Episode 1296 - The Mister Rogers' Neighborhood Archive<br /> by [[Mister Rogers' Neighborhood]]<br /> Airdate: April 9, 1973<br /> accessed on 2026-02-02T14:06:32

Mister Rogers and Mr. McFeely demonstrate how a large typeface typewriter (6 or perhaps 4 CPI) works for typing out speeches.

Archived version of the episode at https://misterrogers.org/episodes/mister-rogers-shows-how-a-teleprompter-typewriter-types-large-letters/

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

This is an important paper that can do much to set an example for thoughtful and rigorous evaluation of a discipline-wide body of literature. The compiled website of publications in Drosophila immunity is by itself a valuable contribution to the field. There is much to praise in this work, especially including the extensive and careful evaluation of the published literature. However, there are also cautions.

One notable concern is that the validation experiments are generally done at low sample sizes and low replication rates, and often lack statistical analysis. This is slippery ground for declaring a published study to be untrue. Since the conclusions reported here are nearly all negative, it is essential that the experiments be performed with adequate power to detect the originally described effects. At a minimum, they should be performed with the same sample size and replication structure as the originally reported studies.

The first section of Results should be an overview of the general accuracy of the literature. Of all claims made in the 400 evaluated papers, what proportion fell into each category of "verified", "unchallenged", "challenged", "mixed", or "partially verified"? This summary overview would provide a valuable assessment of the field as a whole. A detailed dispute of individual highlighted claims could follow the summary overview.

Section headings are phrased as declarative statements, "Gene X is not involved in process Y", which is more definitive phrasing than we typically use in scientific research. It implies proving a negative, which is difficult and rare, and the evidence provided in the present manuscript generally does not reach that threshold. A more common phrasing would be "We find no evidence that gene X contributes to process Y". A good model for this more qualified phrasing is the "We conclude that while Caspar might affect the Imd pathway in certain tissue-specific contexts, it is unlikely to act as a generic negative regulator of the Imd pathway," concluding the section on the role of Caspar. I am sure the authors feel that the softer, more qualified phrasing would undermine their article's goal of cleansing the literature of inaccuracies, but the hard declarative 'never' statements are difficult to justify unless every validation experiment is done with a high degree of rigor under a variety of experimental conditions. This caveat is acknowledged in the 3rd paragraph of the Discussion, but it is not reflected in the writing of the Results. The caveat should also appear in the Introduction.

The article is clear that "Claims were assessed as verified, unchallenged, challenged, mixed, or partially verified," but the project is called "reproducibility project" in the 7th line of the abstract, and the website is "ReproSci". The fourth line of the abstract and the introduction call some published research "irreproducible". Most of the present manuscript does not describe reproduction or replication. It describes validation, or independent experimental tests for consistency. Published work is considered validated if subsequent studies using distinct approaches yielded consistent results. For work that the authors consider suspicious, or that has not been subsequently tested, the new experiments provided here do not necessarily recreate the published experiment. Instead, the published result is evaluated with experiments that use different tools or methods, again testing for consistency of results. This is an important form of validation, but it is not reproduction, and it should not be referred to as such. I strongly suggest that variations of the words "reproducible" or "replication" be removed from the manuscript and replaced with "validation". This will be more scientifically accurate and will have the additional benefit of reducing the emotional charge that can be associated with declaring published research to be irreproducible.

The manuscript includes an explanatory passage in the Results section, "Our project focuses on assessing the strength of the claims themselves (inferential/indirect reproducibility) rather than testing whether the original methods produce repeatable results (results/direct reproducibility). Thus, our conclusions do not directly challenge the initial results leading to a claim, but rather the general applicability of the claim itself." Rather than first appearing in Results, this statement should appear prominently in the abstract and introduction because it is a core element of the premise of the study. This can be combined with the content of the present Disclaimer section into a single paragraph in the Introduction instead of appearing in two redundant passages. I would again encourage the authors to substitute the word validation for reproduction, which would eliminate the need for the invented distinction between indirect versus direct reproduction. It is notable that the authors have chosen to title the relevant Methods section "Experimental Validation" and not "Replication".

Experimental data "from various laboratories" in the last paragraph of the Introduction and the first paragraph of the Results are ambiguous. Since these new experiments are part of the central core of the manuscript, the specific laboratories contributing them should be named in the two paragraphs. If experiments are being contributed by all authors on the manuscript, it would suffice to say "the authors' laboratories". The attribution to "various labs" appears to be contradicted by the Discussion paragraph 2, which states "the host laboratory has expertise in" antibacterial and antifungal defense, implying a single lab. The claim of expertise by the lead author's laboratory is unnecessary and can be deleted if the Lemaitre lab is the ultimate source of all validation experiments.

The passage on the controversial role of Duox in the gut is balanced and scholarly, and stands out for its discussion of multiple alternative lines of evidence in the published literature and supplement. This passage may benefit from research by multiple groups following up on the original claims that are not available for other claims, but the tone of the Duox section can be a model for the other sections.

Comments on other sections and supplements:

I understand the desire to explain how original results may have been obtained when they are not substantiated by subsequent experiments. However, statements such as "The initial results may have been obtained due to residual impurities in preparations of recombinant GNBP1" and "Non-replicable results on the roles of Spirit, Sphinx and Spheroide in Toll pathway activation may be due to off-target effects common to first-generation RNAi tools" are speculation. No experimental data are presented to support these assertions, so these statements and others like them (currently at the end of most "insights" sections) should not appear in Results. I recognize that the authors are trying to soften their criticism of prior studies by providing explanations for how errors may have occurred innocently. If they wish to do so, the speculative hypotheses should appear in the Discussion.

The statement in Results that "The initial claim concerning wntD may be explained by a genetic background effect independent of wntD" similarly appears to be a speculation based on the reading of the main text Results. However, the Discussion clarifies that "Here, we obtained the same results as the authors of the claim when using the same mutant lines, but the result does not stand when using an independent mutant of the same gene, indicating the result was likely due to genetic background." That additional explanation in the Discussion greatly increases reader confidence in the Result and should be explained with reference to S5 in the Results. Such complete explanations should be provided everywhere possible without requiring the reader to check the Supplement in each instance.

In some cases, such as "The results of the initial papers are likely due to the use of ubiquitous overexpression of PGRP-LE, resulting in melanization due to overactivation of the Imd pathway and resulting tissue damage", the claim to explain the original finding would be easy to test. The authors should perform those tests where they can, if they wish to retain the statements in the manuscript. Similarly, the claim "The published data are most consistent with a scenario in which RNAi generated off-target knockdown of a protein related to retinophilin/undertaker, while Undertaker itself is unlikely to have a role in phagocytosis" would be stronger if the authors searched the Drosophila genome for a plausible homolog that might have been impacted by the RNAi construct, and then put forth an argument as to why the off-target gene is more likely to have generated the original phenotype than the nominally targeted gene. There is a brief mention in S19 that junctophilin is the authors' preferred off-target candidate, but no evidence or rationale is presented to support that assertion. If the original RNAi line is still available, it would be easy enough to test whether junctophilin is knocked down as an off-target, and ideally then to use an independent knockdown of junctophilin to recapitulate the original phenotype. Otherwise, the off-target knockdown hypothesis is idle speculation.

A good model is the passage on extracellular DNA, which states, "experiments performed for ReproSci using the original DNAse IIlo hypomorph show that elevated Diptericin expression in the hypomorph is eliminated by outcrossing of chromosome II, and does not occur in an independent DNAse II null mutant, indicating that this effect is due to genetic background (Supplementary S11)." In this case, the authors have performed a clear experiment that explains the original finding, and inclusion of that explanation is warranted. Similar background replacement experiments in other validations are equally compelling.

The statement "Analysis of several fly stocks expected to carry the PGRP-SDdS3 mutation used in the initial study revealed the presence of a wild-type copy PGRP-SD, suggesting that either the stock used in this study did not carry the expected mutation, or that the mutation was lost by contamination prior to sharing the stock with other labs" provides a documentable explanation of a potential error in the original two manuscripts, but the subsequent "analysis of several fly stocks" needs citations to published literature or explanation in the supplement. It is unclear from this passage how the wildtype allele in the purportedly mutant stocks could have led to the misattribution of function to PGRP-SD, so that should be explained more clearly in the manuscript.

The originally claimed anorexia of the Gr28b mutation is explained as having been "likely obtained due to comparison to a wild-type line with unusually high feeding rates". This claim would be stronger if the wildtype line in question were named and data showing a high rate of feeding were presented in the supplement or cited from published literature. Otherwise, this appears to be speculation.

In the section "The Toll immune pathway is not negatively regulated by wntD", FlyAtlas is cited as evidence that wntD is not expressed in adult flies. However, the FlyAtlas data is not adequately sensitive to make this claim conclusively. If the present authors wish to state that wntD is not expressed in adults, they should do a thorough test themselves and report it in the Supplement.

Alternatively, the statement "data from FlyAtlas show that wntD is only expressed at the embryonic stage and not at the adult stage at which the experiments were performed by (Gordon et al., 2005a)" could be rephrased to something like "data from FlyAtlas show strong expression of wntD in the embryo but not the adult" and it should be followed by a direct statement that adult expression was also found to be near-undetectable by qPCR in supplement S5. That data is currently "not shown" in the supplement, but it should be shown because this is a central result that is being used to refute the original claim. This manuscript passage should also describe the expression data described in Gordon et al. (2005), for contrast, which was an experimental demonstration of expression in the embryo and a claim "RT-PCR was used to confirm expression of endogenous wntD RNA in adults (data not shown)."

Inclusion of the section on croquemort is curious because it seems to be focused exclusively on clearance of apoptotic cells in the embryo, not on anything related to immunity. The subsection is titled "Croquemort is not a phagocytic engulfment receptor for apoptotic cells or bacteria", but the text passage contains no mention of phagocytosis of bacteria, and phagocytosis of bacteria is not tested in the S17 supplement. I would suggest deleting this passage entirely if there is not going to be any discussion of the immune-related phenotypes.

The claim "Toll is not activated by overexpression of GNBP3 or Grass: Experiments performed for ReproSci find that contrary to previous reports, overexpression of GNBP3 (Gottar et al., 2006) or<br /> Grass (El Chamy et al., 2008) in the absence of immune challenge does not effectively activate Toll signaling (Supplementaries S6, S7)" is overly strongly stated unless the authors can directly repeat the original published studies with identical experimental conditions. In the absence of that, the claim in the present manuscript needs to be softened to "we find no evidence that..." or something similar. The definitive claim "does not" presumes that the current experiments are more accurate or correct than the published ones, but no explanation is provided as to why that should be the case. In the absence of a clear and compelling argument as to why the current experiment is more accurate, it appears that there is one study (the original) that obtained a certain result and a second study (the present one) that did not. This can be reported as an inconsistency, but the second experiment does not prove that the first was an error. The same comment applies to the refutation of the roles for Edin and IRC. Even though the current experiments are done in the context of a broader validation study, this does not automatically make them more correct. The present work should adhere to the same standards of reporting that we expect in any other piece of science.

The statement "Furthermore, evidence from multiple papers suggests that this result, and other instances where mutations have been found to specifically eliminate Defensin expression, is likely due to segregating polymorphisms within Defensin that disrupt primer binding in some genetic backgrounds and lead to a false negative result (Supplementary S20)" should include citations to the multiple papers being referenced. This passage would benefit from a brief summary of the logic presented in S20 regarding the various means of quantifying Defensin expression.

In S22 Results, the statement "For general characterization of the IrcMB11278 mutant, including developmental and motor defects and survival to septic injury, see additional information on the ReproSci website" is not acceptable. All necessary information associated with the paper needs to be included in the Supplement. There cannot be supporting data relegated to an independent website with no guaranteed stability or version control. The same comment applies to "Our results show that eiger flies do not have reduced feeding compared to appropriate controls (See ReproSci website)" in S25.

