Pages

Attrition Rate

In addition to publicizing the post-graduation employment data of a department's or research group's graduate students, should the attrition data -- the % who start but do not finish a degree -- also be made available to those interested in seeing such data? (Instead of calling it attrition rate, perhaps we should call it graduation rate, to put a more positive spin on it.)

I mentioned last week that graduates of my research group have been successful obtaining PhD-relevant employment, but of course there is something missing from those data: the students who left without getting a degree. I can see how someone might want to know what the ratio of completed to never-completed degrees is for a particular advisor, research group, or department.

But what would such data indicate? Would these data indicate anything useful for those seeking to make an informed choice about graduate programs or a particular advisor?

These data might indicate something about the level and duration of financial support available. A high attrition rate could be a signal of low level of financial support for students, but such data could probably be obtained more directly by looking at student funding levels and duration.

So let's assume that a department/advisor is fortunate to have sufficient resources to support students for the duration of a typical graduate research program. Would comparison of graduation rates (among advisors, departments, or universities) give a sense for some other essential aspect of the graduate programs, such as quality of advising?

Maybe, but the data would really only be useful if we had a good baseline estimate of the "background" attrition rate for graduate students. Students may leave a particular graduate school for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the program. For example, some students realize they are interested in something else and move to another department/institution, some move when their significant other has to move elsewhere, and some decide to take a job outside academia before finishing their degree (for a wide variety of reasons).

Presumably, if graduation data were known for a large number of advisors, programs, or departments, a pattern would emerge so that outliers (very high or very low rates) could be detected. Such data are unlikely to be available anytime soon, however, and not necessarily because an institution or individual advisor is ashamed of such data; in fact, some might be proud of having high attrition rates.

I have no idea what this rate is for my department as a whole, and even if I knew how many students left without a degree, I wouldn't know the reasons for most of the departures. And even if I had such information, I wouldn't have any other data for comparison.

Perhaps we can make a small dent in that last issue. Some questions:
  • Does anyone know what the average graduation rate is in their department, research group, or other relevant unit? (let's keep it positive and use graduation rate instead of attrition rate)
  • Is anyone willing to share their personal graduation rate of advisees? (my research group's is ~90%*)
  • Are there graduation rate trends for particular advisors: e.g. a high rate in the early-career years and a lower rate later on?
My own answer to the last question is yes. Early in my career (particularly at University 1), I had a lower graduation rate* than I have had at University 2, but the reasons why students have left without a degree have been extremely varied*, so it's difficult to interpret this trend.

* Note that 'attrition' includes students who left for personal reasons (e.g., a significant other's career move) and then got a PhD elsewhere and then obtained a tenure-track faculty position, so not all 'drop-outs' actually drop out of Science or academia. Also, it is important to note that those who leave Science/academia are not failures**. Many go on to have interesting careers in industry, business, government, or K-12 education.

** OK, a few of them are, but only a few.
Read More >>

Telomerase can reverse the aging process... sort of

Biologists are, at long last, beginning to understand the molecular processes responsible for aging in complex (multicellular) organisms – and to investigate ways to counteract these processes. We discussed one line of research in this recent article about a particular sirtuin (SIRT3) that helps relieve oxidative stress that can lead to DNA damage, which generally leads, in turn, to cell senescence or death.

While oxidative stress is certainly a significant factor in aging, possibly the most significant, there are others. One of these is the limitation on a cell's ability to undergo cell division in order to produce new cells of the same type. This is especially important in tissues that regularly need to regenerate, such as skin and intestinal tissue. Everyone now knows about telomeres, whose main function is to constitute protective end caps on chromosomes. The limitation on number of cell divisions happens since about 100 base pairs are lost from telomeres during each cell division. When telomeres eventually become too short signals that are similar to those associated with other kinds of DNA damage shut down a cell's ability to divide further. This mechanism indirectly helps mitigate the risks of DNA damage that are present every time a cell divides – an inherently tricky process.

However, this limitation on cell division isn't acceptable during embryonic development, when an organism's cell count is doubling most rapidly. So evolution has provided an enzyme – telomerase – that can rebuild telomeres, but is most active only during embryonic development. Except, of course, in cells that have become cancerous, where the ability to divide without limit is the name of the game. We discussed telomeres and telomerase in some detail a little over a year ago in this article, so you can go there for more.

Because of the risk of cancer, it seems imprudent to reactivate telomerase for the long term within an organism, especially in long-lived animals such as humans. (In animals like mice, which live fast and die young, it's a different matter. Telomerase may remain somewhat active in mice during adulthood. (Mentioned here.)) But what if it were possible to reactivate telomerase for a relatively short period of time (compared to the whole lifespan)... might that provide an opportunity to rebuild telomeres to some extent? Even better, might that reverse, at least to some extent, the ravages of aging?

We now have some research that seems to provide a fairly unambiguous affirmative answer... in a rather special case: Telomerase reactivation reverses tissue degeneration in aged telomerase-deficient mice.

But didn't we just say that mice may retain telomerase activity throughout their lives? Yes, however it's a relatively simple matter to "knock out" the main telomerase gene in mice (Tert). When that's done the resulting strain of knock-out mice – after several generations – have shortened lifespans and a general phenotype of age-related debilities, as one would expect. (The first few generations apparently still have sufficiently long teleomeres.)

Unfortunately, that's not a good enough model, since without a Tert gene, the organism has no way to manufacture telomerase. Simply giving the knock-out mice repeated infusions of telomerase is not a good way to ensure uniform distribution of the enzyme to all of the organism's cells. What to do? The experimenters came up with a rather clever solution. Normally the way that telomerase is activated in cells is by means of an "estrogen receptor" (ER), to which a form of the hormone estrogen (17β-estradiol to be precise) can bind and enable transcription of Tert. This ER can be tweaked so that estrogen binds to it only in the presence of another chemical, 4-hydroxytamoxifen (4-OHT).

A special form of the Tert gene that includes this special ER can be "knocked-in" to the mouse germline. It then turns out that 4-OHT can be efficaciously supplied to a TERT-ER mouse (in the form of a time-release subcutaneous pellet) to turn telomerase expression on and off at the experimenter's will. With that technology in place, the researchers were then able to perform a series of experiments demonstrating, in these special mice, that a month-long burst of telomerase could actually reverse a number of the ill effects of telomerase deprivation.

The first step was to show that without 4-OHT the TERT-ER mice (after a few generations) had many of the same problems, in the same degree, as later generations of knock-out mice that lacked Tert entirely. The TERT-ER mice (all of which were male) showed no signs of telomerase activity. Tissues in highly proliferative organs such as testes, spleen, and intestines showed notable atrophy. Lifespan of TERT-ER mice was about half that of normal ("wild type") mice.

The first test to investigate the effects of telomerase reactivation by means of 4-OHT was done in vitro. Fibroblast cells from TERT-ER mice were cultured and found to be essentially senescent and not undergoing cell cycles. But when the cells were placed in media containing 4-OHT, teleomerase was reactivated, telomeres lengthened, and cell proliferation resumed.

