Selection of different genotype larvae and adult worms for anthelmintic resistance by persistent and short-acting avermectin/milbemycins

To understand the factors that influence selection for anthelmintic resistance, it is necessary to examine the impact of drug treatment, particularly persistent drugs, on all phases of the worm life cycle. The efficacy of various avermectin/milbemycin anthelmintics was determined against resident worms, incoming larvae (L3) and development of eggs in faecal culture. Homozygote-resistant and maternal and paternal F1-heterozygote genotypes of Haemonchus contortus were used to infect sheep before or after treatment with ivermectin (IVM) oral, IVM capsule, moxidectin (MOX) oral or MOX injectable. Total worm count and quantitative larval culture were used to determine efficacy against parasitic and free-living stages, respectively. Selection for resistance by IVM capsules occurred at the adult and L3 stages because of poor efficacy against these stages for all resistant genotypes. However, the selective advantage of these surviving worms was reduced due to the low development of their eggs to L3 in faecal culture. For MOX, selection for resistance predominantly occurred after treatment because of high efficacy against resident adult worms of all resistant genotypes but poor efficacy against resistant L3 ingested after drug administration. The results indicated no evidence of sex-linked inheritance for IVM resistance. Mean IVM efficacies against homozygous and heterozygous resistant adult worms were not different, and IVM capsule efficacy against incoming L3 was approximately 70% for all resistant genotypes, consistent with a dominant trait. MOX was highly effective against adults of all resistant genotypes and approximately 76% effective against incoming L3 regardless of resistance genotype, also consistent with a dominant trait. These results will enable the impact of persistent drugs on worm control and anthelmintic resistance to be estimated. The results indicate that IVM capsules should not be used in populations where avermectin/milbemycin resistance is present.     

Amnesia,Anesthesia, and Warranted Fear

Is a painful experience less bad for you if you will not remember it? Do you have less reason to fear it? These questions bear on how we think about medical procedures and surgeries that use an anesthesia regimen that leaves patients conscious – and potentially in pain – but results in complete ‘drug‐induced amnesia’ after the fact. I argue that drug‐induced amnesia does not render a painful medical procedure a less fitting object of fear, and thus the prospect of amnesia does not give patients a reason not to fear it. I expose three mistakes in reasoning that might explain our tendency to view pain or discomfort as less fearful in virtue of expected amnesia: a mistaken view of personal identity; a mistaken view of the target of anticipation; and a mistaken method of incorporating past evidence into calculations about future experiences. Ultimately my argument has implications for whether particular procedures are justified and how medical professionals should speak with anxious patients about the prospect of drug‐induced amnesia.     

Learn from the Best

What is more inspiring than a discussion with the leading scientists in your field? As a student or a young researcher, you have likely been influenced by mentors guiding you in your career and leading you to your current position. Any discussion with or advice from an expert is certainly very helpful for young people. But how often do we have the opportunity to meet experts? Do we make the most out of these situations? Meetings organized for young scientists are a great opportunity not only for the attendees: they are an opportunity for experts to meet bright students and learn from them in return. In this article, we introduce several successful events organized by Regional Student Groups all around the world, bridging the gap between experts and young scientists. We highlight how rewarding it is for all participants: young researchers, experts, and organizers. We then discuss the various benefits and emphasize the importance of organizing and attending such meetings. As a young researcher, seeking mentorship and additional skills training is a crucial step in career development. Keep in mind that one day, you may be an inspiring mentor, too.     

The potential impact of density dependent fecundity on the use of the faecal egg count reduction test for detecting drug resistance in human hookworms

Current efforts to control human soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infections involve the periodic mass treatment of people, particularly children, in all endemic areas, using benzimidazole and imidothiazole drugs. Given the fact that high levels of resistance have developed to these same drugs in roundworms of livestock, there is a need to monitor drug efficacy in human STHs. The faecal egg count reduction test (FECRT), in which faecal egg output is measured pre- and post-drug treatment, is presently under examination by WHO as a means of detecting the emergence of resistance. We have examined the potential impact of density dependent fecundity on FECRT data. Recent evidence with the canine hookworm indicates that the density dependent egg production phenomenon shows dynamic properties in response to drug treatment. This will impact on measurements of drug efficacy, and hence drug resistance. It is likely that the female worms that survive a FECRT drug treatment in some human cases will respond to the relaxation of density dependent constraints on egg production by increasing their egg output significantly compared to their pre-treatment levels. These cases will therefore underestimate drug efficacy in the FECRT. The degree of underestimation will depend on the ability of the worms within particular hosts to increase their egg output, which will in turn depend on the extent to which their egg output is constrained prior to the drug treatment. As worms within different human cases will likely be present at quite different densities prior to a proposed FECRT, there is potential for the effects of this phenomenon on drug efficacy measurements to vary considerably within any group of potential FECRT candidates. Measurement of relative drug efficacy may be improved by attempting to ensure a consistent degree of underestimation in groups of people involved in separate FECRTs. This may be partly achieved by omission of cases with the heaviest infections from a FECRT, as these cases may have the greatest potential to increase their egg output upon removal of density dependent constraints. The potential impact of worm reproductive biology on the utility of the FECRT as a resistance detection tool highlights the need to develop new drug resistance monitoring methods which examine either direct drug effects on isolated worms with in vitro phenotypic assays, or changes in worm genotypes.     