Supplement S21 appears to show a difference between the wildtype and hemese mutants in parasitoid encapsulation, which would support the original finding. However, the validation experiment is performed at a small sample size and is not replicated, so there can be no statistical analysis. There is no reported quantification of lamellocytes or total hemocytes. The validation experiment does not support the conclusion that the original study should be refuted. The S21 evaluation of hemese must either be performed rigorously or removed from the Supplement and the main text.

In S22, the second sentence of the passage "Due to the fact that IrcMB11278 flies always survived at least 24h prior to death after becoming stuck to the substrate by their wings, we do not attribute the increased mortality in Ecc15-fed IrcMB11278 flies primarily to pathogen ingestion, but rather to locomotor defects. The difference in survival between sucrose-fed and Ecc15-fed IrcMB11278 flies may be explained by the increased viscosity of the Ecc15-containing substrate compared to the sucrose-containing substrate" is quite strange. The first sentence is plausible and a reasonable interpretation of the observations. But to then conclude that the difference between the bacterial treatment versus the control is more plausibly due to substrate viscosity than direct action of the bacteria on the fly is surprising. If the authors wish to put forward that interpretation, they need to test substrate viscosity and demonstrate that fly mortality correlates with viscosity. Otherwise, they must conclude that the validation experiment is consistent with the original study.

In S27, the visualization of eiger expression using a GFP reporter is very non-standard as a quantitative assay. The correct assay is qPCR, as is performed in other validation experiments, and which can easily be done on dissected fat body for a tissue-specific analysis. S27 Figure 1 should be replaced with a proper experiment and quantitative analysis. In S27 Figure 2, the authors should add a panel showing that eiger is successfully knocked down with each driver>construct combination. This is important because the data being reported show no effect of knockdown; it is therefore imperative to show that the knockdown is actually occurring. The same comment applies everywhere there is an RNAi to demonstrate a lack of effect.

The Drosomycin expression data in S3 Figure 2A look extremely noisy and are presented without error bars or statistical analysis. The S4 claim that sphinx and spheroid are not regulators of the Toll pathway because quantitative expression levels of these genes do not correlate with Toll target expression levels is an extremely weak inference. The RNAi did not work in S4, so no conclusion should be inferred from those experiments. Although the original claims in dispute may be errors in both cases, the validation data used to refute the original claims must be rigorous and of an acceptable scientific standard.

In S6 Figure 1, it is inappropriate to plot n=2 data points as a histogram with mean and standard errors. If there are fewer than four independent points, all points should be plotted as a dot plot. This comment applies to many qPCR figures throughout the supplement. In S7 Figure 1, "one representative experiment" out of two performed is shown. This strongly suggests that the two replicates are noisy, and a cynical reader might suspect that the authors are trying to hide the variance. This also applies to S5 Fig 3. Particularly in the context of a validation study, it is imperative to present all data clearly and objectively, especially when these are the specific data that are being used to refute the claim.

Other comments:

In S26, the authors suggest that much of the observed melanization arises from excessive tissue damage associated with abdominal injection contrasted to the lesser damage associated with thoracic injection. I believe there may be a methodological difference here. The Methods of S27 are not entirely clear, but it appears that the validation experiment was done with a pinprick, whereas the original Mabary and Schneider study was done with injection via a pulled capillary. My lab group (and I personally) have extensive experience with both techniques. In our hands, pinpricks to the abdomen do indeed cause substantial injury, and the physically less pliable thorax is more robust to pinpricks. However, capillary injections to the abdomen do virtually no tissue damage - very probably less than thoracic injections - and result in substantially higher survivals of infection even than thoracic injections. Thus, the present manuscript may infer substantial tissue damage in the original study because they are employing a different technique.

https://typewriterdatabase.com/1912-underwood-western-union-special.3619.typewriter

How can educators create a classroom environment that helps children feel a sense of belonging and agency?

This explains that children may temporarily struggle or regress before mastering new skills, which is a normal part of development.

This sentence emphasizes that play is a powerful way children learn important skills, not just something for fun.

How can educators identify which children may be more sensitive to environmental influences without labeling them?

This sentence explains why early childhood is such an important time for learning and brain development.

This shows that children’s development is shaped by both their biology and their surroundings, not just one or the other.

This explains how inconsistent or missing care can interrupt healthy brain development during early childhood.

This sentence stood out because it shows that a lack of responsive caregiving can have serious long term effects on a child’s growth and health.

This sentence explains how everyday interactions between a child and a caregiver directly support the brain development and showing that learning starts through simple responsive communication.

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

The studies here are highly informative in terms of anatomical tracing and sympathetic nerve function in the liver related to glucose levels, but given that they are performed in a single species, it is challenging to translated them to humans, or to determine whether these neural circuits are evolutionarily conserved. Dual-labeling anatomical studies are elegant, and the addition of chemogenetic and optogenetic studies is mechanistically informative. Denervation studies lack appropriate controls, and the role of sensory innervation in the liver is overlooked.

Specific Weaknesses - Major:

(1) The species name should be included in the title.

(2) Tyrosine hydroxylase was used to mark sympathetic fibers in the liver, but this marker also hits a portion of sensory fibers that need to be ruled out in whole-mount imaging data

(3) Chemogenetic and optogenetic data demonstrating hyperglycemia should be described in the context of prior work demonstrating liver nerve involvement in these processes. There is only a brief mention in the Discussion currently, but comparing methods and observations would be helpful.

(4) Sympathetic denervation with 6-OHDA can drive compensatory increases to tissue sensory innervation, and this should be measured in the liver denervation studies to implicate potential crosstalk, especially given the increase in LPGi cFOS that may be due to afferent nerve activity. Compensatory sympathetic drive may not be the only culprit, though it is clearly assumed to be. The sensory or parasympathetic/vagal innervation of the liver is altogether ignored in this paper and could be better described in general.

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

This work provides a gene signature for brain metastases derived from an integrated single-cell dataset of six carcinomas. A key rationale for their approach is the notion that metastases originating from different organs may converge upon a similar set of transcriptional states, representing shared functional and developmental programs. By combining primary tumor and metastatic brain tumor, the authors leverage an interpretable deep-learning approach to identify a multi-cancer single-cell dataset to predict brain metastases from a primary tumor that is more robust and generalizable than a signature derived from an individual cancer type. They employ a variety of single-cell tools to identify a putative mechanism of action for metastatic progression to the brain involving VEGF-related signaling, and find some evidence supporting this hypothesis in spatial data. A drug repurposing analysis is performed to identify a potential therapeutic candidate for VEGF-driven brain metastasis, and they demonstrate an intriguing possibility for using their brain metastasis signature in a blood-based test in the clinic.

Strengths:

An interpretable deep-learning approach allows both for high-accuracy classification of brain metastases from primary tumors and the identification of a gene signature. Much work goes into validating the gene signature in different contexts and different modalities, and presents a cohesive picture of metastasis progression. The analysis highlighting certain cells within the primary tumor that may be more likely to metastasize is interesting, and the demonstration of the difference in mean expression of their signature in bulk RNASeq of tumor-educated platelets (TEPs) has strong implications for the clinic.

Weaknesses:

The authors derive the signature from cancerous epithelial cells, citing a desire to avoid bias from differences in cellular composition; yet much of the downstream analysis is performed across different cancer types and different cell types; differential analysis was then performed between the highest scoring cells vs lowest scoring cells, but there does not appear to be any consideration/adjustment for cell type composition at this stage, which could bias results. Given that the signature was initially identified in epithelial cells, there seems to be a leap to applying the signature to immune and stromal compartments. Perhaps the proof is in the pudding, yet it raises the question of what would have happened if the authors had not restricted the initial step of their signature generation to the epithelial cells.

In addition, although a cohesive story around VEGF is presented, VEGF was merely one of the several signaling pathways upregulated. There were quite a few others (ANGPT, CDH1, CADM, IGF), which are not addressed by the authors. VEGF is, of course, very well studied, and while the authors do distinguish their signature from VEGF in the context of TEP, it leaves open the question of whether one of the other highlighted genes may be equally powerful and more feasible (because there are fewer genes) to get into the clinic.

The cell-cell communication analysis seems somewhat weak, although using a standard set of tools. Most of the analysis was done based on single-cell data, without the spatial context, and the authors highlighted epithelial cells as the senders for the VEGF pathway; yet in the Visium data, the expression of the signature seems highest in non-tumor cells, and the strongest interactions seem to be quite spatially separated (Figure 5C and 5E).

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

This work investigates whether a citation to a referee made by a paper is associated with a more positive evaluation by that referee for that paper. It provides evidence supporting this hypothesis. The work also investigates the role of self-citations by referees where the referee would ask authors to cite the referee's paper.

Strengths:

This is an important problem: referees for scientific papers must provide their impartial opinions rooted in core scientific principles. Any undue influence due to the role of citations breaks this requirement. This work studies the possible presence and extent of this.

The methods are solid and well done. The work uses a matched pair design which controls for article-level confounding and further investigates robustness to other potential confounds.

Weaknesses:

The authors have addressed most concerns in the initial review. The only remaining concern is the asymmetric reporting and highlighting of version 1 (null result) versus version 2 (rejecting null). For example the abstract says "We find that reviewers who were cited in the article under review were more likely to recommend approval, but only after the first version (odds ratio = 1.61; adjusted 99.4% CI: 1.16 to 2.23)" instead of a symmetric sentence "We find ... in version 1 and ... in version 2"

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Qian and colleagues utilizes ribosome profiling, and reporter assays to dissect translation termination. Unfortunately, the data do not support the conclusions of the paper, controls are missing and several assays are not well validated and do not reproduce previous findings from others.

Specific comments:

• Translation termination has been studied in several organisms including mammalian cells and yeast. In those cases what is analyzed is not the peak height at the stop codon, but rather the difference in the ribosome density before and after the stop. Thus, analyzing peak height is not validated. I understand that this is relevant only for the ribosome profiling experiments (and Ezra-seq) not the RF1 profiling. But much of the data was acquired that way.

• Moreover, the data do not reproduce previous findings and no effort is made to connect them to previous data. Previous data has shown that stop codon efficacy varies. This is not reproduced (S1C). Similarly, an effect from the +1 residue is not reproduced. The data isn't even stratified by different stop codons as previous work has shown that different surrounding residues have different effects in the context of different stop codons. Thus, none of the sequencing data is validated or trusted and does not reproduce previous findings.

• The GA-rich sequence identified by Ezra-Seq and RF1 seq is not the same and it differs from previous sequences (Wangen &Green).

• The authors claim that the majority of Rf1 peaks is at stop codons, but that is not true. It is only about 30% of the peaks. Also, not all mRNAs have peaks at the stop codons. That is at best problematic. Finally, there are mRNAs that are known to "suffer" from NMD, what do these look like in the Ezra-Seq and RF1-Seq? How about mRNAs that have programmed frameshifts? This raises questions on the validity of the eRF1 data.

• Figure 4: First, instead of M/P ratio, one should analyze M/M+P, to normalize out differences in the loading and effects from collisions, which are guaranteed to occur here, but not considered or analyzed. Second, the data are analyzed as if what matters are codons in the P and E site (and beyond, where there are definitely NOT recognized codons). While there is evidence for some interactions, one would think that an additional analysis based on sequence would be helpful. Also, the supplemental data indicates that very rarely are there reciprocal changes (as should be the case), and as seen for stop codons.

• Regarding the HiBit reporter assay: The two sequecnes clearly have effects on translation without considering stop codon context (Figure 4C), which need to be taken into account. Also, the effect from the sequences varies in the context of the assay in 4C and 4D (2-fold vs .5 fold), further questioning the assay. Moreover, the authors claim that re-initiation cannot account for Hibit levels, but that is clearly incorrect. The western in Figure 4E does not reproduce the data in 4D. While Hibit goes up (as in 4D, the putative GFP-fusion goes down. Finally, while the second reading frame should be more efficient is not explained and further argues for an artifact. Previous work (and work herein) suggests that read-through occurs equally in each reading frame. No controls for these assays are presented: e.g. stimulation by antibiotics, ABCE1 depletion, etc.

