柳叶刀2013年最新镁合金药物血管支架临床文章 Safety and performance of the drug-eluting absorbable metal scaff old (DREAMS) in patients with de-novo coronary lesions: 12 month results of the prospective, multicentre, first-in-man BIOSOLVE-I trial Published Online January 15, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(12)61765-6 Nature子刊的报道 DREAMS of a bioabsorbable stent coming true Nature Reviews Cardiology 10,120 (2012); published online 5 February 2013; doi:10.1038/nrcardio.2013.10
逗号、连字符和“which” 如 果以上述三种形式使用错误，将导致写作意思表达模糊，进而引起读者的误解。例如，“Because Aβ42 levels were elevated in 75% of AD patients in studies using our method , it is critical to obtain fresh samples”，如果把“method”后的逗号移到“patients”后面(或在这里再加入新的逗号)将完全改变句子的意思。同样，在短语 “calcium-induced calcium release”中，如果删除了连字符也将完全改变句子的意思。如果使用了连字符，“calcium-induced”是复合性形容词，修饰名词 “calcium release”；如果不使用连字符“induced”则是动词，描述“effect of calcium on calcium release”。因此，使用连字符构成的复合性形容词对于避免误解是非常重要的。然而，介词和形容词之间是不需要加连字符的，例如“highly intense staining”和“high-intensity staining”都是正确的，但是“highly-intense staining”的用法是错误的。 • “Glutamate receptors mediated synaptic plasticity…” (此句子告诉作者Glu受体参与突触可塑性生成) • “Glutamate receptor-mediated synaptic plasticity…” (与Glu受体相关的突触可塑性成了句子的主语；注意这里“receptor”由复数形式改为单数形式，但并不是指单一一种受体而是泛指受体) “which” 一字如果使用不当，也可引发诸多混淆。它常与“that”混用。“that”和“which”都引导用于修饰名词的从句，但“that”用于引导限定性从 句，而“which”用于引导非限定性从句。例如，“the sections that were positive for GFP were subjected to cell counting procedures”，在这个句子中，“that”引导的是限定性从句明确规定了是哪些切片用于细胞计数。相比之下，“the sections, which were positive for GFP, were subjected to cell counting procedures”，在这个句子中，对用于细胞计数的切片的规定相当宽松，可能指的是前一个句子或相临句子中提及的切片。提及GFP阳性的从句可以向 读者提供一些额外的信息，但对于理解该句子的意义来说并非必不可少；也就是说，它是可有可无的。考虑到“which”的这种角色，研究人员在撰写论文时应 明确“which”一词确切指代的东西 — 有时指代的是该词所紧跟的事物(这是最常见的)，有时指代的则是该句子的主语。例如，“microglia migrated to the site of the lesion, which was associated with increased levels of ED-1”，这个句子就写得含混不清，因为我们很难确定“which”所指的到底是lesion，还是migration of microglia。如果读者可能会对此类句子产生疑惑，最好是推翻重写；例如，可以改为“migration of microglia to the site of the lesion was associated with increased levels of ED-1”，也可改为“microglia migrated to the site of the lesion, and immunohistochemical analysis revealed increased levels of ED-1 at this site”。两者均无歧义。 • “Data were normalised to the housekeeping gene actin, which was used as an internal reference…” (在这个句子中, “which”指代的是actin，因此actin也就是该从句的主语) • “Data were normalised to the internal reference housekeeping gene actin, revealing increases in the levels of…” (如果在后续从句中提及所分析的资料，使用“which”不仅没有必要，反而会引发歧义) 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 Aβ42 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). Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监
http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?productid=1172pageaction=displayproduct pdf http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/388/1172/ER209_MultigenePanels_ExecutiveSummary_20120629.pdf Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1986 for monitoring progression in patients with prostate cancer, and later approved for the detection of the disease in symptomatic men (but not for screening asymptomatic men).14 A meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled trials of screening using PSA testing alone, or in combination with digital rectal examination, suggested no evidence of benefit in reducing mortality,15,16 and some evidence of harms from overdiagnosis.16 Amidst substantial debate,17-23 the argument has been made for developing more accurate screening tests, including possible genetic markers. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are minute inherited variations in the DNA sequence. SNPs occur about once in every 800 base pairs24 and are the most common type of genetic variation in humans. Since 2001, there have been about 1,000 published studies reporting associations between prostate cancer, SNPs, and other genetic variants. To date, genome-wide association (GWA) studies have identified replicated associations between prostate cancer and almost 40 specific SNPs.25-34 The magnitude of the odds ratios (ORs) in these studies was in the range of 1.1 to 2.1, that is, of low penetrance. It is generally accepted that information on single low-penetrance alleles has no value in screening,35-38 but a small to moderate number of common, low-penetrance variants, in combination, may account for a high proportion of a disease36,39,40 and may be useful in predicting the risk for disease.41 The aim of this review is to assess the evidence on the possible value of SNP panels in the detection of and prediction of risk for prostate cancer, and their value in predicting disease prognosis in affected men.