Some TERT-ER mice were then given a 4-week treatment of 4-OHT (subcutaneous pellets). At the end of that treatment there was a marked reversal of the degeneration that has occurred in testes, spleen, liver, and intestinal tissues, as well as resumption of sperm production. Survival time of these treated mice also increased. At the same time, 4-OHT had no effects on control mice that weren't lacking in telomerase and didn't have tissue degeneration.

Noteworthy results were obtained from tests to assess nervous system condition. Proliferation of neural progenitor cells was found to resume in TERT-ER mice treated with 4-OHT. Normal numbers of mature oligodendrocytes reappeared. Lastly, high-level neurological functions were restored, as indicated by resumption of nearly normal olfactory sensitivity.

An interesting conclusion that can be drawn from the neurological results is that neural progenitor cells probably survive loss of telomeres, so that they can rebuild neural cell populations if telomeres are repaired.

The really interesting question, of course, is the extent to which these results may apply, in some form, to humans. Unfortunately, there are a number of reasons to be skeptical. For one thing, telomere shortening is only one factor, and quite possibly not the main one, in human aging. Aging can be thought of as a complex disease, like cancer, with many contributing factors. The consequences of telomere truncation are only one factor.

Further, murine biology has signficant differences from human biology. Mice are less complex organisms, with rather short lifespans. Mice seem to retain some degree of telomerase activity throughout their lives, so they are not as well adapted to going for long periods without it.

It is noteworthy that evidence was not found that TERT-ER mice treated with 4-OHT became more susceptible to cancer. Still, mice don't live very long, and they are adapted to maintain active telomerase. Humans are different. If telomerase is artificially kept active for years in humans, incipient tumorigenicity could be accelerated.

Lastly, it's not necessarily easy to raise human telomerase activity levels in the first place. Although some telomerase-activating factors are known, they have not been tested extensively in humans for long periods of time, so their safety and efficacy profile is not known.

These research results are quite interesting – but they only indicate the need for much more investigation.



ResearchBlogging.org
Jaskelioff, M., Muller, F., Paik, J., Thomas, E., Jiang, S., Adams, A., Sahin, E., Kost-Alimova, M., Protopopov, A., CadiƱanos, J., Horner, J., Maratos-Flier, E., & DePinho, R. (2010). Telomerase reactivation reverses tissue degeneration in aged telomerase-deficient mice Nature, 469 (7328), 102-106 DOI: 10.1038/nature09603



Further reading: (* = especially recommended)

* Telomerase reverses ageing process (11/28/10)

* The Curious Case of the Backwardly Aging Mouse (11/29/10)

* Partial reversal of aging achieved in mice (11/29/10)

Harvard scientists reverse the ageing process in mice – now for humans (11/28/10)

Gene reactivation reverses aging-related brain deficits in mice (11/30/10)

Age-Reversing Drugs on the Horizon? Not So Fast (11/29/10)

Telomere Tweaks Reverse Aging in Mice (11/29/10)

Alzheimers and aging advances uncovered (11/29/10)

An enzyme leads the dance of immortality and death (11/29/10)

Scientists Find Way to Partially Reverse Aging in Mice (11/29/10)
Read More >>

Old & Scary

Every so often, when my husband's hair is at a certain length that makes him look like a mad scientist, he gets it cut. He refuses to let me cut it, despite repeated offers -- perhaps because I have no skills or experience with cutting hair -- so he seeks the services of a professional hair-cutter. He typically just stops in at a cheap hair-cutting place near campus.

Recently, he had this conversation with the person cutting his hair:

HC (hair-cutter): Do you want me to trim your eyebrows as well?

Spouse: No.

HC: It will take 10 years off! You'd be surprised!

Spouse: No, I like my eyebrows old and scary.

HC: Oh, you must be a professor.
Read More >>

Review Well or Die

In the course of some recent discussions about Journal Editing, the question arose as to whether someone's reviewing skills should be a factor in tenure and promotion decisions. In particular, should a tenure-track professor's failure to be a good (reviewing) citizen of their academic discipline be a major, minor, or no factor in a tenure decision?

Some commenters said that it should be a major factor, but I think that some of these arguments are based on the assumption that a lousy reviewer will also be a substandard researcher and a bad advisor, in which case, their failure as a reviewer is the least of their problems.

Being a good reviewer is important. Our current system of peer review depends on there being many reviewers willing to spend the time to provide thorough, thoughtful, critical reviews, and to return these reviews in a reasonably timely way. I am not, however, convinced that someone who is a bad and/or disorganized reviewer (turning in reviews late, if at all, for example) is also likely to be a lousy researcher or teacher or advisor. In fact, as an editor, I have had many experiences to the contrary with delinquent reviewers who do outstanding research and who are excellent mentors to their graduate and undergraduate students and postdocs. Some are also excellent teachers, although I don't have this information about most reviewers.

Different institutions have different ratios of expected research : teaching : service by faculty. At my university, reviewing manuscripts and proposals is "service". Service is by far the smallest of the three components, and reviewing is just one part of "service". Perhaps being an excellent (or, at least, not terrible) reviewer is more important at other types of institutions.

Typically, faculty and committees reviewing the files of tenure and promotion candidates at a research institution have a list of journals and funding agencies for which the candidate did reviews, but no indication of the quality of the reviewing efforts. I suppose quality issues could come up in an external letter, but I can't recall having seen any examples of that.

Therefore, at institutions like mine, the quality of someone's work as a reviewer is a non-issue in tenure and promotion decisions unless it is symptomatic of their approach to research and advising, in which case the fact that they are a lousy reviewer is swamped by their deficiencies in these other aspects.

Let's assume that we somehow know whether a tenure candidate is a good or bad reviewer. Should it be a factor in employment decisions? I say no: if an individual excels at research and teaching but is a lousy reviewer, I think they should get tenure and/or be promoted based on the fact that they are doing well at the most important aspects of their job.

Being a reviewer shows a commitment to professional service and is also an indication of how well respected and visible someone is in their field. Visibility and respect are important at all career stages, but can be particularly important in promotion to professor at a research university. Even so, there are other indicators of this.

But let's say we still want to know if someone is a good or bad reviewer. One possible indirect indicator of reviewer quality might be the number of reviews someone is asked to do. Those who are lousy reviewers may not get asked to do m/any reviews, and this fact may show up in the numbers, although there are other explanations for minimal reviewing activity.

Can reviewing activity over time be an indicator? Not necessarily. For example, if someone's CV shows that they used to do a lot of reviews and now do not, there are several possible explanations:

- They did such bad or late reviews, or never returned promised reviews, that editors stopped inviting them.

- The topics in which they are most expert used to be well represented in the literature, but now are not.

- Their field of research got more crowded with time, so there is a larger pool of possible reviewers.

- They got too busy with other things and stopped accepting most requests to review.

It may be impossible to tell which of these, if any, is the relevant explanation, so I would hesitate to make inferences from a CV or other document that records a decrease in reviewing activity over time.

Bad reviewers and review-shirkers are annoying, especially since they rely on the reviewing work of others to get their own papers published, but I don't think there should be any major overt punishment of bad reviewers. Although it may seem that review-shirkers are getting away with something, they are losing the opportunity to play a role in the peer review process, to be a constructive influence in their field, and to be respected by editors and others for their reviewing wisdom and efforts. That's their loss, and an appropriate consequence for being a bad reviewer.
Read More >>

Job Info

Another aspect of a recent Careers Discussion with my research group involved talking about the elements of a Professorial Trading Card from PhD comics. The "trading card" was very useful for illustrating important topics that most of us somehow learn at some point, typically on a need-to-know basis at different stages of an academic career.