• Figure 5 has similar problems. I don't understand how the Figure in 5A is made, but when you overlay the cited structures on Rps26, the molecules are identical. I guess the authors used some fantasy to build non-existing sequences differently into the structure. There is no basis for that. In panel C and the same in Figure 7, the number of analyzed mRNAs varies. This could influence the outcome and the EXACT same set of mRNAs should be analyzed. But the main problem here is that the authors need to analyze readthrough and not peak height as detailed above. Essential controls are missing that show what fraction of the 18S rRNA is mutated. Previous work has shown that 2 nt truncated 18S rRNA is actively degraded. It is hard to believe how 15% of altered ribosomes can abolish 100% of the effect from the C-rich sequences. Important validation is missing: the authors should analyze rRNA sequences in their ribo-seq dataset to demonstrate that they have the mutated rRNAs, and that these enrich and de-enrich as predicted.

• In Figure 5-7 the authors develop a model that the sequence selectivity arises from base pairing between 18S rRNA and the mRNA. If so, then they should really stratify the data by number of WC pairs that can be formed. And only WC pairs, as GU pairs have a totally different geometry that will likely be discriminated against in this context. Also, the mutation is in a part of the helix that has no effect (Figure S3G). Thus, the data within the manuscript are inconsistent.

• Figure 6 does not agree with published data (Li et al., Nature 2022). Previous work did not show testis-depletion of Rps26 in purified ribosomes. This is the critical difference as the authors here did not purify ribosomes. Also, another Rps is an essential control, even if purified ribosomes are used. The validity of this dataset is thus questionable . Depletion from polysomes is hard to believe, as overall there is less signal in the polysomes.

• Figure 7 has similar problems as figure 5. Different pools of mRNAs are analyzed; peak height is not validated. Overexpression of Rps26 is not shown, as only Myc is shown, not Rps26. Beyond that, increased occupancy in ribosomes needs to be shown for the effect to come from ribosomes. Given how sick the cells are it is most likely that all effects are secondary and arise from whatever else is going on in the overexpression or depletion of Rps26. No controls are presented to show specific effects from Rps26.

• The authors need to check Rli1/ABCE levels in their cells. Their data have features that are indicative of low ABCE1 levels. These include a very small effect from ABCE1 depletion. These could be responsible for some of the effects they observe.

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript presents a compelling and methodologically rigorous investigation into how corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) modulates cholinergic interneurons (CINs) in the dorsal striatum - a brain region central to cognitive flexibility and action selection-and how this circuit is disrupted by alcohol exposure. Through an integrated series of anatomical, optogenetic, electrophysiological, and imaging experiments, the authors uncover a previously uncharacterized CRF⁺ projection from the central amygdala (CeA) and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) to dorsal striatal CINs.

Strengths:

Key strengths of the study include the use of state-of-the-art monosynaptic rabies tracing, CRF-Cre transgenic models, CRFR1 reporter lines, and functional validation of synaptic connectivity and neurotransmitter release. The finding that CRF enhances CIN excitability and acetylcholine (ACh) release via CRFR1, and that this effect is attenuated by acute alcohol exposure and withdrawal, provides important mechanistic insight into how stress and alcohol interact to impair striatal function. These results position CRF signaling in CINs as a novel contributor to alcohol use disorder (AUD) pathophysiology, with implications for relapse vulnerability and cognitive inflexibility associated with chronic alcohol intake.

The study is well-structured, with a clear rationale, thorough methodology, and logical progression of results. The discussion effectively contextualizes the findings within broader addiction neuroscience literature and suggests meaningful future directions, including therapeutic targeting of CRFR1 signaling in the dorsal striatum.

Weaknesses:

Minor areas for improvement include occasional redundancy in phrasing, slightly overlong descriptions in the abstract and significance sections, and a need for more concise language in some places. Nevertheless, these do not detract from the manuscript's overall quality or impact.

Overall, this is a highly valuable contribution to the fields of addiction neuroscience and striatal circuit function, offering novel insights into stress-alcohol interactions at the cellular and circuit level, which requires minor editorial revisions.

https://typewriterdatabase.com/1926-mercedes-4.19461.typewriter<br /> "Steile Sierschrift" (Steep ornamental font) <br /> RaRo foundry mark 5 circle I<br /> paired with<br /> RaRo foundry mark 57 AR

DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2025.116469

Resource: None

Curator: @areedewitt04

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-200915-4

What is this?

Premise 4: Ai will thrive in a "degraded hollywood"

Claim: the industry is all a formula and algorithm driven Connection: If creativity is already automated, ai will fit perfectly- worsening the decline

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Context:

Tracking cell trajectories in deformable organs, such as the head neurons of freely moving C. elegans, is a challenging task due to rapid, non-rigid cellular motion. Similarly, identifying neuron types in the worm brain is difficult because of high inter-individual variability in cell positions.

Summary:

In this study, the authors developed a deep learning-based approach for cell tracking and identification in deformable neuronal images. Several different CNN models were trained to: (1) register image pairs without severe deformation, and then track cells across continuous image sequences using multiple registration results combined with clustering strategies; (2) predict neuron IDs from multicolor-labeled images; and (3) perform clustering across multiple multicolor images to automatically generate neuron IDs.

Strengths:

Directly using raw images for registration and identification simplifies the analysis pipeline, but it is also a challenging task since CNN architectures often struggle to capture spatial relationships between distant cells. Surprisingly, the authors report very high accuracy across all tasks. For example, the tracking of head neurons in freely moving worms reportedly reached 99.6% accuracy, neuron identification achieved 98%, and automatic classification achieved 93% compared to human annotations.

Weaknesses:

(1) The deep networks proposed in this study for registration and neuron identification require dataset-specific training, due to variations in imaging conditions across different laboratories. This, in turn, demands a large amount of manually or semi-manually annotated training data, including cell centroid correspondences and cell identity labels, which reduces the overall practicality and scalability of the method.

(2) The cell tracking accuracy was not rigorously validated, but rather estimated using a biased and coarse approach. Specifically, the accuracy was assessed based on the stability of GFP signals in the eat-4-labeled channel. A tracking error was assumed to occur when the GFP signal switched between eat-4-negative and eat-4-positive at a given time point. However, this estimation is imprecise and only captures a small subset of all potential errors. Although the authors introduced a correction factor to approximate the true error rate, the validity of this correction relies on the assumption that eat-4 neurons are uniformly distributed across the brain - a condition that is unlikely to hold.

(3) Figure S1F demonstrates that the registration network, BrainAlignNet, alone is insufficient to accurately align arbitrary pairs of C. elegans head images. The high tracking accuracy reported is largely due to the use of a carefully designed registration sequence, matching only images with similar postures, and an effective clustering algorithm. Although the authors address this point in the Discussion section, the abstract may give the misleading impression that the network itself is solely responsible for the observed accuracy.

(4) The reported accuracy for neuron identification and automatic classification may be misleading, as it was assessed only on a subset of neurons labeled as "high-confidence" by human annotators. Although the authors did not disclose the exact proportion, various descriptions (such as Figure 4f) imply that this subset comprises approximately 60% of all neurons. While excluding uncertain labels is justifiable, the authors highlight the high accuracy achieved on this subset without clearly clarifying that the reported performance pertains only to neurons that are relatively easy to identify. Furthermore, they do not report what fraction of the total neuron population can be accurately identified using their methods-an omission of critical importance for prospective users.

What a great conceptualization of considering organisms in time and space... something we don't do now as well as we ought to almost 80+ years later

One might presume as a physicist he's taking advantage of Einstein's conceptualization of spacetime, but here within biology.

Reviewer #4 (Public Review):

Summary:

This work investigates whether a citation to a referee made by a paper is associated with a more positive evaluation by that referee for that paper. It provides evidence supporting this hypothesis. The work also investigates the role of self citations by referees where the referee would ask authors to cite the referee's paper.

Strengths:

This is an important problem: referees for scientific papers must provide their impartial opinions rooted in core scientific principles. Any undue influence due to the role of citations breaks this requirement. This work studies the possible presence and extent of this.

Barring a few issues discussed below, the methods are solid and well done. The work uses a matched pair design which controls for article-level confounding and further investigates robustness to other potential confounds.

It is surprising that even in these investigated journals where referee names are public, there is prevalence of such citation-related behaviors.

Weaknesses:

Some overall claims are questionable:

"Reviewers who were cited were more likely to approve the article, but only after version 1" It also appears that referees who were cited were less likely to approve the article in version 1. This null or slightly negative effect undermines the broad claim of citations swaying referees. The paper highlights only the positive results while not including the absence (and even reversal) of the effect in version 1 in its narrative.

"To the best of our knowledge, this is the first analysis to use a matched design when examining reviewer citations" Does not appear to be a valid claim based on the literature reference [18]

It will be useful to have a control group in the analysis associated to Figure 5 where the control group comprises matched reviews that did not ask for a self citation. This will help demarcate words associated with approval under self citation (as compared to when there is no self citation). The current narrative appears to suggest an association of the use of these words with self citations but without any control.

More discussion on the recommendations will help: For the suggestion that "the reviewers initially see a version of the article with all references blinded and no reference list" the paper says "this involves more administrative work and demands more from peer reviewers". I am afraid this can also degrade the quality of peer review, given that the research cannot be contextualized properly by referees. Referees may not revert back to all their thoughts and evaluations when references are released afterwards.

Top 10 Worst typewriters<br /> by [[Walid Saad]]<br /> accessed on 2025-09-18T23:49:39

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

Several behavioral experiments and one TMS experiment were performed to examine adaptation to room reverberation for speech intelligibility in noise. This is an important topic that has been extensively studied by several groups over the years. And the study is unique in that it examines one candidate brain area, dlPFC, potentially involved in this learning, and finds that disrupting this area by TMS results in a reduction in the learning. The behavioral conditions are in many ways similar to previous studies. However, they find results that do not match previous results (e.g., performance in anechoic condition is worse than in reverberation), making it difficult to assess the validity of the methods used. One unique aspect of the behavioral experiments is that Ambisonics was used to simulate the spaces, while headphone simulation was mostly used previously. The main behavioral experiment was performed by interleaving 3 different rooms and measuring speech intelligibility as a function of the number of words preceding the target in a given room on a given trial. The findings are that performance improves on the time scale of seconds (as the number of words preceding the target increases), but also on a much larger time scale of tens to hundreds of seconds (corresponding to multiple trials), while for some listeners it is degraded for the first couple of trials. The study also finds that the performance is best in the room that matches the T60 most commonly observed in everyday environments. These are potentially interesting results. However, there are issues with the design of the study and analysis methods that make it difficult to verify the conclusions based on the data.

Strengths:

(1) Analysis of the adaptation to reverberation on multiple time scales, for multiple reverberant and anechoic environments, and also considering contextual effects of one environment interleaved with the other two environments.

(2) TMS experiment showing reduction of some of the learning effects by temporarily disabling the dlPFC.

Weaknesses:

While the study examines the adaptation for different carrier lengths, it keeps multiple characteristics (mainly talker voice and location) fixed in addition to reverberation. Therefore, it is possible that the subjects adapt to other aspects of the stimuli, not just to reverberation. A condition in which only reverberation would switch for the target would allow the authors to separate these confounding alternatives. Now, the authors try to address the concerns by indirect evidence/analyses. However, the evidence provided does not appear sufficient.

