The Oxytricha trifallax Macronuclear Genome: A Complex Eukaryotic Genome with 16,000 Tiny Chromosomes

The macronuclear genome of the ciliate Oxytricha trifallax displays an extreme and unique eukaryotic genome architecture with extensive genomic variation. During sexual genome development, the expressed, somatic macronuclear genome is whittled down to the genic portion of a small fraction (∼5%) of its precursor “silent” germline micronuclear genome by a process of “unscrambling” and fragmentation. The tiny macronuclear “nanochromosomes” typically encode single, protein-coding genes (a small portion, 10%, encode 2–8 genes), have minimal noncoding regions, and are differentially amplified to an average of ∼2,000 copies. We report the high-quality genome assembly of ∼16,000 complete nanochromosomes (∼50 Mb haploid genome size) that vary from 469 bp to 66 kb long (mean ∼3.2 kb) and encode ∼18,500 genes. Alternative DNA fragmentation processes ∼10% of the nanochromosomes into multiple isoforms that usually encode complete genes. Nucleotide diversity in the macronucleus is very high (SNP heterozygosity is ∼4.0%), suggesting that Oxytricha trifallax may have one of the largest known effective population sizes of eukaryotes. Comparison to other ciliates with nonscrambled genomes and long macronuclear chromosomes (on the order of 100 kb) suggests several candidate proteins that could be involved in genome rearrangement, including domesticated MULE and IS1595-like DDE transposases. The assembly of the highly fragmented Oxytricha macronuclear genome is the first completed genome with such an unusual architecture. This genome sequence provides tantalizing glimpses into novel molecular biology and evolution. For example, Oxytricha maintains tens of millions of telomeres per cell and has also evolved an intriguing expansion of telomere end-binding proteins. In conjunction with the micronuclear genome in progress, the O. trifallax macronuclear genome will provide an invaluable resource for investigating programmed genome rearrangements, complementing studies of rearrangements arising during evolution and disease.     

The Distribution of the Asymptotic Number of Citations to Sets of Publications by a Researcher or from an Academic Department Are Consistent with a Discrete Lognormal Model

How to quantify the impact of a researcher’s or an institution’s body of work is a matter of increasing importance to scientists, funding agencies, and hiring committees. The use of bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index or the Journal Impact Factor, have become widespread despite their known limitations. We argue that most existing bibliometric indicators are inconsistent, biased, and, worst of all, susceptible to manipulation. Here, we pursue a principled approach to the development of an indicator to quantify the scientific impact of both individual researchers and research institutions grounded on the functional form of the distribution of the asymptotic number of citations. We validate our approach using the publication records of 1,283 researchers from seven scientific and engineering disciplines and the chemistry departments at the 106 U.S. research institutions classified as “very high research activity”. Our approach has three distinct advantages. First, it accurately captures the overall scientific impact of researchers at all career stages, as measured by asymptotic citation counts. Second, unlike other measures, our indicator is resistant to manipulation and rewards publication quality over quantity. Third, our approach captures the time-evolution of the scientific impact of research institutions.     

Perspectives of clinician and biomedical scientists on interdisciplinary health research

Background

Interdisciplinary health research is a priority of many funding agencies. We surveyed clinician and biomedical scientists about their views on the value and funding of interdisciplinary health research.

Methods

We conducted semistructured interviews with 31 biomedical and 30 clinician scientists. The scientists were selected from the 2000–2006 membership lists of peer-review committees of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We investigated respondents’ perspectives on the assumption that collaboration across disciplines adds value to health research. We also investigated their perspectives on funding agencies’ growing support of interdisciplinary research.

Results

The 61 respondents expressed a wide variety of perspectives on the value of interdisciplinary health research, ranging from full agreement (22) to complete disagreement (11) that it adds value; many presented qualified viewpoints (28). More than one-quarter viewed funding agencies’ growing support of interdisciplinary research as appropriate. Most (44) felt that the level of support was unwarranted. Arguments included the belief that current support leads to the creation of artificial teams and that a top-down process of imposing interdisciplinary structures on teams constrains scientists’ freedom. On both issues we found contrasting trends between the clinician and the biomedical scientists.

