Variations of Plasmid Content in Rickettsia felis

Background: Since its first detection, characterization of R. felis has been a matter of debate, mostly due to the contamination of an initial R. felis culture by R. typhi. However, the first stable culture of R. felis allowed its precise phenotypic and genotypic characterization, and demonstrated that this species belonged to the spotted fever group rickettsiae. Later, its genome sequence revealed the presence of two forms of the same plasmid, physically confirmed by biological data. In a recent article, Gillespie et al. ( PLoS One. 2007; 2( 3): e266.) used a bioinformatic approach to refute the presence of the second plasmid form, and proposed the creation of a specific phylogenetic group for R. felis. Methodology/ Principal Findings: In the present report, we, and five independent international laboratories confirmed unambiguously by PCR the presence of two plasmid forms in R. felis strain URRWXCal(2)(T), but observed that the plasmid content of this species, from none to 2 plasmid forms, may depend on the culture passage history of the studied strain. We also demonstrated that R. felis does not cultivate in Vero cells at 37 degrees C but generates plaques at 30 degrees C. Finally, using a phylogenetic study based on 667 concatenated core genes, we demonstrated the position of R. felis within the spotted fever group. Significance: We demonstrated that R. felis, which unambiguously belongs to the spotted fever group rickettsiae, may contain up to two plasmid forms but this plasmid content is unstable

Are sciences essential and humanities elective? Disentangling competing claims for humanities research public value

[EN] Recent policy discourse suggests that arts and humanities research is seen as being less useful to society than other disciplines, notably in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The paper explores how this assumption s construction has been built and whether it is based upon an unfair prejudice: we argue for a prima facie case to answer in assuming that arts and humanities research s lower societal value. We identify a set of claims circulating in policy circles regarding science, technology, engineering and math- ematics research and arts and humanities research s differences. We find two groups: arts and humanities research is less useful than science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and arts and humanities research is merely differently useful. We argue that empirical analysis is necessary to disentangle which ones are true to assess whether policy-making is being based on rational and evidence-based claims. We argue that debates about public research value should recognise that humanities have different (but equally valid) kinds of societal value.This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education, which funded the PhD research fellowship of Julia Olmos Peñuela through the F.P.U program [AP2007- 01850]. The research fellowship took place in the framework of the HERAVALUE project, Measuring the public value of arts and humanities research, financially supported by the HERA Joint Research Programme, cofunded by AHRC, AKA, DASTI, ETF, FNR, FWF, HAZU, IRCHSS, MHEST, NWO, RANNIS, RCN, VR and The European Community FP7 2007-2013, under the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities programme. The authors would like to thank the editors and two anonymous referees for their invaluable comments. Any errors or omissions remain the authors’ responsibilitieOlmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-Martínez, E. (2015). Are sciences essential and humanities elective? Disentangling competing claims for humanities research public value. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education. 14(1):61-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022214534081S617814

University–industry collaboration: using meta-rules to overcome barriers to knowledge transfer

This is the final version of the article. Available from Springer Verlag via the DOI in this record.University–industry knowledge transfer is an important source wealth of creation for all partners; however, the practical management of this activity within universities is often hampered by procedural rigidity either through the absence of decision-making protocols to reconcile conflicting priorities or through the inconsistent implementation of existing policies. This is problematic, since it can impede operational effectiveness, prevent inter-organisational knowledge-creation and hamper organisational learning. This paper addresses this issue by adopting a cross-discipline approach and presenting meta-rules as a solution to aid organisational decision making. It is proposed that meta-rules can help resolve tensions arising from conflicting priorities between academics, knowledge transfer offices and industry and help facilitate strategic alignment of processes and policies within and between organisations. This research contributes to the growing debate on the strategic challenges of managing knowledge transfer and presents meta-rules as a practical solution to facilitate strategic alignment of internal and external stakeholder tensions. Meta-rules has previously only been applied in a computer intelligence context however, this research proves the efficacy of meta rules in a university–industry knowledge transfer context. This research also has practical implications for knowledge transfer office managers who can use meta-rules to help overcome resource limitations, conflicting priorities and goals of diverse internal and external stakeholders

Writing impact case studies: a comparative study of high-scoring and low-scoring case studies from REF2014

This paper reports on two studies that used qualitative thematic and quantitative linguistic analysis, respectively, to assess the content and language of the largest ever sample of graded research impact case studies, from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2014 (REF). The paper provides the first empirical evidence across disciplinary main panels of statistically significant linguistic differences between high- versus low-scoring case studies, suggesting that implicit rules linked to written style may have contributed to scores alongside the published criteria on the significance, reach and attribution of impact. High-scoring case studies were more likely to provide specific and high-magnitude articulations of significance and reach than low-scoring cases. High-scoring case studies contained attributional phrases which were more likely to attribute research and/or pathways to impact, and they were written more coherently (containing more explicit causal connections between ideas and more logical connectives) than low-scoring cases. High-scoring case studies appear to have conformed to a distinctive new genre of writing, which was clear and direct, and often simplified in its representation of causality between research and impact, and less likely to contain expressions of uncertainty than typically associated with academic writing. High-scoring case studies in two Main Panels were significantly easier to read than low-scoring cases on the Flesch Reading Ease measure, although both high-scoring and low-scoring cases tended to be of “graduate” reading difficulty. The findings of our work enable impact case study authors to better understand the genre and make content and language choices that communicate their impact as effectively as possible. While directly relevant to the assessment of impact in the UK’s Research Excellence Framework, the work also provides insights of relevance to institutions internationally who are designing evaluation frameworks for research impact