Evaluating the extent of a large-scale transformation in gateway science courses

We evaluate the impact of an institutional effort to transform undergraduate science courses using an approach based on course assessments. The approach is guided by A Framework for K-12 Science Education and focuses on scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, together called three-dimensional learning. To evaluate the extent of change, we applied the Three-dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol to 4 years of chemistry, physics, and biology course exams. Changes in exams differed by discipline and even by course, apparently depending on an interplay between departmental culture, course organization, and perceived course ownership, demonstrating the complex nature of transformation in higher education. We conclude that while transformation must be supported at all organizational levels, ultimately, change is controlled by factors at the course and departmental levels

Characterizing college science instruction: The Three-Dimensional Learning Observation Protocol

The importance of improving STEM education is of perennial interest, and to this end, the education community needs ways to characterize transformation efforts. Three-dimensional learning (3DL) is one such approach to transformation, in which core ideas of the discipline, scientific practices, and crosscutting concepts are combined to support student development of disciplinary expertise. We have previously reported on an approach to the characterization of assessments, the Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol (3D-LAP), that can be used to identify whether assessments have the potential to engage students in 3DL. Here we present the development of a companion, the Three-Dimensional Learning Observation Protocol (3D-LOP), an observation protocol that can reliably distinguish between instruction that has potential for engagement with 3DL and instruction that does not. The 3D-LOP goes beyond other observation protocols, because it is intended not only to characterize the pedagogical approaches being used in the instructional environment, but also to identify whether students are being asked to engage with scientific practices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts. We demonstrate herein that the 3D-LOP can be used reliably to code for the presence of 3DL; further, we present data that show the utility of the 3D-LOP in differentiating between instruction that has the potential to promote 3DL from instruction that does not. Our team plans to continue using this protocol to evaluate outcomes of instructional transformation projects. We also propose that the 3D-LOP can be used to support practitioners in developing curricular materials and selecting instructional strategies to promote engagement in three-dimensional instruction

An evolutionary driver of interspersed segmental duplications in primates

Background The complex interspersed pattern of segmental duplications in humans is responsible for rearrangements associated with neurodevelopmental disease, including the emergence of novel genes important in human brain evolution. We investigate the evolution of LCR16a, a putative driver of this phenomenon that encodes one of the most rapidly evolving human–ape gene families, nuclear pore interacting protein (NPIP). Results Comparative analysis shows that LCR16a has independently expanded in five primate lineages over the last 35 million years of primate evolution. The expansions are associated with independent lineage-specific segmental duplications flanking LCR16a leading to the emergence of large interspersed duplication blocks at non-orthologous chromosomal locations in each primate lineage. The intron-exon structure of the NPIP gene family has changed dramatically throughout primate evolution with different branches showing characteristic gene models yet maintaining an open reading frame. In the African ape lineage, we detect signatures of positive selection that occurred after a transition to more ubiquitous expression among great ape tissues when compared to Old World and New World monkeys. Mouse transgenic experiments from baboon and human genomic loci confirm these expression differences and suggest that the broader ape expression pattern arose due to mutational changes that emerged in cis. Conclusions LCR16a promotes serial interspersed duplications and creates hotspots of genomic instability that appear to be an ancient property of primate genomes. Dramatic changes to NPIP gene structure and altered tissue expression preceded major bouts of positive selection in the African ape lineage, suggestive of a gene undergoing strong adaptive evolution

A high-quality bonobo genome refines the analysis of hominid evolution

The divergence of chimpanzee and bonobo provides one of the few examples of recent hominid speciation1,2. Here we describe a fully annotated, high-quality bonobo genome assembly, which was constructed without guidance from reference genomes by applying a multiplatform genomics approach. We generate a bonobo genome assembly in which more than 98% of genes are completely annotated and 99% of the gaps are closed, including the resolution of about half of the segmental duplications and almost all of the full-length mobile elements. We compare the bonobo genome to those of other great apes1,3,4,5 and identify more than 5,569 fixed structural variants that specifically distinguish the bonobo and chimpanzee lineages. We focus on genes that have been lost, changed in structure or expanded in the last few million years of bonobo evolution. We produce a high-resolution map of incomplete lineage sorting and estimate that around 5.1% of the human genome is genetically closer to chimpanzee or bonobo and that more than 36.5% of the genome shows incomplete lineage sorting if we consider a deeper phylogeny including gorilla and orangutan. We also show that 26% of the segments of incomplete lineage sorting between human and chimpanzee or human and bonobo are non-randomly distributed and that genes within these clustered segments show significant excess of amino acid replacement compared to the rest of the genome