The authors use terms that are either not defined or that seem to be defined incorrectly. The main issue then is the results, which are based on analysis of what the authors call d', Hit Rate, and Final Hit rate. First of all, they randomly switch between these measures. Second, it's not clear how they define them, given that their responses are either 4-alternative or 8-alternative forced choice. d', Hit Rate, and False Alarm Rate are defined in Signal detection theory for the detection of the presence of a target. It can be easily extended to a 2-alternative forced choice. But how does one define a Hit, and, in particular, a False Alarm, in a 4/8-alternative? The authors do not state how they did it, and without that, the computation of d' based on HR and FAR is dubious. Also, what the authors call Hit Rate, is presumably the percent correct performance (PCC), but even that is not clear. Then they use FHR and act as if this was the asymptotic value of their HR, even though in many conditions their learning has not ended, and randomly define a variable of +-10 from FHR, which must produce different results depending on whether the asymptote was reached or not. Other examples of usage of strange usage of terms: they talk about "global likelihood learning" (L426) without a definition or a reference, or about "cumulative hit rate" (L1738), where it is not clear to me what "cumulative" means there.

There are not enough acoustic details about the stimuli. The authors find that reverberant performance is overall better than anechoic in 2 rooms. This goes contrary to previous results. And the authors do not provide enough acoustic details to establish that this is not an artefact of how the stimuli were normalized (e.g., what were the total signal and noise levels at the two ears in the anechoic and reverberant conditions?).

There are some concerns about the use of statistics. For example, the authors perform two-way ANOVA (L724-728) in which one factor is room, but that factor does not have the same 3 levels across the two levels of the other factor. Also, in some comparisons, they randomly select 11 out of 22 subjects even though appropriate test correct for such imbalances without adding additional randomness of whether the 11 selected subjects happened to be the good or the bad ones.

Details of the experiments are not sufficiently described in the methods (L194-205) to be able to follow what was done. It should be stated that 1 main experiment was performed using 3 rooms, and that 3 follow-ups were done on a new set of subjects, each with the room swapped.

DOI: 10.1016/j.devcel.2025.07.011

Resource: None

Curator: @areedewitt04

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-120103-4

What is this?

reply to u/Impossible-Dance7442 at tk

Looks like a portable 4 bank B model Underwood from 1926 (see also: https://typewriterdatabase.com/underwood.4.typewriter-serial-number-database).

Appears to be in reasonable cosmetic condition with good decals, but the internal condition is going to be the biggest determinant of value. In unknown condition they sell regularly for $20-50 in online auctions, but cleaned, oiled, and adjusted from a professional repair shop they might go as high as $400, or perhaps $550 if you've had the rubber on the platen re-covered. Thinking that fair market for this in even the most pristine condition is $800 is pure folly unless it was used by someone famous. (The lack of interest from antique shops is a solid indicator here.) It assuredly is not going to make you rich, unless you bought the house from a famous author.

You might find some useful advice from some of the articles at: https://boffosocko.com/research/typewriter-collection/#Typewriter%20Market They're written with first time buyers in mind, but you could also view them from the first time seller perspective.

A local repair shop might give you a few bones for it and give it a new life: https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/tw-repair.html

You could also donate it to a local thrift shop.

Your best bet for time and money invested though, is to gift it to a kid or teenager you know who's interested in writing, perhaps as a birthday present along with a copy of either: (1) Polt, R. The Typewriter Revolution: A Typist’s Companion for the 21st Century, 1st ed.; Countryman Press: Woodstock, VT, 2015. (2) Flint, W. D. The Distraction-Free First Draft; One Idea Press, 2023.

Good luck with it.

Alternate version of this with heirloom push is also at: https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1mbf185/comment/n5mdydi/

for - example - leverage - progress trap - COVID - mix of 4 amino acids inserted into a spike protein

US Navy Underwood Universal<br /> by [[Joe Van Cleave]]

http://brianrytel.com/envie-transatlantique/

DOI: 10.1016/j.devcel.2025.06.015

Resource: (ZFIN Cat# ZDB-ALT-051123-4,RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-051123-4)

Curator: @areedewitt04

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-051123-4

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.devcel.2025.06.015

Resource: None

Curator: @areedewitt04

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-220119-4

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.devcel.2025.06.015

Resource: (ZFIN Cat# ZDB-ALT-051223-4,RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-051223-4)

Curator: @areedewitt04

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-051223-4

What is this?

for - worldviews - 4 major - traditional - modern - postmodern - integrative

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

Here, the authors wish to shed light on factors that contribute to the development of liver disease in what used to be called 'the metabolic syndrome'. This is a human-health problem of considerable significance, and the insights they provide, namely the implication of a defect in mitochondrial cardiolipin (CL) content to the progression from metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease to steatohepatitis, are plausible.

Strengths:

The experimental evidence proffered is derived from the observation of lower levels of (CL) in mitochondria from the liver of patients undergoing liver transplant or resection due to end-stage steatohepatitis compared with mitochondria derived from livers of patients with other conditions. This correlation is buttressed by observations made in mice with liver-selective compromise in CL synthesis and which suggest a pathological environment associated with mitochondrial dysfunction and enhanced oxidative stress, features deemed to play a role in the progression from steatotic liver disease to steatohepatitis.

The paper is well written, and the findings are well explained and superficially convincing.

Weaknesses:

It is unclear how much can be learned from compromising a key enzyme that produces a key mitochondrial lipid in a busy metabolic organ like the liver - isn't the discovery of a mitochondrial defect in such a context rather trivial? And how reliably can these findings be related to the human observations? Most importantly, the chain of causality implied by the title is unproven: the key question of whether or not (somehow) preventing the drop in cardiolipin content affects the course of steatohepatitis remains unanswered.

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

This study by Gylemo et al. investigates genes that escape X-Chromosome Inactivation (XCI) by analyzing RNA-sequencing data from three female individuals with highly skewed XCI identified in the GTEx database-two newly reported and one previously described. Utilizing these rare non-mosaic XCI cases, the authors assess allelic expression patterns across 30 normal human tissues to classify the XCI status of 380 X-linked genes, including 198 not previously annotated. The study provides a broader and more comprehensive catalog of XCI escape, contributing valuable insights into sex-specific gene expression and the potential implications of X-linked variants in disease.

Strengths:

The primary strength of this work lies in its expanded scope: it doubles the number of tissues and significantly increases the number of X-linked genes with known XCI status compared to previous studies. By focusing on rare individuals with non-random XCI, the authors provide a unique opportunity to observe allelic expression and classify escape status with more confidence. Their findings that escape from XCI is relatively consistent across tissues (rather than tissue-specific) enhance the understanding of XCI mechanisms. The methodology is robust, the data are well-documented, and the supplementary resources are comprehensive. This study thus represents a valuable resource for the XCI field and a promising basis for future investigations.

Weaknesses:

Despite its strengths, the study is limited by its reliance on only three individuals, which restricts statistical power and generalizability. Concerns were raised regarding the comparability of XCI status across tissue types and cell lines, particularly given that previous classifications may have used cancer or immortalized cells. Additionally, more could be done to explore the genetic basis behind the observed skewed XCI, which might affect the conclusions about escape patterns. Finally, the authors are encouraged to expand their approach to additional RNA-seq datasets or single-cell analyses to validate their findings and potentially discover more individuals with skewed XCI, which would deepen understanding of this important biological phenomenon.

for - progress trap - AI - Anthropic Claude 4 - blackmail - from - youtube - Kyle Kilinski Show - AI is completely out of control - https://hyp.is/GhDOzj0nEfCvHZdiUaw4gQ/www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j1gjSoRt8Q

for - progress trap - AI - Anthropic Claude 4 - blackmail - rare behavior - but still possible! It only has to happen once!

for - progress trap - AI - blackmail - AI - autonomy - progress trap - AI - Anthropic - Claude Opus 4 - to - article - Anthropic Claude 4 blackmail and news leak - progress trap - AI - article - Anthropic Claude 4 - blackmail - rare behavior - Anthropic’s new AI model didn’t just “blackmail” researchers in tests — it tried to leak information to news outlets

DOI: 10.1038/s41388-025-03447-4

Resource: (RRID:CVCL_0063)

Curator: @dhovakimyan1

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0063

What is this?

for - metacrisis - Zak Stein - metacrisis - 4 categories - sensemaking crisis - capability crisis - legitimacy crisis - meaning crisis

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present a follow-up to their initial publication of a volume EM reconstruction of a part of the Octopus vulgaris vertical lobe (VL) (Bidel, Meirovitch et al., eLife 2023). In their previous study, they presented a swath of novel observations pertaining to the neuron types making up the VL and their synaptic connectivity. Here, the authors present an extension of those findings in which they (1) demonstrate that the Complex Amacrine cells (CAMs), which they identified previously, can be grouped into at least 5 distinct subclasses; (2) show that there appears to be distinct compartments in the SFL tract that contain specific synapse types; and (3) present morphological evidence that there may be a neurogenic niche in the VL. The findings are intriguing, advance our understanding of memory circuitry in octopus and across the phylogenetic tree, and open new avenues for deeper investigation.

Strengths:

A deeper dissection of the morphologies of CAMs and their distinct complements of synapse types is valuable. The identification of multiple categories of CAMs makes it clearer how the very simple SFL-to-SAM connectivity is likely enriched by a population of diverse interneurons.

The observation that synapse types may be compartmentalized in the superior frontal lobe tract is an intriguing one, and invites more extensive segmentation and future anatomical studies to further characterize the precise architecture of these compartments.

Finally, the evidence of the possibility of a neurogenic niche in the VL is exciting as it suggests that ongoing neurogenesis may be a common feature of memory circuitry, perhaps contributing to keeping the representation space of the circuit flexible and adequately sparse.

Weaknesses:

A key weakness is the reconstruction and grouping of the CAMs:

(1) CAMs are relatively few in number compared to SAMs, and as such, only 53 are reconstructed in this study. Of those 53 cells, 18 were not classified into one of the 5 categories the authors designate, begging the question of how robust those categories are.

(2) Related to (1), in Figure 1B, the proportions given in the bar graph are given cumulatively across the entire population of each category. The proportions should be presented as means within each category to adequately capture the variability of the small sample sizes.

(3) While the xy dimensions of the serial section EM volume are adequate to capture relatively whole cells and neuronal arbors, the volume is only 27µm thick. Thus, many neurite branches are likely truncated in the z-dimension. This may have contributed to ~1/3 of CAMs eluding categorization. However, it is hard to estimate the effect this may have had without knowing the extent of the truncation. It may be worth the authors' time to count the proportion of CAM neurites that are cut off at the edges of the volume.

(4) The authors state that CAMs appear to have axons and dendrites based on neurite widths. This is an interesting finding, given that amacrine cells are generally thought to possess only one type of neurite, which both send and receive synaptic potentials, and therefore deserves more attention. Is the distribution of neurite widths indeed bimodally distributed? Can the axons and dendrites be differentiated by examining the presence and absence of synaptic vesicle pools, respectively?

In Figure 2, the compartmentalization of synapse types is intriguing; however, due to the 3D nature of the data, it is difficult to appreciate clearly from the panels presented. This is particularly true for the suggestion that glia may be forming a barrier around these compartments. This could be rectified by providing Neuroglancer links for these specific reconstructions (neurites, synapses, and glia).

Lastly, although the identification of a putative neurogenic niche is tantalizing, morphological data alone is only an initial hint. Although the chances are slim, it would be more convincing if the authors could identify any actively dividing cells in the proposed niche. More likely, further work, for instance, immunofluorescence, which the lab has previously shown to be viable in octopus, will be needed to add weight to the claim.