I thought it would be good to discuss these issues head-on with the group, even though the card is focused on statistics mostly relevant to a research-focused career at a university. For those not interested in this career path, the "trading card" can at least help demystify some of the aspects of the professional lives of grad advisors. The card shows:

Prof. X (photo of bearded guy, but you can download a template and put in your own photo)

professorial rank

team: "His own." (the only part of the professorial trading card I didn't like, maybe because I am in a field that is highly collaborative)

T (= tenured)

Academic stats:

Research buck$ in: Grad students, do you have any idea how much grant $ your advisor has? Do you want to know? If you do and you don't want to ask, you can look it up on many major funding agency websites.

Papers written: Although of course quality is more important than quantity blah blah blah, we do count these. Many (most?) academics can tell you exactly how many papers they have published. If you want to know someone else's paper count, this is easy to find via Web of Science, Google Scholar etc., keeping in mind that the total is not typically exactly correct.

h-index: This glorious concept was news to some in my research group, but now they all know what it is. Important?!

PhD students graduated: Our group maintains a director of alumni/ae, so this information is accessible.

PhD students dropped out: This information is not accessible in any systematic way, but I suppose a grad student could ask around and at least get a sense for whether the "drop out" rate was high for a particular advisor or research group.

Awards: Who cares? Professors and administrators do!

Invited lectures: a measure of the level of interest of a professor's research and/or the level of interest of a professor in traveling around and giving talks when invited.

Then there are some miscellaneous statistics on the "trading card", mostly to maintain the analogy with a baseball trading card: doubles = two papers on same topic; triples = three papers using the same dataset; stolen postdocs (?).

Despite some odd aspects of the Professorial Trading Card, I found it a useful focus for discussing some key issues of academic jobs, at least at a big research university: the focus on grants, papers, citation index, PhD students graduated, and so on. These seem obvious to those of us who have been living in this world for a long time, but it can be interesting and useful (and perhaps alarming) to discuss them with students and postdocs.

Although the trading card lists many key aspects of the professorial job at a university, is there anything important missing from the trading card? How about:

Number of postdocs?
Number of grants (not just the $ amount)?
Number of graduate students and postdocs employed in PhD-relevant jobs?
Number of courses taught? (at different levels?)

What else?
Read More >>

Why We Are Awesome

Today in Scientopia, I attempt to answer a question posed in the comments yesterday: Why are graduates of my research group so successful at getting PhD-relevant jobs, including tenure-track faculty positions?
Read More >>

Job Data

The actual, real-life purpose of The Grad School Experience image that I posted on Friday was an attempt-at-humor introduction to a discussion with my research group.

As part of this discussion about academia, careers, life etc., I presented some histograms that showed how many graduates from our research group were doing different types of jobs after obtaining a PhD or (graphed separately) MS. The categories for PhD graduates were Academia, Industry/Business, and Government; those 3 categories accounted for all PhD graduate students from this research group from the past 20 years. I then compared these data with those reported for PhDs in our general field of science, compiled from the NSF survey that tracks the careers of doctoral recipients.

The database for my research group represents the advisees of 4 faculty members in related fields from 1990 to 2010, and therefore consists of quite a few individuals. These data are not secret. My research group maintains an active, easily accessible directory of current and former graduate students and postdocs, including a listing of current employment. I don't think anyone had recently compiled it, though, so it was interesting to see and discuss the graphs.

There has been a lot of talk in the media/blogosphere about how graduate programs should show the current employment data of their alumni/ae so that prospective (and current) students will have a better idea of their chances for PhD-relevant employment, especially for academic jobs. The general idea has been that these statistics are grim, and therefore some potential grad students may be convinced to pursue a different education and/or career path.

But what if the data for a particular program show that 98% of graduates who wanted an academic job, no matter whether the PhD was obtained in 1990, 1999, or 2009, got an academic job? The danger there, of course, is that you will appear to be promising something that you (as an advisor or as a department) can't promise: that if a PhD graduate of that group wants an academic job, they will definitely get one.

Nevertheless, these data are real, the dataset includes a large number of individuals, and the results show that our graduates have been successful at obtaining academic jobs if they wanted that type of job. Perhaps owing to the nature of this particular research subfield, the % of graduates in academia is higher than the average for our general field of science. I have not yet broken out the data into finer-grained categories -- e.g., how many graduates from our group are at different types of academic institutions -- but that would be interesting to do as well.

It was also interesting to see that all of our former PhD students who are in non-academic employment sectors have careers that are relevant to their PhD training.

I think the data were useful to show, at least as a launching point for more in-depth discussions of career paths (academic or not) that have been taken by graduates of our research group. And I would go even further and say that these data were important to show because they indicate that getting a PhD in our research group/department/institution is worthwhile and is likely to lead to interesting and PhD-relevant career opportunities.

It is quite possible that not everyone will agree with me on that, so my question to readers is: Do you think that employment data such as these:

- should be shown whether or not they paint a grim or rosy picture of PhD-relevant employment opportunities: individuals can make their own interpretation and choices;

- should be shown if they indicate a slim chance of graduate degree-related employment, but not shown if they seem to give reason for optimism about employment (because that might be misleading and give false hopes and make the few who don't get their preferred job feel even worse?);

- should not be shown at all. Students and postdocs are responsible for educating themselves about career opportunities and/or it is irrelevant what other graduates of the same program have done in the past;

- other?
Read More >>

Supermassive black hole in a dwarf galaxy

Supermassive black hole in a type of galaxy where nobody expected to find one? Henize 2-10 is a small, mostly unremarkable compact dwarf galaxy. Its estimated dynamical mass is about 1010 M, only a few percent of our galaxy's mass, and its distance from us is about 30 million light years. It is irregular in shape and does not fit in any category of the standard Hubble sequence.

The only respect in which Henize 2-10 has attracted attention – for several decades – before now is an extremely high rate of star formation in comparison to its size. The rate is 10 times that of the Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way that is also irregular in form and has approximately the mass of Henize 2-10.

This research – An actively accreting massive black hole in the dwarf starburst galaxy Henize 2-10 – recently published Nature, now offers good evidence that at the center of Henize 2-10 is an active black hole of substantial but somewhat uncertain mass between 2×105 M and 2×107 M. That's a lot – it could exceed the mass of the Milky Way's black hole, ~4.2× 106 M.

The evidence presented that Henize 2-10 contains an actively accreting massive black hole is pretty good. It includes detection of radio emissions with a substantial non-thermal component. In other words, much of the radio emissions is due to something besides black body radiation – perhaps synchrotron radiation typical in active black hole jets. There is also a point source of high-energy X-ray emissions coming from the same location as the radio emissions. The evidence that these emissions are due to an active black hole isn't perfect. In particular, long-baseline interferometry shows gaps in the radio source, and the radio spectrum does not have the shape of a typical radio galaxy's. But consideration of other possible explanations indicates that the alternatives are rather improbable.