Interpretation

Despite having some positive views about the value of interdisciplinary research, scientists, especially biomedical scientists, expressed reservations about the growing support of interdisciplinary research.Collaboration between health disciplines is a new priority of research institutions and funding agencies. Many of these agencies have undergone restructuring and have developed programs specifically to intensify interdisciplinary research. In 2007, the US National Institutes of Health created 9 interdisciplinary research consortia “as a means of integrating aspects of different disciplines to address health challenges that have been resistant to traditional research approaches.”¹ In 2000, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) was established with an express mandate “to forge a health research agenda across disciplines, sectors, and regions that embraces scientific opportunity and reflects the emerging health needs of Canadians, the evolution of the health care system and the information needs of health policy decision-makers.”²This change in priority has been attributed to 3 main factors: the need to answer complex health problems, the need to explore questions that are not confined to a single discipline and the need to provide effective solutions to societal problems.^3,4 Although the arguments advocating for interdisciplinary health research have evoked many kinds of promises, scientists undertaking collaborative research can also face many challenges. The past 10 years have seen a growing body of literature examining the impediments and facilitators to interdisciplinary collaboration.^3,5–14Despite this growing interest, little is known about scientists’ opinions on the prevalent assumption that working across disciplines adds value to health research. Moreover, little consideration has been given to how scientists perceive the growing support of interdisciplinary research by funding agencies. In a survey commissioned by the CIHR, 36% of funded researchers indicated that their collaboration across disciplines had increased as a result of the agency’s establishment.¹⁵ Whether this shift reflects researchers’ scientific interests or their attempts to secure funding by appealing to the agency’s policy of promoting interdisciplinary research is unknown.As part of a broad research program investigating the integration of social science in health research,¹⁶ we conducted this study to examine to what extent, and why, biomedical and clinician scientists are for or against the promotion of interdisciplinary research. We targeted these types of scientists because they were predominantly affected by the move toward interdisciplinary research that occurred after the creation of the CIHR.     

Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data

The growing competition and “publish or perish” culture in academia might conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research, because it forces scientists to produce “publishable” results at all costs. Papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report “negative” results (results that fail to support the tested hypothesis). Therefore, if publication pressures increase scientific bias, the frequency of “positive” results in the literature should be higher in the more competitive and “productive” academic environments. This study verified this hypothesis by measuring the frequency of positive results in a large random sample of papers with a corresponding author based in the US. Across all disciplines, papers were more likely to support a tested hypothesis if their corresponding authors were working in states that, according to NSF data, produced more academic papers per capita. The size of this effect increased when controlling for state''s per capita R&D expenditure and for study characteristics that previous research showed to correlate with the frequency of positive results, including discipline and methodology. Although the confounding effect of institutions'' prestige could not be excluded (researchers in the more productive universities could be the most clever and successful in their experiments), these results support the hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase not only scientists'' productivity but also their bias. The same phenomenon might be observed in other countries where academic competition and pressures to publish are high.     

Science Educational Outreach Programs That Benefit Students and Scientists

Both scientists and the public would benefit from improved communication of basic scientific research and from integrating scientists into education outreach, but opportunities to support these efforts are limited. We have developed two low-cost programs—"Present Your PhD Thesis to a 12-Year-Old" and "Shadow a Scientist”—that combine training in science communication with outreach to area middle schools. We assessed the outcomes of these programs and found a 2-fold benefit: scientists improve their communication skills by explaining basic science research to a general audience, and students'' enthusiasm for science and their scientific knowledge are increased. Here we present details about both programs, along with our assessment of them, and discuss the feasibility of exporting these programs to other universities.     

