http://www.gopubmed.org/web/gopubmed/1?WEB01rxhsmh3ufe2qI2I1I00f01000j10040001rl 检索策略 FOXP2 and speech and language =foxp2 66 of 80 documents semantically analyzed Top Years Publications 2008 11 2009 10 2007 9 2003 9 2006 7 2002 7 2005 6 2004 6 2001 1 Top Countries Publications USA 22 United Kingdom 17 Germany 9 Japan 7 Canada 2 New Zealand 2 Italy 1 China 1 Finland 1 1 2 Top Cities Publications Oxford 12 London 5 Los Angeles 4 Berlin 4 Iowa City 3 Leipzig 3 Kodaira 2 Ann Arbor 2 Auckland 2 Providence 1 Fukuoka 1 Gainesville 1 Tübingen 1 New Haven 1 Stanford 1 Hamamatsu 1 Matsumoto 1 St. Louis 1 Houston 1 Madison 1 1 2 1 2 3 Top Journals Publications Am J Hum Genet 5 Am J Med Genet A 4 Curr Biol 3 J Speech Lang Hear Res 2 Mol Biol Evol 2 Cell 2 J Commun Disord 2 Nature 2 Brain Res 1 J Forensic Sci 1 Eur J Hum Genet 1 Eur J Med Genet 1 Trends Genet 1 M S-med Sci 1 N Engl J Med 1 J Comp Neurol 1 J Neurophysiol 1 Trends Neurosci 1 Gene 1 Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 ... 19 Top Authors Publications Fisher S 11 Lai C 6 Monaco A 6 Enard W 5 Scharff C 5 Vargha-Khadem F 5 Vernes S 4 Rochefort C 3 Geschwind D 3 Coupe A 3 Gadian D 3 Krause J 2 MacDermot K 2 Fujita E 2 Häsler S 2 Nicod J 2 Groszer M 2 Davies K 2 Pääbo S 2 Momoi M 2 1 2 3 ... 19 1 2 3 ... 30 Top Terms Publications foxp2 66 Language 63 Genes 60 Forkhead Transcription Factors 57 Humans 56 Mutation 41 Transcription Factors 38 Language Disorders 34 Animals 33 Repressor Proteins 21 Proteins 19 Mice 18 Evolution 16 Speech 16 Speech Disorders 15 learning 14 Vocalization, Animal 14 Phenotype 14 chromosome 13 Point Mutation 13 1 2 3 ... 30 http://arrowsmith.psych.uic.edu/cgi-bin/arrowsmith_uic/umls.cgi?task=filterID=30626 Start A-Literature C-Literature B-list Filter Literature Semantic Filters This filter can be used to focus your search on B-terms that belong to certain semantic categories by selecting them below. You may also expand categories by clicking on the corresponding + button, and select from the subcategories. Activities Behaviors Anatomy Chemicals Drugs Concepts Ideas Devices Disorders Genes Molecular Sequences, and Gene Protein Names Geographic Areas Living Beings Objects Occupations Organizations Phenomena Physiology Procedures Keep B-terms that do not exist in the medical thesaurus Start A-Literature C-Literature B-list Filter Literature A-query: FOXP2 C-query: speech and language The B-list contains title words and phrases (terms) that appeared in both the A and the C literature. 80 articles appeared in both literatures and were not included in the process of computing the B-list but can be viewed here . The results of this search are saved under id # 30626 and can be accessed from the start page after you leave this session. There are 54 terms on the current B-list ( 26 are predicted to be relevant), which is shown ranked according to predicted relevance. The list can be further trimmed down using the filters listed in the left margin. To assess whether there appears to be a biologically significant relationship between the AB and BC literatures for specific B-terms, please select one or more B-terms and then click the button to view the corresponding AB and BC literatures. Use Ctrl to select multiple B-terms. Rank Prob B-term 1 0.98 language impairment2 0.98 developmental verbal dyspraxia3 0.98 verbal dyspraxia4 0.98 auditory hallucination5 0.97 neurodevelopmental6 0.97 schizophrenia auditory7 0.97 developmental dyslexia8 0.97 dyslexia9 0.96 language disorder10 0.95 speech delay autism11 0.94 autism spectrum12 0.94 |--autism spectrum disorder13 0.94 patient schizophrenia14 0.94 hallucination15 0.92 epilepsy16 0.91 spectrum disorder17 0.91 dyspraxia18 0.88 speech disorder19 0.88 huntington disease20 0.87 neurodevelopmental disorder21 0.84 schizophrenia auditory hallucination22 0.83 psychosis23 0.82 schizophrenia24 0.78 posttraumatic stress disorder25 0.68 huntington26 0.67 memory27 0.64 autism28 0.63 delay autism spectrum29 0.25 deficit30 0.20 psychiatric disorder31 0.17 ataxia32 0.15 talk33 0.07 impairment34 0.06 spinocerebellar35 0.05 |--spinocerebellar ataxia36 0.04 stress37 0.01 parallel38 0.00 disorder39 0.00 loss40 0.00 mutation41 0.00 atrophy42 0.00 related43 0.00 genomic44 0.00 history45 0.00 symptom46 0.00 view47 0.00 