However, the paper concludes "the massive black hole in Henize 2-10 does not appear to be associated with a bulge, a nuclear star cluster or any other well-defined nucleus. This unusual property may reflect an early phase of black-hole growth and galaxy evolution that has not been previously observed. If so, this implies that primordial seed black holes could have pre-dated their eventual dwellings."

The authors are implying that this black hole could have existed before Henize 2-10 itself. And further, since galaxies in the very early universe (z≥7) have many similarities to Henize 2-10 (as well as certain differences), that many of these very early galaxies could also have formed around pre-existing massive black holes.

These concluding observations should, on the basis of the evidence provided, be regarded as rather speculative. There are substantial logical gaps in the reasoning.

For one thing, Henize 2-10 is pretty unusual based on its high rate of star formation. This implies an unusual and probably chaotic recent history. And so there really isn't much solid reason to think that the central black hole predated the galaxy.

How closely Henize 2-10 resembles very early galaxies is also open to question. The earliest stars, which made up the earliest galaxies, had very low metallicity and therefore tended to be much larger, brighter, and short-lived than stars forming in the present era. The assumption that galaxy evolution would be pretty similar between now and then is hard to make.

Some of the popular media accounts go even further and suggest that "most" galaxies probably formed around pre-existing black holes. Even if that were true for Henize 2-10, all that can legitimately be inferred is the possibility, not the necessity, of that circumstance in most cases.

There have been reports of the existence of supermassive black holes in galaxies without central bulges (not just irregular galaxies) – here, for example. There have even been studies of active black holes in the early universe that may have predated their galaxies, one of which I wrote about in this article: Which came first - the galaxy or the black hole?. There are also cases of fairly normal galaxies, such as M33, that seem to have at most a very small central black hole – see here.

So it's certainly a very real issue whether, at least in some cases, central black holes form before their galaxies, but the present study is just another interesting data point, not the last word on the subject.



ResearchBlogging.org
Reines, A., Sivakoff, G., Johnson, K., & Brogan, C. (2011). An actively accreting massive black hole in the dwarf starburst galaxy Henize 2-10 Nature, 470 (7332), 66-68 DOI: 10.1038/nature09724


Further reading:
Read More >>

When was the last time you visited a science center or museum?

I'm in Washington, DC now.  I'm in town for the AAAS (Science Magazine) conference.  I love science conferences and I love this gathering in particular.  It's the world's largest science conference and an inter-disciplinary mix of scientists, social scientists, engineers, educators and science-tech policy makers .  The energy is amazing.  Nerd heaven, I say. Nerd heaven, indeed.

And on February 16 and 17, 2011, I attended the first ever International Public Science Events Conference, a pre-conference gathering of outreach scientists, science educators (formal & informal) and related institutions.  We shared ideas, successes, and challenges to promoting science and engineering to the general public - you - via small and large events and celebrations.  I co-moderated a workshop on Broadening Participation with the incomparable and kindred Madhu Katti of Reconciliation Ecology
Me with Madhu Katti
We focused on ways science event planners could attract audiences beyond the 'usual suspects' which are white or Asian middle-class families from suburbia, with one or both parents college educated.  In what ways can science events be marketed so that they experience increased participation from families of color, or new citizen families, or working-class families, families from the inner city or deep rural parts of their respective states, or make them enjoyable for people who aren't 12 years old or younger?

All the conference participants shared ways to make our science meet-ups,science cafes, science cabarets, and science events more accessible and engaging.  That was the objective of the entire pre-conference. Then as I listening to Dr. Dennis Wint, President and CEO of The Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, PA, discuss how and why science centers/museums matter in public engagement, I began to wonder...How important is science and math education to people who aren't in the business of science or math education.  I mean, yeah, I know you think it's important, but how would you articulate that to another parent or community member?
Me with Dr. Wint of the Franklin Institute

Then Dr. Wint touched on how science centers/museums are a great science educational resource, sometimes the best thing going if your school system is slashing and burning education in science, math, and arts - like many are. I agree, and I wondered how many people are taking advantage of these continuing education centers?
So I did my own social media poll. When's the last time you, your friends/family visited a science center or museum? Which one? What city?  Folk responded on twitter using the hashtag

I got about 20 responses.  Most people attended fairly recently (within the last few months, I assume spending family time over the holiday). Here's a summary of responses.
  • MIT Museum for opening of MIT150 exhibit
  • Ontario Science Center in Toronto
  • Franklin Institute in Philadelphia!
  • American Museum of Natural History in NYC x2
  • Science Centers of San Jose, Philadelphia and Cleveland
  • Science Museum & Childrens Museum of Atlanta
  • Hong Kong Science Museum for the exhibition "Marvelous Inventions of Leonardo da Vinci"
  • Liberty Science Center Jersey City, NJ
  • Discovery Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia
  • National Space Center Leics, UK. 
  • Science Museum, London x2
  • Natural History Museum, London x2
  • North Carolin Museum of Natural Sciences in Raleigh-Durham 
  • Museum of Life + Science in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina
  • Fels Planetarium (Part of the Franklin Institute, so it gets another tally)
  • St. Louis Science Center x4 (my backyard)
  • McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center Concord NH
  • Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in DC
  • The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago
  • in Wilmington, NC (they have a giant ground sloth skeleton)
  • Taupo Vocano Centre in New Zealand
  • Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago

also got some Zoo/Aquarium/Botanical Garden responses, too

What about you?  When's the last time you visited a science center, what city?
Read More >>

The Graduate School Experience

As an introductory image to show my research group as part of a general discussion about grad school, careers etc., I decided to see if I could graphically depict the essence of The Graduate School Experience using only the standard menu of clip art and shapes available with PowerPoint presentation software. I found that I could get pretty far with the available images, although, for the final product, I added one non-ppt image, and in the version I showed my group (but not shown here), I added some images specific to my field/research group. Nevertheless, here is a PowerPoint Clip Art vision of The Graduate School Experience:


Read More >>

Misadventure

There has been much blogospheric discussion, here and elsewhere, of (good) ways in which "career interruptions" can be mentioned in grant proposals, so that no one is penalized for a temporary decrease/halt in productivity owing to certain important life experiences (babies, illness, elder-care etc.).

My personal favorite way in which information about Personal Interruptions is requested is in the instructions for writing Australian Research Council grant proposals:

F14.1. Provide and explain:
..

(iv) Any career interruptions you have had for childbirth, carer’s responsibility, misadventure, or
debilitating illness;

It's great that this is included in the proposal instructions, and I don't mean to make light of an important issue that has only recently been adopted by large federal funding agencies in certain countries, but I must admit that the request for an explanation of any "misadventure" is rather intriguing.

