Detection of protein-protein interactions through vesicle targeting.

The detection of protein-protein interactions through two-hybrid assays has revolutionized our understanding of biology. The remarkable impact of two-hybrid assay platforms derives from their speed, simplicity, and broad applicability. Yet for many organisms, the need to express test proteins in Saccharomyces cerevisiae or Escherichia coli presents a substantial barrier because variations in codon specificity or bias may result in aberrant protein expression. In particular, nonstandard genetic codes are characteristic of several eukaryotic pathogens, for which there are currently no genetically based systems for detection of protein-protein interactions. We have developed a protein-protein interaction assay that is carried out in native host cells by using GFP as the only foreign protein moiety, thus circumventing these problems. We show that interaction can be detected between two protein pairs in both the model yeast S. cerevisiae and the fungal pathogen Candida albicans. We use computational analysis of microscopic images to provide a quantitative and automated assessment of confidence.</p

Ranking Practice Variability in the Medical Student Performance Evaluation

PurposeTo examine the variability among medical schools in ranking systems used in medical student performance evaluations (MSPEs).MethodThe authors reviewed MSPEs from U.S. MD-granting medical schools received by the University of California, Irvine emergency medicine and internal medicine residency programs during 2012-2013 and 2014-2015. They recorded whether the school used a ranking system, the type of ranking system used, the size and description of student categories, the location of the ranking statement and category legend, and whether nonranking schools used language suggestive of rank.ResultsOf the 134 medical schools in the study sample, the majority (n = 101; 75%) provided ranks for students in the MSPE. Most of the ranking schools (n = 63; 62%) placed students into named category groups, but the number and size of groups varied. The most common descriptors used for these 63 schools' top, second, third, and lowest groups were "outstanding," "excellent," "very good," and "good," respectively, but each of these terms was used across a broad range of percentile ranks. Student ranks and school category legends were found in various locations. Many of the 33 schools that did not rank students included language suggestive of rank.ConclusionsThere is extensive variation in ranking systems used in MSPEs. Program directors may find it difficult to use MSPEs to compare applicants, which may diminish the MSPE's value in the residency application process and negatively affect high-achieving students. A consistent approach to ranking students would benefit program directors, students, and student affairs officers

Who to Interview? Low Adherence by US Medical Schools to Medical Student Performance Evaluation Format Makes Resident Selection Difficult

INTRODUCTION: The Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) appendices provide a program director with comparative performance for a student’s academic and professional attributes, but they are frequently absent or incomplete. METHODS: We reviewed MSPEs from applicants to our emergency medicine residency program from 134 of 136 (99%) US allopathic medical schools, over two application cycles (2012-13, 2014-15). We determined the degree of compliance with each of the five recommended MSPE appendices. RESULTS: Only three (2%) medical schools were compliant with all five appendices. The medical school information page (MSIP, appendix E) was present most commonly (85%), followed by comparative clerkship performance (appendix B, 82%), overall performance (appendix D, 59%), preclinical performance (appendix A, 57%), and professional attributes (appendix C, 18%). Few schools (7%) provided student-specific, comparative professionalism assessments. CONCLUSION: Medical schools inconsistently provide graphic, comparative data for their students in the MSPE. Although PDs value evidence of an applicant’s professionalism when selecting residents, medical schools rarely provide such useful, comparative professionalism data in their MSPEs. As PDs seek to evaluate applicants based on academic performance and professionalism, rather than standardized testing alone, medical schools must make MSPEs more consistent, objective, and comparative

Who to Interview? Low Adherence by US Medical Schools to Medical Student Performance Evaluation Format Makes Resident Selection Difficult