“Trees Live on Soil and Sunshine!”- Coexistence of Scientific and Alternative Conception of Tree Assimilation

Successful learning is the integration of new knowledge into existing schemes, leading to an integrated and correct scientific conception. By contrast, the co-existence of scientific and alternative conceptions may indicate a fragmented knowledge profile. Every learner is unique and thus carries an individual set of preconceptions before classroom engagement due to prior experiences. Hence, instructors and teachers have to consider the heterogeneous knowledge profiles of their class when teaching. However, determinants of fragmented knowledge profiles are not well understood yet, which may hamper a development of adapted teaching schemes. We used a questionnaire-based approach to assess conceptual knowledge of tree assimilation and wood synthesis surveying 885 students of four educational levels: 6^th graders, 10^th graders, natural science freshmen and other academic studies freshmen. We analysed the influence of learner’s characteristics such as educational level, age and sex on the coexistence of scientific and alternative conceptions. Within all subsamples well-known alternative conceptions regarding tree assimilation and wood synthesis coexisted with correct scientific ones. For example, students describe trees to be living on “soil and sunshine”, representing scientific knowledge of photosynthesis mingled with an alternative conception of trees eating like animals. Fragmented knowledge profiles occurred in all subsamples, but our models showed that improved education and age foster knowledge integration. Sex had almost no influence on the existing scientific conceptions and evolution of knowledge integration. Consequently, complex biological issues such as tree assimilation and wood synthesis need specific support e.g. through repeated learning units in class- and seminar-rooms in order to help especially young students to handle and overcome common alternative conceptions and appropriately integrate scientific conceptions into their knowledge profile.     

The dynamics of Brazilian protozoology over the past century

Brazilian scientists have been contributing to the protozoology field for more than 100 years with important discoveries of new species such asTrypanosoma cruzi and Leishmania spp. In this work, we used a Brazilian thesis database (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel) covering the period from 1987-2011 to identify researchers who contributed substantially to protozoology. We selected 248 advisors by filtering to obtain researchers who supervised at least 10 theses. Based on a computational analysis of the thesis databases, we found students who were supervised by these scientists. A computational procedure was developed to determine the advisors’ scientific ancestors using the Lattes Platform. These analyses provided a list of 1,997 researchers who were inspected through Lattes CV examination and allowed the identification of the pioneers of Brazilian protozoology. Moreover, we investigated the areas in which researchers who earned PhDs in protozoology are now working. We found that 68.4% of them are still in protozoology, while 16.7% have migrated to other fields. We observed that support for protozoology by national or international agencies is clearly correlated with the increase of scientists in the field. Finally, we described the academic genealogy of Brazilian protozoology by formalising the “forest” of Brazilian scientists involved in the study of protozoa and their vectors over the past century.     

The Chilling Effect: How Do Researchers React to Controversy?

Background

Can political controversy have a “chilling effect” on the production of new science? This is a timely concern, given how often American politicians are accused of undermining science for political purposes. Yet little is known about how scientists react to these kinds of controversies.

Methods and Findings

Drawing on interview (n = 30) and survey data (n = 82), this study examines the reactions of scientists whose National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded grants were implicated in a highly publicized political controversy. Critics charged that these grants were “a waste of taxpayer money.” The NIH defended each grant and no funding was rescinded. Nevertheless, this study finds that many of the scientists whose grants were criticized now engage in self-censorship. About half of the sample said that they now remove potentially controversial words from their grant and a quarter reported eliminating entire topics from their research agendas. Four researchers reportedly chose to move into more secure positions entirely, either outside academia or in jobs that guaranteed salaries. About 10% of the group reported that this controversy strengthened their commitment to complete their research and disseminate it widely.

Conclusions

These findings provide evidence that political controversies can shape what scientists choose to study. Debates about the politics of science usually focus on the direct suppression, distortion, and manipulation of scientific results. This study suggests that scholars must also examine how scientists may self-censor in response to political events.     