In fact, I don't think I can wait until December for my usual (northern hemisphere) winter break FSP contest on some (strange) text/document related to academic life. So here is the challenge:

Provide and explain any career interruptions that you have had for misadventure, real or (better) imaginary. Your explanation cannot exceed 475 characters (with spaces). For example:

I was unable to submit any articles for publication between 23 August 2007 and 13 November 2008 because I was kidnapped by pirates and, although I was not otherwise mistreated, I was not allowed access to the Internet. I did, however, scratch out some manuscript drafts on spare pieces of sailcloth using a gull feather and an ink mixture that I made from mussel shells soaked in beer, so as soon as I was released and had Internet access, I was able to resume publishing.

or

Immediately upon receiving tenure in 2005, I was beamed aboard a spaceship on a secret mission I cannot reveal here. At first I was unable to communicate with the life-forms piloting the craft, but over the years I learned their language, customs, and the songs they like to sing on long journeys. Eventually they returned me to my office, and I have subsequently resumed my academic career, no worse for wear but with an unfortunate gap in my CV.

Now it's your turn to describe your career-interrupting misadventures.
Read More >>

Militantly Ignorant

Today in Scientopia, I discuss the phenomenon of Militantly Ignorant Reviewers, and worry about becoming one of them.
Read More >>

Blogged

Not so long ago, I co-organized a Science Workshop on a particular topic. At some point after the workshop, I saw - by chance - a link to a webpage that seemed like it was closely related to the workshop topic. In fact, the link was to a blog post by one of the workshop participants who had blogged the workshop. He had described the workshop activities in great detail, and had uploaded photographs of the workshop in progress, including at least one photograph of me (identified by name in the caption). I had no idea he had done any of this.

Fortunately the blogger had enjoyed the workshop and found it worthwhile, so the blog post was positive and was mostly a blow-by-blow account of the workshop activities. In fact, it was kind of boring (unlike the workshop itself).

Nevertheless -- and this might be hypocritical -- it was strange reading a blog post that was at least in part about me. I blog about academic incidents and people all the time, including anecdotes about people I meet at conferences, but the difference is that I don't name names -- or include photographs of actual people.

I had no idea anyone was blogging the workshop, although I know that syn- and post-conference blogging is a common phenomenon now for meetings of all sorts and sizes. Should we all just expect that we might be the topic of a blog post or a tweet or whatever mode our fellow conferees might be using to describe their experiences to the rest of the world? And at any time, should we expect that someone might take a photograph of me or you or our students or postdocs and post it, captioned with names, on the internet?

I was a little weirded out by it at first, but -- perhaps because the blog post was unexceptional and positive -- I found that I didn't really mind. I think it would have been nice if the blogger had asked if he could post a photograph of me, and it would have been even nicer if it were a better photograph. But he certainly didn't need my permission to write about the workshop; this was not the type of workshop or meeting at which such things are specifically prohibited.

Is everyone OK with being blogged about in a professional context like this? With having a photograph taken without your knowledge, labeled with your name, and posted without your knowledge? With having the content of what you thought was an informal conversation described (accurately) in a blog post and attributed to you, without your knowledge? Or does anyone think there should be Rules about this?
Read More >>

Happy Valentine's Day, from my backyard to yours.

See how much urban nature loves you. It blooms with heart-shaped leaves for you.

From my heart to yours.

big hearts

little hearts

many hearts

jagged hearts

smooth hearts

I took all of these pictures last summer 2010, at various parks in St. Louis, Missouri.  I flashed away because I loved the unique shape of the leaves. Some are from Catalpa trees, others from weedy vines.  But aren't they all grand?

Spring will soon be here.  Keep your eyes open for heart-shaped leaves in your backyard and share the discovery with me here.

Happy Valentine's Day!
DNLee
demystifying nature, letting everyone experience

Read More >>

Editorial Soul Searching

A post last week dealt with a topic related to my work as an editor of a journal. Some commenters raised issues about editors and reviewers, and I decided to discuss at least one more editor-related topic this week.

But first, here are some links to previous posts about editors and reviewers:

Musings on the topic of rejecting manuscripts without review (2009, 2010 posts)

What do I look for in a review? (a post for those lacking confidence in their reviews)

What do editors do? (an introduction to different types of editorial work for journals, and musing about the role of editors in the peer review and publication process)

If you click on the "editor" tag in the frame to the right (you have to scroll down a bit), you can find other assorted editor-related posts, some of them stranger than others.

Now on to the new topics:

From the comments in last week's editor-themed post:

When I review papers for journals where I usually publish, I always wonder if the fact that I'm a good reviewer (on time and constructive) helps me with the editors whenever I make my own submissions. I am not implying I am expecting a freebie, but I always wonder if editors are more patient with authors that are good reviewers for the journal and less patient with people like the one you described in your comment.

In the comments last week, I described more specifically a case involving a delinquent reviewer who strung me along with promises for turning in his review, and then never did the review. In the situation involving the delinquent reviewer (with whom I communicated mostly by e-mail but also by phone, at least until he stopped communicating with me), I was (and am) so annoyed by this person's behavior that I would not be able to be objective about any manuscript he submitted to the journal; someone else would have to deal with his manuscripts. This does not place him at any disadvantage relative to any other author; his work would be evaluated on its own merits by other qualified editors. Even if he is a jerk (says me), he and his co-authors (some of whom are likely to be students) have a right to a fair evaluation of their work.

Do constructive and punctual reviewers have any advantage? Sort of, but maybe not directly. I do try to provide speedy and useful editorial assistance with the submitted manuscripts of hard-working reviewers, but there is of course no preference in terms of the decision about publication. However, even if conscientious reviewers don't derive any obvious direct benefit from being diligent, I think that there is some cosmic credit and long-term benefit from being respected for their work and professionalism. Many journals are edited by people who write a lot of external letters from tenure and promotion and who organize sessions at conferences (and therefore make decisions about invited speakers and so on). You can't build a career on being a diligent reviewer, but it is a good thing overall be considered a respected colleague who provides insightful comments in reviews.

Other examples of possible long-term consequences:

I can think of at least one person whose annoying behavior as a reviewer has meant that I have been unreceptive when he has expressed interest in working with me on various projects. If I think someone is uncommunicative and unprofessional in their work as reviewer, why would I want to work with them in any other capacity?

Furthermore, the delinquent reviewer described in the anecdote mentioned above (and in more details in the comments in last week's post) is an assistant professor. If asked to write an external letter for his tenure and promotion, I could probably set aside my annoyance with him and focus on his research record, but I hope I am not asked to do so. No one should be denied tenure (or receive tenure) because of they are a bad (or excellent) reviewer, but it one small but important aspect of professional service.

Question for my readers, especially those who have served in some editorial capacity: Do you let your opinion of someone as a reviewer affect your interactions (direct or indirect) and opinions of them as a researcher?

Read More >>

First Bird Friday! A Survey & New Nature Blogging Meme

I wish I could say this was my idea. It isn't. (But to my knowledge the title is my idea).  Audubon California has a weekly survey. Each Friday they ask online readers to tell them the identity of of the first bird they see each Friday Morning and let them know your city.  You can submit your answers until 12 noon (PST) and then they share the results on their blog - The Audublog.  That's it.  It's quick, easy, and fun.  Click here.

Me & a fledgling baby goldfinch. Fell out of the tree and one to one of my campers (Summer 2010).  I had to take take some pictures with it...it's like a local urban wildlife celebrity. J

But other than fun, another reason to do is to get you to start to deliberately taking notice of the wildlife around you.  And that's what I inspire you to do everyday.  We can't begin to make our communities safer and cleaner and greener until we take stock in what we have - the good and the bad. And Urban wildlife is all good.