为什么一些癌症患者在经过化疗获得缓解后肿瘤依然就会复发？这个问题长期以来一直让肿瘤学家们争论不休。本周发表在《血液》杂志的一项研究，发现在某些特定的血液肿瘤，慢分裂肿瘤干细胞可以摆脱通常针对快分裂细胞的化学治疗的影响，是以后癌症复发的根源。 论文摘要 Blood . 2012 May 29 . Cell lineage analysis of acute leukemia relapse uncovers the role of replication-rate heterogeneity and miscrosatellite instability. Abstract Human cancers display substantial intra-tumoral genetic heterogeneity, which facilitates tumor survival under changing microenvironmental conditions. Tumor substructure and its impact on disease progression and relapse are incompletely understood. In the current study, a high-throughput method that utilizes neutral somatic mutations accumulated in individual cells to reconstruct cell lineage trees was applied to hundreds of cells of human acute leukemia harvested from multiple patients at diagnosis and at relapse. The reconstructed cell lineage trees of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients demonstrated that leukemia cells at relapse were shallow (divide rarely) compared to cells at diagnosis and were closely related to their stem cell subpopulation, implying that in these instances relapse might have originated from rarely-dividing stem cells. In contrast, among acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL) patients, no differences in cell depth were observed between diagnosis and relapse. In one case of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), at blast crisis, most of the cells at relapse were mismatch-repair deficient. In almost all leukemia cases, more than one lineage was observed at relapse, indicating that diverse mechanisms can promote relapse in the same patient. In conclusion, diverse relapse mechanisms can be observed by systematic reconstruction of cell lineage trees of leukemia patients. 请看科学家杂志对此项研究的评论 http://the-scientist.com/2012/05/31/why-some-cancers-come-back/ Why Some Cancers Come Back By Cristina Luiggi | May 31, 2012 Why cancer comes back in some patients after chemotherapy has beaten it into remission has been a matter of debate for oncologists. In a new study published in Blood this week, researchers at The Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, found that in certain blood cancers, slowly-dividing cancer stem cells that are impervious to the actions of chemotherapy—which commonly target fast-dividing cells—are the source for future recurring cancers. Led by computational biologist Ehud Shapiro, the researchers reconstructed lineage trees of cells sampled from patients with newly diagnosed leukemia and from patients in which leukemia had returned. They found that in some cases, the source of the recurring cancer cells were not rapidly dividing cancer cells that had dodged chemotherapy, but the slowly-dividing stem cells at the root of the tree. “We know that in many cases, chemotherapy alone is not able to cure leukemia,” Shapiro said in a press release. “Our results suggest that to completely eliminate it, we must look for a treatment that will not only eliminate the rapidly dividing cells, but also target the cancer stem cells that are resistant to conventional treatment.”
