Targeting Drug Resistant Tumors

The vibrant colors in the image above show the levels of oxygen saturation in a breast tumor; note the prevalence of shades of dark and light blue, indicating very low oxygen saturation. These tumors are typically very difficult to treat with existing chemotherapy but new research published last week uses sickle cells to target and destroy these types of tumors.

The abnormal type of hemoglobin that causes sickle cell anemia alters the shape of red blood cells from circles to crescents (or sickles) making them less efficient at delivering oxygen to the body’s tissues. When there are low levels of oxygen in the environment, such as at high altitudes, these sickle cells clump together and rupture, damaging the blood vessels and surrounding cells. Honing in on this, researchers from the Jenomic Research Institute and Duke University were able to use this genetic mutation as a way to target tumors and promote a potent tumor-killing response.  Dr. Terman and his team found that they were able to quickly block blood supply to solid tumors with an injection of sickled blood cells along with a molecule that can release large amounts of oxygen. This is demonstrated in the first half of the video below which shows how an infusion of sickled blood cells slows and blocks the blood flow in hypoxic tumors, while the second half shows no noticeable slowing or blockage of blood vessels after infusion of normal cells. The sickled cells then clump together within the tumor blood vessels and when they rupture, the oxygen-releasing molecule kills many of the tumor cells and blood vessels.

This work offers an exciting new avenue for targeting and treating drug-resistant tumors and the video provides a fascinating window into the sickle cells in action.

Citation: Terman DS, Viglianti BL, Zennadi R, Fels D, Boruta RJ, et al. (2013) Sickle Erythrocytes Target Cytotoxics to Hypoxic Tumor Microvessels and Potentiate a Tumoricidal Response. PLoS ONE 8(1): e52543. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052543

Category: Aggregators | Leave a comment

Greetings from Lake Socompa! A Diversity of Life in Extreme Conditions



The photo above comes to us from a remote part of the Andes, at the base of the active volcano Socompa. Lake Socompa is situated here and its whitish stomatolites (a type of layered sediment deposit created by microorganisms) are home to an unexpected diversity of bacterial life.

In research published this week in PLOS ONE, scientists from Argentina and Germany travelled to this remote location, 3570 meters above sea level, to study the lake’s stomatolites and the harsh environment in which they are formed. Stomatolites were found only on the southern shore, where a hydrothermal spring feeds acidic water into the lake. This region of the Andes mountain range receives very little annual rainfall and, due to its high elevation, experiences high levels of ultraviolet radiation. Yet, rather than being inhospitable to life, scientists found that the region’s extreme environmental conditions actually helped to foster “rich, diverse and active ecosystems” within the lake’s stomatolites.  According to the research, the Lake Socompa site is the highest altitude, thus far, where stomatolites are found to form.

Citation: Farías ME, Rascovan N, Toneatti DM, Albarracín VH, Flores MR, et al. (2013) The Discovery of Stromatolites Developing at 3570 m above Sea Level in a High-Altitude Volcanic Lake Socompa, Argentinean Andes. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053497

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite

Category: Aggregators, Featured Image, Fun, General, Images, Internet/Blogging, Worth A Thousand Words | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Announcing the World Register of Marine Species Collection

 

The ocean teems with millions of plants, animals and other organisms, and keeping track of this vast inventory can be quite a laborious task. Since its launch in 2008 as an affiliated project with the Census of Marine Life, the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) has been working to consolidate taxonomic information from over a hundred databases to provide an open-access, comprehensive inventory of names and descriptions of all marine organisms.


Today we are pleased to announce the launch of the PLOS ONE WoRMS Collection, comprising of 14 species reviews from this long-term project.

The WoRMS database contains species names, synonyms, sources and a range of other information, as described in the collection overview. The reviews included in the WoRMS collection discuss some of the species represented by the database, such as sea squirts, brittle stars, lace corals, crustaceans, reptiles and more, and highlight the diversity across the globe of just some of the many species within the register.