All all bird life counts, as they say:
And if you don't see a Bald Eagle or a California Condor, don't worry. That's not what this is all about. This is about celebrating the common right alongside the rare and unusual.
Don't worry if you don't know the name of the bird you saw. Make note of the bird's characteristics -- size, color, general shape. You can use that info to look up the bird's identity on the Audubon's online bird guide. Then complete the survey.
If you want to follow all of the First Bird Friday! excitement, then check out the Audubon California on Facebook, their blog, or Twitter @AudubonCA hashtag #firstbird.

And yes, I've submitted my answer....American Robin.  I spotted it on a little patch of ground (cause it's snow all over the place here in St. Louis, MO) at Hazelwood East Middle School by a Paper birch tree.

Fellow nature bloggers, help spread the word.  Readers, tell me in comments what you saw and visit their site to submit your answer.
Read More >>

Dropping the h-Bomb

Perhaps it was inevitable. Throughout our daughter's childhood, the teenage years loomed ever larger. We heard the stories, we knew what might happen. And then we got there and.. it was fine. In fact, everything has been great. Until a few days ago.

A few nights ago, during dinner, our daughter wanted to know the h-index of each of her parents.

What to do? She has asked us some difficult questions in the past, like when she wondered which parent is more famous (short answer: neither), but this question was somehow more.. personal.

We told her. My husband's h-index is higher than mine.

Will this affect how she views us? Should we have told her?

Is revealing our h-index a gateway to future nerdy questions? Will she now wonder how much grant money we each bring in? Will she start begging for chemical safety training, and then demand the keys to the lab?

I guess we will just have to keep doing what we've been doing: wing it. Despite a shocking lack of preparation for being parents in the first place, we will try to navigate the eddies and shoals of the teen years. Perhaps it is even time for us to start talking to our daughter about the importance of having an updated CV, but I'm not sure I'm ready to have that conversation yet.
Read More >>

Wearing Two Hats: Editor & Reviewer

A few times since I have been a journal editor or guest editor, authors of rejected manuscripts have written angry e-mails railing against the injustice of the negative decision by me or by one of my fellow editors. I have written about various aspects of this before, but today I was thinking about one of the reasons that some rejected authors focus on as evidence that their article was misjudged/mishandled: the editor also acted as a reviewer.

In most cases, this particular reason should not be a cause for anger. In fact, in some cases, you may be lucky that an editor also acted as a reviewer.

Common reasons why an editor would also act as reviewer are: (1) it was impossible to get enough reviewers to commit to a review owing to (a) random bad luck/timing, (b) the topic of the paper was so highly specialized that the reviewer pool was small; or (2) one or more agreed reviewers didn't return a review and an editor decided not to hold the review process up any longer. In the case of having an insufficient number of reviews, an editor can make a decision based on the review(s) in hand, but can also decide to act as an additional reviewer.

How does this work? What are the implications of having a review by someone who acts as reviewer and editor?

I can only speak about my own experiences, but from what I've seen and done, this means that the editor provides more detailed and substantive comments on the article, rather than mostly providing context and guidance based on the reviews provided by others. Of course, some editors routinely act as a reviewer in this way as well, no matter how many reviews were received.

When my editor-colleagues and I act as reviewers in addition to our editorial roles, we inform the author that we are doing this and sign the review that is ours. It would make no sense to provide an anonymous review and then agree with it as editor. We also inform the author as to the reason for our "reviewing" the manuscript -- again, this is typically because we couldn't get a sufficient number of reviews in a reasonable amount of time.

Understandably, some authors may blame an editor for a rejection, so the fact that the editor was reviewer and ultimate decider makes it seem like the deck was stacked. In fact, from what I've seen in journals with which I have been associated, manuscripts that are reviewed by editors are not rejected at a higher rate than those in which there are multiple reviews by non-editors.

I doubt if editors act as reviewers to make sure that a particular paper is rejected. If an editor wanted to sink a paper, there are much more efficient ways to do this than to spend the extra time required to expand editorial comments into a review.

Speaking again from my own experience, editor-reviewers are likely to provide useful reviews because we know what constitutes a constructive review. And if you don't get a detailed, substantive review from an editor/reviewer, the manuscript probably didn't have much of a chance to be accepted anyway.

The most recent incident involving an angry almost-author was not directed at me, but at one of my hardest-working, most diligent, and most thorough fellow editors. If this particular editor takes the time to act as a reviewer and editor, the author is actually lucky to get the extra attention. The author is assured of a fair and thoughtful review from this editor.

The fact that it didn't turn out well for the author in this case is unfortunate, but I would advise authors to wait a little while and calm down before firing off a rude e-mail accusing an editor of incompetence because s/he was unable to find enough reviewers for a manuscript. It would be better to consider carefully other possible reasons for the rejection of the manuscript (and difficulty in finding reviewers) before focusing on the dual editor/reviewer role as the favored explanation for the rejection.
Read More >>

Orders of Magnitude

Thanks to all who sent me links to the recent PNAS article by Ceci & Williams on "Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science". I had read reports of the results, and now have read the article itself.

The authors of the article focused on some of the most commonly cited reasons for the underrepresentation of women in "math-intensive fields of science": discrimination in reviewing of proposals and manuscripts; being selected for interviews in faculty positions; and in hiring. They propose that current data do not support these as primary causes for the underrepresentation of women today.

Their main conclusion is that "differential gendered outcomes in the real world result from differences in resources attributable to choices, whether free or constrained", and that underrepresentation would be best alleviated through changes that take into account "differing biological realities of the sexes."

I think they make some important points with their study, and I believe that the current situation for women being evaluated for jobs, grants, and publications is better than it has ever been. However, I continue to see and hear examples of discrimination in reviews and hiring committees -- faculty who doubt that women have their own ideas (but have no trouble believing this about male candidates), or who don't like "aggressive" women (but think this is a fine trait in a man), are alive and well. These issues are not as obvious and widespread as in the past, but neither are they isolated, rare incidents that can safely be ignored as irrelevant to current practices.

I was surprised that the study focused so much on databases related to the life sciences, a realm of science in which, as the authors note, women now make up the majority of PhD recipients. I realize that some biological sciences are quite "math-intensive", but the authors seem to use this term to refer specifically to the non-biological sciences. It would therefore make sense to base conclusions primarily on studies other than those involving the life sciences.

(A quibble: In the sentence about how the number of PhDs awarded to women in the life sciences has increased, 13% is described as "orders of magnitude less" than 52%. It is not.)

In the section on Discrimination Against Women in Journal Reviewing, the authors rely in part on a study of acceptance rates for the journals Behavioral Ecology, the Journal of Biogeography, and Nature Neuroscience. Those all seem kind of life sciencey to me.

Similarly, in the section on Discrimination Against Women in Grant Funding, the authors rely on studies of databases of Medical Research Councils and similar organizations of various countries, including the NIH. There is also mention of NSF and the Australian Research Council, both of which cover a wide range of fields in science, engineering, education, and beyond. If possible, it would have been interesting to see a separate analysis of recent data for the "math-intensive" sciences.

