive Aging Features at Cellular Resolution Tzu-Chiao Lu, Maria Brbić, Ye-Jin Park, Tyler Jackson, Jiaye Chen, Sai Saroja Kolluru, Yanyan Qi, Nadja Sandra Katheder, Xiaoyu Tracy Cai, Seungjae Lee, Yen-Chung Chen, Niccole Auld, Doug Welsch, Samuel D’Souza, Angela Oliveira Pisco, Robert C. Jones, Jure Leskovec, Eric C. Lai, Hugo J. Bellen, Liqun Luo, Heinrich Jasper, Stephen R. Quake, Hongjie Li
Next-generation plasmids for transgenesis in zebrafish and beyond Cassie L. Kemmler, Hannah R. Moran, Brooke F. Murray, Aaron Scoresby, John R. Klem, Rachel L. Eckert, Elizabeth Lepovsky, Sylvain Bertho, Susan Nieuwenhuize, Sibylle Burger, Gianluca D’Agati, Charles Betz, Ann-Christin Puller, Anastasia Felker, Karolína Ditrychová, Seraina Bötschi, Markus Affolter, Nicolas Rohner, C. Ben Lovely, Kristen M. Kwan, Alexa Burger, Christian Mosimann
(8 votes)
Loading...
(No Ratings Yet)
