The RPCB is a first of its kind attempt to directly replicate a subset of high-impact, pre-clinical cancer biology papers. Importantly, the methodology, quality control steps and replication data will be open and accessible on the Open Science Framework.
We are very excited to report that 13 Registered Reports have been accepted in eLife, and experiments from 12 of those studies are underway. These include:
Registered Report: BET bromodomain inhibition as a therapeutic strategy to target c-Myc
Registered Report: Interactions between cancer stem cells and their niche govern metastatic colonization
Registered Report: Coadministration of a tumor-penetrating peptide enhances the efficacy of cancer drugs
Registered Report: Discovery of preclinical validation of drug indications using compendia of public gene expression data
Registered Report: Intestinal inflammation targets cancer-inducing activity of the microbiota
Registered Report: Tumour vascularization via endothelial differentiation of glioblastoma stem-like cells
Registered Report: The CD47-signal regulatory protein alpha (SIRPa) interaction is a therapeutic target for human solid tumors
Registered Report: Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with elevated c-Myc
Registered Report: Senescence surveillance of pre-malignant hepatocytes limits liver cancer development
Registered Report: Widespread potential for growth-factor-driven resistance to anticancer kinase inhibitors
Registered Report: Tumour micro-environment elicits innate resistance to RAF inhibitors through HGF secretion
Before each replicating lab begins experimental work, critical reagents (often kindly shared by authors of the original studies) are quality checked. For example, all of the cell lines are authenticated and mycoplasma tested, plasmid sequences are sequenced, and rodents are pathogen tested. These quality check steps will be included on the Open Science Framework along with the data for the replication experiments themselves.
Tracking Our Progress
Keep track here as we continue to move projects forward. Our current status as of July 2015 is described below:
Replication experiments identified for each original paper
Protocols transferred to Registered Report format
Review and feedback from original authors (requests for necessary reagents)
The moa were the tallest birds ever to walk the face of the earth. The two largest species, Dinornis robustus and Dinornis novaezelandiae, reached about 3.6 m (12 ft) in height with neck outstretched, and weighed about 230 kg (510 lb).
Kangaroitengaro a te Moa – Lost, like the Moa is lost.
Sequencing the moa genome is a challenging endeavor due the degraded nature of ancient DNA and the large genetic divergence of the moa. Large genetic divergence means the reference genomes required to assemble the target genome are substantially less useful than species with very similar living relatives.
Despite these technical challenges David is optimistic the sequencing attempt will result in the creation of an imperfect yet very useful moa genome. This genome will help to clarify ratite evolution and may even form the foundation of a future attempt at species revival as the science of genetic rescue and de-extinction continues to progress.
The sequencing attempt is being primarily funded via an Experiment.com crowd-sourcing campaign. Please help us to make a meaningful scientific contribution by donating to the project.
All contributions made between Monday 22nd of June 8am PST and Tuesday 23rd of June 8am PST will be matched dollar for dollar by Experiment.com!
June 12, 2015 | Posted by Keith Osiewicz in Workshops |
Back by popular demand, one of our top providers is hosting a Next Generation Sequencing Workshop at UCLA. If you want to use Next Generation Sequencing in your research/clinical testing, but need help with set up, sample prep, data analysis/interpretation, the Next Generation Sequencing Workshop is the place to go.
The 4-day event is run by the UCLA Clinical Microarray Core, an expert in the clinical and research Next Generation Sequencing field. The workshop was created to give researchers/clinicians hands-on experience on all aspects of Next Generation Sequencing including wet lab experience, data analysis sessions, and discussions with experts in the field.
The event will be held from July 13 – 16, 2015 at UCLA. Registration is $1500 for non-UCLA attendees.
This blog post is a guest post from Edword Simpson, technical engineer at Science Exchange lab, RS Calibration.
Ensuring that everything in your laboratory is ready for any upcoming audit is a nail-biting task. The annual FDA audit for compliance with regulatory guidelines, like the current goods manufacturing process (cGMP) is especially tedious. Manufacturing processes and equipment for pharmaceuticals are regulated very carefully by the FDA and require strict adherence to industry standards.
Here are five things that aren’t always given the attention they require and could easily result in regulatory action for failing to comply with cGMP: Read the rest of this entry »
I recently talked to Matt Owens, Executive Director of Harlem Biospace. For anyone interested in biotech, startups, or the up and coming New York biotech scene, his interview below is a must-read. Check it out!
Q: Why was Harlem Biospace created?
Matt: There was so much incredible research taking place at the institutions in New York City, but there was no support system for developing that research into a company. One important first step to building those companies and commercializing that research is affordable lab space. So we built an affordable lab and working space for early-stage life science companies.