Malaria: living with drug resistance

The epidemiological factors associated with the development and spread of drug-resistant malaria have been recently explored by Wemsdorfer in a paper in which he looked at parasite-drug-human-vector interactions that affect the occurrence and dynamics of drug resistance. The question that decision-makers must be asking themselves, as we face the 21st century, is: how will we live with drug resistance? Allan Schapira, Peter Beales and M. Elizabeth Halloran are ideally placed to consider this question. Extracting lessons from the past, they focus on drug-resistant Plasmodium falciparum in Africa. They propose a mathematical model, which will improve the conceptual basis for policy decisions and which has implications for drug development as well as for malaria-control programmes.     

Artophagy: The art of autophagy—Macroautophagy

Many of us have sketched (by hand or on the computer) depictions of macroautophagy; however, how often have we considered which elements in the drawing are key to illustrating the process? These types of illustrations are easily modified and/or discarded. On the other hand, if you plan to depict the process of macroautophagy in a more permanent medium you need to be more thoughtful about the composition. What items must be included? How should they be situated? What should be the size of each component? Here, we consider one example of an artist’s approach to depicting macroautophagy in a mixed-medium sculpture.     

Walking between academia and industry to find successful solutions to biomedical challenges: an interview with Geoffrey Smith

Geoffrey W. Smith is currently the Managing Director of Mars Ventures. He actually started his studies with a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Doctorate in Law but then, in part by chance and in part by following in his family footsteps, he stepped into the healthcare and biotech field. Since then, he has successfully contributed to the birth of a number of healthcare companies and has also held academic positions at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and at The Rockefeller University in New York, teaching about the interface between science and business. During 2014 he served as Senior Editor on Disease Models & Mechanisms, bringing to the editorial team his valuable experience in drug development and discovery. In this interview, Geoff talks to Ross Cagan, Editor-in-Chief of Disease Models & Mechanisms, about how he developed his incredibly varied career, sharing his views about industry, academia and science publishing, and discussing how academia and industry can fruitfully meet to advance bioscience, train the scientists and stakeholders of the future, and drive the successful discovery of new therapeutics to treat human disease.Geoffrey W. Smith was born in 1965. He obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree from Williams College in Williamstown, MA. After a stint as a Research Associate at Harvard Business School, he graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Following a federal court clerkship and first job experiences in law, he joined a healthcare services start-up named Advanced Health as one of its first employees. Geoff then co-founded various healthcare and technology companies, including Interbind and Ascent Biomedical Ventures, and is still a Managing Partner at the latter. In 2012, he joined the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, first as Professor in the Department of Population Health Science And Policy, and then as Director and co-founder of the Design, Technology, and Entrepreneurship PhD program. Until December 2014, he was a Senior Editor at Disease Models & Mechanisms. Geoff is now Managing Director of Mars Ventures.Let''s start with your background. You have a Bachelor of Arts degree and a law degree. How is it exactly that you ended up working in biotech and pharma?My career path has been anything other than linear. I was actually pursuing my legal career when two entrepreneurs turned up at the law firm I was working for with an idea for a new technology-based company focused on more effectively managing healthcare services. I was a new associate without much to do, so I got assigned to work with the start-up and after about a year they asked me to come and join the company, Advanced Health. I had grown up in a very medically oriented family – my father was a medical school professor, my older sister was a PhD, and my younger sister is a medical doctor – and so to a certain extent joining a start-up in the healthcare space was a bit like joining the family business.We had a fair amount of success with that company. A little less than 2 years after I joined it, we had a successful initial public offering, and that started me down the road of participating in the start-up environment around healthcare.It sounds like it was not a surprising path for you. Which key people influenced you?Actually, it is somewhat surprising in that I had really prepared for and expected a career in law. Certainly, the work I did in law school and the first jobs I had after that started me on a different career. I was really focused on international relations and international law. The twist was that I got brought back into the healthcare arena, and ultimately the biotech arena, by a serendipitous connection – one of the entrepreneurs who started Advanced Health had trained at Brigham Women''s Hospital where my father was the Chief of Cardiology. It was through this connection that I became more than just an associate drafting legal documents and really began to build a close relationship with the founders, which ultimately led to me joining that business. This taught me that you can spend much of your time preparing, and thinking that your schooling is going to take you in one direction, but individual relationships can change your path and take you somewhere else altogether. In my case, these particular relationships stemmed from my father, who clearly had an enormous influence on me. He was both a practising clinician and a basic researcher, studying basic biology related to the function of sodium and potassium in the heart, but he also did applied research. He helped develop a radioimmunoassay test to measure digitalis levels in the blood and ultimately was involved in developing a drug called Digibind, an antidote to digitalis toxicity, which was one of the first drugs to use antigen-binding fragments [Fab] as the basis for a drug. Watching him manage these different activities in his career had a big influence on me.

