316 research outputs found
Chromatin and epigenetic features of long-range gene regulation
The precise regulation of gene transcription during metazoan development is controlled by a complex system of interactions between transcription factors, histone modifications and modifying enzymes and chromatin conformation. Developments in chromosome conformation capture technologies have revealed that interactions between regions of chromatin are pervasive and highly cell-type specific. The movement of enhancers and promoters in and out of higher-order chromatin structures within the nucleus are associated with changes in expression and histone modifications. However, the factors responsible for mediating these changes and determining enhancer:promoter specificity are still not completely known. In this review, we summarize what is known about the patterns of epigenetic and chromatin features characteristic of elements involved in long-range interactions. In addition, we review the insights into both local and global patterns of chromatin interactions that have been revealed by the latest experimental and computational methods.publishedVersio
Marguerite Au Rouet : Gretchen am Spinnrade
https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-ps/1550/thumbnail.jp
Le Zephyr : Morceau Elegant
https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-ps/3227/thumbnail.jp
High Tc rf-biased SQUID
Journal ArticleResults are presented on the behavior of a simple rf-biased SQUID made out of YBa2Cu307. It consists of a fractured ceramic pellet stuck together at room temperature. This simple device is shielded by a high Tc tube and it shows the characteristic flux quantization behavior up to 77K. At 4.2K its magnetic flux resolution is less than 2 x 10-4Ď / â HZ and it shows sensitivity degradation as the temperature is raised
Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal : a descriptive study
Objectives
While documented plans for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research are required in many grant applications, little is known about how frequently PPI occurs in practice. Low levels of reported PPI may mask actual activity due to limited PPI reporting requirements. This research analysed the frequency and types of reported PPI in the presence and absence of a journal requirement to include this information.
Design and setting
A before and after comparison of PPI reported in research papers published in The BMJ before and 1 year after the introduction of a journal policy requiring authors to report if and how they involved patients and the public within their papers.
Results
Between 1 June 2013 and 31 May 2014, The BMJ published 189 research papers and 1 (0.5%) reported PPI activity. From 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2016, following the introduction of the policy, The BMJ published 152 research papers of which 16 (11%) reported PPI activity. Patients contributed to grant applications in addition to designing studies through to coauthorship and participation in study dissemination. Patient contributors were often not fully acknowledged; 6 of 17 (35%) papers acknowledged their contributions and 2 (12%) included them as coauthors.
Conclusions
Infrequent reporting of PPI activity does not appear to be purely due to a failure of documentation. Reporting of PPI activity increased after the introduction of The BMJ âs policy, but activity both before and after was low and reporting was inconsistent in quality. Journals, funders and research institutions should collaborate to move us from the current situation where PPI is an optional extra to one where PPI is fully embedded in practice throughout the research process
Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process : surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals
Objective
In 2014/2015, The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement (RIE) became the first journals to routinely include patients and the public in the peer review process of journal articles. This survey explores the perspectives and early experiences of these reviewers.
Design
A cross-sectional survey.
Setting and participants
Patient and public reviewers for The BMJ and RIE who have been invited to review.
Results
The response rate was 69% (157/227) for those who had previously reviewed and 31% (67/217) for those who had not yet reviewed. Reviewers described being motivated to review by the opportunity to include the patient voice in the research process, influence the quality of the biomedical literature and ensure it meets the needs of patients. Of the 157 who had reviewed, 127 (81%) would recommend being a reviewer to other patients and carers. 144 (92%) thought more journals should adopt patient and public review. Few reviewers (16/224, 7%) reported concerns about doing open review. Annual acknowledgement on the journalsâ websites was welcomed as was free access to journal information. Participants were keen to have access to more online resources and training to improve their reviewing skills. Suggestions on how to improve the reviewing experience included: allowing more time to review; better and more frequent communication; a more user-friendly process; improving guidance on how to review including videos; improving the matching of papers to reviewersâ experience; providing more varied sample reviews and brief feedback on the usefulness of reviews; developing a sense of community among reviewers; and publicising of the contribution that patient and public review brings.
Conclusions
Patient and public reviewers shared practical ideas to improve the reviewing experience and these will be reviewed to enhance the guidance and support given to them
What the papers say: Text mining for genomics and systems biology
Keeping up with the rapidly growing literature has become virtually impossible for most scientists. This can have dire consequences. First, we may waste research time and resources on reinventing the wheel simply because we can no longer maintain a reliable grasp on the published literature. Second, and perhaps more detrimental, judicious (or serendipitous) combination of knowledge from different scientific disciplines, which would require following disparate and distinct research literatures, is rapidly becoming impossible for even the most ardent readers of research publications. Text mining -- the automated extraction of information from (electronically) published sources -- could potentially fulfil an important role -- but only if we know how to harness its strengths and overcome its weaknesses. As we do not expect that the rate at which scientific results are published will decrease, text mining tools are now becoming essential in order to cope with, and derive maximum benefit from, this information explosion. In genomics, this is particularly pressing as more and more rare disease-causing variants are found and need to be understood. Not being conversant with this technology may put scientists and biomedical regulators at a severe disadvantage. In this review, we introduce the basic concepts underlying modern text mining and its applications in genomics and systems biology. We hope that this review will serve three purposes: (i) to provide a timely and useful overview of the current status of this field, including a survey of present challenges; (ii) to enable researchers to decide how and when to apply text mining tools in their own research; and (iii) to highlight how the research communities in genomics and systems biology can help to make text mining from biomedical abstracts and texts more straightforward
- âŚ