This collection aims to join PLOS ONE’s quest for open-access data content and the WoRMS’s pursuit of recording and continuously updating an entire database of the world’s marine species for this purpose.

To read more about this collection, please visit: PLOS Collections: The World Register of Marine Species (2013)

Image Credit: Johnsen et al. (2009)

 

Category: Aggregators, Collections | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Thanking Our Peer Reviewers

What a year it has been! As 2013 commences we would like to take a moment to recognize the peer reviewers that made the previous year possible. In 2012 over 60,000 people reviewed for PLOS ONE, up from 38,400 in 2011. These thousands of generous individuals donated their time to assessing and improving our authors’ submissions. Their combined efforts have helped PLOS ONE publish over 23,000 articles this year and added a vast wealth of knowledge to the Open Access corpus. We here at PLOS ONE would like to give thanks to these amazing individuals. Without their critical insight, support, and hard work we couldn’t do what we do.

Though we are unable to mention each individual by name here, we would like to tell you more about the PLOS ONE reviewer board as a whole. Our reviewers come from 154 countries, from Albania to Argentina and Mexico to Monaco. 26,749 reviewers submitted 2 or more reviews in 2012.

As in previous years, we can also provide a list of the Top 25 institutions whose members contributed reviews last year. They are, in no particular order:

  • Duke University
  • Baylor College of Medicine
  • University of Michigan
  • INSERM
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • University of Washington
  • Stanford University
  • University of Florida
  • CNRS
  • University of Oxford
  • University of Cambridge
  • Vanderbilt University
  • University of Minnesota
  • Imperial College London
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • Harvard Medical School
  • University of Toronto
  • University of Alabama
  • University College London
  • Mayo Clinic
  • NIH
  • Emory University
  • University of British Columbia
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Karolinska Institutet

Again, we would like to send a hearty thank you to the over 60,000 peer reviewers of 2012. We are enormously grateful for your contributions and will look forward to working with you in the New Year!

Image: Thank You by mandiberg.

Category: Aggregators, General, Peer review, Topic Focus | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

PLOS ONE Papers of 2012

As we start off the New Year, we wanted to take a quick moment and highlight a few noteworthy papers published in 2012. Of the 23,468 papers published last year, five are already in the top 12 most viewed PLOS papers to date. Although they may not have gotten the press coverage of those listed in our 2012 Media Round-Up, Article Level Metrics reveal they’ve certainly received a lot of attention.

Published just over three months ago, a study showing that withdrawal symptoms of marijuana can be similar to those of tobacco is the third most highly viewed article published by any PLOS journal. With 227,928 total article views since publication on September 26, 2012 it’s only a few thousand views short of the top two articles published in 2008 and 2009. Other highly viewed ONE articles from 2012 include a study of genetic alterations in a line of flies reared in the dark (197,150 views since publication in March), the ecosystem implications of an invasive species (174,742 total article views, published September), an experiment depicted in Figure 3 to the right in immersive virtual reality between rats and humans (139,683 total article views, published in October), and a comparison of Westerners energetics with those of a hunter-gatherer society (102,167 total article views, published in July).

2012 also brought several papers describing new species, one of which was recognized as the “Best new species that was hiding in plain sight” by Jason G. Goldman of Scientific American. Other papers of note questioned beliefs about the limitations of alternative agriculture and challenged trusted measurements such as the Body Mass Index, commonly used to determine obesity rates.

Several more papers could even help support or inspire your New Year’s Resolutions. Whether it is to spend more time outdoors, watch what you eat, lose weight or conquer your fears, ONE has published research to help motivate those resolutions.

2012 was a year of growth and innovation for PLOS ONE, here’s looking forward to another great year!

Category: Aggregators, article-level metrics | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Penguins Punctuate 2012 for PLOS ONE

Today is the last day of 2012. As you put on your formal wear and get ready to ring in the new year, why not reflect on the animal that’s always in style: the penguin! This year, PLOS ONE published an exciting array of penguin research. Here is a snippet of those penguin papers that attracted media attention and some that flew (or swam) under the radar.