fair48 0.00 infection49 0.00 additional50 0.00 disease51 0.00 clinical symptom52 0.00 red53 0.00 absence54 0.00 activity Restrict by semantic categories? job id # 30626 started Thu Nov 12 06:48:37 2009 Max_citations: 50000 Stoplist: /var/www/html/arrowsmith_uic/data/stopwords_pubmed Ngram_max: 3 30626 Search ARROWSMITH A A_query_raw: FOXP2 Thu Nov 12 06:48:49 2009 A query = FOXP2 started Thu Nov 12 06:48:49 2009 A query resulted in 154 titles 30626 Search ARROWSMITH C C_query_raw: speech and language Thu Nov 12 06:49:11 2009 C: speech and language 33512 A: pubmed_query_A 154 AC: ( FOXP2 ) AND ( speech and language ) 80 C query = speech and language started Thu Nov 12 06:49:12 2009 C query resulted in 33512 titles A AND C query resulted in 80 titles 355 B-terms ready on Thu Nov 12 06:51:51 2009 Sem_filter: Disorders 54 B-terms left after filter executed Thu Nov 12 07:27:49 2009 Viewed B-terms Thu Nov 12 07:29:25 2009 dyslexia Viewed B-terms Thu Nov 12 07:30:49 2009 language impairment Viewed B-terms Thu Nov 12 07:31:18 2009 developmental verbal dyspraxia Viewed B-terms Thu Nov 12 07:31:36 2009 language disorder Viewed B-terms Thu Nov 12 07:31:53 2009 language disorder B-list on Thu Nov 12 07:32:17 2009 1 language impairment 2 developmental verbal dyspraxia 3 verbal dyspraxia 4 auditory hallucination 5 neurodevelopmental 6 schizophrenia auditory 7 developmental dyslexia 8 dyslexia 9 language disorder 10 speech delay autism 11 autism spectrum 12 autism spectrum disorder 13 patient schizophrenia 14 hallucination 15 epilepsy 16 spectrum disorder 17 dyspraxia 18 speech disorder 19 huntington disease 20 neurodevelopmental disorder 21 schizophrenia auditory hallucination 22 psychosis 23 schizophrenia 24 posttraumatic stress disorder 25 huntington 26 memory http://www.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2009/11/225047.shtm 《自然》：研究发现决定人类语言功能关键基因 为什么人能说话而黑猩猩不能？答案可能就在基因FOXP2 为什么人能说话而其生物学近亲黑猩猩却不能？英国《自然》杂志11月12日刊登研究报告说，答案可能就在基因FOXP2上，这个基因的人类版本与黑猩猩版本仅有两点小小的不同，但却因此赋予人类独特的语言能力。 美国加利福尼亚大学等机构的研究人员报告说，他们发现FOXP2基因在人类语言功能形成过程中发挥着核心作用。这个基因会指导合成一种特殊蛋白质，这种蛋白质又会与DNA（脱氧核糖核酸）结合，对其他基因的功能造成影响。因此，虽然实验显示这个基因的人类版本与黑猩猩版本只有两处氨基酸不同，但在同样的培养环境下，该基因的人类版本会增强61个基因的作用，同时抑制另外51个基因的作用。 在这些受影响的基因中，一些与大脑发育有关，FOXP2基因可以通过它们影响大脑中的语言功能区域和神经网络。另一些受影响的基因与咽喉部位的软组织发育有关，FOXP2基因可以通过它们来影响与语言功能有关的器官结构。 研究人员说，这表明在人类获得语言交流能力的进化历程中，FOXP2基因发挥了重要作用。研究人员将进行深入研究，进一步揭示人类掌握语言的机制。 更多阅读 《自然》发表论文摘要（英文） 《科学》相关报道（英文） http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/1111/1 Next Article Enlarge Image Tangled web. The network of genes that work in concert with both the chimp and human FOXP2 is complex. Large green hubs are the most important genes; lines that connect two genes indicate whether their expression goes up (red) or down (blue) together. Credit: G. Konopka et al., Nature 462 (12 November 2009); (Inset) Tom Brakefield/Stockbyte What's Behind Our Gift of Gab? By Jon Cohen Science NOW Daily News 11 November 2009 For the first time, scientists have compared a vast network of human genes responsible for speech and language with an analogous network in chimpanzees. The findings help shed light on how we moved beyond hoots and grunts to develop vast vocabularies, syntax, and grammar. The centerpiece of the study is FOXP2 , a so-called transcription factor that turns other genes on and off. The gene rose to fame in 2001 when researchers showed that a mutant form of it caused an inherited speech and language problem in three generations of the KE family in England. The following year, researchers showed that normal FOXP2 differed by only two amino acids--the building blocks of proteins--between humans and chimpanzees . Analyzing more ancestral species, they further showed that the gene was highly conserved all the way up to chimps, suggesting that it played a prominent role in our unique ability to communicate complex thoughts . Genes rarely act alone, however, so a team led by neurogeneticist Daniel Geschwind of the University of California, Los Angeles, decided to suss out FOXP2 's partners. Geschwind, Genevieve Konopka, who is one of his postdocs, and colleagues first inserted the human and chimp versions of FOXP2 into cells derived from human neurons. In all, they identified 116 genes that were turned on or off differently by human FOXP2 versus chimp FOXP2 . The