Örsted hat das derzeit weltweit größte Windenergieprojekt Harnz-ZV unterbrochen. Die Pause stellt die Realisierung des britischen Ziels, Bis 2030 50 Gigawatt Strom durch Auf Schrahr, Windenergie Windenergie zu produzieren in Frage. Der Windpark Hornzzi vor hätte alleine oder soll alleine 2400 Megawatt Strom produzieren. Für die Unterbrechung wurden vor allem kostengründelverantwortlich gemacht. In den USA wurden von der Trump-Administration mehrere Windenergieprojekte aus Tanz gestorpt.

https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/afp/eolien-offshore-le-geant-orsted-met-en-pause-lexpansion-du-plus-grand-parc-du-monde-250507?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=fil-info-energies&utm_campaign=/newsletter/cde-aujourdhui-7-mai-2025&sstc=u36579nl166 571

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:7028076

via https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1ke4xfw/3d_printed_underwood_standard_portable_4bank/

DOI: 10.1038/s44400-025-00004-4

Resource: R Project for Statistical Computing (RRID:SCR_001905)

Curator: @dhovakimyan1

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_001905

What is this?

for - from Global Regeneration CoLab - Wasabi Network - Regneration pollination zoom speed dating - April 4, 2025

for - program event selection - 2025 - April 4 - 10:30am-12pm GMT - Skoll World Forum - The Future of AI & Digital Innovation - Stop Reset Go - Indyweb -- relevant to

for - program event selection - 2025 - April 4 - 10:30am-12pm GMT - Skoll World Forum - Partnership for the Planet - Stop Reset Go - TPF - LCE - relevant to

"Different soil compositions help identify which geographic areas the suspect traveled through"

that it shall be lawful for the president of the United States to cause so much of any territory belonging to the United States, west of the Mississippi river, not included in any state or organized territory, and to which the Indian title has been extinguished

for - leverage point - activate 4 different levels - behavior change - cultural change - system change - mindset

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary

Pinho et al use in vivo calcium imaging and chemogenetic approaches to examine the involvement of hippocampal sub-regions across the different stages of a sensory preconditioning task in mice. They find clear evidence for sensory preconditioning in male but not female mice. They also find that, in the male mice, CaMKII-positive neurons in the dorsal hippocampus: (1) encode the audio-visual association that forms in stage 1 of the task, and (2) retrieve/express sensory preconditioned fear to the auditory stimulus at test. These findings are supported by evidence that ranges from incomplete to convincing. They will be valuable to researchers in the field of learning and memory.

Abstract

Please note that sensory preconditioning doesn't require the stage 1 stimuli to be presented repeatedly or simultaneously.

"Finally, we combined our sensory preconditioning task with chemogenetic approaches to assess the role of these two hippocampal subregions in mediated learning."<br /> This implies some form of inhibition of hippocampal neurons in stage 2 of the protocol, as this is the only stage of the protocol that permits one to make statements about mediated learning. However, it is clear from what follows that the authors interrogate the involvement of hippocampal sub-regions in stages 1 and 3 of the protocol - not stage 2. As such, most statements about mediated learning throughout the paper are potentially misleading (see below for a further elaboration of this point). If the authors persist in using the term mediated learning to describe the response to a sensory preconditioned stimulus, they should clarify what they mean by mediated learning at some point in the introduction. Alternatively, they might consider using a different phrase such as "sensory preconditioned responding".

Introduction

"Low-salience" is used to describe stimuli such as tone, light, or odour that do not typically elicit responses that are of interest to experimenters. However, a tone, light, or odour can be very salient even though they don't elicit these particular responses. As such, it would be worth redescribing the "low-salience" stimuli in some other terms.

"These higher-order conditioning processes, also known as mediated learning, can be captured in laboratory settings through sensory preconditioning procedures2,6-11."<br /> Higher-order conditioning and mediated learning are not interchangeable terms: e.g., some forms of second-order conditioning are not due to mediated learning. More generally, the use of mediated learning is not necessary for the story that the authors develop in the paper and could be replaced for accuracy and clarity. E.g., "These higher-order conditioning processes can be studied in the laboratory using sensory preconditioning procedures2,6-11."

In reference to Experiment 2, it is stated that: "However, when light and tone were separated on time (Unpaired group), male mice were not able to exhibit mediated learning response (Figure 2B) whereas their response to the light (direct learning) was not affected (Figure 2D). On the other hand, female mice still present a lower but significant mediated learning response (Figure 2C) and normal direct learning (Figure 2E). Finally, in the No-Shock group, both male (Figure 2B and 2D) and female mice (Figure 2C and 2E) did not present either mediated or direct learning, which also confirmed that the exposure to the tone or light during Probe Tests do not elicit any behavioral change by themselves as the presence of the electric footshock is required to obtain a reliable mediated and direct learning responses."<br /> The absence of a difference between the paired and unpaired female mice should not be described as "significant mediated learning" in the latter. It should be taken to indicate that performance in the females is due to generalization between the tone and light. That is, there is no sensory preconditioning in the female mice. The description of performance in the No-shock group really shouldn't be in terms of mediated or direct learning: that is, this group is another control for assessing the presence of sensory preconditioning in the group of interest. As a control, there is no potential for them to exhibit sensory preconditioning, so their performance should not be described in a way that suggests this potential.

Methods - Behavior

I appreciate the reasons for testing the animals in a new context. This does, however, raise other issues that complicate the interpretation of any hippocampal engagement: e.g., exposure to a novel context may engage the hippocampus for exploration/encoding of its features - hence, it is engaged for retrieving/expressing sensory preconditioned fear to the tone. This should be noted somewhere in the paper given that one of its aims is to shed light on the broader functioning of the hippocampus in associative processes.

This general issue - that the conditions of testing were such as to force engagement of the hippocampus - is amplified by two further features of testing with the tone. The first is the presence of background noise in the training context and its absence in the test context. The second is the fact that the tone was presented for 30 s in stage 1 and then continuously for 180s at test. Both changes could have contributed to the engagement of the hippocampus as they introduce the potential for discrimination between the tone that was trained and tested.

Results - Behavior

The suggestion of sex differences based on differences in the parameters needed to generate sensory preconditioning is interesting. Perhaps it could be supported through some set of formal analyses. That is, the data in supplementary materials may well show that the parameters needed to generate sensory preconditioning in males and females are not the same. However, there needs to be some form of statistical comparison to support this point. As part of this comparison, it would be neat if the authors included body weight as a covariate to determine whether any interactions with sex are moderated by body weight.

What is the value of the data shown in Figure 1 given that there are no controls for unpaired presentations of the sound and light? In the absence of these controls, the experiment cannot have shown that "Female and male mice show mediated learning using an auditory-visual sensory preconditioning task" as implied by its title. Minimally, this experiment should be relabelled.

"Altogether, this data confirmed that we successfully set up an LTSPC protocol in mice and that this behavioral paradigm can be used to further study the brain circuits involved in higher-order conditioning."<br /> Please insert the qualifier that LTSPC was successfully established in male mice. There is no evidence of LTSPC in female mice.

Results - Brain

"Notably, the inhibition of CaMKII-positive neurons in the dHPC (i.e. J60 administration in DREADD-Gi mice) during preconditioning (Figure 4B), but not before the Probe Test 1 (Figure 4B), fully blocked mediated, but not direct learning (Figure 4D)."<br /> The right panel of Figure 4B indicates no difference between the controls and Group DPC in the percent change in freezing from OFF to ON periods of the tone. How does this fit with the claim that CaMKII-positive neurons in the dorsal hippocampus regulate associative formation during the session of tone-light exposures in stage 1 of sensory preconditioning?

Discussion

"When low salience stimuli were presented separated on time or when the electric footshock was absent, mediated and direct learning were abolished in male mice. In female mice, although light and tone were presented separately during the preconditioning phase, mediated learning was reduced but still present, which implies that female mice are still able to associate the two low-salience stimuli."<br /> This doesn't quite follow from the results. The failure of the female unpaired mice to withhold their freezing to the tone should not be taken to indicate the formation of a light-tone association across the very long interval that was interpolated between these stimulus presentations. It could and should be taken to indicate that, in female mice, freezing conditioned to the light simply generalized to the tone (i.e., these mice could not discriminate well between the tone and light).

"Indeed, our data suggests that when hippocampal activity is modulated by the specific manipulation of hippocampal subregions, this brain region is not involved during retrieval."<br /> Does this relate to the results that are shown in the right panel of Figure 4B, where there is no significant difference between the different groups? If so, how does it fit with the results shown in the left panel of this figure, where differences between the groups are observed?

"In line with this, the inhibition of CaMKII-positive neurons from the dorsal hippocampus, which has been shown to project to the restrosplenial cortex56, blocked the formation of mediated learning."<br /> Is this a reference to the findings shown in Figure 4B and, if so, which of the panels exactly? That is, one panel appears to support the claim made here while the other doesn't. In general, what should the reader make of data showing the percent change in freezing from stimulus OFF to stimulus ON periods?

so, normally 315 of Reunification Treaty prevents acts commited on East German soil prior to reunification from being punished, if they were not punishable under East German Law (kinda like our warunek podwójnej karalaności)

BUT, here: - immunity does not apply where there was already West German Law (west german law applied to crimes on foreign soil if): 1. the acts are commited against German 2. the person that committed them becomes a resident of WG or comes to WG

prof. Samson argues that EG became part of WG, so their law is applicable 7(2) (similarly, the people who were shot, were Germans, so 7(1))

BUT it's a stretch, because EGs were considered foreigners by WG

DOI: 10.1186/s13578-025-01355-4

Resource: RRID:Addgene_78534

Curator: @olekpark

SciCrunch record: RRID:Addgene_78534

What is this?

DOI: 10.1186/s12885-025-13762-4

Resource: RRID:Addgene_72263

Curator: @olekpark

SciCrunch record: RRID:Addgene_72263

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s42255-024-01196-4

Resource: None

Curator: @olekpark

SciCrunch record: RRID:Addgene_14946

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s42003-025-07815-4

Resource: (DSMZ Cat# ACC-305, RRID:CVCL_0045)

Curator: @dhovakimyan1

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0045

What is this?

And in this flea our two bloods mingled be;

The act of sharing blood in intimate and due to that, the speaker tells the listener that a "physical barrier" is, at this point, unnecessary.

DOI: 10.1038/s41593-025-01888-4

Resource: (IMSR Cat# JAX_013044,RRID:IMSR_JAX:013044)

Curator: @dhovakimyan1

SciCrunch record: RRID:IMSR_JAX:013044

What is this?

> for - stats - addiction - cocaine - average duration - 4 years

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

The structural mechanism of anion permeation through the open CFTR pore has remained unresolved and is subject to ongoing debate. That is because even in CFTR structures obtained under conditions that normally maximally activate the channel (phosphorylation + ATP + non-hydrolytic mutations + potentiator drugs) a bottleneck region in the pore, too narrow to allow passage of hydrated chloride ions, is observed.

The present study uses molecular dynamics (MD) simulations initiated from such "quasi-open" states to address local conformational dynamics of the pore. The authors conclude that the quasi-open structure stably relaxes to a fully open conformation on the sub-microsecond time scale. They provide a detailed analysis of this fully open structure and of the mechanism of chloride permeation. They conclude that two major exit pathways (a central and a peripheral) exist for chloride ions, and that the ions remain near-fully hydrated throughout the pore: chloride-protein interactions displace only 1-2 waters from the first solvation shell. Furthermore, the simulations provide some hints for conformational changes involved in gating.

Strengths:

The findings are interpreted in the context of the large body of published functional studies on CFTR permeation properties, and caveats are adequately discussed.

Weaknesses:

The conclusions on gating would benefit from further discussions. In particular, a fair comparison of the timescale at which channel gating happens, and that of the MD simulations would strengthen the manuscript.

for - book - Pedagogies of Collapse - Ginie Servant-Miklos - Chapter 4 - Experimental Pedagogics - 2024

Reviewer #5 (Public review):

Summary:

The researchers examined selection across multiple levels, including gene expression, biological processes, and regulatory mechanisms, with a particular focus on comparing selection between different environmental conditions. They further explored potential evolutionary mechanisms. This is made possible with a comprehensive dataset comprising gene expression data from 130 accessions with three replicates collected in two environments in the field, genomic data from 125 genotypes, and associated physiological traits. The findings have significant implications for understanding the evolution of stress adaptation, and the identified possible genes and pathways for further investigation.