Having seen such data for my own field, I believe that NSF works -- with some success -- to provide a "gender-fair grant review process", but I don't think the authors of this particular study have demonstrated that with their chosen databases. [I chose the phrase "works to provide" rather than a simple "provides" based on experiences such as this (which referred to, but did not specify, that the problem was offensive sexist comments by a program officer) and this and this and this, all of which the excellent and enlightened staff at NSF can and do filter so that there are no deleterious effects on female PIs].

The authors note that there are "more women in teaching-intensive, part-time posts where research resources are scarce", and attribute this to life-style choices or constraints. When discussing the situation at major research universities, the authors cite an NRC task force report that concluded that women were not at a disadvantage for interviews and offers (and may have a slight advantage) in a study of 6 fields of "natural science". That's great, but I think it is premature to propose, based on these data, that universities should discontinue efforts to train hiring committees to avoid bias (explicit or implicit).

Although ultimately not as convincing as it could be (owing to the datasets used), this is a useful study in that the authors try to focus our collective attention on additional factors that affect the underrepresentation of women in math-intensive fields of science, and suggest that universities explore new options for career tracks ("The linear career path of the modal [sic?] male scientist of the past may not be the only route to success.."). I agree; just don't throw out the methods that seem to be working so far. That would make the situation orders of magnitude worse than it already is for women in math-intensive fields of science.
Read More >>

Advisor/Student

Today in Scientopia:

Perhaps the most common theme of questions/laments that I get from readers concerns advisor-student interactions: grad students send me (long) sad tales of dysfunctional working relationships with remote and neglectful advisors, and advisors send me tales of woe about students who are not working hard (if at all). If only the neglectful advisors could be paired with the students who don't work hard (if at all), and the caring, responsive advisors could have hard-working, productive students..

(continued over at Scientopia)
Read More >>

Posts about sirtuins

Read More >>

Testing the Fountain of Youth in the lab

It's been more than 10 years since it was noticed that certain enzymes – the sirtuins – had life-extending properties in organisms like yeast, and later nematodes, fruit flies, and mice. The excitement spread to other compounds, such as resveratrol, that seemed to activate or assist sirtuins. Hopes were high that such things might offer the known longevity benefits of calorie restriction in a pill form. Ever since then the gold rush has been on to figure out how these things work – and if possible, to be the first to market with the Fountain of Youth in a bottle.

We've discussed sirtuins here a number of times before – here's a list of some of those discussions. If you need to brush up on the background, those would be good places to start.

The initial sirtuin that seemed to be most important for the longevity of yeast was SIR2. The gene for SIR2 is highly conserved in evolution – so it's probably kind of important. Homologs of SIR2 have been found in many sorts of higher organisms (nematodes, fruit flies, etc.). In mammals, including humans, there is a whole family of sirtuins, having at least 7 members, named SIRTx for x=1 to 7. ("SIRT" and "sirtuin" refer to SIR-two, where SIR was an acronym for "silent information regulator".)

SIR2 is primarily a histone deacetylase (HDAC), that is, an enzyme that removes acetyl groups from histone proteins (and often other types of proteins as well). Histones are the building block proteins that make up nucleosomes, around which DNA is spooled in chromosomes. Normally, DNA is tightly bound to the histones, which prevents the genes in the tightly bound portion of DNA from being transcribed into RNA in order to make proteins. In other words, the genes bound to a histone are effectively silenced. In order for a gene to be expressed, the histone closest to the portion of DNA containing the gene has to have an acetyl group attached at an appropriate location. Enzymes ("acetyltransferases") attach acetyl groups (in the process called acetylation) to histones in order to allow gene expression. Consequently, deacetylase enzymes, such as several sirtuins, are able to silence genes by removing acetyl groups from histones.

SIRT1 is the most intensively studied mammalian sirtuin. Like SIR2, it is primarily a histone deacetylase that is active in a cell nucleus to silence a wide variety of genes. Since SIRT1 can silence a large number of genes, it affects many cellular processes. However, there is one additional complication. SIR2 and SIRT1 only have their deacetylation ability in the presence of a small molecule called NAD: nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, and only when NAD has a net positive charge, due to the loss of one electron during the process of metabolism in which cells generate needed energy. NAD+ denotes this form of NAD. (The neutral form of NAD is denoted by NADH.) Because of the role of NAD+, SIR2 is said to be a "NAD+-dependent" histone deacetylase.

All this is important, because research over the past 10+ years has shown that the lifespan-extending properties of calorie restriction, especially in simple organisms like yeast and nematodes, seem to be related, at least sometimes, with the deacetylation properties of SIR2 in the presence of NAD+. When an organism is in a calorie restricted environment, metabolism slows down, and less NAD+ gets used up. As a result, there is more NAD+ around. So SIR2 is more effective. So genes are silenced that would otherwise be expressed. Silencing these genes seem to help an organism live longer when nourishment is not ample – so that it can survive until the buffet table is restocked.

In an organism on a normal (not calorie restricted) diet, up-regulating SIR2 or otherwise enhancing its gene-silencing abilities seems to compensate for decreased amounts of NAD+, and thereby achieves for the organism some of the anti-aging benefits of a calorie-restricted diet without having to go hungry.

The problem is that the expression of so many different genes can be affected by SIR2 deacetylation that it's difficult to identify which genes among these are actually useful for promoting longevity or retarding aging – especially in organisms more complex than yeast or nematodes.

Now, however, research has come out involving a much less studied mammalian sirtuin, SIRT3 – Sirt3 Mediates Reduction of Oxidative Damage and Prevention of Age-Related Hearing Loss under Caloric Restriction. (I recommend viewing this link, since the illustration on the page will be helpful in understanding what follows here.) In spite of caveats I'll mention toward the end, this is a very significant and well-done piece of research.

A number of properties of SIRT3 had already been observed prior to this latest research. It is, like SIRT1, also a NAD+-dependent deacetylase enzyme. But unlike SIRT1, its main activity is found in cell mitochondria instead of in the nucleus. Consequently, SIRT3 deacetylates mitochondrial proteins instead of histones.

Of particular interest, this SIRT3 activity was known to be associated with calorie restriction (CR), because of overexpression in CR conditions and presumably also because of the NAD+-dependence. For example, studies in mice have shown that CR increases SIRT3 expression in liver mitochondria. Further, in knockout mice without SIRT3 mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation problems are found. Under CR SIRT3 is also overexpressed in mouse heart cells and may protect these cells from oxidative stress-induced cell death. (However, in this case it's possible that the effect resulted from HDAC activity in the cell nucleus.) So SIRT3 seems to be associated with anti-oxidant activity. There is, additionally, mechanistic evidence that SIRT3 inhibits mitochondria-related carcinogenesis. For instance, knockout mice without SIRT3 are susceptible to breast tumors.

The latest research presents strong evidence that under calorie restriction SIRT3 is involved in suppressing oxidative damage. The evidence is based on studies of oxidative stress-induced cochlear cell death responsible for age-related hearing loss (AHL) in mice. AHL is a pretty typical example of health problems associated with aging – one that affects humans as well as mice. The research not only shows an association between SIRT3 and protection from oxidative damage, but goes deep into the apparent mechanism involved. A variety of different in vitro and in vivo experiments with knockout mice provide the evidence.