“This taught me that you can spend much of your time preparing, and thinking that your schooling is going to take you in one direction, but individual relationships can change your path and take you somewhere else altogether”

I think that each of my sisters – as I said, one of whom went down a PhD route and one of whom went down a medical training route – had a big influence on me, as well. Watching the challenges that they had to face in those areas in some ways pushed me to go off towards law school and take a different path. It also brought me back to one of the aspects that I think is the most rewarding in the bioscience field, which is that you can have a profound impact on a large number of people through your efforts, whether they be purely research-based, academic-based or commercially-based.One of the things I was constantly impressed by is that you always seem to have a good feel for the health field and the biology field. Is this because it is something of a family business?I think so. Growing up at my dinner table, I was just privileged to get to meet and interact with a lot of incredibly successful clinicians and researchers. For me those were comfortable conversations: these were friends and so there was a comfort level being involved in that environment. I didn''t feel a lot of intimidation from it, which I think sometimes people who come from the outside do.One of the aspects I really like about the bioscience field is the impact of ideas. Success is really about one''s ideas and ability to execute them, and that was very appealing to me. It wasn''t about how much money you had or where you went to school, it was really about the ability to think deeply about a problem or a potential advancement and figure out a way to find a way forward. It is also a very people-driven process because it is not only about thinking deeply yourself but also about thinking deeply with those in your field or adjacent to your field. Lots of different personality types can succeed in this field, but I think it is certainly easier for people who have an affinity for sitting with people and thinking about a common area of interest.To that point, you actually have walked between business and scientists. What do you see is the difference? Some of the priorities are obvious, but what are the differences in terms of what motivates people in the two? Are the personalities that you come across different between the basic science world, the translating science world and the business world?I don''t think the personalities are particularly different. I think you find introverts and extroverts and everything in between in each of these areas. I am not sure that personality is necessarily a good predictor of success. I think it''s a question of what toolset you are most comfortable using to get at a problem, and where in the lifespan of a problem you''re interested in working.For example, scientists in academia very often are interested in working at an early stage of a problem. They understand something fairly basic about a process or something earlier in the understanding of a field. People who gravitate towards industry, instead, are more excited about working on the later part of a process, so, rather than trying to understand what the fundamental working mechanism is, they want to understand how to work that mechanism in a way that is predictable and repeatable.Obviously people in the commercial realm are often highly influenced by money, but even that I don''t think is really particularly the differentiator. There are plenty of academics who are driven by money as well. I really think it has much more to do with where on the spectrum of understanding one is interested in working. Industry is geared to solving practical problems and, if a lot is understood about a problem, to getting down to the ability to repeatedly and safely intervene, whereas academia really lends itself more towards understanding the front end of a problem or of an unknown mechanism to understand it first and at a more basic level.What about working in teams versus individually? Do you see a difference there?I think that has changed over time. I think it is very hard in academia today to be the brilliant solo investigator. I''m not saying it''s impossible but, considering the increasing size of the data sets one is working with, the statistical methods one has to use, the complexity of different fields overlapping with each other, it''s just very hard to handle all the necessary aspects of modern science as an individual. Increasingly, working in teams isn''t a choice: I think it''s a necessity in order to be effective. The difference may be that, in academia, often the teams are teams of collaborators (meaning they have influence but not necessarily power over all people participating in the team) who may work for different institutions, whereas, more commonly in industry, teams are working within a single corporate structure. In industry more often there are hierarchical relationships, which may allow for more directive behavior. Again, I''m not sure I would draw as much distinction between team or not team and between industry and academia, but I might draw somewhat of a distinction between how those teams function and how one manages a team. I think they are a bit different between the two realms.

“Increasingly, working in teams isn''t a choice: I think it''s a necessity in order to be effective”