The researchers began by focusing on the selection of gene expression across two environments, comparing the number of genes under selection and the effect sizes, as well as examining how selection in each environment acts on the same individual genes. They then expanded their analysis to consider selection in biological processes, investigating the relationships between selection acting on individual genes within processes and selection acting among different processes.<br /> Additionally, they explored selection at the organismal level by examining traits.

The study further transitioned from analyzing individual gene expression to investigating gene-gene interactions. They briefly examined correlation variation among gene pairs between the two conditions, identifying pairs with rewired interactions that suggest potential selection on gene regulation or the effect of rewiring on tolerance. The researchers then delved into the genetic architecture underlying these patterns by mapping eQTLs. Their comparison of cis- and trans-eQTLs revealed that trans-eQTLs were more variable across conditions. Notably, they identified hotspots representing master regulators that possibly underlie the greater variability of trans-eQTLs across environments. They further discovered that trans-eQTLs are generally under purifying selection (particularly in salt conditions), while cis-eQTLs are under balancing selection, exhibiting higher nucleotide diversity. As for how cis- and trans-eQTL effects combine at the level of individual genes, more are found to be reinforced and the hypothesis of genetic fixation on cis- and trans-eQTL effects combination is further tested.

Strengths:

A key strength of this study is its comprehensive approach, extending beyond the analysis of gene expression to include gene-gene interactions, genetic architectures, and selections of genetic regulation factors. The exploration of gene expression selection through its connection with fitness, as introduced in the researchers' previous work, provides valuable insights into the role of gene expression in adaptation. The study investigates selection across multiple levels of biological responses, including individual gene expression, genes associated with biological processes, gene-gene interactions, and the underlying genetic architecture. The experimental design enables a direct comparison of selection between control and salinity conditions, which sheds light on the effects of stress on selection and the dynamics of adaptation to stress. Additionally, the manuscript is well-written, with a clear connection to current literature. The discussion effectively integrates findings with broader implications, making it a satisfying read.

Weaknesses:

The lack of formal testing for environment-specific selections (e.g., selection of gene expression specifically in salinity stress, PCs, or traits) is a major limitation, as previous reviewers have flagged. Explicit tests of eQTLs variation between conditions are introduced, so similar formal tests should also be introduced in selection sections. For example, a formal test of selections of gene expression might be helpful to solve variance/mean- standardization concerns between two environments.

Additionally, some aspects of the analysis appear somewhat arbitrary and could benefit from further sensitivity testing. Line 203: The concern about bias in detecting more CN than AP, as mentioned by the authors and previously flagged by reviewers, does not seem fully resolved with the current methods given the arbitrary cut-off. Incorporating additional tests suggesting the conclusion is insensitive to the cutoff would be very helpful. Similar is the classification of genes into compensatory and reinforcing categories based on 60% of individuals as a cutoff.

While this study focuses on gene regulation, its connection with the selection of gene expression and biological pathways is not well integrated. In particular, the discovery of eQTLs is not explicitly linked to gene expression selection or biological pathways, leaving this relationship underexplored. Suggestive comments: Currently the summarization of selection is based on eQTLs. It would be interesting to also summarize the selection patterns identified from previous sections based on genes being cis/trans-regulated. Moreover, it might be interesting to see if there is more loss or gain of eQTLs under salt stress and their functions. The current results mentioned variations of eQTLs but not clear if they are loss or gain. E.g., one way is to identify genes related to cis and trans-eQTLs and see their correlation changes with genes being regulated using CILP (also as a way to informatively narrow down gene pairs for CILP).

Similarly, the section on selection at the organismal trait level appears disconnected from the rest of the analysis (e.g., if it is not tested to be related to other features, mentioning why it might not be related would be helpful). Admittedly, the discussion of how biological processes discovered at different levels integrate together is helpful.

Other comments: given there is no comparison between loss of coherence (correlations) and gain of coherence under salinity stress to show the dominant role of decoherence, maybe need to also discuss the genes and processes related to the gain of coherence? This is because the understanding of activation (gain of coherence) of some regulations/processes under stress conditions could also be interesting. It is not clear if decoherence (e.g., lines 293-296) refers to significant correlation changes or just loss of the correlation in salinity stress.

DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2024.115195

Resource: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-150916-4

Curator: @sjvitug

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-150916-4

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2024.115195

Resource: None

Curator: @sjvitug

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-170615-4

What is this?

for - key insight / quote - source - article - Le Monde - Musk, Trump and the Broligarch's novel hyper-weapon - Yanis Varoufakis - 2025, Jan 4

key insight / quote - (see below) - Returning to Bevan’s brilliant question, today it is easier to see how - wealth persuades poverty to give up its freedom and, instead, - to serve the broligarchs-in-charge: via their cloud capital - that has a capacity, - unlike any hitherto form of capital or government department, - to shape our behaviour - automatically and - directly. - Nothing short of a revolution can restore any hope of personal agency, - let alone of democracy.

for - five roles of cloud capital - source - article - Le Monde - Musk, Trump and the Broligarch's novel hyper-weapon - Yanis Varoufakis - 2025, Jan 4 - monopolizes the attention economy - manufactures desire - sells directly to us that which it has made us desire - controls labor - creates a system of free voluntary behavior to sustain the behavioral modification system, turning us into cloud serfs

for - progress trap - cloud capital - behavioral modification - source - article - Le Monde - Musk, Trump and the Broligarch's novel hyper-weapon - Yanis Varoufakis - 2025, Jan 4

for - comparison: robber barons of the past and today's broligarchs - cloud capital / technofeudalism - source - article - Le Monde - Musk, Trump and the Broligarch's novel hyper-weapon - Yanis Varoufakis - 2025, Jan 4

for - relevant quote - the more things change, the more they remain the same - seems to apply to this statement - source - article - Le Monde - Musk, Trump and the Broligarch's novel hyper-weapon - Yanis Varoufakis - 2025, Jan 4

for - further research - Oligarch's favorite book - The Sovereign Individual - Author - James Dale Davidson and William Rees-Mogg - source - article - Le Monde - Musk, Trump and the Broligarch's novel hyper-weapon - Yanis Varoufakis - 2025, Jan 4

for - Trumps three gifts to lobbyists - article - Le Monde - Musk, Trump and the Broligarch's novel hyper-weapon - Yanis Varoufakis - 2025, Jan 4 - 1. Huge government contracts - 2. Deregulation will enable a free-for-all - 3. State-sanctioned power over labor

for - further research - Aneurin Bevan - 1952 - liberal democracy's greatest paradox - How does wealth manage to persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power? - source - article - Le Monde - Musk, Trump and the Broligarch's novel hyper-weapon - Yanis Varoufakis - 2025, Jan 4 - inequality - elites - source - article - Le Monde - Musk, Trump and the Broligarch's novel hyper-weapon - Yanis Varoufakis - 2025, Jan 4

for - key insight - inequality - elites - How does wealth manage to persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power? - source - article - Le Monde - Musk, Trump and the Broligarch's novel hyper-weapon - Yanis Varoufakis - 2025, Jan 4

for - article - Le Monde - Musk, Trump and the Broligarch's novel hyper-weapon - Yanis Varoufakis - 2025, Jan 4

for - from - article - Le Monde - Musk, Trump and the Broligarch's novel hyper-weapon - Yanis Varoufakis - 2025, Jan 4 - https://hyp.is/n7kI1M2wEe-jUutC8gY3WQ/www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2025/01/06/musk-trump-and-the-broligarchs-novel-hyper-weapon-le-monde-4-1-2025-full-original-english-version/

for - Substack article - The Cosmo-Local Plan for our Next Civilization - Michel Bauwens - 2024, Dec 20 - adjacency - web 3 and Blockchain / crypto technology - communities engaged in regeneration and relocalization - tinkering at the edge - missed opportunity - cosmolocal strategy as leverage point - safe and just cross scale translation of earth system boundaries - Tipping Point Festival - Web 4 - Indyweb

Summary adjacency between - web 3 and crypto / Blockchain technology - communities engaged in regeneration and relocalization - tinkering at the edge - missed opportunity - cosmolocal lens and framework as a leverage point for synthesis - cosmolocal projects as leverage points - cross scale translated safe and just earth system boundaries as necessary cosmolocal accounting system - meme: sync global, act local - new relationship - This article explores the untapped potential and leverage point offered by recognising a new adjacency and concomitant synthesis of - globalising Web 3 and crypto/Blockchain technology - communities engaged in regenerative and relocation interventions - The fragmentation between these areas keeps activists working in each respective one - tinkering at the edge - severely constraining their potential impact - This is a case of the whole Berlin car greater than the sun of its parts - By joining forces in a global, strategic and systemic way, each can achieve fast more through their mutual support - A cosmolocal lens offers a perspective and framework that makes joining forces make sense<br /> - Projects that recognize that the adjacency between - the globalizing technologies of web 3 and Blockchains and - interventions at the local community level - offer a significant leverage point to bottom up efforts to drive a rapid transition are themselves a leverage point - In this regard, incorporation of an equitable accounting system such as safe and just earth system boundaries that can be cross scale translated to - bioregional, - city and - community, district and ward scale - are an important cosmolocal component of a system designed for rapid transition - Global bottom up community scale events such as the Tipping Point Festival can help rapidly advocate for a cosmolocal lens, framework and strategy - At the same time, Web 4 technology that's goes beyond decentralising into people-centered can contribute another dimension to humanizing technology

Addendum - 2024, Dec 26 - added a comment to the actual substack page - My substack comment makes commenters of the article aware that we have a public hypothes.is discussion going on in parallel. - This makes the hitherto invisible discussion visible to them

for - mindfulness meditation research - 4 pillars of wellbeing - Youtube - Tukdam talk - An Overview Of CHM’s Work On “Well-Being And Tukdam” - Prof. Richard J. Davidson

summary - four pillars of wellbeing - 1 awareness - 2 connection - 3 insight (of the nature of self) - 4 purpose (intention)

for - climate crisis - Medium article - climate communication - how climate change is framed to disempower you - Joe Brewer - 2024, Dec 4 - from - post - LinkedIn - climate crisis - climate communication - climate change discourse has been framed to disempower us - changing the story - so that grassroots, bottom-up initiatives can restore health to ecosystems - Joe Brewer, 2024, Dec 4 - from - Resilience article - A 'Transcender Manifesto" for a world beyond capitalism. A seed.

summary - A good article that offers an explanation of how language has potentially led the public to rely on top down actors to provide solutions to the climate crisis - Joe Brewer draws on his background as a frame analyst to analyse the role language and cognitive linguistics has played in framing the discourse on the climate crisis - He claims that this has led the public to look to elite top down actors to provide the solutions - This had led to a disempowerment of the public in actively participating in contributing too solutions - Indeed it could be why we have a sleeping giant - Reframing the story could have the opposite effect of inspiring people's to wake up and take action to regenerate nature within and surrounding the communities where people live.

from - post - LinkedIn - climate crisis - climate communication - climate change discourse has been framed to disempower us - changing the story - so that grassroots, bottom-up initiatives can restore health to ecosystems - Joe Brewer, 2024, Dec 4 - https://hyp.is/yvHstLfVEe-cyRN4sq09Ow/www.linkedin.com/posts/joe-brewer-4957925_earlier-this-week-i-lived-into-an-important-activity-7270035170328494080-E7Cq/ - from - Resilience article - A 'Transcender Manifesto" for a world beyond capitalism. A seed. - https://hyp.is/0NOdtLiREe--pwPfB1SmdA/www.resilience.org/stories/2024-04-18/a-transcender-manifesto-for-a-world-beyond-capitalism-a-seed/

for - post - LinkedIn - climate crisis - climate communication - climate change discourse has been framed to disempower us - changing the story - so that grassroots, bottom-up initiatives can restore health to ecosystems - Joe Brewer, 2024, Dec 4 - to - Medium article - How Climate Change is framed to Disempower you - Joe Brewer - 2024, Dec 4

to - Medium article - How Climate Change is framed to Disempower you - Joe Brewer - 2024, Dec 4 - https://hyp.is/XoQoRLfVEe-ZMIMjZheLLA/medium.com/@joe_brewer/how-climate-change-is-framed-to-disempower-you-01d871413487

Fortalecer la responsabilidad contextual para la no discriminación en los sistemas de IA

Empoderar a los organismos de igualdad para que inicien acciones

Aliviar la carga de la prueba para los demandantes

Categorías:

1. Diseño inclusivo e innovación democrática

2. Participación significativa en la gobernanza de la IA

3. Transparencia y rendición de cuentas para la prevención de daños

4. Acceso efectivo a la justicia

Puntos de acción

Asignar un presupuesto para los costos de participación. Incluir líneas presupuestarias específicas para cubrir los costos de participación de representantes de grupos marginados, como compensación por su tiempo y experiencia, y adaptaciones razonables para garantizar la accesibilidad (por ejemplo, intérpretes de lengua de señas, intérpretes guía para personas sordociegas, intérpretes de lenguas indígenas).

