Michael Yaffe

@Arnab_RC1 @luijsterburglab Cool story. Had not expected Rad51 to be loaded in absence of BRCA2. Nice work. Congratulations Arnab!

Want to know how homologous recombination defects are caused upon loss of BRCA2? Check out our recent efforts in uncovering this phenomenon just out in Science! science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…

@mbeisen @NIH Imagine if Congress passed a law where the amount a journal could charge decreased progressively from time of initial submission until time of acceptance. After 4 months, charge was zero. That would put an end to journals requiring months to years of additional experiments.

We should equally ask "What if the @NIH had been 40% more efficient?" which it would have been if it had embraced open publishing when it had the chance to in the 1990s. science.org/doi/epdf/10.11…

Scientists and universities: defend indirects as a concept but not current indirect rates. Don't think there's waste in those numbers? We (US science) spend $4.5 billion on journals. That is HALF of the proposed cuts in indirects, and eliminating that spending would make science better!

Special thanks to Adam Palmer's lab, Matt Vander Heiden's lab, Omer Yilmaz's lab, and the folks at Genentech, all of whom were instrumental in this 5-FU story about RNA damage! Collaborative science is always the best!

Thrilled to share our latest story on 5-FU inducing RNA damage during ribosome biogenesis - cell.com/cell-reports-m…. The whole thing started when Karl and Jung-Kuei were trying to figure out hiow limiting dNTPS skewed DNA repair. Never thought it would be RNA and tge ribosome!

nature.com/articles/s4158… Thrilled to share this latest work led by Xiao-Kang Lun in Peng Yin's lab and Xueyang Yu in mine. Finally, single cell signaling can begin to rival single cell RNA-Seq, using CyTOF, phospho-antibodies and ACE amplification.

This is rich - one of the primary reasons scientists don't have a lot of time to think is that @nature and its ilk have promoted a culture where the primary goal of science is to produce bloated Nature papers that require lots of time and money, but little thought, to produce.

@CarrieRyanMD @OhioStateSurg @NCI_SurgOncFel @UBSurgery Congratulations!

Very excited to announce I matched at @OhioStateSurg for Surgical Oncology. Huge thanks to all of mentors, and especially everyone @NCI_SurgOncFel and @UBSurgery

@jjonkers2 Remember the good old days when Science and Nature published breakthroughs in basic science and clinical journals published patient trials?

Can anyone explain to me why this paper was published in Nature? nature.com/articles/s4158…

@DrEricDing @SamuelBHume We used to routinely do thymectomies every time we did open cardiac bypass surgery in adults and also in pediatric cardiac surgery cases to make operative exposure easier. Was probably a bad idea.

@SamuelBHume My only question is- what is it about the patients who got thymectomy. It’s not a common procedure, which makes me think underlying factors or confounding by indication. (Disclosure: I had a thymectomy myself, so I’m quite curious if it’s truly causal).

The thymus loses most of its size as we get older, so how important actually is the thymus in adults? This study found an answer by comparing patients who'd had thymectomy (removal of the thymus) with matched control patients (who'd had similar surgery, but not thymectomy) The average age of the patients (in both groups) was 56 at the time of surgery Thymectomy was associated with a ~70% reduction in the production of CD4+ (helper) and CD8+ (killer) T cells: And, as a possible consequence, the incidence of cancer was higher after thymectomy: Thymectomy was also associated with reduced T cell diversity, altered cytokines, increased autoimmunity, and increased mortality So, even though it progressively gets smaller as we age, the adult thymus continues to produce and diversify T cells, suppress cancer, and suppress autoimmunity Kooshesh et al in NEJM: nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.105…

@JuraLab_UCSF Thank u so much Natalia! It means a lot to me to have your support!

Congratulations! This is a landmark study!

Thrilled to share our characterization of the human tyrosine kinome. Try out the public website: kinase-library.mit.edu/home Wonderful collaboration with @CantleyLab @benturklab @LabYaffe. Many years of work led by Jared Johnson! nature.com/articles/s4158…

@TekeMartha @UMPedsSurg @RodriguezMDNCI @dallastrauma @FiemuNwariaku @herbert_zeh @AdamYopp @JMHernandez_MD @JeremyLDavisMD @AMBlakely @MAustinPediSurg @DrDrNatasha @UTSW_PediSurg @SocietyofBAS Well done Martha!

Extremely honored to join @UMPedsSurg family! By the grace of God and your support/sacrifice. This our win 🙌🏾 @RodriguezMDNCI @dallastrauma @FiemuNwariaku @herbert_zeh @AdamYopp @JMHernandez_MD @JeremyLDavisMD @AMBlakely @MAustinPediSurg @DrDrNatasha @UTSW_PediSurg @SocietyofBAS

@DalalSci The most important thing we do as researchers is train the next generation. In the end, it is the biggest contribution almost all of us will make to science. If you to have real impact, and influence the future, focus on your undergraduates. My undergrad mentor shaped my life.

This is a really important thread from Lior Pachter about the mathematical underpinnings of scRNAseq.

@DrAnneCarpenter I have completely stopped wasting time on DoD applications. The whole process is flawed. The only reason DoD has money for biological research is a congressional mandate. Put the money into the NIH instead. Would be better managed.

Can leaders please just eliminate programs like this?? If more time is spent applying than is funded for the winner, it’s a NET NEGATIVE for scientific progress.

@mbeisen At Science Signaling I would like to think that we held everyone to the same bar, but I also thought I had no implicit bias in other aspects of my life…until someone showed me that I did! Maybe we need some implicit bias training in publishing…or a “DEI” approach in future.

If Science's EIC is actually worried about how people in publishing are treated, and if he actually wants to help restore trust in science among scientists, let alone the public, he should be spending all of his time changing how Science operates.

@mbeisen It either means that only the same small sets of labs are the ones consistently doing great science (which could I suppose be true), or that perhaps there is an element of implicit bias where the standards required for sending a paper out for review are not uniform.

@mbeisen It was my experience that most professional editors are truly trying to do the right thing…but without broad input from outside, at some point things become an echo chamber. Why else is it that a small subset of labs are able to publish in those journals again and again…