Let''s turn to Disease Models & Mechanisms [DMM], where you have been a Senior Editor. What did your experience at DMM teach you about science publishing that perhaps you hadn''t thought about, and has it made you think more deeply about what goes into a good scientific piece of work? What were some of the surprises?Watching the detailed process that is necessary to take a piece from an initial submission through to a published article gave me comfort and respect for the level of diligence and the level of attention that the reviewers brought to the vast majority of the pieces. It gave me a good feeling that the science community can be a strong self-reinforcing organization that takes its responsibility to heart and only publishes the best of the work available. I think that was very reassuring.An interesting question for me was: is there a different function that the publication process could play in helping to galvanize new ideas or new interactions among different fields? That seemed to be challenging because people don''t want to rush out there without their ideas and data being fully thought-out and fully vetted. But still, somewhere in my mind is this notion that there should be an option in the publishing world to play a little bit earlier in the generation of new ideas.Do you mean journals having an earlier relationship – earlier in the experimental process with a laboratory – to work with them to provide advice?I don''t know if it''s to provide advice. One of the things I was struck by at DMM is that there are these different siloed research communities – for example, the fly and the fish communities – in which interactions and relationships in the individual fields are so well established and routinized. And the outcome from a publishing standpoint is still the canonical academic paper that has been relatively unchanged over a long period of time. Yet, we have had these tremendous changes in information and communication technology such that the manner of knowledge production and the methods of communicating in other parts of society have changed dramatically. It feels like there hasn''t been nearly as big a concomitant communication change in the biomedical sciences, and so the silos and the standard paper remain the way things are done.The publication process, because of its preciseness, can take quite a long time, so the musing here is whether there is a way that the publishing industry could facilitate an earlier, more speculative communication of interesting results in a way that would positively impact the field by turning over new information sooner. If you look at an area like maths, for example, and their pre-print servers, there is more of a notion of putting ideas out in the community that acts as a kind of peer-review process and a way to get the community interacting on new ideas early. That doesn''t seem to get a lot of attention in the life sciences area. It seems to me that even journals like the PLOS journals that are pushing towards a more open world of communication are still ending up being pulled back into the canonical paper form to communicate.

“…the musing here is whether there is a way that the publishing industry could facilitate an earlier, more speculative communication of interesting results in a way that would positively impact the field by turning over new information sooner”

I guess one of the issues on the biology side is that there is a real emphasis on trying to get your paper into the most prestigious journal, so people don''t want to drop that paper until it is as far along as possible to aim at high-impact journals.That of course becomes a self-reinforcing system. If the yardstick used in the life sciences industry is publication in high-impact-rated journals, then you are going to get that behavior. But if you''re interested in the generation of new knowledge and in moving your field forwards, it is at least plausible that publishing in a quicker fashion or with at least some outlet to move more creative ideas ahead would be attractive.There are clearly challenges to that. But I do think it''s remarkable that if you look at almost every other media area there has been a huge amount of change since the advent of the internet era, but there really has been very limited change around life sciences publishing. It''s been surprisingly conservative to me. I am wishing there would be more experimentation to find other ways to communicate information sooner and in a way that could spur more creativity.Of course, when you tie publishing back to industry, for competitive and intellectual property protection reasons, industry tends to not really want to get out in the front with its most interesting work too early. I think that a lot of things being published out of industry are not the most interesting stuff that is happening. But again it seems to me that another area that science publishing should be thinking about is how they could come up with other solutions that might provide for a more creative interaction between publishing and industry.Talking about old models versus new models, let''s move to issues of training. Another area that you''ve been impressive at is the training of scientists. You''ve had your hand in creating a new PhD track at Mount Sinai called Design, Technology, and Entrepreneurship [DTE]. What is your view about how we train scientists, what we''re doing better these days and what you would like to see being done better to train them?It seemed to me that there was a remarkably small amount of experimentation in academia around thinking about how to train biomedical PhDs, and that academia had missed the opportunity to provide a better set of tools to PhDs to allow them to be effective across a wider range of potential career outcomes. The majority of biomedical PhDs are not ending up in tenure-track faculty positions but rather in the ‘alternative career track’. It seemed to be disingenuous to train them solely for the academic track if in reality the majority were going to some other career track.So what I was really excited about in putting together the DTE program was trying new ways to train PhDs to be effective askers of questions and proposers of solutions, and to create an environment where they could gain experience in how to solve a variety of problems effectively.

“…what I was really excited about in putting together the DTE program was trying new ways to train PhDs to be effective askers of questions and proposers of solutions, and to create an environment where they could gain experience in how to solve a variety of problems effectively”