researchers found similar results in brain tissue from both species. The data allowed the team to make complex maps of FOXP2 's vast genetic network that revealed other critical interactions (see diagram). These genes become outstanding candidates for being part of the language circuit, says Geschwind. Among the interesting genes that stood out were ones linked to craniofacial formation and development of the central nervous system. Mutant forms of some of these genes are also known to cause motor-related speech defects and mental retardation. Faraneh Vargha-Khadem, a cognitive neuroscientist at the Institute of Child Health in London who has studied the KE family for more than 20 years, says the new genetic data nicely fit with her own observations about the mutant FOXP2 disorder. It's very consistent with what we proposed, and it's exciting to have this evidence, she says. As her work has shown, orofacial problems in the KE family members are strongly related to their cognitive difficulties with speech and language. So the mind and the mechanics are intimately linked. It makes sense these two things have to work together, she says. The findings, however, do not mesh well with work from some other leaders in the field. Simon Fisher, a geneticist at Oxford University's Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics whose lab discovered the KE family's FOXP2 mutation, reported last year that FOXP2 turned down CNTNAP2 , which in turn had a significant link to a language impairment that compromises a person's ability to use and understand words. But CNTNAP2 did not appear to be regulated by FOXP2 in the Geschwind lab's new analysis. Both Fisher and Geschwind say the discrepancy may have to do with the different cell lines and assays used in the two studies. In another cautionary note, geneticist Wolfgang Enard of the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who helped discover the difference between human and chimp FOXP2 and has developed a related mouse model , says he so far has failed to find similar chimp-human differences in gene regulation in his own lab. He says it is now critical to repeat the study with more neuronal cell lines. If the findings are right, he says, the impact would be enormous. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7270/abs/nature08549.html Nature 462 , 213-217 (12 November 2009) | :10.1038/nature08549:10.1038/nature08549 ; Received 26 August 2009; Accepted 1 October 2009 Human-specific transcriptional regulation of CNS development genes by FOXP2 Genevieve Konopka 1 , 3 , Jamee M. Bomar 1 , 3 , Kellen Winden 1 , 3 , Giovanni Coppola 3 , Zophonias O. Jonsson 5 , Fuying Gao 3 , Sophia Peng 3 , Todd M. Preuss 6 , James A. Wohlschlegel 5 Daniel H. Geschwind 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Program in Neurogenetics, Semel Institute and Department of Psychiatry, Departments of Neurology, Human Genetics, and, Biological Chemistry, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA Division of Neuroscience and Center for Behavioral Neuroscience, Yerkes National Primate Research Center, and Department of Pathology Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, USA Correspondence to: Genevieve Konopka 1 , 3 Daniel H. Geschwind 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to G.K. (Email: gena@alum.mit.edu ) or D.H.G. (Email: dhg@ucla.edu ). Top of page The signalling pathways controlling both the evolution and development of language in the human brain remain unknown. So far, the transcription factor FOXP2 (forkhead box P2) is the only gene implicated in Mendelian forms of human speech and language dysfunction 1, 2, 3 . It has been proposed that the amino acid composition in the human variant of FOXP2 has undergone accelerated evolution, and this two-amino-acid change occurred around the time of language emergence in humans 4, 5 . However, this remains controversial, and whether the acquisition of these amino acids in human FOXP2 has any functional consequence in human neurons remains untested. Here we demonstrate that these two human-specific amino acids alter FOXP2 function by conferring differential transcriptional regulation in vitro . We extend these observations in vivo to human and chimpanzee brain, and use network analysis to identify novel relationships among the differentially expressed genes. These data provide experimental support for the functional relevance of changes in FOXP2 that occur on the human lineage, highlighting specific pathways with direct consequences for human brain development and disease in the central nervous system (CNS). Because FOXP2 has an important role in speech and language in humans, the identified targets may have a critical function in the development and evolution of language circuitry in humans.
