Hydrogeochemistry of the Caribou-Poker Creeks Research Watershed

Bedrock of the Caribou-Poker Creeks Research Watershed dissolves incongruently with a first-order rate constant of about 5 x 10-6 day-1 at 5° C. The resulting solution is potassium-calcium-magnesium rich. The soil-plant environment acts on this solution through sorption of potassium and by evapotranspiration to yield a solution that is relatively depleted in potassium and enriched in calcium and magnesium, but with the same molar ratio of Ca:Mg as the fluid from the rock dissolution. This fluid from the soil-plant reservoir is the dominant contributor of ions to stream waters. Using the discriminant functions obtained by multiple discriminant analysis DPKR = 0.572Si02 + 0.240Ca + 2.89Mg - 0.384Na + 0.452N03 - 9.18 DCRB = 0.913Si02 + 0.042Ca + 1.28Mg + 1.17Na + 4.63N03 - 7.27, the waters of Caribou Creek and Poker Creek can be distinguished on the basis of chemical composition. In general, Poker Creek waters are slightly more concentrated than Caribou Creek waters. On the average, 1.4 x 10^13g H20/year leaves the watershed as surface water. At an average calcium concentration of 14 ppm for the water, 0.1% for the bedrock, and a watershed area of 46 mi^2, this flow corresponds to a maximum loss of about 17 metric tons of rock per hectare per year

Open Biology in a new decade

The end of the decade marks the end of my tenure as Editor-in-Chief of Open Biology. How far have we come since the launch of the journal in September 2011? This has certainly been a difficult time to start a new journal in molecular and cell biology, where the competition is fierce. We have made impact, however, with our dreaded Impact Factor oscillating between 3.5 and 5.8 during this time. I anticipate the metrics will soon rise higher because, most importantly, we are now recognized within the community as a journal that truly represents the interests of scientists. There has been a lot of debate about scientific publishing in the past decade and we have seen many new models emerge. We have watched this happen and taken up many suggestions from our readers and editorial board. While considering many different options, however, we have continued to follow a fairly traditional pattern of peer review. I believe this works well for us exactly because the journal is run by scientists for scientists and we know of the problems facing scientific publishing, particularly in molecular and cell biology, and wish to avoid them. It is vital that the academic academies and societies provide their members with publishing opportunities and indeed, the Royal Society serves us all well in this respect. Whereas competition from the publishing houses keeps us on our toes, our motivation is simply one of scientific communication to aid scientific progress

... still cycling

It gave the greatest of pleasure to learn that two of our Editorial Board members, Paul Nurse and Tim Hunt, are to share this year’s Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine together with Lee Hartwell. On behalf of the Journal of Cell Science and the Company of Biologists, for which Tim is also a Director representing the interests of the journal, I would like to congratulate each of them on this well-deserved award

New Year's revolution

It is hard to believe that it is already time again to greet another New Year but once again, it is a good opportunity to take stock of how far Open Biology has come, where we are going, and whether we are on the right track. As scientific publishing goes through perhaps its most profound revolution because it was established over 350 years ago, these are questions that we need to keep very much in mind

... still cycling

It gave the greatest of pleasure to learn that two of our Editorial Board members, Paul Nurse and Tim Hunt, are to share this year’s Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine together with Lee Hartwell. On behalf of the Journal of Cell Science and the Company of Biologists, for which Tim is also a Director representing the interests of the journal, I would like to congratulate each of them on this well-deserved award

2018: a year in review for Open Biology

A new year is with us again and Open Biology moves forward to meet new challenges in the ever-changing world of scientific publishing. Hopefully, we manage to keep the best of the old while keeping abreast of the new

A new world for Open Biology

The New Year is an excellent time to welcome the 38 new members to the editorial board of Open Biology (http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/editorial-board). They are leading scientists from the USA, Canada and China who we hope will be champions for the journal in these countries and beyond. We are truly delighted to have these scientists join us

The overlooked greatwall: a new perspective on mitotic control

The role of the dual specificity protein phosphatase, Cdc25, in activating the cyclin-dependent kinase-cyclin B complex (Cdk1-CycB) by overcoming the inhibitory Wee1 kinase is a long-established principle for mitotic entry. Recently, however, evidence has emerged of a regulatory network that facilitates Cdk1-CycB activity by inhibiting the form of protein phosphatase 2A having a B55 regulatory subunit (PP2A-B55). Here, I review the genetic and biochemical evidence for Greatwall kinase and its substrate Endosulphine as the key components of this previously obscure regulatory network. Not only is the inhibition of PP2A-B55 by phospho-endosulphine required to prevent dephosphorylation of Cdk1-CycB substrates until mitotic exit, but it is also required to promote Cdc25 activity and inhibit Wee1 at mitotic entry. I discuss how these alternating states of preferential PP2A-B55 or Cdk1-CycB activity can have an impact upon the regulation of Polo kinase and its ability to bind different partner proteins as mitosis progresses

The 350th anniversary of scientific publishing: van Leeuwenhoek, the most prolific author of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

This year marks the 350th anniversary of the launch of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society—the world's first scientific journal. This innovative way of recording the Royal Society's business proved to be a model for scientific publishing as we now know it. It provided a means of reviewing scientific discovery, recording it, and most importantly provided a means for disseminating these findings. The history of the Society's publishing enterprises is truly fascinating and can be accessed at https://royalsociety.org/publishing350/