Affectionately dubbed the “penguins from space” paper (after the Scientific American article of the same name), “An Emperor Penguin Population Estimate: The First Global, Synoptic Survey of a Species from Space” made the headlines in 2012. In the study, researchers used satellite imagery to count the number of emperor penguin colonies on the coasts of Antarctica. They developed techniques for differentiating between shadows in the snow, penguin guano, and the penguins themselves. In total, about 238,000 breeding pairs were identified. According to lead author Peter Fretwell, about 595,000 individual emperor penguins were counted in this first-ever satellite survey. Read more about this study at the BBC and National Geographic.

Have you ever wondered just what penguins do with their time? Our next study, entitled “Activity Time Budget during Foraging Trips of Emperor Penguins”, may help to shed some light on a day in the life of a penguin. As the title suggests, researchers tracked and observed penguins on foraging trips in the water and on sea ice. They noted that penguins spent about 70% of their time in the water, diving to depths of over 5 meters. When outside of the water, penguins spent a majority of the time resting. The researchers suggest that resting on sea ice may provide shelter from predators such as leopard seals. For more on this study, check out this video from the supporting information, or visit NBC and The Telegraph.

We now travel from Antarctica to Argentina in search of Magellanic penguins. In “How Much is Too Much? Assessment of Prey Consumption by Magellanic Penguins in Patagonian Colonies”, researchers calculated rates of prey consumption by analyzing the number of wiggles penguins made while diving. Why count wiggles? According to researchers, Magellanic penguins wiggle – that is, undulate up and down – in pursuit of prey. When penguins wiggle during their dive, it is very likely that they have caught their prey.

This evening as you gather with your loved ones to watch the fireworks, you may wonder how to keep warm in the December chill. Do what penguins do and huddle! In the aptly named “Modeling Huddling Penguins”, researchers developed a mathematical model to study the shape and movement of huddling penguins in extreme cold. The researchers simulated a group of huddling penguins and determined wind flow (refer to the image on the left, which is Fig. 1 from the study). They then identified which penguin would be the coldest and moved that penguin downwind; the scenario was repeated under different wind patterns. The researchers found that even if individual penguins work to conserve individual body heat the group as a whole can distribute an even heat loss.

Have a happy new year! We will see you all in 2013.

Citations:

Fretwell PT, LaRue MA, Morin P, Kooyman GL, Wienecke B, et al. (2012) An Emperor Penguin Population Estimate: The First Global, Synoptic Survey of a Species from Space. PLoS ONE 7(4): e33751. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033751

Watanabe S, Sato K, Ponganis PJ (2012) Activity Time Budget during Foraging Trips of Emperor Penguins. PLoS ONE 7(11): e50357. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050357

Sala JE, Wilson RP, Quintana F (2012) How Much Is Too Much? Assessment of Prey Consumption by Magellanic Penguins in Patagonian Colonies. PLoS ONE 7(12): e51487. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051487

Waters A, Blanchette F, Kim AD (2012) Modeling Huddling Penguins. PLoS ONE 7(11): e50277. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050277

Image: Emperor penguins by lin_padgham

Category: Fun, General, Images, Topic Focus | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

PLOS ONE News and Blog Round-Up: 2012 in Review

In this round-up, we would like to share with you some of the PLOS ONE articles covered by the media in 2012. Over one thousand papers published in PLOS ONE were covered in the news! Exciting as it is to see the wide coverage all these papers received, this made it difficult to narrow down the list below to just a few. Some of the papers the media found newsworthy are listed below (in no particular order).

The study “The Impact of Climate Change on Indigenous Arabica Coffee (Coffea arabica): Predicting Future Trends and Identifying Priorities” suggests that climate change threatens the growing conditions for wild coffee varieties, and could potentially damage the global production of coffee within the next century. Read coverage of this research in the French Tribune, Scientific American or BBC News as you sip your next precious cup.

