Carrying Bricks: Guiding Pre-Tenure Program Coordinators from Survival to Superstars

The purpose of this article is to discuss a) the dual role of the assistant professor/ program coordinator, b) specific strategies for developing pre-tenure survival skills and c) leveraging the pseudo administrative duties of a program coordinator to forge a unique and diversified professional portfolio for leadership opportunities post-tenure. The tenure and promotion process at many higher education institutions requires faculty members to publish research and present at regional, national, and international conferences, but new tenure-track faculty in the program coordinator role must also balance and manage other job responsibilities. An apt analogy for this process is a bricklayer who is expected to lay a perfectly straight, clean wall while fatigued from carrying bricks all morning from worksite to worksite. The new assistant professor/program coordinator who chooses to carry the appropriate quantity of bricks while still maintaining quality, can successfully pave the way to long-term success in academia

Student Perceptions of the Program Component Effectiveness of a Leisure and Sport Management Program (LSM)

Although the trend in higher education is moving toward an emphasis on institutional mission-based funding and retention plans, little has been done to evaluate students\u27 perceptions of academic program effectiveness and an integration of a total quality management approach to ensuring program quality. The purpose of this study was to determine what effect student perception of Leisure and Sport Management (LSM) program components had on their perception of overall program quality with regard to Deming\u27s 14 points of Total Quality Management. Forty-eight students from a graduate LSM program completed one questionnaire, comprised of three demographic variables and 29 attitude items. Four subfactors of program component effectiveness and one factor of overall program quality were analyzed through hierarchal multiple regression. Results indicated that when controlling for gender, age, and program classification, student perception of program component effectiveness is directly related to their perception of overall program quality. Moreover, students had a positive perception of LSM program components, Academic and Career Preparation and Commitment to Academic Excellence, in particular

Burkholderia xenovorans LB400 harbors a multi-replicon, 9.73-Mbp genome shaped for versatility

Burkholderia xenovorans LB400 (LB400), a well studied, effective polychlorinated biphenyl-degrader, has one of the two largest known bacterial genomes and is the first nonpathogenic Burkholderia isolate sequenced. From an evolutionary perspective, we find significant differences in functional specialization between the three replicons of LB400, as well as a more relaxed selective pressure for genes located on the two smaller vs. the largest replicon. High genomic plasticity, diversity, and specialization within the Burkholderia genus are exemplified by the conservation of only 44% of the genes between LB400 and Burkholderia cepacia complex strain 383. Even among four B. xenovorans strains, genome size varies from 7.4 to 9.73 Mbp. The latter is largely explained by our findings that >20% of the LB400 sequence was recently acquired by means of lateral gene transfer. Although a range of genetic factors associated with in vivo survival and intercellular interactions are present, these genetic factors are likely related to niche breadth rather than determinants of pathogenicity. The presence of at least eleven “central aromatic” and twenty “peripheral aromatic” pathways in LB400, among the highest in any sequenced bacterial genome, supports this hypothesis. Finally, in addition to the experimentally observed redundancy in benzoate degradation and formaldehyde oxidation pathways, the fact that 17.6% of proteins have a better LB400 paralog than an ortholog in a different genome highlights the importance of gene duplication and repeated acquirement, which, coupled with their divergence, raises questions regarding the role of paralogs and potential functional redundancies in large-genome microbes

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

No abstract available

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy.

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field