FOX-2 Dependent Splicing of Ataxin-2 Transcript Is Affected by Ataxin-1 Overexpression

Alternative splicing is a fundamental posttranscriptional mechanism for controlling gene expression, and splicing defects have been linked to various human disorders. The splicing factor FOX-2 is part of a main protein interaction hub in a network related to human inherited ataxias, however, its impact remains to be elucidated. Here, we focused on the reported interaction between FOX-2 and ataxin-1, the disease-causing protein in spinocerebellar ataxia type 1. In this line, we further evaluated this interaction by yeast-2-hybrid analyses and co-immunoprecipitation experiments in mammalian cells. Interestingly, we discovered that FOX-2 localization and splicing activity is affected in the presence of nuclear ataxin-1 inclusions. Moreover, we observed that FOX-2 directly interacts with ataxin-2, a protein modulating spinocerebellar ataxia type 1 pathogenesis. Finally, we provide evidence that splicing of pre-mRNA of ataxin-2 depends on FOX-2 activity, since reduction of FOX-2 levels led to increased skipping of exon 18 in ataxin-2 transcripts. Most striking, we observed that ataxin-1 overexpression has an effect on this splicing event as well. Thus, our results demonstrate that FOX-2 is involved in splicing of ataxin-2 transcripts and that this splicing event is altered by overexpression of ataxin-1

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Investigating Students’ Reasoning about Acid–Base Reactions

Acid–base chemistry is central to a wide range of reactions. If students are able to understand how and why acid–base reactions occur, it should provide a basis for reasoning about a host of other reactions. Here, we report the development of a method to characterize student reasoning about acid–base reactions based on their description of <i>what</i> happens during the reaction, <i>how</i> it happens, and <i>why</i> it happens. We show that we can reliably place student responses into categories that reflect the model of acid–base reactivity used and whether the students invoke an electrostatic causal argument. However, the quality of student responses is highly dependent on the structure of the task prompt, which must be structured to provide students with enough information for them to understand what is needed. In general, students who construct responses that invoke a causal mechanistic Lewis model are more likely to draw appropriate curved arrow reaction mechanisms

Student Understanding of Intermolecular Forces: A Multimodal Study

The ability to use representations of molecular structure to predict the macroscopic properties of a substance is central to the development of a robust understanding of chemistry. Intermolecular forces (IMFs) play an important role in this process because they provide a mechanism for how and why molecules interact. In this study, we investigate student thinking about IMFs (that is, hydrogen bonding, dipole–dipole interactions, and London dispersion forces) by asking general chemistry college students to both describe their understanding in writing and to draw representations of IMFs. Analysis of student drawings shows that most students in our study did not have a stable, coherent understanding of IMFs as interactions <i><b>between</b></i> molecules. At least 55% of the students in our study unambiguously represented each IMF an interaction or bond <i><b>within a single molecule</b></i>, while only 10–30% of students represented each IMF as an interaction between molecules. Furthermore, the majority of students (59%) were not consistent in the way that they represented the different IMFs (as within or between). That is, their representations varied depending on the IMF. Student written descriptions of intermolecular forces were typically quite ambiguous, meaning that it was not possible to determine from the student description alone whether the student understood IMFs as bonds or interactions. It was only when the student’s representation was consulted that we could determine whether a particular student had an appropriate understanding of IMFs. We believe that in situations where spatial information is crucial, free-form drawn representations are more likely to provide meaningful insight into student thinking