Overcoming the language barrier: writing in English for non-native authors 在本帖中， 理文编辑 学术总监Dr. Daniel McGowan将向大家展示克服语言障碍，非英语母语科研人员如何写作? Journal editors, overloaded with quality manuscripts, may make decisions on manuscripts based on formal criteria, like grammar or spelling. Don't get rejected for avoidable mistakes; make sure your manuscript looks perfect (quote from a senior executive at a large international publishing house). Scientific writing is difficult enough for many authors who have English as their first language; for non-native English-speaking authors, writing a paper in English represents a massive challenge that can make or break their papers chances of publication. With increased pressure on publication space and increased demands on editors time many journals are introducing language screening protocols to check submissions before they reach the editors desk; some editors simply choose to overlook papers that are too poorly written to consider or send for review in the knowledge that, among the submissions they receive, will be well written studies containing interesting and robust science. However, all is not lost for non-native English-speaking authors: by being aware of some of the most common scientific writing language errors and how to avoid them, you can improve the quality of your paper and increase its chances of being accepted. It is helpful to think of the writing process in the same way that you think about performing experiments; that is, the language needs to be easily and accurately understood by the reader, without multiple possible interpretations arising. In experiments, we use controls to rule out alternative hypotheses. In language, we must avoid ambiguities and unnecessary text (such as repetition and redundancies) to get our message across clearly. Scientific writing should possess what I call the three Cs: clarity, conciseness and correctness (accuracy). The key to achieving this is to be as brief and specific as possible without omitting any details that might be essential for the reader to fully understand your meaning. In other words, say no more than you need to accurately convey your message. Although writing that fails to meet this standard is sometimes described as sloppy or lazy writing, authors are frequently unaware that what they have written is unclear and ambiguous. Thus, attention to detail and an appreciation of how your writing could be misinterpreted are essential. What follows is just a small selection of error types that, when present in large numbers, could result in your paper going straight to the rejected pile. Articles/Plural vs singular Articles (a/the) are adjectives that modify nouns. Where they are used incorrectly the reader can be left wondering if you are referring to a specific thing or to a non-specific item or category. Worse, they could interpret the text incorrectly and make a wrong assumption. Incorrect use of articles can also lead to confusion relating to singular vs plural senses. The word the should be used in conjunction with a noun referring to a particular item or group of items (it can be used with both plural and singular nouns); for example, the sections were/the section was then stained with HE implies that the sections you had referred to in recent sentences were stained. By contrast, a should be used in conjunction with non-specific nouns; for example, a section was then stained infers that a single section, any section, was stained. A should only be used to refer to a single item or category, and should not be used in conjunction with plural nouns; that is, a sections would be incorrect. Asian authors frequently leave articles out of sentences making them sound awkward and unnatural, which would be the case when omitting the the in