Al facilitar la participación, considera las dinámicas de poder específicas del contexto, incluyendo género, expresión de género, edad, raza, clase, cultura, identidad, habilidades y lenguaje, para garantizar una inclusión efectiva. Además, crea incentivos que motiven a los actores privados a involucrarse activamente en el diseño, desarrollo y gobernanza de sistemas de IA inclusivos.

for - paper - Assessing the size and uncertainty of Remaining Carbon Budget (RCB) - Lamboll et al, 2023 - from - youtube - Climate scientist Kevin Anderson warns: Only 4 years left to stay below 1.5°C without urgent action

from - youtube - Climate scientist Kevin Anderson warns: Only 4 years left to stay below 1.5°C without urgent action - https://hyp.is/u-rKxK-6Ee-TT7OpdMUOTw/www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFDRp-JMf9Q

Reviewer #4 (Public Review):

Summary:

In their revised manuscript "Conformational dynamics of a nicotinic receptor neurotransmitter binding site," Singh and colleagues present molecular docking and dynamics simulations to explore the initial conformational changes associated with agonist binding in the muscle nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, in context with the extensive experimental literature on this system. Their central findings are of a consistently preferred pose for agonists upon initial association with a resting channel, followed by a dramatic rotation of the ligand and contraction of a critical loop over the binding site. Principal component analysis also suggests the formation of an intermediate complex, not yet captured in structural studies. Binding free energy estimates are consistent with the evolution of a higher-affinity complex following agonist binding, with a ligand efficiency notably similar to experimental values. Snapshot comparisons provide a structural rationale for these changes on the basis of pocket volume, hydration, and rearrangement of key residues at the subunit interface.

Strengths:

Docking results are clearly presented and remarkably consistent. Simulations are produced in triplicate with each of four different agonists, providing an informative basis for internal validation. They identify an intriguing transition in ligand pose, not well documented in experimental structures, and potentially applicable to mechanistic or even pharmacological modeling of this and related receptor systems. The paper seems a notable example of integrating quantitative structure-function analysis with systematic computational modeling and simulations, likely applicable to the wider journal audience.

Weaknesses:

The response to the initial review is somewhat disappointing, declining in some places to implement suggested clarifications, and propagating apparent errors in at least one table (Fig 2-source data 1). Some legends (e.g. Fig 2-supplement 4, Fig 3, Fig 4) and figure shadings (e.g. Fig 2-supplement 2, Fig 6-supplement 2) remain unclear. Apparent convergence of agonist-docked simulations towards a desensitized state (l 184) is difficult to interpret in absence of comparative values with other states, systems, etc. In more general concerns, aside from the limited timescales (200 ns) that do not capture global rearrangements, it is not obvious that landscapes constructed on two principal components to identify endpoint and intermediate states (Fig 3) are highly robust or reproducible, nor whether they relate consistently to experimental structures.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigated motor system adaptation to new environments through modifications in redundant body movements. Utilizing a novel bimanual stick-manipulation task, participants controlled a virtual stick to reach targets, focusing on how tip-movement direction perturbations affected tip movement and stick-tilt adaptation. The findings revealed a consistent strategy among participants who flexibly adjusted the tilt angle of the stick in response to errors. The adaptation patterns were influenced by physical space relationships, which guided the motor system's selection of movement patterns. This study underscores the motor system's adaptability through changes in redundant body movement patterns.

Strengths:

This study introduces an innovative bimanual stick manipulation task to explore motor system adaptation to novel environments through alterations in redundant body movement patterns. It also expands the use of endpoint robots in motor control studies.

Weaknesses:

The generalizability of the findings is limited. Future work may strengthen the present study's findings by examining whether the observed relationships hold for different stick lengths (i.e., varying hand positions along the virtual stick) or when reaching targets to the left and right of the starting position, not just at varying angles along one side. Additionally, a more comprehensive review of the existing literature on redundant systems, rather than primarily focusing on the lack of redundancy in endpoint-reaching tasks, would have strengthened this study. While the novel task expands the use of endpoint robots in motor control studies, its utility in exploring broader aspects of motor control and learning may be constrained.

for - wisdom stages - 4 middle school stages and - 4 high school stages - John Churchill

for - paraphrase - Buddhist framework - 4 turnings - 4 stages of initiation - John Churchill

paraphrase - Buddhist framework - 4 turnings - 4 stages of initiation - John Churchill - The fourth stage of "soul" - interdependent origination - systems thinking - can make use the knowledge of the third stage "mind" - which in turn uses the knowledge of the second stage "emotional body" - which uses the knowledge of the first stage "body"

1. 定义和作用： 一个证明就像正确运行的代码，必须在逻辑上严谨且能被他人理解。

2. 证明的标准： 一个好的数学证明应该做到两点：

3. 正确性：每一步推理都必须符合逻辑，因为如果证明不正确，就不能称为“证明”。

4. 易于理解：在确保正确的前提下，证明应该尽可能容易理解。 证明的结构：

5. 人类阅读的特殊性： 证明是写给人类阅读的，所以允许一定的常识性和简单的推测。比如，数学家可能会使用“显然”之类的词汇，但在初学证明时，建议避免这类词，以免产生错误的假设。

6. 符号和文字的平衡： 证明既可以用符号也可以用文字表达，甚至可以两者结合。重要的是逻辑清晰，而不一定要用大量符号来显得“专业”。

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

The authors apply what I gather is a novel methodology titled "Multi-gradient Permutation Survival Analysis" to identify genes that are robustly associated with prognosis ("GEARs") using tumour expression data from 15 cancer types available in the TCGA. The resulting lists of GEARs are then interrogated for biological insights using a range of techniques including connectivity and gene enrichment analysis.

I reviewed this paper primarily from a statistical perspective. Evidently, an impressive amount of work has been conducted, and concisely summarised, and great effort has been undertaken to add layers of insight to the findings. I am no stranger to what an undertaking this would have been. My primary concern, however, is that the novel statistical procedure proposed, and applied to identify the gene lists, as far as I can tell offers no statistical error control or quantification. Consequently, we have no sense of what proportion of the highlighted GEAR genes and networks are likely to just be noise.

Major comments:

(1) The main methodology used to identify the GEAR genes, "Multi-gradient Permutation Survival Analysis" does not formally account for multiple testing and offers no formal error control. Meaning we are left with no understanding of what the family-wise (aka type 1) error rate is among the GEAR lists, nor the false discovery rate. I would generally recommend against the use of any feature selection methodology that does not provide some form of error quantification and/or control because otherwise we do not know if we are encouraging our colleagues and/or readers to put resources into lists of genes that contain more noise than not. There are numerous statistical techniques available these days that offer error control, including for lists of p-values from arbitrary sets of tests (see expansion on this and some review references below).

(2) Similarly, no formal significance measure was used to determine which of the strongest "SAS" connections to include as edges in the "Core Survival Network".

(3) There is, as far as I could tell, no validation of any identified gene lists using an independent dataset external to the presently analysed TCGA data.

(4) There are quite a few places in the methods section where descriptions were not clear (e.g. elements of matrices referred to without defining what the columns and rows are), and I think it would be quite challenging to re-produce some aspects of the procedures as currently described (more detailed notes below).

(5) There is a general lack of statistical inference offered. For example, throughout the gene enrichment section of the results, I never saw it stated whether the pathways highlighted are enriched to a significant degree or not.

Smith Corona Typewriters 1935 - 1980 Type Alignment / Shift Motion Upper Lower Case Adjustment by [[Phoenix Typewriter]]

Duane starts out by showing the two adjustment screws for the upper and lower case motion adjustment on a 5 Series Smith-Corona portable. (This should be the same across several decades of machines and include the 4 and 6 series as well.)

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have performed endoscopic calcium recordings of individual CeA neuron responses to food and shock, as well as to cues predicting food and shock. They claim that a majority of neurons encode valence, with a substantial minority encoding salience.

Strengths:

The use of endoscopic imaging is valuable, as it provides the ability to resolve signals from single cells, while also being able to track these cells across time. The recordings appear well-executed, and employ a sophisticated circular shifting analysis to avoid statistical errors caused by correlations between neighboring image pixels.

Weaknesses:

My main critique is that the authors didn't fully test whether neurons encode valence. While it is true that they found CeA neurons responding to stimuli that have positive or negative value, this by itself doesn't indicate that valence is the primary driver of neural activity. For example, they report that a majority of CeA neurons respond selectively to either the positive or negative US, and that this is evidence for "type I" valence encoding. However, it could also be the case that these neurons simply discriminate between motivationally relevant stimuli in a manner unrelated to valence per se. A simple test of this would be to check if neural responses generalize across more than one type of appetitive or aversive stimulus, but this was not done. The closest the authors came was to note that a small number of neurons respond to CS cues, of which some respond to the corresponding US in the same direction. This is relegated to the supplemental figures (3 and 4), and it is not noted whether the the same-direction CS-US neurons are also valence-encoding with respect to different USs. For example, are the neurons excited by CS-food and US-food also inhibited by shock? If so, that would go a long way toward classifying at least a few neurons as truly encoding valence in a generalizable way.

A second and related critique is that, although the authors correctly point out that definitions of salience and valence are sometimes confused in the existing literature, they then go on themselves to use the terms very loosely. For example, the authors define these terms in such a way that every neuron that responds to at least one stimulus is either salience or valence-encoding. This seems far too broad, as it makes essentially unfalsifiable their assertion that the CeA encodes some mixture of salience and valence. I already noted above that simply having different responses to food and shock does not qualify as valence-encoding. It also seems to me that having same-direction responses to these two stimuli similarly does not quality a neuron as encoding salience. Many authors define salience as being related to the ability of a stimulus to attract attention (which is itself a complex topic). However, the current paper does not acknowledge whether they are using this, or any other definition of salience, nor is this explicitly tested, e.g. by comparing neural response magnitudes to any measure of attention.

The impression I get from the authors' data is that CeA neurons respond to motivationally relevant stimuli, but in a way that is possibly more complex than what the authors currently imply. At the same time, they appear to have collected a large and high-quality dataset that could profitably be made available for additional analyses by themselves and/or others.

Lastly, the use of 10 daily sessions of training with 20 trials each seems rather low to me. In our hands, Pavlovian training in mice requires considerably more trials in order to effectively elicit responses to the CS. I wonder if the relatively sparse training might explain the relative lack of CS responses?

How many electoral votes does Illinois have? Cite yourr source(s).

Describe how and when industriallization took place in each country, Russia and the US.

