We’ve been calling RecA730 “constitutively active”… but what does that really mean? In our new @repair_dna @Sciencedirect paper, we show: SOS is induced without damage, but not fully ON in lexA⁺. It’s not ON vs OFF… but how ON it is! Read more here: sciencedirect.com/science/ar…

For all DNA repair and mutagenesis enthusiasts: the 7th edition of Fundamental Aspects of DNA Repair and Mutagenesis (VII FARM-DNA) is coming!🧬🛠 Registrations are open until July 31! To register and submit your abstract, visit: farmdna2025.com.br/ See you there! 😉

Ever read a drug label and checked its mechanism of action? That’s basic research! And without government funding for this science, there are no safe and effective medicines for your illness. Cutting funding means cutting treatments.

My lab at UVA is looking to hire a Postdoc to study mechanisms of DNA repair in chromatin using biochemical, biophysical, and structural biology approaches! Feel free to share with anyone you think may be interested. jobs.virginia.edu/us/en/job/…

Introducing Chromo, our new package for performing differential analysis in chromosome regions. Chromo works with any type of quantitative data, including RNA-seq, single-cell RNA-seq, ATAC-seq, ChIP-seq, and more. It will be available soon

Honored to received the FARE for the 2025 competition at NIH! 🎉 Proud to be one of the 15 @NICHD_NIH winners. Thanks to @NIH FelCom and @NIH_OITE for their support! 🎊

Writing the discussion section of your paper

The importance of stupidity in scientific research

Kicking off the GRC Mutagenesis meeting today in Waterville Valley. Looking forward to insightful discussions and new connections. 😊

Regular abstract submissions for #EMGS2024 are being accepted through Wednesday, May 15th! Accepted abstracts will be published in a special issue of EMM. Late breaking abstracts will be accepted through August 15th. Submit an Abstract Now: app.oxfordabstracts.com/stag…

Such a pleasure to spend the past week at Myron’s lab learning new things ♡ going back home and ready to transform and apply it at @WoodgateLab 🧬

"Based on these findings, the majority of PhDs would be financially better off if they skipped the postdoc entirely" nature.com/articles/nbt.3766

From AI to the Y chromosome (and everything in between) Our editors pick their favorite research articles from 2023 go.nature.com/3uMSHnm rdcu.be/duKJ3

What a great application of AI, much needed breakthroughs for new antibiotics! nature.com/articles/s41586-0…

A list of papers that were rejected before going viral ( = winning a Nobel Prize). It just shows how #science works sometimes. ▫️ 1. Richard Ernst, Chemistry (1991), for NMR spectroscopy The paper that described our achievements was rejected twice by the Journal of Chemical Physics to be finally accepted and published in the Review of Scientific Instruments. ▫️ 2. Andre Geim, Physics (2010), for graphene “First, we submitted the manuscript to Nature. It was rejected and, when further information requested by referees was added, rejected again. According to one referee, our report did 'not constitute a sufficient scientific advance'." ▫️ 3. Paul Boyer, Chemistry (1997), for enzymatic mechanisms underlying the synthesis of ATP His proposed resolution of a major unsolved problem in biochemistry threatened to "change the paradigm," Boyer remembers, and "the leading journal" in his field - The Journal of Biological Chemistry - declined to publish his work. ▫️ 4. Herbert Kroemer, Physics (2000), for semiconductor heterostructures "I wrote up the idea and submitted the paper to Applied Physics Letters, where it was rejected. I was talked into not fighting the rejection, but to submit it to the Proceedings of the IEEE, where it was published, but ignored. I also wrote a patent, which is probably a better paper than the one in Proc. IEEE." ▫️ 5. John Polanyi, Chemistry (1997), for describing the dynamics of chemical elementary processes PRL rejected the paper as lacking scientific interest. Shortly thereafter they rejected T. Maiman's report of the first operating laser, on the same grounds. Polanyi read about this second rejection, quite by chance. [Later] he submitted the identical manuscript to the Journal of Chemical Physics, where it was promptly published. ▫️ 6. Kary Mullis, Chemistry (1997), for the PCR method (!!!!) "And Dan Koshland would be the editor of Science when my first PCR paper was rejected from that journal and also the editor when PCR was three years later proclaimed Molecule of the Year." ▫️ 7. Rosalind Yalow, Medicine (1977), for the radioimmunoassays of peptide hormones From the rejection letter: “The experts in this field have beer particularly emphatic in rejecting your positive statement that the "conclusion that the globulin responsible for insulin binding is an acquired antibody appears to be inescapable”. ▫️ 8. Hans Krebs, Medicine (1953), for the citric acid cycle The rejection letter from Nature is in the picture. 🤦‍♂️ ▫️ ❗ My point is simple: Rejections by editors are NOT rejections by the research community. Believe in your results. Bring them to the public. Post your study as a preprint. Show it to the world and let the world decide. ▫️ (This list compiled by Josh Nicholson bit from me). #AcademicTwitter #phdlife