To begin with, at the highest level, the researchers found that SIRT3 is required along with CR to inhibit age-related cochlear cell death and hearing loss. The knockout mice used in this, and other in vivo experiments, had both copies of the SIRT3 gene knocked out. The rate of progression of AHL was first measured in wild type (WT) mice as controls. CR was found to delay or mitigate AHL in the controls – but not in the knockout mice. This implies SIRT3 is necessary for CR to inhibit the progression of AHL – there's no benefit of CR for this condition without SIRT3. Further, when the cochlear cells of the experimental mice were examined, it was found that CR retarded cell death in the control animals but not in the mice without SIRT3.

So the key process to be concerned with is progressive cell death related to aging. The next experiments showed that the cell death was the result of oxidative damage. A lot of other studies have shown that CR inhibits oxidative damage to DNA, proteins, and lipids in many types of mammalian tissues. In the present research this was confirmed by examination of DNA in cochlear, brain, and liver tissues of control mice. But CR did not inhibit oxidative damage in the same tissues of the knockout mice. So SIRT3 appears to be necessary for the inhibition of oxidative damage to DNA, which presumably was responsible for accelerated cell death.

The next issue needing to be addressed is the mechanism by which CR inhibits oxidative damage. It is known that a small molecule, glutathione, is the major small molecule antioxidant in cells. Glutathione can exist in two oxidation states – reduced (GSH) or oxidized (GSSG). A high ratio of GSH to GSSG protects other molecules in the cell from oxidative damage, and GSH predominates in the healthy mitochondria of young mice. Conversely, a low ratio of GSH to GSSG is a marker for oxidative stress and/or aging. In the present research, the GSH:GSSG ratio was tested in control and knockout mice under CR conditions, at the age of 5 months. In the mitochondria of inner ear cells, as well as in brain and liver cells, it was found that the GSH:GSSG ratio increased as a result of CR in control mice, but not in knockout mice. Once again the presence of SIRT3 was shown to be necessary for an effect.

Obviously, the next thing to look at is how the GSH:GSSG ratio is controlled. The enzyme glutathione reductase (GSR) is known to be responsible for converting GSSG to GSH. So what happens is that reactive oxygen species (ROS) get soaked up in converting GSH to GSSG, and GSR reverses this to convert GSSG back to GSH.

However, in order to work GSR requires another molecule, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) to do its job. NADPH is nothing but NAD, which we encountered in connection with the HDAC function of SIRT1, with a phosphate group attached. Like NAD, NADPH also exists in an oxidized form, NADPH+. This latter molecule predominates in mitochondria, and needs to be converted back to NADPH for use by GSR. (All this activity is really just shuffling electrons from one place to another. The pairs of molecules that mediate the activity are called "redox couples".)

So, what is it that converts NADPH+ to the plain old NADPH that we need? Well, that task is handled by yet another mitochondrial enzyme, isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (Idh2). Don't despair – this is the last step! There is just one wrinkle. Idh2 is normally found in an acetylated form, in which case it is inactive. It needs to be deacetylated in order to become active and convert NADPH+ to NADPH. And that is precisely where the deacetylation function of SIRT3 comes into play. The researchers hypothesized that SIRT3 was needed in order to activate Idh2.

In order to test the hypothesis, they first measured acetylation of Idh2 in the control mice, with both normal and CR diets. With a normal diet, acetylation of Idh2 was substantial, but with CR there was an 8-fold decrease of acetylation. So it only remains to find the reason for that. In knockout mice, with no SIRT3, acetylation of Idh2 was "robust" with both normal and CR diets. That's a pretty good indication that SIRT3 was required for the effect. As a further indication, SIRT3 levels in the control mice were 3 times as high with a CR diet compared to a normal diet.

So SIRT3 is necessary for deacetylation of Idh2 under CR conditions, but there's still the possibility that it isn't sufficient by itself. It's possible that CR has other effects that facilitate deacetylation – CR may cause expression or activation of other enzymes that are needed. It's also possible that CR has other effects that increase NADPH independently of Idh2.

What if NADPH levels were tested directly? It was found that in the control mice NADPH did increase in all tissue types tested when a CR diet replaced a normal one, but this effect was not found in the knockout mice.

Efforts were made to use biochemical experiments (in vitro) to determine whether SIRT3 alone is responsible for deacetylating Idh2 under CR conditions. For example, another sirtuin, SIRT5, is also a deacetylase that occurs in mitochondria. Could it be helping deacetylate Idh2? The biochemical experiments indicated this was not the case.

Unsurprisingly, both normal and knockout mice were found to be leaner when fed a CR diet. Is it possible that lower body mass, especially resulting from less fat tissue, had some role in the protection from oxidative damage resulting from a CR diet? Perhaps, but other factors like that certainly weren't sufficient, as it was pretty clear that SIRT3 (absent in the knockout mice) was necessary, at least as far as AHL is concerned. It's still possible that SIRT3 isn't necessary for anti-aging effects of CR in tissue types that weren't tested (i. e. other than inner ear, brain, and liver tissue), or in mammals other than mice. The case is pretty solid for AHL in mice, but obviously there are many other age-related conditions and other species that should be investigated.

I should apologize for all the biochemical details presented here, but at least they should give you a good indication of just how complicated the effects of CR on aging and longevity can be – and probably are. There's a whole lot of work yet to be done before a reliable anti-aging pill can be developed for humans. Enthusiastic claims that this research "could lead to" therapies to slow down aging in general are basically BS. Yeah, these findings will help, but a heck of a lot more will be needed as well.

(As an example of just how badly misleading journalists who write about this stuff can be, consider this report, which begins with the claim: "In a remarkable demonstration of the ability of calorie restriction to blunt the effects of aging, scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have succeeded in delaying age-related hearing loss in mice." Although the research showed that calorie restriction can do this, it did not produce any new way to do it. Instead, it shows how CR probably works by showing how CR doesn't work if SIRT3 is absent.)

So what's the bottom line here? It's pretty clear from this and many other studies that oxidative damage in cells is a cause of cell death and therefore of various health problems associated with aging. Undoubtedly there are a number of other factors that contribute to aging-related problems, such as cell death due to other causes and weakening or disregulation of the immune system. And even in the case of oxidative damage, there are many ways it can come about, and also many ways it might be inhibited. If you think of aging as a complex disease, like cancer – a point of view that has its detractors – then there are bound to be many causes and contributing factors. And also many ways to inhibit or arrest the process. The example considered here is just one of many.



ResearchBlogging.org
Someya, S., Yu, W., Hallows, W., Xu, J., Vann, J., Leeuwenburgh, C., Tanokura, M., Denu, J., & Prolla, T. (2010). Sirt3 Mediates Reduction of Oxidative Damage and Prevention of Age-Related Hearing Loss under Caloric Restriction Cell, 143 (5), 802-812 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.10.002


Further reading:

Scientists ferret out a key pathway for aging (11/18/10)

Calorie restriction delays age-related hearing loss, UW study finds (11/18/10)

Scientists ID key protein that links dietary restriction with healthy hearing, aging (12/16/10)

Calorie Restrictions Slow Aging by Enzyme Pathway (11/19/10)
Read More >>