This meant that our students had to be rigorously trained as scientists, but this was an ‘and’ opportunity and not an ‘or’ opportunity. In addition to being trained as excellent basics scientists, we wanted to give them some training in how engineers think about problems, how designers approach issues, what tools those people use and how that impacts how they try to solve a problem. Hopefully over time this would produce students that are better suited for interacting and influencing other parts of society – be it industry, government or policy – and better positioned to compete in what is a very competitive job market.What were some of the things you did in the DTE training to get at this?We really tried to teach theory in the context of real problems. Virtually all the classes of the DTE curriculum were problem-driven. We created a class that we called ‘The Q.E.D. Project’ that followed along from efforts at Stanford and elsewhere to teach students how to identify an unmet need. We then asked them to form a team to address the unmet need, and then helped them understand how to build a prototype to address that need. Along the way, we also talked about what kind of roles people in their team need to play. Should your team be very diverse or very deep in a given area? How do we integrate people who have different cultural backgrounds or how do we integrate medical students with PhD students? We brought in a lot of people out of the non-academic environment who were practitioners and experts in their various areas and we tried to get students to think about the full range of stakeholders they would have to engage with to bring a solution to bear.We did not want to spend a lot of time lecturing the students in a purely didactic way. We wanted to engage them in a process where they were solving important problems as part of the class. Whether that was a class on modelling or an engineering-focused class, or how to think about scientific problems, the core of DTE was built around getting the students to grapple with a real world problem and let all the learning hang off that.How did the students respond to that? Do you think you were successful?Based on the number of students signing up to take the courses and the student evaluations after the classes were over, I think we really struck a chord. I wouldn''t say it was necessarily the right answer for every student but I think there is clearly a group of students for whom this is a really effective and motivating approach.Let''s now move to drug discovery and development – the focus of the new online Special Collection from DMM. What would you say are some of the most urgent challenges in drug development that you have seen?I think one of the most urgent challenges is to begin to break free of some of our ‘old’ ways of thinking and take advantage of new scientific insights. For example, if you look at the traditional organization in a medical school environment, they are centered around departments devoted to organs (liver, heart, kidney). I think our increasing scientific understanding is that there are disease processes that may impact multiple organ systems but ultimately it is understanding the process, and drugging the process, that becomes important and not drugging the organ.I think that moving towards a process-oriented understanding of what common mechanisms are implicated in a given disease state or therapeutic challenge will help us be a little more creative and a little bit more interdisciplinary in how we think about these challenges.One of the difficulties with those new approaches is that pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions have not had a great track record of working together. Do you think that''s true? And why do you think it''s been so difficult to move ideas from the bench to the clinics?I think this is complicated. If you take the academic researchers'' point of view, their early identification of a problem and early identification of a potential solution feels like they have moved the ball very far forward towards the end solution. If you take industry''s point of view, the identification of the target or even the identification of a potential chemical compound is really just barely beginning to get to the starting line; the bulk of the time and the bulk of the dollars that will ultimately be needed to create a product come after the academic work and these will be spent by industry. I think that this differing point of view around where and how value is created has a lot to do with many of the challenges that arise when academia and industry are speaking to each other.Is it important to bridge this gap or is everybody playing their role?I think there''s an opportunity for academia to continue in its current role but to carry the potential solution further. I think in certain areas the access to tools and to patients allows academics to maybe carry projects further and closer to ‘proof of concept’ than they did historically, and that will continue to add value to the academic institution. That would ultimately help to bridge this gap because if you''ve taken something closer to proof of concept while still within the academic institution, you have created more value, you are able to engage with industry differently, and maybe the value perception gap is closed somewhat.What industry is really good at is organizing and managing late-stage research and clinical trials in an effective manner, and what academia is really good at is understanding basic questions, finding targets and sometimes finding early chemical compounds. Again, I think that the perception in academia of where value has been created is in part related to the fact that many academics haven''t been given the exposure or the training to actually understand the full breadth of the drug-development process. While they may have a general sense of it – we have all seen the same diagrams showing the steps and the funnel narrowing down from a million compounds to something getting onto the market – only those with real exposure to the work in industry understand it at a visceral or experiential level. One of the opportunities for academia is to find better ways to have some cross-talk, whether that''s internships for graduate students to get some experience in industry or other ways to get the students really exposed to the industrial side of drug development. Obviously, all the trained scientists on the industry side have been through academia because they had to go through it to get their PhDs, and thus they understand the academic side of the house pretty well. I really think the challenge is getting to people who have spent their whole career in academia to have a better understanding of what the drivers are on the industry side.

“One of the opportunities for academia is to find better ways to have some cross-talk, whether that''s internships for graduate students to get some experience in industry or other ways to get the students really exposed to the industrial side of drug development”