Unexpected Strong Polygyny in the Brown-Throated Three-Toed Sloth

Promiscuous mating strategies are much more common than previously appreciated. So much so, that several authors have proposed that promiscuity is the “rule” rather than the exception in vertebrate mating systems. Decreasing species mobility and increasing habitat fragmentation have both been suggested to reduce the “polygyny potential” of the environment and promote other mating strategies like promiscuity in females. We explored the social and genetic mating system for one of the most sedentary extant mammals, the brown-throated three-toed sloth (Bradypus variegatus), within a highly fragmented Neotropical habitat. Surprisingly, we found that three-toed sloths were strongly polygynous, with males excluding male competitors from their core ranges, and exhibiting strong reproductive skew. Indeed, only 25% of all resident adult males sired offspring and one individual sired half of all sampled juveniles. Paradoxically, a sedentary life-history strategy seems to facilitate polygyny in fragmented landscapes because multiple females can persist within small patches of habitat, and be monopolized by a single male. Our work demonstrates that strong polygyny can arise in systems in which the polygyny potential should be extremely low, and other strategies, including promiscuity, would be favoured. Mating systems can be influenced by a multitude of factor and are dynamic, varying among taxa, over time, and across habitats; consequently, mating systems remain difficult to predict based on general ecological principles.     

The Pagerank-Index: Going beyond Citation Counts in Quantifying Scientific Impact of Researchers

Quantifying and comparing the scientific output of researchers has become critical for governments, funding agencies and universities. Comparison by reputation and direct assessment of contributions to the field is no longer possible, as the number of scientists increases and traditional definitions about scientific fields become blurred. The h-index is often used for comparing scientists, but has several well-documented shortcomings. In this paper, we introduce a new index for measuring and comparing the publication records of scientists: the pagerank-index (symbolised as π). The index uses a version of pagerank algorithm and the citation networks of papers in its computation, and is fundamentally different from the existing variants of h-index because it considers not only the number of citations but also the actual impact of each citation. We adapt two approaches to demonstrate the utility of the new index. Firstly, we use a simulation model of a community of authors, whereby we create various ‘groups’ of authors which are different from each other in inherent publication habits, to show that the pagerank-index is fairer than the existing indices in three distinct scenarios: (i) when authors try to ‘massage’ their index by publishing papers in low-quality outlets primarily to self-cite other papers (ii) when authors collaborate in large groups in order to obtain more authorships (iii) when authors spend most of their time in producing genuine but low quality publications that would massage their index. Secondly, we undertake two real world case studies: (i) the evolving author community of quantum game theory, as defined by Google Scholar (ii) a snapshot of the high energy physics (HEP) theory research community in arXiv. In both case studies, we find that the list of top authors vary very significantly when h-index and pagerank-index are used for comparison. We show that in both cases, authors who have collaborated in large groups and/or published less impactful papers tend to be comparatively favoured by the h-index, whereas the pagerank-index highlights authors who have made a relatively small number of definitive contributions, or written papers which served to highlight the link between diverse disciplines, or typically worked in smaller groups. Thus, we argue that the pagerank-index is an inherently fairer and more nuanced metric to quantify the publication records of scientists compared to existing measures.     

A Delphi Technology Foresight Study: Mapping Social Construction of Scientific Evidence on Metagenomics Tests for Water Safety