adenovirus was injected into the fourth ventricle. The antibody was injected into the hippocampus (articles required to specify a particular antibody, presumably already referred to in the text, and a specific hippocampus, belonging to a subject already described). A new method of extraction was devised (a used rather than the because this statement introduces this method to the reader; therefore it is non-specific at that time. Once introduced to the reader, the new method of extraction should be used to refer to that method in the specific sense). Nouns are used in the plural sense by adding an s to the end (in most cases). In the absence of an article, it can sometimes be unclear if the wrong sense (plural vs singular) has been used. For example, in the sentence Acetyl group was added, the reader is not clear whether the author means An acetyl group was added or perhaps Acetyl groups were added. Thus, when referring to multiple items, the plural sense should be used to avoid potential confusion. This is commonly forgotten when describing figures (use arrowheads rather than arrowhead where there is more than one in the figure; likewise, use solid bars rather than solid bar when referring to a bar chart with multiple bars). A biopsy wa s obtained (describing a single biopsy). Biopsies were obtained from eight patients (no article necessary unless these biopsies had already been introduced to the reader, in which case they would need to be referred to in the specific sense The biopsies were obtained). Commas, hyphens and which Used incorrectly these three elements of writing can introduce ambiguities, and the potential for subsequent misunderstanding, into your writing. For example, in the sentence Because A42 levels were elevated in 75% of AD patients in studies using our method , it is critical to obtain fresh samples, moving the comma after method to follow the word patients (or addition of a new comma there) would completely change the meaning. Similarly, in the phrase calcium-induced calcium release, omission of the hyphen completely changes the meaning of the sentence. When the hyphen is present calcium-induced is a compound adjective modifying the noun calcium release; when the hyphen is absent, induced is a verb describing the effect of calcium on calcium release. Thus, it is critically important to use hyphens with such compound adjectives to avoid misunderstandings. However, no hyphen is required to combine an adverb and an adjective; for example highly intense staining and high-intensity staining are both correct, but highly-intense staining is not. Glutamate receptors mediated synaptic plasticity (tells the reader that Glu receptors are involved in the development of synaptic plasticity). Glutamate receptor -mediated synaptic plasticity (identifies synaptic plasticity involving Glu receptors as the subject of the sentence; note the change from plural to singular because receptor is being used in a general sense and not to refer to a single receptor). The word which, when used incorrectly, can also induce considerable confusion. It is often used incorrectly instead of that. Both introduce clauses that modify nouns, but that should be used to introduce defining or restrictive clauses and which should be used to introduce non-defining or non-restrictive clauses. For example, in the sections that were positive for GFP were subjected to cell counting procedures, the that introduces a defining clause that defines exactly which sections were subjected to cell counting. By contrast, in the sections, which were positive for GFP, were subjected to cell counting procedures, the sections that were subjected to cell counting are rather loosely defined, possibly referring to sections that have been described in the previous or recent sentences. The clause about GFP positivity provides the reader with additional information, but is not essential to understand the meaning of the sentence; that is, it is disposable. Because which is used in this way, writers need to ensure that it is absolutely clear what the which is actually referring to, possibly whatever immediately precedes it (most commonly) or possibly the main subject of the sentence. For example, the sentence microglia migrated to the site of the lesion, which was