In November, three papers reported on different aspects of children’s health. The study, “Fetal Alcohol Exposure and IQ at Age 8: Evidence from a Population-Based Birth-Cohort Study” , covered by New Scientist and Wired, reports that consuming even small amounts of alcohol while pregnant can reduce a child’s IQ. Yawning in the womb at 24-36 weeks of age may be a sign of healthy fetal development, according to the study “Development of Fetal Yawn Compared with Non-Yawn Mouth Openings from 24–36 Weeks Gestation”, which received coverage from the Guardian, Fox News and io9. Researchers describe a test to estimate a newborn’s risk for childhood obesity in the paper “Estimation of Newborn Risk for Child or Adolescent Obesity: Lessons from Longitudinal Birth Cohorts”. The Boston Globe, TIME and Mother Nature Network reported on this study.

At the other end of the age spectrum, the study “High Phobic Anxiety Is Related to Lower Leukocyte Telomere Length in Women” reported on the effects of anxiety on the ageing process. The researchers report that women who suffer from a chronic psychological distress called phobic anxiety have shorter telomeres in their blood cells, a change in DNA structure that is linked to faster ageing. This study received coverage from the Scientific American blogs, Huffington Post and CBS News.

Several other papers that reveal how we (and our bodies) respond to stress grabbed media attention also. In the study, “Overtime Work as a Predictor of Major Depressive Episode: A 5-Year Follow-Up of the Whitehall II Study” , researchers found that people who work over 11 hours a day had double the risk of depression compared to employees who worked 7-8 hours per day. Read the coverage of this study from the Herald Sun and the New York Times blogs. Spending too much time online can lead to internet addiction disorder (IAD) in teenagers, and this was linked to changes in the structure of the brain in the paper “Abnormal White Matter Integrity in Adolescents with Internet Addiction Disorder: A Tract-Based Spatial Statistics Study”. The Wall Street Journal, Mashable and other media outlets covered this research.

Results of the study “When Math Hurts: Math Anxiety Predicts Pain Network Activation in Anticipation of Doing Math” suggest that the anticipation of math problems can be physically painful to those who suffer from math anxiety. The study was covered by several news outlets including National Geographic, ArsTechnica and The Atlantic. And all this stress may affect how we perceive the other sex. Stressed-out men are likely to find larger women more attractive physically, reports the paper “The Impact of Psychological Stress on Men’s Judgements of Female Body Size”. This research was covered by The Daily Show, Le Monde and Jezebel.

Is this blog post getting too stressful? Relax with these cute puppies! As it turns out, viewing cute images like this one can improve concentration as reported in the paper “The Power of Kawaii: Viewing Cute Images Promotes a Careful Behavior and Narrows Attentional Focus” . This research had media outlets including Forbes, the LA Times and Cosmopolitan reaching to publish the cutest animal photos with their reports.

And if you’re still looking for cute animals, look no further. Three new animal species described in PLOS ONE papers this year have your adorable animal needs covered. The lesula, a new monkey species was described in the study “Lesula: A New Species of Cercopithecus Monkey Endemic to the Democratic Republic of Congo and Implications for Conservation of Congo’s Central Basin”, four new species of chameleons small enough to fit on a fingernail were discovered in Madagascar, according to “Rivaling the World’s Smallest Reptiles: Discovery of Miniaturized and Microendemic New Species of Leaf Chameleons (Brookesia) from Northern Madagascar” and a study published in January leads this menagerie of adorable animals, as it reports on the world’s tiniest frog. _ is small enough to fit on a nickel CK, and is described in the paper “Ecological Guild Evolution and the Discovery of the World’s Smallest Vertebrate”.  Hundreds of media outlets across the world featured stories about these new species, including the New York Times, Reuters, Science Now and even The Onion.

To round things off, researchers watching animals from space identified new colonies of emperor penguins in the Antarctic. Their results were published in the study “An Emperor Penguin Population Estimate: The First Global, Synoptic Survey of a Species from Space”, which was covered by The Scientist, Christian Science Monitor and USA Today.