Between target identification and clinical trials of course there is another piece. At what point does the researcher in academia put down his pipette, walk out and start a biotech company? Should that happen?That''s a fraught question because I think it is an enormous undertaking to start a biotechnology company. Fundraising, intellectual property, regulatory affairs, company management – there are a whole number of disciplines that biotech companies have to take on. It is very rare that an academic scientist is going to have the training, the time and the motivation to do all of those things while also continuing to pursue their academic career in a very challenging funding environment. I think it comes back to this point that we were talking about with teams. I think it is really important for a scientist who is excited about their work and thinks it may be the basis of a company to go out and begin to form a team that is going to increase the likelihood of success. They have to accept the fact that science is a critical component, but it is just a component, and many different disciplines along with many different people are needed to make a successful company. If a scientist can bring that sort of collaborative view point and is open to working closely with an intellectual property attorney, with a business development person and with whomever their funding source is, that will increase their likelihood of success. They have to do it with a certain amount of humility, which is to say that it isn''t just going to be the science that drives the success: all the given pieces have to come together to be successful.You''ve watched a lot of technology coming through, including at your new position at Mars. Which technology excites you?We all have to pay a lot of attention to CRISPR and the gene-editing technologies. There is certainly a number of intellectual property issues that have to get sorted out but that''s clearly an area that will have a huge impact not just on human health but on animal health and plant health as well.The other area I''ve been thinking a lot about lately is the microbiome. As sequencing technology has altered in cost and time, we have begun to be able to explore the microbiome in a way that historically was not possible. And it feels like we are moving towards a tipping point where the explosion of understanding is going to open up a lot of interesting opportunities for us to intervene. Whether that''s through traditional drug modalities or through altered nutrition or through changing the microbial community in soil to produce crops that have higher nutrient value or other approaches, I think that''s another broad area that seems poised to begin to offer really interesting results.Were you surprised that a company like Mars, which has not been a basic research company at all, is now giving you an opportunity to build something that is much more research-orientated?The reality of Mars is that they have actually had a very deep fundamental research program for a number of years. They got involved in the sequencing of the cacao genome and contributed it to the public domain, and they are now also involved in the sequencing of the genomes of a large number of orphan crops in Africa. So they have been very active in their research both in the company and in collaboration with academic scientists around the world. The nature of the company has meant that the work is perhaps not as obvious as others, but it is a remarkably science-driven company in much of what it does.You have done a myriad of things. What are the one or two things that you are most proud of?I am most proud of my efforts to keep a hand in both the commercial and the academic world. It certainly has not been easy but I have received enormous satisfaction from the opportunity to work with bright students at each of the schools I have had the opportunity to teach at. I am not sure there is anything more satisfying than the opportunity to work with students and feel you have helped them towards their goals.At the same time, I think I''ve been effective in doing that because I have managed to keep an active role in the applied world. In some ways, my greatest achievement has been finding a way to balance those two interests in a way that seems to have worked for the various organizations I''ve been affiliated with.How do you relax away from work? Do you have a family?I am married. My wife is a securities litigator so has a very active career of her own. We have two children, one in high school and one in middle school. I''ve had the privilege to coach both of them on their various soccer teams since they were each about 4 years old so that''s been a lot of fun.The other thing that many people will not find relaxing – but for some reason my family does – has been taking backcountry ski trips annually for a number of years. Worrying about navigating through the snow and finding shelter before darkness falls has a way of clearing the mind.     

Plasmodium falciparum transmission rate and selection for drug resistance: a vexed association or a key to successful control?

While malaria eradication campaigns once adopted a combination of vector control and chemotherapy to overcome the disease, today's opinion on the matter is equivocal. So what has changed? This paper reviews some of the confusing hypotheses on the relationship between Plasmodium falciparum transmission and levels of drug resistance. New field evidence showing variations of in vivo chloroquine resistance in relation to indoor residual spraying and natural endemicity patterns, is considered with a view to how these phenomena implicate on control.     

The response of lambs to vaccination at weaning with irradiated Trichostrongylus colubriformis larvae: segregation into 'responders' and 'non-responders'

Dineen J. K., Gregg P. and Lascelles A. K. 1978. The response of lambs to vaccination at weaning with irradiated Trichostrongylus colubriformis larvae: segregation into ‘responders’ and ‘non-responders’. International Journal for Parasitology8: 59–63. Groups of colostrum fed and colostrum deprived lambs were vaccinated with irradiated Trichostrongylus colubriformis larvae at weaning (3 months) and challenged with normal infective larvae. As there was no significant difference between the worm counts of these groups after challenge, it was concluded that the failure of lambs, generally, to respond to vaccination as vigorously as mature sheep, was not due to ‘feed-back inhibition’ of the immune response by the action of maternal antibody.However the results showed that the lambs segregated into ‘responders’ and ‘non-responders’. The mean worm count of responders was 1560 whereas for non-responders this was 24,340. A responder was defined as an animal whose worm count was less than the lower limit of the 99 % confidence interval of unvaccinated controls. These results suggest that genetically-determined factors play an important role in the responsiveness of lambs to vaccination.Whereas counts of globule leucocytes in duodenal tissues were negatively correlated with worm counts (i.e. positively correlated with resistance), counts of both eosinophils and neutrophils were positively correlated with worm counts. These findings suggest that either globule leucocytes are involved in the resistance mechanism, or they are by-products of cellular events involved in resistance. On the other hand it is unlikely that either eosinophils or neutrophils are involved in the mechanism of resistance.     

Plasmodium falciparum transmission rate and selection for drug resistance: a vexed association or a key to successful control?

While malaria eradication campaigns once adopted a combination of vector control and chemotherapy to overcome the disease, today's opinion on the matter is equivocal. So what has changed? This paper reviews some of the confusing hypotheses on the relationship between Plasmodium falciparum transmission and levels of drug resistance. New field evidence showing variations of in vivo chloroquine resistance in relation to indoor residual spraying and natural endemicity patterns, is considered with a view to how these phenomena implicate on control.     

Have you ever seen the rain? Stories of trees and the people who study them

You’ve heard of Chernobyl and the fall of Rome. Perhaps you know the intricacies of Meso-American depopulation or radiocarbon dating. But do you know how they are all related? Valerie Trouet certainly does, and she explains their intimate connections with tree-ring science in Tree Story.     