associated with increased levels of ED-1 is somewhat vague, because it is unclear if the which is referring to the lesion or to the migration of microglia. If there is ever any doubt about such a sentence, it is best to rephrase it completely; for example migration of microglia to the site of the lesion was associated with increased levels of ED-1 or microglia migrated to the site of the lesion, and immunohistochemical analysis revealed increased levels of ED-1 at this site, both of which are unambiguous. Data were normalised to the housekeeping gene actin, which was used as an internal reference (here, the which refers to actin, which is therefore the subject of the following clause). Data were normalised to the internal reference housekeeping gene actin, revealing increases in the levels of (to refer to the analyzed data in a subsequent clause, which would be inappropriate and introduce an ambiguity). Respectively The word respectively is frequently misused by native and non-native English-speaking authors alike, and, as with the other elements described above, its misuse can lead to confusion and ambiguities. It is often clearer not to use this term at all, but it can be useful to economise on words where there are two corresponding lists. For example, it is quite useful in the sentence The latencies to withdrawal from a painful stimulus in control and transgenic mice were 3 s and 2 s, respectively, meaning that control mice withdrew after 3 s and transgenic mice withdrew after 2 s. If describing something much shorter than The latencies to withdrawal from a painful stimulus, for example average weights, respectively is not necessary; Control mice weighed 203 g and transgenic mice weighed 172 g is better than Control mice and transgenic mice weighed 203 g and 172 g, respectively, which contains one additional word. Note that respectively can only be used to refer to two corresponding lists at one time, and cannot be used to refer to more. Thus, the sentence The latencies to withdrawal from 5 g and 10 g painful stimuli in control and transgenic mice were 3 s and 2 s, respectively is incorrect and impossible to understand. The proportions of monocytes positive for CD163, CD7 and CD11a were 45%, 63% and 70%, respectively (the respectively makes clear that the three percentages refer to each of the three markers in the same order). Comparisons Comparisons are frequently made in the results sections of papers, and it is especially important to compare like with like. One common error made by non-native authors is overlooking this simple rule and leaving the reader to make an assumption about what is being compared. At best, the language will appear unnatural but the meaning clear; at worst, the wrong meaning can be imparted. As an example, the sentence Expression levels of p53 in smokers were compared with non-smokers should actually be Expression levels of p53 in smokers were compared with those in non-smokers. Another frequent error with comparisons is the use of relative terms (for example, higher, greater, more) without a reference. In the sentence transgenic mice showed higher levels of cortisol it is unclear what these levels were higher than; thus, a than clause, such as than control mice, is required. The reader might make this assumption automatically, but in some cases alternative inferences will be possible; the goal of accurate scientific writing has to be the removal of all assumption. Because comparisons of results are critical to their interpretation and, ultimately, their significance, it is critical that you convey to the reader exactly what is being compared. Finally, the word between should be used for comparisons of two findings, but among should be used for comparisons of three or more. The levels of ubiquitinated proteins were higher in patients than in control subjects (the than clause provides a reference for the term higher). The levels of ubiquitinated proteins in patients were higher than those in control subjects (unlike the first example, where patients and controls are both on the same side of the comparing term, that is, they are both mentioned after higher, here, patients and controls appear either side of the comparing term; therefore, it is necessary to add than those to compare like with