http://scienceblog.com/ Insomnia takes toll on tinnitus patients Africa sitting on vast reservoir of water Your left side is your best side Mild winters are detrimental to butterflies Thin TVs? You ain’t seen nothing yet State of Himalayan glaciers less alarming than feared Photoreceptor transplant restores vision in mice
注：科学界与治疗癌症越来越近了，类似于下面研究的很有希望的研究近年来不断出现。 亨丁頓舞蹈症的介绍请大家参考维基百科： http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%A8%E4%B8%81%E9%A0%93%E8%88%9E%E8%B9%88%E7%97%87 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntington's_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodegeneration --------------------------------------------- Huntington’s Disease Protects from Cancer? Swedish researchers have discovered that patients with the neurodegenerative disorder had half the normal expected risk of developing tumors. By Bob Grant | April 13, 2012 Scientists reviewing medical records from Swedish hospitals have found that a surprisingly low number of people with Huntington’s disease developed cancer over the course of nearly 40 years. Only 91 out of more than 1,500 Huntington’s patients (~6 percent) also came down with cancer from 1969 to 2008 in the Scandinavian country, researchers from Lund University and the Stanford University School of Medicine reported in The Lancet Oncology this week. This is 53 percent lower than levels of cancer seen in the general population. Huntington’s disease is caused by a genetic mutation that disrupts the production of proteins called glutamines, and earlier studies had shown similar cancer protective effects in other so-called polyglutamine diseases. “ Clarification of the mechanism underlying the link between polyglutamine diseases and cancer in the future could lead to the development of new treatment options for cancer ,” Jianguang Ji, lead author from the Center for Primary Health Care Research at Lund University, told the BBC. http://the-scientist.com/2012/04/13/huntingtons-disease-protects-from-cancer/
Lipids. 2007 Dec;42(12):1143-53. Epub 2007 Oct 3. Changes in plasma LDL and HDL composition in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Hacquebard M , Ducart A , Schmartz D , Malaisse WJ , Carpentier YA . Source L. Deloyers Laboratory for Experimental Surgery, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Avenue J. Wybran 40, 1070, Brussels, Belgium. Abstract Changes of lipoprotein composition have been mainly reported in conditions of sepsis. This study characterized compositional changes in LDL and HDL during the acute phase response following cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Twenty-one patients undergoing cardiac surgery were included in this study. Blood samples were drawn before operation and on day 2 post-surgery. In parallel to plasma lipids and antioxidant status, lipoproteins were analyzed for lipid, apolipoprotein (apo), hydroperoxide and alpha-tocopherol content. Beyond decreases in lipid concentrations and antioxidant defenses, cardiac surgery induced substantial modifications in plasma lipoproteins. ApoB decrease in LDL fraction (-46%; P 0.0001) reflected a marked reduction in the circulating particle number. LDL cholesteryl ester content relative to apoB concentration remained unchanged post-surgery while triglyceride (+113%; P 0.001), free cholesterol (+22%; P 0.05) and phospholipid (+23%; P 0.025) were raised relative to apoB indicating increased particle size . In HDL , an abrupt rise of apoSAA (P 0.05) was observed together with a decrease of apoA1 (-22%; P 0.005). Cholesteryl ester content in HDL fraction decreased in parallel to apoA1 concentration while triglycerides, free cholesterol and phospholipids increased relative to apoA1. In contrast to unchanged alpha-tocopherol content, hydroperoxide content was increased in LDL and HDL . By comparison to sepsis, cardiac surgery induces a comparable reduction in circulating LDL but a more limited decrease in HDL particles. Furthermore, in contrast, cardiac surgery induces an increase in polar and non-polar lipids, as well as of particle size in both LDL and HDL .
