Both papers show beautiful science, and this comparison only serves to highlight how the requirements for publication have changed
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
Quantity: 1996 paper: 4 figures, 8 total panels (eg 1a, 1b, etc), 0 supplementary data VS 2020 paper: 4 main figures with 33 total panels, plus 10 extended figures with 82 total panels
Prikaži ovu nit -
Experimental systems: 1996: cultured cells (COS), xenopus caps, and a reporter gene assay 2020: PDAC GEMM with 2 Cre drivers, 5 engineered alleles; organoids, monolayer culture; 2 lung xenograft mouse models; blastocysts/embryos; RNA and ChIP Seq
Prikaži ovu nit -
This (entire) figure from 1996, which has stood the test of time, used IF to demonstrate nuclear translocation of Smad1pic.twitter.com/hm3xNTFOrl
Prikaži ovu nit -
This figure, from 2020, uses 2 mouse models, ChIP Seq, an RNAi screen, and organoid cultures to ID a Smad cofactorpic.twitter.com/Jn0CKVq1Gb
Prikaži ovu nit -
My question is: has the amount of work (ie hours at the bench) changed? Perhaps this increase in volume is proportionate to the increase in speed of today’s science. If not, how could things be different for the better? What will things look like in 25 more years?
Prikaži ovu nit -
-
Novi razgovor -
-
-
A GIF says a thousand words
Kraj razgovora
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.