like). There was no significant difference in the levels of ubiquitinated proteins between patients and controls (between is appropriate here for a comparison of two groups). There were no significant differences in the levels of ubiquitinated proteins among AD patients, PD patients and controls (among is appropriate for comparisons of more than two groups; note the change to the plural differences because more than one type of difference is possible with more than two groups). Protein and gene nomenclature One very common cause of confusion is use of the incorrect nomenclature to describe changes in the levels of genes, their mRNAs or the proteins that they encode. Constant changing from describing gene expression levels to protein levels and back again can also add to the confusion, especially because the names are often the same. Therefore, it needs to be completely clear to the reader exactly what level you are talking about. Nomenclature differs among species, but generally gene names should be described in italics and protein names in normal font. Case (upper vs lower) is often used to distinguish between species: generally, for mouse, rat and chicken, gene names are spelt with an upper case first letter and the rest in lower case; for humans, primates and some domestic species, gene names are spelt with all capital letters. Descriptions of mRNAs generally use the gene name (for example, levels of p53 mRNA) or you can refer to the mRNA for a given protein (for example levels of the mRNA for p53). The word expression is usually used to describe gene expression and can induce confusion when used to describe protein and mRNA levels; in most cases referring to proteins the word expression can simply be replaced with the word level (or levels). Be aware of the correct nomenclature for your species of subject and ensure that everywhere you refer to a protein, gene or mRNA by name in the text it is completely clear which of those you are referring to. Expression of the Igf1 gene was increased in our transgenic mice (use if italics and the word gene ensure that no confusion is possible here). The levels of IGF1 mRNA were elevated in our patient group (correct nomenclature for human genes). The serum IGF1 levels were elevated in the transgenic mice (here, it is clear that the protein is being referred to; capitals are appropriate in this case, even though the species is mouse, because it is the correct nomenclature for the mouse protein). Summary These are just a few of the most common errors made by non-native English-speaking authors in their scientific writing. There are of course many more that cant be dealt with here, but they all have the same result: a loss of clarity and/or introduction of ambiguity. If you apply the three Cs when writing your next paper, with an awareness of some of the traps that can lead to ambiguities or a loss of clarity, you will automatically improve your chances of getting your study published. If you also focus on removing any repetition and redundancy, and apply attention to detail to ensure that your meaning is clearly conveyed in each sentence, you will increase them further. As a general rule, it is a good idea to keep sentences simple, using shorter expressions wherever possible, rather than long, complicated and confusing. The slogan for the Beijing Olympics was One world, One dream; when it comes to scientific writing you should think One sentence, One idea. The simplest solution is always the best. Exercise Look at your most recent paper written in English and try to identify some of the errors described above. Post these examples on the forum as well as your suggested solutions to them. I look forward to seeing your efforts to correct these problems by applying the three Cs, and will offer comments on your solutions as well as offering a few of my own. Good luck! 练习 请各位检查一下近期自己写过的英语论文，回顾文中是否存在上述列举的错误。欢迎各位积极贴出典型的错误例句以及建议的修改方法，也期待大家应用上面说到的三C标准来纠正这些错误。我将逐一对大家修改好的例句进行回复，并列举出我自己遇到的此类问题。祝各位好运！ 在这里还需提请各位注意，Dr. McGowan 的母语是英语，无法阅读中文，因此请大家尽量使用英文回帖，如有任何需要与他沟通的学术和语言问题也请使用英语，Dr. McGowan 会及时回复大家的。 Dr. Daniel McGowan 曾任 Nature Reviews Neuroscience 副编辑，负责约稿，管理和撰写期刊内容。于2006年加入理文编辑（Edanz Group） 并从2008年起担任学术总监。Dr. Daniel McGowan 有超过十年的博士后和研究生阶段实验室研究经验，主要致力于神经退化疾病、分子及细胞生物学、蛋白质生物化学、蛋白质组学和基因组学。
标签: 语言