These papers are only a small fraction of more than a thousand that were covered by the media. Visit our Media Tracking Project to see the full list of over 7000 news stories that reported on PLOS ONE research published in 2012.  Or follow us on YouTube, SoundCloud and Twitter to keep track of some of the great science multimedia we’ve published this year!

Images: Coffee by kaakati on Flickr, puppies by pellaea on Flickr, all others from PLOS ONE papers

 

 

 

Category: Aggregators, Fun, Internet/Blogging, Media | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Fixing siRNAs by creating an anti-siRNA

Small pieces of RNA in our cells can act like molecular switches that turn genes off by binding to them. These pieces, called small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) are also used by researchers to design experiments to understand what certain genes do.

Scientists can design siRNA molecules aimed at turning off specific genes they are trying to study. Though such siRNA ‘switches’ can be very useful, they are often non-specific, turning off hundreds of genes that they should not have an effect on. As a result, it is difficult for a biologist to conclude whether an experimentally observed effect is due to turning off the gene they meant to turn off or the hundreds that they didn’t (called “off-target effects”).  Eugen Buehler of the  National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), a new center at the NIH, describes an alternate approach to dealing with these off-target effects of siRNAs in his recent PLOS ONE paper. Read on to find out more about this research:

How did you become interested in improving siRNA experiments?

I’ve been working on siRNAs for about the last five years.  When I would talk to my wife (a cell biologist) about my research, I would go on and on about all the problems created by these non-specific effects. Since she uses siRNAs in her research, she would ask, “Well, what should I do to avoid it?”

I didn’t have an answer.  All the methods I had involved a statistical analysis of a large number of results from high-throughput screens, which look at several thousand genes at once. They couldn’t be applied to experiments that only involved one or a few genes, which is what many researchers do.  It frustrated me not being able to help her, and so this question of what to do about off-target effects in small-scale experiments kept nagging me, until I found an answer.

And what was that answer?

As is often the case, the answer involved looking at the problem a different way.  For years, people have been trying to solve the problem by getting rid of the non-specific effects. There are many ways to do this, but they still have a high incidence of these effects.

So, rather than trying to eliminate the off-target activity, we took the opposite approach. We changed three points (bases 9-11) where an siRNA makes contact with its target, so it couldn’t have the effect it was designed for. In this way, we created the C911 version, an anti-siRNA of sorts, which had all the off-target effects but none of the on-target effects.

So if an siRNA has an effect in a cell that is different from what the C911 version of the same siRNA has, we can conclude that the effect is because it silenced the intended target.

Which figure in the manuscript do you think best summarizes your results?

Definitely Figure 3B. Here, we compare siRNAs that appear to have specific effects but don’t (false positives), with ones that do have a specific action on a target gene. We took ten of each kind and created C911 versions for all twenty.

When we compared the two we found that for the false positives, the siRNA and the anti-siRNA had the same effects (left hand panel). But for the siRNAs which really did have an effect on their target, there was a big difference between the siRNA and its C911 version. As it happened, the C911 controls worked perfectly for all twenty siRNAs we had selected for the experiment.

Where do you hope to go from here?

For a tool as well established as siRNA, it will take a while to change the way we design our experiments.  The first step is for there to be a reasonable alternative, and that is what this paper is meant to supply.  The next is to make that alternative easy to choose.  Part of that will involve getting companies that manufacture siRNAs to eventually make negative controls like this, so that negative controls like C911 can be easily and affordably obtained for any siRNA.

My hope is that someday when a researcher orders an siRNA, they won’t even have to ask; they’ll get a tube with their siRNA and a tube with the appropriate negative control by default.

Read about Nobel-winning research on interfering RNAs, and explore more PLOS ONE research about siRNAs here and here

Citation: Buehler E, Chen Y-C, Martin S (2012) C911: A Bench-Level Control for Sequence Specific siRNA Off-Target Effects. PLoS ONE 7(12): e51942. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051942

Image: Target by Ivan McClellan on flickr 

Category: Author Spotlight, Interviews, Topic Focus | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Going to the ASCB Annual Meeting? PLOS would like to meet you!