Q: What is the goal of Harlem Biospace?
Matt: The goal is to lower the barrier for commercializing a hypothesis into a technology.
Q: What kind of companies are you looking for? What’s the ideal stage and mission of the companies that apply?
Matt: The stages are very early, 1-4 people. That still covers a wide spectrum of readiness to ship a product, because the ideas are very different. It ranges from molecules for drug discovery to people with research tools that are ready to prototype and find early customers.
Most are just funding these projects themselves or have family investors, while a few have investors.
Q: What are the companies in your first batch working on?
Matt: It’s an incredibly diverse group ranging from allergy testing techniques to drug discovery to devices for preserving mouse neurons. The individuals behind them all have strong research backgrounds and a well-articulated plan for developing a company around their idea. Read the rest of this entry »
Here at Science Exchange, we aim to enable efficient scientific collaboration. One of the biggest hurdles researchers face on our site is deciding where to send their requests. Conversely, it can be frustrating for lab admins to receive requests outside their capabilities. With that in mind, we are working on improving our search experience. This update will be available at the end of next month.
In preparation for our improved search experience, we’ve launched a tagging feature for labs. Labs can apply tags, such as equipment names, to their services, which will allow researchers to narrow their search to only labs that have the machine they need. Also, labs that have signed agreements with Science Exchange, like our Non-Disclosure Agreement, will receive storefront tags, allowing researchers who require that level of protection to quickly identify appropriate labs.
If you’re a lab admin on Science Exchange, we encourage you to begin tagging your services and storefront now! This will ensure that researchers will be able to find your lab more easily with our new search experience.
February 20, 2015 | Posted by Tess Mayall in Company |
Science Exchange CEO Elizabeth Iorns was on This Week in Startups for an hour-long deep dive into the state of science. Listen and learn about everything from cancer biology to AI to scientific publishing!
February 9, 2015 | Posted by Reproducibility Project Core Team in Reproducibility |
“Reproducibility is actually the heart of science. The fact that not everything is reproducible is not a surprise.” – Eric Lander, head of the Broad Institute at MIT in a recent Washington Post article.
“We’re always in a gray area between perfect truth and complete falsehood,” The best researchers can do is edge closer to truth. – Giovanni Parmigiani, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in a recent ScienceNews article
The Reproducibility Project, a collaboration between Science Exchange and the Center for Open Science, is independently replicating some of the most impactful studies in cancer biology. Along the way, not only will the collaboration shepherd 50 studies through the process of replication and meta-analysis, but it will also help to mature the discussion around reproducibility more generally. Where do the biggest challenges lie? What are some of the key predictors of whether experiments are reproducible? The answer to these questions will be critical as the reproducibility initiative gains traction.
Since December, experimental work has begun on four more replication studies, and three more Registered Reports have been published in eLife (with a fourth* accepted and on the way):
In addition, Sean Morrison, director of the Children’s Medical Institute at the University of Texas–Southwestern and a senior editor at eLife, has written an editorial introducing the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology, highlighting the role this project could play in beginning to reform scientific discovery methods to maximize reproducibility. He notes that:
“to be responsible stewards of the public’s investment in this work we have to maximize the pace of discovery and the efficiency with which discoveries get translated to the benefit of patients. By gauging the fraction of high-impact results that are not reproducible, we can consider what further steps should be taken to promote good science….[M]easuring the magnitude of the problem with efforts like the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology is an important step in the right direction” (2).
Recently I spoke with Ries Robinson from our lab Medici Technologies. Everything about Medici Technologies is captivating, from the story behind their unique name to their interesting approach to data analysis. Check out more on their specialized approach below!
Q: What is Medici Technologies’ specialty?
Ries: We analyze data for groups or companies that have data that is so complex that it exceeds their resources. We are a consulting firm that provides expertise in data analysis.
Q: Why did you choose Medici as your name?
Ries: The Medici Effect is the idea that significant breakthroughs in innovation and technology often occur when you cross-pollinate fields. It stems from the Renaissance. For example, a Renaissance family would make the plumber work with the weaver, or someone with a different skill set, and that’s part of what initiated the Renaissance movement.
A lot of what we do is pull different ideas or algorithms from different places. Historically, we’ve worked on complex data analysis of optical signals for measuring chemicals or analytes in the body, but some of our greatest breakthroughs have been by taking algorithms from non-traditional sectors. For example, we can utilize song recognition and gesture recognition tools to classify tissue types. Utilizing methods developed in other applications has been extremely beneficial. Read the rest of this entry »