Suchergebnisse

See video of the presentation.The assessment of scholarly achievement depends critically on the proper evaluation and publication of research work in scholarly journals. Investigators face a dizzying array of journal styles that include commercial, not-for-profit and academic society journals that are supported by a mix of subscription and page charges. The Open Access (OA) movement, launched in Britain but greatly expanded by the Public Library of Science (PLoS), seeks to eliminate the firewall that separates published work from public access. OA journals are funded by a mix of page charges and philanthropic or foundation support. Most OA journals embrace a more liberal licensing agreement on the use and reuse of published work, favoring the creative commons license rather than a copyright held by the publisher. Some publishers, particularly commercial firms, view the OA movement as a threat to the viability of their business plan. Major commercial publishers, particularly Elsevier, have fought against government mandates for OA publication of publicly funded research.The most selective and successful journals, Science, Nature and Cell (a life science journal owned by Elsevier), maintain a firm hold on the high end of the scientific literature by appealing to investigators to submit only their most important work. Typically, these journals publish only a small fraction of the papers they receive and for the most part they rely on professional editors rather than active scholars to make key editorial decisions. These publishers, particularly Nature and Cell, reinforce their high standing by relying on a metric, the impact factor (IF) that computes the average number of citations of papers published in the journal during the preceding two-year period. As a consequence, many investigators, who quite naturally seek career advancement, strive to publish in these journals even at the expense of repeated cycles of review, wasteful additional experimental work and ultimately lost time. I will argue that it is time for scholars to reassume authority for the publication of their research work and to eschew the use of IF in the evaluation of scholarly achievement and favor OA publications over what I have called the "luxury" journals.

This ISTeC Distinguished Lecture was held on March 24, 2014 in Fort Collins, Colorado. ; Dr. Randy Schekman is currently an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and a Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 2013, together with Thomas C. Sudhof and James Rothman, "for their discoveries of machinery regulating vesicle traffic, a major transport system in our cells." ; ISTeC (Information Science and Technology Center) is a university-wide organization for promoting, facilitating, and enhancing CSU's research, education, and outreach activities pertaining to the design and innovative application of computer, communication, and information systems. ; Includes recorded lecture and PowerPoint presentation. ; The assessment of scholarly achievement depends critically on the proper evaluation and publication of research work in scholarly journals. Investigators face a dizzying array of journal styles that include commercial, not-for-profit and academic society journals that are supported by a mix of subscription and page charges. The Open Access (OA) movement, launched in Britain but greatly expanded by the Public Library of Science (PLoS), seeks to eliminate the firewall that separates published work from public access. OA journals are funded by a mix of page charges and philanthropic or foundation support. Most OA journals embrace a more liberal licensing agreement on the use and reuse of published work, favoring the creative commons license rather than a copyright held by the publisher. Some publishers, particularly commercial firms, view the OA movement as a threat to the viability of their business plan. Major commercial publishers, particularly Elsevier, have fought against government mandates for OA publication of publicly funded research. The most selective and successful journals, Science, Nature and Cell (a life science journal owned by Elsevier), maintain a firm hold on the high end of the scientific literature by appealing to investigators to submit only their most important work. Typically, these journals publish only a small fraction of the papers they receive and for the most part they rely on professional editors rather than active scholars to make key editorial decisions. These publishers, particularly Nature and Cell, reinforce their high standing by relying on a metric, the impact factor (IF) that computes the average number of citations of papers published in the journal during the preceding two-year period. As a consequence, many investigators, who quite naturally seek career advancement, strive to publish in these journals even at the expense of repeated cycles of review, wasteful additional experimental work and ultimately lost time. I will argue that it is time for scholars to reassume authority for the publication of their research work and to eschew the use of IF in the evaluation of scholarly achievement and favor OA publications over what I have called the "luxury" journals.

Protein and membrane trafficking pathways are critical for cell and tissue homeostasis. Traditional genetic and biochemical approaches have shed light on basic principles underlying these processes. However, the list of factors required for secretory pathway function remains incomplete, and mechanisms involved in their adaptation poorly understood. Here, we present a powerful strategy based on a pooled genome-wide CRISPRi screen that allowed the identification of new factors involved in protein transport. Two newly identified factors, TTC17 and CCDC157, localized along the secretory pathway and were found to interact with resident proteins of ER-Golgi membranes. In addition, we uncovered that upon TTC17 knockdown, the polarized organization of Golgi cisternae was altered, creating glycosylation defects, and that CCDC157 is an important factor for the fusion of transport carriers to Golgi membranes. In conclusion, our work identified and characterized new actors in the mechanisms of protein transport and secretion and opens stimulating perspectives for the use of our platform in physiological and pathological contexts. ; S.J. Popa acknowledges support from a Wellcome Trust PhD studentship (109152/z/15/z). S.E. Stewart acknowledges support from a Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Future Leader Fellowship (BB/P010911/1). F. Campelo acknowledges financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness ("Severo Ochoa" program for Centres of Excellence in RD [SEV-2015-0522], FIS2015-63550-R, FIS2017-89560-R, and BFU2015-73288-JIN, AEI/FEDER/UE), Fundació Privada Cellex, and the Generalitat de Catalunya through the CERCA program. A. Ashok acknowledges support from a La Caixa Foundation fellowship. J. Villeneuve acknowledges support from a Marie Curie fellowship within the the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (842919). D.C. Rubinsztein is grateful for support from the UK Dementia Research Institute (funded by the Medical Research Council, Alzheimer's Research UK, and the Alzheimer's Society) and the Roger de Spoelberch Foundation.