Dr. Manners

Good manners make a difference—in science and elsewhere. This includes our social media etiquette as researchers. Subject Categories: S&S: History & Philosophy of Science, Methods & Resources, S&S: Ethics

Elbows off the table, please. Don’t chew with your mouth open. Don’t blow your nose at the table. Don’t put your feet up on the chair or table. And please, do not yuck my yum. These are basic table manners that have come up at some of our lab meals, and I have often wondered if it was my job to teach my trainees social graces. A good fellow scientist and friend of mine once told me it was absolutely our place as mentors to teach our trainees not only how to do science well, but also how to be well‐mannered humans. While these Emily Post‐approved table manners might seem old‐fashioned (I’m guessing some readers will have to look up Emily Post), I strongly believe they still hold a place in modern society; being in good company never goes out of style.Speaking of modern society: upon encouragement by several of my scientist friends, I joined Twitter in 2016. My motivation was mainly to hear about pre‐prints and publications, conference announcements and relevant news, science or otherwise. I also follow people who just make me laugh (I highly recommend @ConanOBrien or @dog_rates). I (re)tweet job openings, conference announcements, and interesting new data. Occasionally, I post photos from conferences, or random science‐related art. I also appreciate the sense of community that social media brings to the table. However, social media is a venue where I have also seen manners go to die. Rapidly.It is really shocking to read what some people feel perfectly comfortable tweeting. While most of us can agree that foul language and highly offensive opinions are generally considered distasteful, there are other, subtler but nonetheless equally—if not more—cringe‐worthy offenses online when I am fairly certain these people would never utter such words in real life. In the era of pandemic, the existence of people tweeting about not being able to eat at their favorite restaurant or travel to some destination holiday because of lockdown shows an egregious lack of self‐awareness. Sure it sucks to cancel a wedding due to COVID‐19, but do you need to moan to your followers—most of whom are likely total strangers—about it while other people have lost their jobs? If I had a nickel for every first‐world complaint I have seen on Twitter, I’d have retired a long time ago; although to be honest, I would do science for free. However, these examples pale in comparison with another type of tweeter: Reader, I submit to you, “the Humblebragger.”From the MacMillan Buzzword dictionary (via Google): a humblebrag is “a statement in which you pretend to be modest but which you are really using as a way of telling people about your success or achievements.” I would further translate this definition to indicate that humblebraggers are starved for attention. After joining Twitter, I quickly found many people using social media to announce how “humble and honored” they are for receiving grant or prize X, Y, or Z. In general, these are junior faculty who have perhaps not acquired the self‐awareness more senior scientists have. Perhaps the most off‐putting posts I have seen are from people who post photos of their NIH application priority scores right after study section, or their Notice of Awards (NOA). When did we ever, before social media, send little notes to each other—let alone to complete strangers—announcing our priority scores or NOAs? (Spoiler: NEVER)Some of you reading this opinion piece might have humblebragged at one or time or another, and might not understand why it is distasteful. Please let me explain. For every person who gets a fundable score, there are dozens more people who do not, and they are sad (I speak from many years of experience). While said fundable‐score person might be by someone we like—and I absolutely, positively wish them well—there are many more people who will feel lousy because they did not get funding from the same review round. When has anyone ever felt good about other people getting something that they, too, desire? I think as children, none of us liked the kid on the playground who ran around with the best new Toy of the Season. As adults, do we feel differently? Along these lines, I have never been a fan of “best poster/talk/abstract” prizes. Trainees should not be striving for these fleeting recognitions and should focus on doing the best science for Science’s sake; I really believe this competition process sets people up for life in a negative way—there, I’ve said it.Can your friends and colleagues tweet about your honors? Sure, why not, and by all means please let your well‐wishers honor you, and do thank them and graciously congratulate your trainees or colleagues for helping you to get there. But to post things yourself? Please. Don’t be surprised if you have been muted by many of your followers.It is notable that many of our most decorated scientists are not on Twitter, or at least never tweet about their accomplishments. I do not recall ever seeing a single Nobel laureate announce how humbled and honored they are about their prize. Of course, I might be wrong, but I am willing to bet the numbers are much lower than what I have observed for junior faculty. True humility will never be demonstrated by announcing your achievements to your social media followers, and I believe humblebragging reveals insecurity more than anything. I hope that many more of us can follow the lead of our top scientists both in creativity, rigor, and social media politeness.     

Anthelmintic resistance in nematodes: extent, recent understanding and future directions for control and research

Resistance has now been reported to all of the broad spectrum anthelmintic types currently available, namely to the benzimidazoles, levamisole/morantel and to ivermectin. The problem causes most concern for parasite control in sheep, but anthelmintic resistance has also been reported in nematodes of horses, goats, pigs and more recently cattle. Our understanding of the factors which select rapidly for resistance has increased and programmes of worm control which minimize selection for anthelmintic resistance are being developed and tested. One of the greatest problems encountered in attempting to reduce the selection for overt drug resistance is the need for more sensitive tests for developing resistance. In the long term, new approaches to chemotherapy and to overcoming anthelmintic resistance problems will arise from improving our understanding of the modes of action of, and mechanisms of resistance to, anthelmintics at the level of the receptor proteins and their genes.     