Access to clean water is a grand challenge in the 21^st century. Water safety testing for pathogens currently depends on surrogate measures such as fecal indicator bacteria (e.g., E. coli). Metagenomics concerns high-throughput, culture-independent, unbiased shotgun sequencing of DNA from environmental samples that might transform water safety by detecting waterborne pathogens directly instead of their surrogates. Yet emerging innovations such as metagenomics are often fiercely contested. Innovations are subject to shaping/construction not only by technology but also social systems/values in which they are embedded, such as experts’ attitudes towards new scientific evidence. We conducted a classic three-round Delphi survey, comprised of 107 questions. A multidisciplinary expert panel (n = 24) representing the continuum of discovery scientists and policymakers evaluated the emergence of metagenomics tests. To the best of our knowledge, we report here the first Delphi foresight study of experts’ attitudes on (1) the top 10 priority evidentiary criteria for adoption of metagenomics tests for water safety, (2) the specific issues critical to governance of metagenomics innovation trajectory where there is consensus or dissensus among experts, (3) the anticipated time lapse from discovery to practice of metagenomics tests, and (4) the role and timing of public engagement in development of metagenomics tests. The ability of a test to distinguish between harmful and benign waterborne organisms, analytical/clinical sensitivity, and reproducibility were the top three evidentiary criteria for adoption of metagenomics. Experts agree that metagenomic testing will provide novel information but there is dissensus on whether metagenomics will replace the current water safety testing methods or impact the public health end points (e.g., reduction in boil water advisories). Interestingly, experts view the publics relevant in a “downstream capacity” for adoption of metagenomics rather than a co-productionist role at the “upstream” scientific design stage of metagenomics tests. In summary, these findings offer strategic foresight to govern metagenomics innovations symmetrically: by identifying areas where acceleration (e.g., consensus areas) and deceleration/reconsideration (e.g., dissensus areas) of the innovation trajectory might be warranted. Additionally, we show how scientific evidence is subject to potential social construction by experts’ value systems and the need for greater upstream public engagement on metagenomics innovations.     

Biophysical Reviews’ “Meet the Councilor Series”—a profile of Peter Pohl

It is my pleasure to write a few words to introduce myself to the readers of Biophysical Reviews as part of the “Meet the Councilor Series.” Currently, I am serving the second period as IUPAB councilor after having been elected first in 2017. Initially, I studied Biophysics in Moscow (Russia) and later Medicine in Halle (Germany). My scientific carrier took me from the Medical School of the Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, via the Leibniz Institute for Molecular Pharmacology (Berlin) and the Institute for Biology at the Humboldt University (Berlin) to the Physics Department of the Johannes Kepler University in Linz (Austria). My key research interests lie in the molecular mechanisms of transport phenomena occurring at the lipid membrane, including (i) spontaneous and facilitated transport of water and other small molecules across membranes in reconstituted systems, (ii) proton migration along the membrane surface, (iii) protein translocation, and (iv) bilayer mechanics. Training of undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral researchers from diverse academic disciplines has been—and shall remain—a consistent part of my work.

     

Zooming in on the cell biology of disease

Today’s cell biology could be considered a fusion of disciplines that blends advanced genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, and engineering to answer fundamental as well as medically relevant scientific questions. Accordingly, our understanding of diseases is greatly aided by an existing vast knowledge base of fundamental cell biology. Gunter Blobel captured this concept when he said, “the tremendous acquisition of basic knowledge will allow a much more rational treatment of cancer, viral infection, degenerative disease and mental disease.” In other words, without cell biology can we truly understand, prevent, or effectively treat a disease?

R. M. Perera     

Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century

Debates over the pros and cons of a “publish or perish” philosophy have inflamed academia for at least half a century. Growing concerns, in particular, are expressed for policies that reward “quantity” at the expense of “quality,” because these might prompt scientists to unduly multiply their publications by fractioning (“salami slicing”), duplicating, rushing, simplifying, or even fabricating their results. To assess the reasonableness of these concerns, we analyzed publication patterns of over 40,000 researchers that, between the years 1900 and 2013, have published two or more papers within 15 years, in any of the disciplines covered by the Web of Science. The total number of papers published by researchers during their early career period (first fifteen years) has increased in recent decades, but so has their average number of co-authors. If we take the latter factor into account, by measuring productivity fractionally or by only counting papers published as first author, we observe no increase in productivity throughout the century. Even after the 1980s, adjusted productivity has not increased for most disciplines and countries. These results are robust to methodological choices and are actually conservative with respect to the hypothesis that publication rates are growing. Therefore, the widespread belief that pressures to publish are causing the scientific literature to be flooded with salami-sliced, trivial, incomplete, duplicated, plagiarized and false results is likely to be incorrect or at least exaggerated.     

“Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences

The hypothesis of a Hierarchy of the Sciences with physical sciences at the top, social sciences at the bottom, and biological sciences in-between is nearly 200 years old. This order is intuitive and reflected in many features of academic life, but whether it reflects the “hardness” of scientific research—i.e., the extent to which research questions and results are determined by data and theories as opposed to non-cognitive factors—is controversial. This study analysed 2434 papers published in all disciplines and that declared to have tested a hypothesis. It was determined how many papers reported a “positive” (full or partial) or “negative” support for the tested hypothesis. If the hierarchy hypothesis is correct, then researchers in “softer” sciences should have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases, and therefore report more positive outcomes. Results confirmed the predictions at all levels considered: discipline, domain and methodology broadly defined. Controlling for observed differences between pure and applied disciplines, and between papers testing one or several hypotheses, the odds of reporting a positive result were around 5 times higher among papers in the disciplines of Psychology and Psychiatry and Economics and Business compared to Space Science, 2.3 times higher in the domain of social sciences compared to the physical sciences, and 3.4 times higher in studies applying behavioural and social methodologies on people compared to physical and chemical studies on non-biological material. In all comparisons, biological studies had intermediate values. These results suggest that the nature of hypotheses tested and the logical and methodological rigour employed to test them vary systematically across disciplines and fields, depending on the complexity of the subject matter and possibly other factors (e.g., a field''s level of historical and/or intellectual development). On the other hand, these results support the scientific status of the social sciences against claims that they are completely subjective, by showing that, when they adopt a scientific approach to discovery, they differ from the natural sciences only by a matter of degree.     

An Analysis of Citizen Science Based Research: Usage and Publication Patterns

The use of citizen science for scientific discovery relies on the acceptance of this method by the scientific community. Using the Web of Science and Scopus as the source of peer reviewed articles, an analysis of all published articles on “citizen science” confirmed its growth, and found that significant research on methodology and validation techniques preceded the rapid rise of the publications on research outcomes based on citizen science methods. Of considerable interest is the growing number of studies relying on the re-use of collected datasets from past citizen science research projects, which used data from either individual or multiple citizen science projects for new discoveries, such as for climate change research. The extent to which citizen science has been used in scientific discovery demonstrates its importance as a research approach. This broad analysis of peer reviewed papers on citizen science, that included not only citizen science projects, but the theory and methods developed to underpin the research, highlights the breadth and depth of the citizen science approach and encourages cross-fertilization between the different disciplines.     

The breakthrough paradox: How focusing on one form of innovation jeopardizes the advancement of science

Research needs a balance of risk‐taking in “breakthrough projects” and gradual progress. For building a sustainable knowledge base, it is indispensable to provide support for both. Subject Categories: Careers, Economics, Law & Politics, Science Policy & Publishing

Science is about venturing into the unknown to find unexpected insights and establish new knowledge. Increasingly, academic institutions and funding agencies such as the European Research Council (ERC) explicitly encourage and support scientists to foster risky and hopefully ground‐breaking research. Such incentives are important and have been greatly appreciated by the scientific community. However, the success of the ERC has had its downsides, as other actors in the funding ecosystem have adopted the ERC’s focus on “breakthrough science” and respective notions of scientific excellence. We argue that these tendencies are concerning since disruptive breakthrough innovation is not the only form of innovation in research. While continuous, gradual innovation is often taken for granted, it could become endangered in a research and funding ecosystem that places ever higher value on breakthrough science. This is problematic since, paradoxically, breakthrough potential in science builds on gradual innovation. If the value of gradual innovation is not better recognized, the potential for breakthrough innovation may well be stifled.

