Ruslan Rust
3.6K posts
Ruslan Rust
@rust_ruslan
Asst Prof @USC with interest in the brain, BBB, stem cells, AI + what can go wrong after stroke & AD. Alum @ETH_en. Fixing science with https://t.co/Qk1BJDPqSI
Los Angeles, USA Katılım Haziran 2019
2K Takip Edilen2.7K Takipçiler
Ruslan Rust retweetledi
📢 Preprint: we present a whole-mouse-brain in vivo Perturb-seq atlas, 7.7 million cells, 1947 disease-associated perturbations, moving toward direct readout of how human genetics rewires cell states & circuits in vivo. Grateful for the Team! @NVIDIAHealth biorxiv.org/content/10.648…
English
Awesome preprint! The authors developed scAPEX-seq, a new method for unbiased mapping of subcellular transcriptomes at single-cell resolution. This approach reveals cell states that are not detectable by standard scRNA-seq. They detect interaction-dependent cell states and identifying CTSW as a CAR T cell regulator that enhances anti-tumor function.
biorxiv.org/content/10.648…
English
X-Cell: Scaling Causal Perturbation Prediction Across Diverse Cellular Contexts via Diffusion Language Models
Link to the preprint:
cdn.xaira.com/papers/X_CELL_…
English
You can earn $150 for reviewing this important work on @ResearchHub if you have expertise in the field.
Learn more here: researchhub.com/paper/11126914…
English
Important preprint (with awesome figures!) showing monocytes are biological sensors of aging and frailty in humans by the @JudeM_Phillip lab from Johns Hopkins @JHUBME.
researchhub.com/paper/11126914…
English
Ruslan Rust retweetledi
>200 million people have peripheral artery disease (PAD).
In its worst form, blood vessels fail to regrow after surgery. Wounds stay open. Muscles waste.
@HaoYin20's preregistered proposal just received $10k to study the pathology of PAD on ResearchHub. 🧵
English
@alperakay_ @biorxivpreprint 100% agree, we preprint all our studies immediately
English
Cry me a river! @biorxivpreprint has been around more than a decade and for goodness sake why wait two years for Nat Comms?
Ruslan Rust@rust_ruslan
I currently have three papers in review at "high impact" journals. One of them has been sitting there for two years. In that time my daughter was born and learned how to walk, but apparently publishing a PDF was still not possible for me. For another one, after four months in review the editor told me they cannot find a second reviewer and asked me to suggest more reviewers. A third one sent me a message in 2026 saying the PDF I uploaded was larger than 10 MB and that I should please reupload everything to make the file smaller. All of this just to eventually pay between 7,000 and 12,000 USD per paper so someone can officially approve that the science we do is "legitimate". Reminder: not a single reviewer will be compensated here. I still don't understand how we as scientists can collectively be so smart when doing science and still tolerate a system like this when it comes to sharing our findings. We should move to preprints plus open review, whether human or AI, asap. So frustrated about it. I'd suggest sharing your work on bioRxiv or medRxiv, reading and reviewing preprints when you can, and highlighting good research, especially if it is still a preprint. Try platforms like ResearchHub (that pay for peer review) and experiment with AI based reviewers for faster feedback. Instead I read this as a proposed "revolutionary" measure:
English
Great preprint! The authors tracked Shh signaling in single neural progenitors using live imaging, finding substantial cell-to-cell variability in morphogen response that reveals fundamental limits on neural circuit patterning precision.
biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
English
Ruslan Rust retweetledi
Truly appreciate the support of ResearchHub @ResearchHubF @ResearchHub @rust_ruslan
🙏🙏🙏
For so many years, this is my FIRST grant submitted & FUNDED!!!🥹
Pickering lab is now ready to continue our NAD+-Sirt6 adventure into microvascular zone🤠
Also thank @DocJasonLee for the powerful & beautiful preliminary data🙌
👉Can microvascular mural cells orchestrate the vascular & muscular regeneration following ischemic skeletal muscle injury?
👉Can senescence be propagated from one cell type to another in ischemic muscle?
👉Can we design a therapeutic strategy, such as NAD+ supplementation or Sirt6 activation, to prevent tissue damage/failure in peripheral artery disease?
Please take a look at my grant, and any advice/suggestions are highly appreciated!
researchhub.com/proposal/5526/…
English
In this preprint the authors grew human appetite-regulating neurons from stem cells and showed GLP-1R agonists directly activate POMC neurons via calcium signaling, offering mechanistic insight into how obesity drugs suppress appetite.
biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
English
New preprint showing that stroke triggers protein synthesis rewiring through stop codon readthrough and frameshifting. Ribosome profiling reveals how translational stress evolves during acute brain injury.
biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
English
Super happy that we could fully fund this great proposal by @HaoYin20 with @ResearchHubF on Sirt6 Deficiency in Microvascular Mural Cells as a Driver of Paracrine Senescence and Impaired Regeneration. Looking forward to seeing the results.
Check it out here and let’s support open science:
researchhub.com/proposal/5526/…
English
Ruslan Rust retweetledi
@rust_ruslan Thanks for the shoutout, Ruslan!
We’re building systems to accelerate the speed of science: promoting open science, paying peer reviewers, and funding proposals.
English
We keep doing it because academic career advancement rewards "high impact" journals, and commerical publishers have created a prestige economy.
University leadership must realize that we need to dissociate commerical publications from prestige. Until we change incentives to disseminate our work through for-profit publishing, nothing else will change.
English
I currently have three papers in review at "high impact" journals.
One of them has been sitting there for two years. In that time my daughter was born and learned how to walk, but apparently publishing a PDF was still not possible for me. For another one, after four months in review the editor told me they cannot find a second reviewer and asked me to suggest more reviewers. A third one sent me a message in 2026 saying the PDF I uploaded was larger than 10 MB and that I should please reupload everything to make the file smaller.
All of this just to eventually pay between 7,000 and 12,000 USD per paper so someone can officially approve that the science we do is "legitimate". Reminder: not a single reviewer will be compensated here.
I still don't understand how we as scientists can collectively be so smart when doing science and still tolerate a system like this when it comes to sharing our findings. We should move to preprints plus open review, whether human or AI, asap. So frustrated about it.
I'd suggest sharing your work on bioRxiv or medRxiv, reading and reviewing preprints when you can, and highlighting good research, especially if it is still a preprint. Try platforms like ResearchHub (that pay for peer review) and experiment with AI based reviewers for faster feedback.
Instead I read this as a proposed "revolutionary" measure:
English
@OdedRechavi @qedScience I did and I loved it. It was probably the first AI review that felt truly meaningful to me @OdedRechavi
English
@1AkG @ResearchHub Congrats to this great study! I really enjoyed reading it and great summary here @1AkG
English
🧵 Today we released a new preprint on @ResearchHub and opened it for public peer review.
Our team explored how cannabis-derived therapies influence gene expression in a Drosophila model of ALS using RNA sequencing of fly brains.
Here’s what we found ↓
English
PS PS: I also think that with AI, biology will begin to move much faster, at a pace closer to progress in AI itself, which makes the traditional timeline of peer review and journal publication increasingly difficult to sustain. Papers that spend more than two years in review and editorial cycles are often published after the field has already moved forward. In an ideal world, preprints, code, data, and etc would already be used by the community long before "the formal publication" appears.
English
PS: I would also like to emphasize that I highly value the work of many editors. I serve as an editor myself and have worked with many excellent editors who truly care about the science and the quality of the work. My frustration is not directed at individuals. It is more about a system that slows down the communication of science, is extremely expensive, and imo often relies on the unpaid labor of scientists.
English