Ecological Stoichiometry: Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere.: Sterner, R. W. and Elser, J. J. (2002) Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA. $29.95. ISSN 0-691-07491-7.

How often do you read a book that has a large number of ‘aha!’moments in every chapter? This is a significant piece of synthesisand scholarship that brings together a very large number ofdisciplines and disparate chunks of data into a very satisfyingwhole. The book is dense, thorough and revealing—a lightand fast read it is not, but it is well worth the effort. Thetwo     

The evolutionary epidemiology of multilocus drug resistance

The evolution of resistance to drugs is a major public health concern as it erodes the efficacy of our therapeutic arsenal against bacterial, viral, and fungal pathogens. Increasingly, it is recognized that the evolution of resistance involves genetic changes at more than one locus, both in cases where multiple changes are required to obtain high-level resistance, and where compensatory changes at secondary loci ameliorate the costs of resistance. Similarly, multiple loci are often involved in the evolution of multidrug resistance. There has been widespread interest recently in understanding the evolutionary consequences of multilocus resistance, with many empirical studies documenting extensive patterns of genetic interactions (i.e., epistasis) among the loci involved. Currently, however, there are few general theoretical results available that bridge the gap between classical multilocus population genetics and mathematical epidemiology. Here, such theory is developed to shed new light on these previous studies, and to provide further guidance on the type of data required to predict the evolution of pathogens in response to drug pressure. Our results reveal the importance of feedbacks between the epidemiological and evolutionary dynamics, and illustrate how these feedbacks can be exploited to control resistance. In particular, we show how interventions such as social distancing and isolation can influence rates of recombination, and how this then can slow the spread of multilocus resistance and increase the likelihood of reversion to drug sensitivity once drug therapy has ceased.     

Location,location, location? No. Catalog number

Once you start to read this Editor’s Corner, you might wonder why I have devoted an entire article, albeit a short one, to this topic. Let me assure you there are reasons. First, I want to announce a new policy for the journal that will affect all research papers. Starting with all papers that are not currently in press, we will no longer be asking for geographical locations of research companies that follow the listing of a reagent. In Materials and Methods the authors typically refer to a reagent and then list the company and its location parenthetically. For example, “…p-nitrophenyl phosphate (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO).” Instead, we will require catalog numbers. The reason is that it is now quite easy to find a company using the internet, and in fact you rarely need to know the location because it is rare that you would send a written order. On the other hand, knowing the name of the reagent is not always sufficient to narrow down the precise item. For example, if you search for “p-nitrophenyl phosphate” at the Sigma-Aldrich site, you get seven primary choices and it is not at all obvious which one to choose. When my lab uses p-nitrophenyl phosphate for the Pho8?60 assay, we use item N9389, which narrows it down to a precise reagent. Thus, we will start requiring papers to write “…p-nitrophenyl phosphate (Sigma-Aldrich, N9389).

Second, I think this is actually a useful change, and one that many journals will start to institute once they see it being done here. The old style of listing the city and state is a relic that is no longer relevant. Furthermore, it is not even clear in the current global marketplace if this is particularly helpful. For example, if I am ordering an item from Roche Applied Science, why would anyone care where it is coming from? It is highly unlikely that a researcher in Germany or Japan is going to order from Roche Applied Science that happens to be based in Indianapolis, IN when there are much closer sites in Mannheim, Germany and Tokyo, Japan. So, do not be surprised when you start to see more and more journals adopting this approach, and remember that you saw it here first. Autophagy—the cutting edge.     

Finding autophagy

To tell the truth, I find it difficult to work when flying, or even when sitting in an airport for an extended period of time. So, typically I take along a book to read. And when I truly cannot concentrate, for example when a flight is considerably delayed, I have even been known to resort to word puzzles. Depending on the type, they do not require much attention (that is, you can pick up right where you left off after you glance at the flight status screen for the twentieth or so time, even though you know nothing has changed), or effort (although you need to use a pen or pencil, not a keyboard), but nonetheless they can keep your mind somewhat occupied. I even rationalize doing them based on the assumption that they are sharpening my observational/pattern-finding skills. One type of word puzzle that is particularly mindless, but for that very reason I still enjoy in the above circumstances, is a word search; you are given a grid with letters and/or numbers, and a list of “hidden” terms, and you circle them within the grid, crossing them off the list as you go along. I do admit that the categories of terms used in the typical word searches can become rather mundane (breeds of dog, types of food, words that are followed by “stone,” words associated with a famous movie star, words from a particular television show, etc.). Therefore, on one of my last seminar trips I decided to generate my own word search, using the category of autophagy.     

How we do business (or, Why does it take other journals so long to review your paper?)

Have you ever wondered why it takes so long to get comments back from reviewers at some journals? After all, how long should it take to review a paper? I suspect most of us have asked this question at one time or another. While recently contemplating this, I thought it was time to tell you a little about how we run Autophagy, and at the same time compare it to the practices at some other journals where I have, on occasion (notably before the start of Autophagy), sent my own papers.