While continuous, gradual innovation is often taken for granted, it could become endangered in a research and funding ecosystem that places ever higher value on breakthrough science.

Concerns that the hypercompetitive dynamics of the current scientific system may impede rather than spur innovative research have been voiced for many years (Alberts et al, 2014). As performance indicators continue to play a central role for promotions and grants, researchers are under pressure to publish extensively, quickly, and preferably in high‐ranking journals (Burrows, 2012). These dynamics increase the risk of mental health issues among scientists (Jaremka et al, 2020), dis‐incentivise relevant and important work (Benedictus et al, 2016), decrease the quality of scientific papers (Sarewitz, 2016) and induce conservative and short‐term thinking rather than risk‐taking and original thinking required for scientific innovation (Alberts et al, 2014; Fochler et al, 2016). Against this background, strong incentives for fostering innovative and daring research are indispensable.     

Interface Biology of Implants

Implants are widely used in various clinical disciplines to replace or stabilize organs. The challenge for the future is to apply implant materials to specifically control the biology of the surrounding tissue for repair and regeneration. This field of research is highly interdisciplinary and combines scientists from technical and life sciences disciplines. To successfully apply materials for regenerative processes in the body, the understanding of the mechanisms at the interface between cells or tissues and the artificial material is of critical importance. The research focuses on stem cells, design of material surfaces, and mechanisms of cell adhesion. For the third time around 200 scientists met in Rostock, Germany for the international symposium “Interface Biology of Implants.” The aim of the symposium is to promote the interdisciplinary dialogue between the scientists from the different disciplines to develop smart implants for medical use. In addition, researchers from basic sciences, notably cell biology presented new findings concerning mechanisms of cell adhesion to stimulate research in the applied field of implant technology.Key words: interface, implant, stem cells, adhesion, mechanics, surface, biomaterialMedical implants play a growing role in routine clinical practice. In addition to replace or stabilize injured tissue permanently or transiently, the application of implant materials to stimulate the regeneration of tissue is becoming a challenge in the field of regenerative medicine. The use of implant materials is based on the idea that biomaterials function not only as mechanical support for cells and tissue but also provide a matrix to induce signal transduction in the cells that control complex molecular mechanisms responsible for proliferation und differentiation. In this context, the interface between artificial materials and living cells or tissue is an exciting field of great scientific interest and constitutes one of the most dynamic and expanding field in science and technology. Progress in this field is mainly driven by the fundamental importance for clinical applications. The research is characterized by a multidisciplinary collaboration between physics, engineers, biologists and clinicians.In May 2009, for the third time after 2003 and 2006 around 200 scientists met in Rostock-Warnemünde for the symposium “Interface Biology of Implants” to discuss biointerface processes at a fundamental level. The main goals of this symposium are to simulate the interdisciplinary dialogue between scientists of the different disciplines and to introduce current knowledge of basic research in cell biology and material science into the applied field of implant technology. The programme was organized in invited presentations of 20 internationally renowned scientists and complemented by short talks of mostly young scientists selected from the submitted abstracts. In addition, 80 posters presented latest results in this multidisciplinary field.The symposium was opened with a keynote lecture presented by Hartmut Hildebrand (Lille). He gave an overview about the 7,000 years old history of application of implant materials. Rare photographs were shown which demonstrated that in these early times prostheses mainly made from metallic materials were used to restore teeth, extremities and the skull of the human body. These old documents stressed the historical relevance of medical application of implant materials.The symposium on two days was composed of four sessions covering the interdisciplinary research in the field. The session “Stem cells and biomaterials” discussed the biological response and signalling mechanism of stem cells in the interaction with a material surface. The session “Bioactivation of implant surfaces” focussed on the tailoring of surfaces to control the cell physiology. To stimulate the field by recent data in basic cell biology, talks were presented in the third session, dealing with molecular mechanisms involved in cell adhesion. A special session dealt with the role and mechanism of controlling cells by mechanics.