逗号、连字符和“which” 如果以上述三种形式使用错误，将导致写作意思表达模糊，进而引起读者的误解。例如，“Because Aβ42 levels were elevated in 75% of AD patients in studies using our method , it is critical to obtain fresh samples”，如果把“method”后的逗号移到“patients”后面(或在这里再加入新的逗号)将完全改变句子的意思。同样，在短语“calcium-induced calcium release”中，如果删除了连字符也将完全改变句子的意思。如果使用了连字符，“calcium-induced”是复合性形容词，修饰名词“calcium release”；如果不使用连字符“induced”则是动词，描述“effect of calcium on calcium release”。因此，使用连字符构成的复合性形容词对于避免误解是非常重要的。然而，介词和形容词之间是不需要加连字符的，例如“highly intense staining”和“high-intensity staining”都是正确的，但是“highly-intense staining”的用法是错误的。 • “Glutamate receptors mediated synaptic plasticity…” (此句子告诉作者Glu受体参与突触可塑性生成) • “Glutamate receptor-mediated synaptic plasticity…” (与Glu受体相关的突触可塑性成了句子的主语；注意这里“receptor”由复数形式改为单数形式，但并不是指单一一种受体而是泛指受体) “which”一字如果使用不当，也可引发诸多混淆。它常与“that”混用。“that”和“which”都引导用于修饰名词的从句，但“that”用于引导限定性从句，而“which”用于引导非限定性从句。例如，“the sections that were positive for GFP were subjected to cell counting procedures”，在这个句子中，“that”引导的是限定性从句明确规定了是哪些切片用于细胞计数。相比之下，“the sections, which were positive for GFP, were subjected to cell counting procedures”，在这个句子中，对用于细胞计数的切片的规定相当宽松，可能指的是前一个句子或相临句子中提及的切片。提及GFP阳性的从句可以向读者提供一些额外的信息，但对于理解该句子的意义来说并非必不可少；也就是说，它是可有可无的。考虑到“which”的这种角色，研究人员在撰写论文时应明确“which”一词确切指代的东西 — 有时指代的是该词所紧跟的事物(这是最常见的)，有时指代的则是该句子的主语。例如，“microglia migrated to the site of the lesion, which was associated with increased levels of ED-1”，这个句子就写得含混不清，因为我们很难确定“which”所指的到底是lesion，还是migration of microglia。如果读者可能会对此类句子产生疑惑，最好是推翻重写；例如，可以改为“migration of microglia to the site of the lesion was associated with increased levels of ED-1”，也可改为“microglia migrated to the site of the lesion, and immunohistochemical analysis revealed increased levels of ED-1 at this site”。两者均无歧义。 • “Data were normalised to the housekeeping gene actin, which was used as an internal reference…” (在这个句子中, “which”指代的是actin，因此actin也就是该从句的主语) • “Data were normalised to the internal reference housekeeping gene actin, revealing increases in the levels of…” (如果在后续从句中提及所分析的资料，使用“which”不仅没有必要，反而会引发歧义) 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 Aβ42 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). Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监
“方法” 部分应包含足够的信息以供其他研究者准确重复你描述的试验；如果其中有关键信息遗漏，别人就无法完全重复你的实验条件；这会引起结果不一致，有可能造成误会，甚至还会被人指责造假。所以“方法”部分要力求全面。 “ 方法”部分应该使用过去时态，例如：“sections were stained with…” and “data were analyzed using…”。但是在提及图表时应使用现在时，例如：“The patients’ clinical characteristics are listed in Table 1”。 此外，当你在叙述某个事物的定义或当前对它公认的看法时也要用现在时，例如：“the cells were subjected to hypoxia, which induces HIF-1 expression…”。这句话中，虽然实验部分是用的过去时，但由于缺氧(hypoxia) 导致HIF-1是一个普遍现象而不是限定于本文的结果，因此后面半句应该用现在时。 要列出所有试剂的供应商以及设备的厂家；有的期刊还要求列出其地址，即国家、州(如为美国)和市。叙述设备、试剂盒、试剂的时候应该用常用术语来具体描述，不要只用厂商的专门术语或只写型号。比如，不要写成：“Absorbance in each well was measured at a wavelength of 492 nm using a Beckman Coulter AD 340C”，因为大多数人都对Beckman Coulter AD 340C没有任何概念；应该写成：“Absorbance in each well was measured at a wavelength of 492 nm using a multi-well plate reader (AD 340C, Beckman Coulter)”，或者“Absorbance in each well was measured at a wavelength of 492 nm using an AD 340C multi-well plate reader (Beckman Coulter Inc, Fullerton, CA, USA)”。 “方法”部分只能包括最终得出结果的实验方法。如果某个试验失败了或者没能提供你需要的结果，而且你已经决定论文中不提这些结果，那么也没有必要去谈其试验方法。用适当的子标题把各种不同目的的材料和方法分类。如果期刊设有“补充方法 ”（Supplementary Methods）部分，则可用这部分来详述细节，并让纸面刊出的“方法”部分保持简短。新方法应该详细叙述以便他人重复；标准和常用技术只须引用文献即可，但如果你的方法和文献有差异之处应予说明。尤其要保证所有单位都正确，实验条件(如时间、温度)都清楚。最后，如果开展了统计学分析来评价研究结果的意义，则应在“方法”的最后一段叙述你的统计学方法，包括所选择的显著性阈值。 实例 “…homogenates were spun at 10,000 × g and 4 °C for 12 min” 这句话包含了时间、温度两个重要细节。而： “…homogenates were spun at 10,000 × g” 和更简化的 “homogenates were centrifuged” 两个句子中就遗漏这些细节。这些细节有可能对得到你的结果很重要，所以应该给出。 同理，不要只写：“Then, 10 μl of a propidium iodide solution was added to the cells”，因为这对读者毫无意义，除非他们知道该溶液的浓度。应该写成：“Propidium iodide was added to the wells to a final concentration of 0.5 μg/ml”。 下图节选自《The Journal of Clinical Investigation》所发表的一篇论文(doi:10.1172/JCI37155;经同意转载)的方法部分。它显示了“方法”部分的各种要素以及他们如何组合的。 核查清单 1. 用清楚的子标题列出用于不同目的的方法和材料。 2. 研究方法用过去时。 3. 新方法给出充足的细节以便他人重复。 4. 已有方法可用参考文献。 5. 写明厂家/供应商，必要时应提供地址。 6. 说明所采用的统计学方法。 英文原文 Methods: what you did The methods section of your manuscript should contain sufficient information for a capable researcher to accurately repeat the experiments you describe; if essential information is left out, the exact conditions might not be replicated, leading to different results, potential misunderstandings, or worse, accusations of falsification. Thus, the methods section needs to be comprehensive. The methods section should be written in the past tense; for example, “sections were stained with…” and “data were analyzed using…”. An exception to this is references to tables or figures in the manuscript, for example “The patients’ clinical characteristics are listed in Table 1”. Another exception is when providing a definition or describing the current