INTRODUCTION: The Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) appendices provide a program director with comparative performance for a student’s academic and professional attributes, but they are frequently absent or incomplete. METHODS: We reviewed MSPEs from applicants to our emergency medicine residency program from 134 of 136 (99%) US allopathic medical schools, over two application cycles (2012-13, 2014-15). We determined the degree of compliance with each of the five recommended MSPE appendices. RESULTS: Only three (2%) medical schools were compliant with all five appendices. The medical school information page (MSIP, appendix E) was present most commonly (85%), followed by comparative clerkship performance (appendix B, 82%), overall performance (appendix D, 59%), preclinical performance (appendix A, 57%), and professional attributes (appendix C, 18%). Few schools (7%) provided student-specific, comparative professionalism assessments. CONCLUSION: Medical schools inconsistently provide graphic, comparative data for their students in the MSPE. Although PDs value evidence of an applicant’s professionalism when selecting residents, medical schools rarely provide such useful, comparative professionalism data in their MSPEs. As PDs seek to evaluate applicants based on academic performance and professionalism, rather than standardized testing alone, medical schools must make MSPEs more consistent, objective, and comparative

Who to Interview? Low Adherence by U.S. Medical Schools to Medical Student Performance Evaluation Format Makes Resident Selection Difficult

The Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) appendices provide a program director with comparative performance for a student’s academic and professional attributes, but they are frequently absent or incomplete. We reviewed MSPEs from applicants to our emergency medicine residency program from 134 of 136 (99%) US allopathic medical schools, over two application cycles (2012-13, 2014-15). We determined the degree of compliance with each of the five recommended MSPE appendices. Only three (2%) medical schools were compliant with all five appendices. The medical school information page (MSIP, appendix E) was present most commonly (85%), followed by comparative clerkship performance (appendix B, 82%), overall performance (appendix D, 59%), preclinical performance (appendix A, 57%), and professional attributes (appendix C, 18%). Few schools (7%) provided student-specific, comparative professionalism assessments. Medical schools inconsistently provide graphic, comparative data for their students in the MSPE. Although PDs value evidence of an applicant’s professionalism when selecting residents, medical schools rarely provide such useful, comparative professionalism data in their MSPEs. As PDs seek to evaluate applicants based on academic performance and professionalism, rather than standardized testing alone, medical schools must make MSPEs more consistent, objective, and comparative

Flipping the advanced cardiac life support classroom with team-based learning: comparison of cognitive testing performance for medical students at the University of California, Irvine, United States

Purpose: It aimed to find if written test results improved for advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) taught in flipped classroom/team-based Learning (FC/TBL) vs. lecture-based (LB) control in University of California-Irvine School of Medicine, USA. Methods: Medical students took 2010 ACLS with FC/TBL (2015), compared to 3 classes in LB (2012-14) format. There were 27.5 hours of instruction for FC/TBL model (TBL 10.5, podcasts 9, small-group simulation 8 hours), and 20 (12 lecture, simulation 8 hours) in LB. TBL covered 13 cardiac cases; LB had none. Seven simulation cases and didactic content were the same by lecture (2012-14) or podcast (2015) as was testing: 50 multiple-choice questions (MCQ), 20 rhythm matchings, and 7 fill-in clinical cases. Results: 354 students took the course (259 [73.1%] in LB in 2012-14, and 95 [26.9%] in FC/TBL in 2015). Two of 3 tests (MCQ and fill-in) improved for FC/TBL. Overall, median scores increased from 93.5% (IQR 90.6, 95.4) to 95.1% (92.8, 96.7, P=0.0001). For the fill-in test: 94.1% for LB (89.6, 97.2) to 96.6% for FC/TBL (92.4, 99.20 P=0.0001). For MC: 88% for LB (84, 92) to 90% for FC/TBL (86, 94, P=0.0002). For the rhythm test: median 100% for both formats. More students failed 1 of 3 tests with LB vs. FC/TBL (24.7% vs. 14.7%), and 2 or 3 components (8.1% vs. 3.2%, P=0.006). Conversely, 82.1% passed all 3 with FC/TBL vs. 67.2% with LB (difference 14.9%, 95% CI 4.8-24.0%). Conclusion: A FC/TBL format for ACLS marginally improved written test results