Windowing Models for Abstractive Summarization of Long Texts

Neural summarization models suffer from the fixed-size input limitation: if text length surpasses the model's maximal number of input tokens, some document content (possibly summary-relevant) gets truncated Independently summarizing windows of maximal input size disallows for information flow between windows and leads to incoherent summaries. We propose windowing models for neural abstractive summarization of (arbitrarily) long texts. We extend the sequence-to-sequence model augmented with pointer generator network by (1) allowing the encoder to slide over different windows of the input document and (2) sharing the decoder and retaining its state across different input windows. We explore two windowing variants: Static Windowing precomputes the number of tokens the decoder should generate from each window (based on training corpus statistics); in Dynamic Windowing the decoder learns to emit a token that signals encoder's shift to the next input window. Empirical results render our models effective in their intended use-case: summarizing long texts with relevant content not bound to the very document beginning

Inflammation and convergent placenta gene co-option contributed to a novel reproductive tissue

Highlights: • Pelvic brooding induces tissue-specific changes in gene expression • Inflammatory signaling characterizes transcriptome of the egg-anchoring plug • Similar to embryo implantation, the plug likely evolved from an inflammatory response • Mammalian placenta genes were independently co-opted into the plug Summary: The evolution of pregnancy exposes parental tissues to new, potentially stressful conditions, which can trigger inflammation.1 Inflammation is costly2,3 and can induce embryo rejection, which constrains the evolution of pregnancy.1 In contrast, inflammation can also promote morphological innovation at the maternal-embryonic interface as exemplified by co-option of pro-inflammatory signaling for eutherian embryo implantation.1,4,5 Given its dual function, inflammation could be a key process explaining how innovations such as pregnancy and placentation evolved many times convergently. Pelvic brooding ricefishes evolved a novel “plug” tissue,6,7 which forms inside the female gonoduct after spawning, anchors egg-attaching filaments, and enables pelvic brooders to carry eggs externally until hatching.6,8 Compared to pregnancy, i.e., internal bearing of embryos, external bearing should alleviate constraints on inflammation in the reproductive tract. We thus hypothesized that an ancestral inflammation triggered by the retention of attaching filaments gave rise to pathways orchestrating plug formation. In line with our hypothesis, histological sections of the developing plug revealed signs of gonoduct injuries by egg-attaching filaments in the pelvic brooding ricefish Oryzias eversi. Tissue-specific transcriptomes showed that inflammatory signaling dominates the plug transcriptome and inflammation-induced genes controlling vital processes for plug development such as tissue growth and angiogenesis were overexpressed in the plug. Finally, mammalian placenta genes were enriched in the plug transcriptome, indicating convergent gene co-option for building, attaching, and sustaining a transient tissue in the female reproductive tract. This study highlights the role of gene co-option and suggests that recruiting inflammatory signaling into physiological processes provides a fast-track to evolutionary innovation

Primary intracranial spindle cell sarcoma with rhabdomyosarcoma-like features share a highly distinct methylation profile and DICER1 mutations

Patients with DICER1 predisposition syndrome have an increased risk to develop pleuropulmonary blastoma, cystic nephroma, embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma, and several other rare tumor entities. In this study, we identified 22 primary intracranial sarcomas, including 18 in pediatric patients, with a distinct methylation signature detected by array-based DNA-methylation profiling. In addition, two uterine rhabdomyosarcomas sharing identical features were identified. Gene panel sequencing of the 22 intracranial sarcomas revealed the almost unifying feature of DICER1 hotspot mutations (21/22; 95%) and a high frequency of co-occurring TP53 mutations (12/22; 55%). In addition, 17/22 (77%) sarcomas exhibited alterations in the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway, most frequently affecting the mutational hotspots of KRAS (8/22; 36%) and mutations or deletions of NF1 (7/22; 32%), followed by mutations of FGFR4 (2/22; 9%), NRAS (2/22; 9%), and amplification of EGFR (1/22; 5%). A germline DICER1 mutation was detected in two of five cases with constitutional DNA available. Notably, none of the patients showed evidence of a cancer-related syndrome at the time of diagnosis. In contrast to the genetic findings, the morphological features of these tumors were less distinctive, although rhabdomyoblasts or rhabdomyoblast-like cells could retrospectively be detected in all cases. The identified combination of genetic events indicates a relationship between the intracranial tumors analyzed and DICER1 predisposition syndrome-associated sarcomas such as embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma or the recently described group of anaplastic sarcomas of the kidney. However, the intracranial tumors in our series were initially interpreted to represent various tumor types, but rhabdomyosarcoma was not among the typical differential diagnoses considered. Given the rarity of intracranial sarcomas, this molecularly clearly defined group comprises a considerable fraction thereof. We therefore propose the designation "spindle cell sarcoma with rhabdomyosarcoma-like features, DICER1 mutant" for this intriguing group.S

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