consensus on something: for example, “the cells were subjected to hypoxia, which induces HIF-1 expression…”. Here, although what was done is described in the past tense, the fact that hypoxia induces HIF-1 is described in the present tense because it is a general phenomenon not limited to the present paper. The suppliers of all reagents and the manufacturers of all equipment used should be listed; some journals also request that the locations, that is, city, state (if in the USA) and country, of these companies are provided. When describing equipment, kits, or reagents, you should use familiar terms to define the particular item you are describing, rather than just a manufacturer-specific term or model number. For example rather than writing “Absorbance in each well was measured at a wavelength of 492 nm using a Beckman Coulter AD 340C”, which would be meaningless to the majority of readers, you should write “Absorbance in each well was measured at a wavelength of 492 nm using a multi-well plate reader (AD 340C, Beckman Coulter)” or perhaps “Absorbance in each well was measured at a wavelength of 492 nm using an AD 340C multi-well plate reader (Beckman Coulter Inc, Fullerton, CA, USA)”. Methods should only be included if the results of the described experiments are provided; if an experiment you performed didn’t work, or didn’t provide the results you needed, and you have opted to leave the results out of your paper, then there is no need to describe the associated methods. Use appropriate subheadings to separate materials and methods with different purposes. If available, use a Supplementary Methods section to provide detailed information so that the printed methods section can be kept brief. Novel techniques need to be described in detail so that they can easily be replicated, but established and commonly used techniques can be referenced as long as any variations between the method used in the present study and that described in the cited study are clearly described. Above all, be precise and ensure that all units are correct and all conditions (for example, times and temperatures) are clear. Finally, if any statistical analysis was performed to assess the significance of your data, describe the statistical methods used, including the threshold(s) selected for significance, at the end of the methods section. Examples The sentence “…homogenates were spun at 10,000 × g and 4 °C for 12 min” includes the important details of time and temperature that would have been missing if the author simply wrote “…homogenates were spun at 10,000 × g”, or even more simply “homogenates were centrifuged”. These details could have been essential to obtaining the result you did, and so should be explained. Similarly, rather than saying “Then, 10 μl of a propidium iodide solution was added to the cells”, which is meaningless unless the reader knows the concentration of the propidium iodide solution, you should write “Propidium iodide was added to the wells to a final concentration of 0.5 μg/ml”. The figure below, showing a couple of excerpts from the methods section of paper published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCI37155; reproduced with permission), indicates the important components of a methods section and how these fit together. Checklist 1. Clear subheadings for methods/materials with different purposes, with materials described first 2. Methods described in past tense 3. Novel methods described in full detail, sufficient for a capable researcher to reproduce 4. Established methods referenced to previous literature 5. Suppliers/manufacturers provided, including locations if requested 6. Statistical methods described Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监
美国著名的梅奥诊所计划在明年年初计划启动一项里程碑式的试验,通过招募数千名志愿者,对其进行基因测序,旨在开展个性化医疗保健服务。基因测序将与病人的医疗纪录储存在一起，以帮助他们的医生为他们选择最有效的药物，同时减少副作用。明尼苏达州的梅奥诊所的个体化医学中心主任 Gianrico Farrugia博士说对患者做全基因组测序的优点是，医生可以全面考虑患者治疗的需求,全基因组可以帮助绘制复杂的相互作用的途径，如果仅仅测定某些基因突变是无法了解患者遗传基因全貌的. 至于这样的测序服务和接下来的诊断治疗,究竟如何收费,人们拭目以待.希望是患者可以接受的范围之内.从长远讲,保险公司应该为此买单.因为基因测序是可以降低到1000美元,500美元甚至更低,而且是一次性收费.这应该成为每个人的标准病例基本信息.从这点看,基因测序将会有巨大的市场.谁掌握了最灵敏和经济的测序技术和分析软件和方法,谁就有巨大的服务商机和市场. Mayo Clinic plans to sequence patients' genomes to personalise careProject will give doctors the genetic information they need to choose drugs that work best and minimise side effects http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/dec/28/mayo-clinic-genomes-personalised-care?newsfeed=true
标签: patients