Cite your sources.

https://www.liberatingstructures.com/1-1-2-4-all/

https://app.thebrain.com/brain/3d80058c-14d8-5361-0b61-a061f89baf87/fee4a5d8-6d7d-417a-8be2-2b2cc0e97966

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-51680-4

Resource: RRID:Addgene_34831

Curator: @olekpark

SciCrunch record: RRID:Addgene_34831

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-50498-4

Resource: RRID:Addgene_52961

Curator: @olekpark

SciCrunch record: RRID:Addgene_52961

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-51664-4

Resource: RRID:Addgene_12456

Curator: @olekpark

SciCrunch record: RRID:Addgene_12456

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-07706-4

Resource: RRID:Addgene_132778

Curator: @olekpark

SciCrunch record: RRID:Addgene_132778

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-50765-4

Resource: RRID:Addgene_71237

Curator: @olekpark

SciCrunch record: RRID:Addgene_71237

What is this?

DOI: 10.1186/s13578-024-01288-4

Resource: RRID:Addgene_8453

Curator: @olekpark

SciCrunch record: RRID:Addgene_8453

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s41593-023-01557-4

Resource: RRID:Addgene_114472

Curator: @olekpark

SciCrunch record: RRID:Addgene_114472

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-51424-4

Resource: RRID:Addgene_63800

Curator: @olekpark

SciCrunch record: RRID:Addgene_63800

What is this?

DOI: 10.1186/s12964-024-01795-4

Resource: RRID:Addgene_17360

Curator: @olekpark

SciCrunch record: RRID:Addgene_17360

What is this?

DOI: 10.1186/s12967-024-05627-4

Resource: RRID:Addgene_40973

Curator: @olekpark

SciCrunch record: RRID:Addgene_40973

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-19065-4

Resource: Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center (RRID:SCR_006457)

Curator: @maulamb

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_006457

What is this?

https://reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/1fjfl1g/highest_quality_archival_4x6_index_cards_lined/

მიუხედავად ოფიციალური ორგანოებისა და პასუხისმგებელი პირების მხრიდან ამ პრობლემის უგუვებელყოფის,აუცილებელია ქალებმა კვლავ განაგრძონ ბრძოლა საკუთარი უფლებების დასაცავად და მყარად მოიკიდონ ფეხი პლიტიკურ სფეროში,მიუცედავად არსებული წინააღმდეგობებისა,რადგან დანებება წახალისებაა იმ საზოგადოების,რომელიც შრომას ყოფს გენდერულად და არაფასებს ქალის შესაძლებლობას.

for - safe and just earth system boundaries - translations and transformations - 4 parts

earth system boundaries - translations and transformations - 4 parts - part 1 - theoretical framework - part 2 - quantification of - safe and just ESB, - which ones are transgressed - who are the victims - safe and just corridor - base - ceiling - for timeframe - present - 2050 - part 3 - translating - safe and just ESB - approaches - challenges - enabling conditions - to - cities - businesses

Your brain cannot tell whether it is real or imaginary, so imagine and think in "crazy" creative ways to get your brain to start creating something you might not have without thinking in an almost unrealistic way.

Reviewer #4 (Public Review):

Summary:

With their 'CMR-replay' model, Zhou et al. demonstrate that the use of spontaneous neural cascades in a context-maintenance and retrieval (CMR) model significantly expands the range of captured memory phenomena.

Strengths:

The proposed model compellingly outperforms its CMR predecessor and, thus, makes important strides towards understanding the empirical memory literature, as well as highlighting a cognitive function of replay.

Weaknesses:

Competing accounts of replay are acknowledged but there are no formal comparisons and only CMR-replay predictions are visualized. Indeed, other than the CMR model, only one alternative account is given serious consideration: A variant of the 'Dyna-replay' architecture, originally developed in the machine learning literature (Sutton, 1990; Moore & Atkeson, 1993) and modified by Mattar et al (2018) such that previously experienced event-sequences get replayed based on their relevance to future gain. Mattar et al acknowledged that a realistic Dyna-replay mechanism would require a learned representation of transitions between perceptual and motor events, i.e., a 'cognitive map'. While Zhou et al. note that the CMR-replay model might provide such a complementary mechanism, they emphasize that their account captures replay characteristics that Dyna-replay does not (though it is unclear to what extent the reverse is also true).

Another important consideration, however, is how CMR replay compares to alternative mechanistic accounts of cognitive maps. For example, Recurrent Neural Networks are adept at detecting spatial and temporal dependencies in sequential input; these networks are being increasingly used to capture psychological and neuroscientific data (e.g., Zhang et al, 2020; Spoerer et al, 2020), including hippocampal replay specifically (Haga & Fukai, 2018). Another relevant framework is provided by Associative Learning Theory, in which bidirectional associations between static and transient stimulus elements are commonly used to explain contextual and cue-based phenomena, including associative retrieval of absent events (McLaren et al, 1989; Harris, 2006; Kokkola et al, 2019). Without proper integration with these modeling approaches, it is difficult to gauge the innovation and significance of CMR-replay, particularly since the model is applied post hoc to the relatively narrow domain of rodent maze navigation.

Der südkoreanische Verfassungsgerichtshof hat die Regierung des Landes dazu verurteilt ein Klimschutzgesetz vorzulegen, das auch für 2031-2049 verpflichtende Ziele für die Reduktion der Emissionen vorgibt. Andernfalls würden die verfassungsmäßigen Rechte der jüngeren Generation beeinträchtigt. Das Verfahren hatte 2020 mit einer Klage der Gruppe Youth 4 Climate Action begonnen. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/29/south-korea-court-climate-law-violates-rights-future-generations

Reviewer #4 (Public Review):

The authors report the role of the Piruvate Kinase M2 (PKM2) enzyme nuclear translocation as fundamental in the activation of astrocytes in a model of autoimmune encephalitis (EAE). They show that astrocytes, activated through culturing in EAE splenocytes medium, increase their nuclear PKM2 with a consequent activation of NFkB and STAT3 pathways. Prevention of PKM2 nuclear translocation decreases astrocyte counteracts this activation. The authors found that the E3 ubiquitin ligase TRIM21 interacts with PKM2 and promotes its nuclear translocation. In vivo, either silencing of TRIM21 or inhibition of PKM2 nuclear translocation ameliorates the severity of the disease in the EAE model.

Strengths

This work contributes to the knowledge of the complex action of the PKM2 enzyme in the context of an autoimmune-neurological disease, highlighting its nuclear role and a novel partner, TRIM21, promoting its nuclear translocation. In vivo amelioration of the pathological signs through inhibition of either of the two, PKM2 and TRIM21, provides a novel rationale for therapeutic targeting.

Weaknesses

I believe that the major weakness is the fact that TRIM21 is known to have per se many roles in autoimmune and immune pathways and some of the effects observed might be due to a PKM2-independent action. Some of the experiments to link the two proteins, besides their interaction, are not completely clarifying the issue. On top of that, the in vivo experiments address the role of TRIM21 and the nuclear localisation of PKM2 independently, thus leaving the matter unsolved.

In general, the conclusions of the manuscript are supported by the reported results. The points to be addressed in future are the assessment of PKM2 as substrate of TRIM21 ubiquitin ligase activity and the proof of the epistatic relationship of TRIM21 and PKM2 in astrocyte activation. However, the data surely open novel directions to follow for the understanding of multiple sclerosis and related pathologies.

Reviewer #4 (Public Review):

The manuscript examines how patterns of selection on gene expression differ between a normal field environment and a field environment with elevated salinity based on transcript abundances obtained from leaves of a diverse panel of rice germplasm. In addition, the manuscript also maps expression QTL (eQTL) that explains variation in each environment. One highlight from the mapping is that a small group of trans-mapping regulators explains some gene expression variation for large sets of transcripts in each environment. The overall scope of the datasets is impressive, combining large field studies that capture information about fecundity, gene expression, and trait variation at multiple sites. The finding related to patterns indicating increased LD among eQTLs that have cis-trans compensatory or reinforcing effects is interesting in the context of other recent work finding patterns of epistatic selection. However, other analyses in the manuscript are less compelling or do not make the most of the value of collected data. Revisions are also warranted to improve the precision with which field-specific terminology is applied and the language chosen when interpreting analytical findings.

Selection of gene expression:<br /> One strength of the dataset is that gene expression and fecundity were measured for the same genotypes in multiple environments. However, the selection analyses are largely conducted within environments. The addition of phenotypic selection analyses that jointly analyze gene expression across environments and or selection on reaction norms would be worthwhile.

Gene expression trade-offs:<br /> The terminology and possibly methods involved in the section on gene expression trade-offs need amendment. I specifically recommend discontinuing reference to the analysis presented as an analysis of antagonistic pleiotropy (rather than more general trade-offs) because pleiotropy is defined as a property of a genotype, not a phenotype. Gene expression levels are a molecular phenotype, influenced by both genotype and the environment. By conducting analyses of selection within environments as reported, the analysis does not account for the fact that the distribution of phenotypic values, the fitness surface, or both may differ across environments. Thus, this presents a very different situation than asking whether the genotypic effect of a QTL on fitness differs across environments, which is the context in which the contrasting terms antagonistic pleiotropy and conditional neutrality have been traditionally applied. A more interesting analysis would be to examine whether the covariance of phenotype with fitness has truly changed between environments or whether the phenotypic distribution has just shifted to a different area of a static fitness surface.

Biological processes under selection / Decoherence: PCs are likely not the most ideal way to cluster genes to generate consolidated metrics for a selection gradient analysis. Because individual genes will contribute to multiple PCs, the current fractional majority-rule method applied to determine whether a PC is under direct or indirect selection for increased or decreased expression comes across as arbitrary and with the potential for double-counting genes. A gene co-expression network analysis could be more appropriate, as genes only belong to one module and one can examine how selection is acting on the eigengene of a co-expression module. Building gene co-expression modules would also provide a complementary and more concrete framework for evaluating whether salinity stress induces "decoherence" and which functional groups of genes are most impacted.

Selection of traits:<br /> Having paired organismal and molecular trait data is a strength of the manuscript, but the organismal trait data are underutilized. The manuscript as written only makes weak indirect inferences based on GO categories or assumed gene functions to connect selection at the organismal and molecular levels. Stronger connections could be made for instance by showing a selection of co-expression module eigengene values that are also correlated with traits that show similar patterns of selection, or by demonstrating that GWAS hits for trait variation co-localize to cis-mapping eQTL.

Genetic architecture of gene expression variation:<br /> The descriptive statistics of the eQTL analysis summarize counts of eQTLs observed in each environment, but these numbers are not broken down to the molecular trait level (e.g., what are the median and range of cis- and trans-eQTLs per gene). In addition, genetic architecture is a combination of the numbers and relative effect sizes of the QTLs. It would be useful to provide information about the relative distributions of phenotypic variance explained by the cis- vs. trans- eQTLs and whether those distributions vary by environment. The motivation for examining patterns of cis-trans compensation specifically for the results obtained under high salinity conditions is unclear to me. If the lines sampled have predominantly evolved under low salinity conditions and the hypothesis being evaluated relates to historical experience of stabilizing selection, then my intuition is that evaluating the eQTL patterns under normal conditions provides the more relevant test of the hypothesis.

DOI: 10.1038/s44321-024-00068-4

Resource: (Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# 45-0621-82, RRID:AB_996667)

Curator: @AniH

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_996667

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s44321-024-00068-4

Resource: (Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# 25-0441-82, RRID:AB_469623)

Curator: @AniH

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_469623

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s44321-024-00068-4

Resource: (Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# 17-0801-82, RRID:AB_469417)

Curator: @AniH

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_469417

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s44321-024-00068-4

Resource: (Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# 17-0451-82, RRID:AB_469392)

Curator: @AniH

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_469392

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s44321-024-00068-4

Resource: (Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# 17-0451-82, RRID:AB_469392)

Curator: @AniH

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_469392

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s44321-024-00068-4

Resource: (Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# 17-0451-82, RRID:AB_469392)

Curator: @AniH

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_469392

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s44321-024-00068-4

Resource: (Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# 12-0311-82, RRID:AB_465632)

Curator: @AniH

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_465632

What is this?