MA104 cells labelled with actin (green) and DNA (blue). Image credit: PLoS ONE 7(10): e47612. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047612

Are you attending the upcoming Annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology?  Then we want to meet you in person!  PLOS ONE has published thousands of papers in the field of Cell Biology, so we know there must be a lot of PLOS ONE authors out there.  Whether you are an editor, reviewer, author or prospective author, we hope to see you! For more information about where we’ll be and when, please read on.

 

An evening with the PLOS Editorial Boards:

PLOS is hosting a reception for all Editorial Board members for an evening of food, drink and discussion.  It will be a great opportunity to connect with your fellow Editors, and a few staff Editors will also be on hand.  The highlight of the evening will be speakers Emma Ganley and Jason Swedlow, focusing on the challenges and importance of sharing data in the world of cell biology.

  • Emma Ganley is a Senior Editor on PLOS Biology, with experience in data availability and navigation in online publication. 
  • Jason Swedlow is co-founder of Open Microscopy Environment (OME), and directs his own research group at the University of Dundee.

When: 6 to 8pm , Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Where: The Box [link] – 1069 Howard Street (between 6th & 7th), San Francisco, CA 94103

Be sure to RSVP, because space is limited: http://scibar.eventbrite.com

Get in touch if you would like further information or have any questions!

 

Calling all PLOS ONE authors to the PLOS booth in the Exhibition Hall!

Have you published with PLOS ONE?  Come by booth #1322!  We would love to show you your article level metrics in exchange for a t-shirt!  Find out who has cited your work, how many people are using it in their Mendeley library, and the number of times the pdf has been downloaded (among many other things).  PLOS ONE staff will be on hand to discuss the benefits of publishing with PLOS, and to answer all of your questions both specific and general.

We look forward to meeting you!

 

 

Category: Aggregators | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PLOS ONE Launches a New Peer Review Form

Today PLOS ONE launches a new peer review form. While this might not sound like much of an announcement, the fact that our reviewer board currently contains over 400,000 scientists, and grows by the hour, means that an awful lot of people will see this form over the coming months!

The purpose of the form is to better direct and streamline the review process by focusing on our specific publication criteria. The job of the PLOS ONE reviewer is not to decide whether the study represents a significant advance to the field, or whether additional experiments need to be performed to increase the impact, or whether it is suitable for a broad interest journal. The reviewer must simply ascertain whether the study has been performed correctly, and whether the data support the conclusions. So that’s what we ask reviewers in the form. The form also addresses some of our other criteria, like whether the manuscript adheres to data sharing standards and whether the manuscript is written in intelligible standard English. By limiting the focus of the reviewers in this way, we hope to reduce the burden that many reviewers feel, and (hopefully) speed up the time it takes to review.

We know that academics spend an enormous amount of time reviewing papers. But while it increases the workload of already busy people, the majority would agree that it is a vital part of the scientific process, and a necessary part of the job. The hardest part of a traditional review is making the recommendation on whether the study represents a significant enough advance to meet the journal’s criteria for acceptance, and this is the thing that most holds up the evaluation of manuscripts. Remove that part, and review should be quicker, less cumbersome and easier – but, and here’s the kicker, will have no discernible effect on the literature as a whole. Papers that are ‘right’ will always be published somewhere, but it may take a year to find that place due to the endless rejection cycle of most journals. So the innovation of PLOS ONE was to remove this step, and it was immensely successful. Now all we need to do is remind people of this fact when they submit their review. The form aims to do just that, and we believe it takes us a step closer to the ideal of publishing ‘right’ studies with minimal fuss and maximal efficiency.

We haven’t created too many check boxes, drop-down menus or word limits. There are just four required questions about whether the submission meets our criteria, and plenty of flexibility to let reviewers include specific comments as needed. You can read more about the specifics of the form here, and please contact plosone@plos.org with any questions or feedback.

Category: Aggregators, Manuscript submission and peer review system, Peer review, PLoS Editorial Manager, Service improvements, Submissions | Tagged , | 5 Comments