Category: Publishing

Meet Roland Stimson the Society’s 2021 Starling Medallist

Published on by Society for EndocrinologyLeave a comment

Roland Stimson is a clinical academic endocrinologist, Professor of endocrinology and a CSO Scottish Senior Clinical Fellow at the University of Edinburgh as well as an honorary consultant at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. His main research interests are obesity, type 2 diabetes and energy metabolism. Here he tells us about breaking convention to build a career and why loves the discipline.

Tell us about your career path
Although you’re generally told not to stay in one place I’ve done exactly that, I went to university in Edinburgh then undertook my early clinical training just over the water in Fife. I didn’t do a BSc at university as I was keen to start seeing patients during my early clinical training. But I was really interested in human endocrine physiology so developed an interest in research and applied for a clinical fellow position to undertake my PhD with Professors Brian Walker and Ruth Andrew back in Edinburgh. I very much enjoyed this post and continued my clinical and research training with a clinical lecturer position thereafter. Subsequently, I obtained a MRC Clinician Scientist intermediate fellowship and more recently a Scottish Senior fellowship that has allowed me to continue my research in combination with my clinical work as an endocrinologist.

“I was always fascinated by the feedback mechanisms in endocrinology and how you could use these to pinpoint the pathology…”

What inspired you into research?
I’m really interested in human physiology and its dysregulation in disease, from the beginning I wanted to undertake research in humans and have tried to develop new techniques to better understand human physiology. I was always fascinated by the feedback mechanisms in endocrinology and how you could use these to pinpoint the pathology, by definition endocrinology is very much a multisystem discipline and it provides you with tremendous variety.

What do you enjoy most about your work?
I really enjoy discovering new mechanisms controlling human physiology, I find that fascinating and I particularly enjoy designing studies to try and answer research questions.

What will you be presenting in your lecture at SfE BES 2021?
I will be talking about our recent research on brown adipose tissue or brown fat in adult humans. This is an organ that increases energy expenditure to generate heat and a lack of brown fat is associated with poorer metabolic health. We’ve undertaken a number of studies in healthy volunteers to determine how human brown fat is regulated and I’ll be talking about the insights we’ve gained.

“I think this is incredibly important to improve patient outcomes not just for our own local patients, but the wider community, and often takes you down paths you never would have imagined so it is a very fulfilling career.”

What do you think are the main challenges in your field right now?
The prevalence of obesity continues to increase and is a major global health problem, therefore we need to find better treatments to safely help people lose weight and prevent the adverse metabolic sequelae of obesity. Many obesity treatments have been withdrawn due to safety concerns so finding pharmacotherapy that can safely achieve weight loss is a major challenge, although there have been some really promising, new developments recently in this area.

Any words of wisdom for aspiring endocrinologists?
I’m not sure I have any words of wisdom but I think endocrinology is a fascinating specialty that will continue to be intellectually stimulating for the duration of your career and contains so much variety that everyone should be able to find areas of particular interest to them. I would also certainly encourage young endocrinologists to become involved in research, I think this is incredibly important to improve patient outcomes not just for our own local patients but the wider community, and often takes you down paths you never would have imagined so it is a very fulfilling career.


You can attend Professor Roland Stimson’s Medal Lecture, “Strategies to turn up the heat – investigating human brown adipose tissue function” on Monday 8 November at 2:30pm.

Find out more about the scientific programme for SfE BES 2021.

Meet the editor – Professor Martin Haluzík

Published on by Society for EndocrinologyLeave a comment

Meet Professor Martin Haluzík, Professor of Internal Medicine at the Charles University in Prague, Deputy Head of Centre for Experimental Medicine and Head of the Department of Experimental Diabetology at the Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine in Prague, Czech Republic. Professor Haluzík is a deputy editor of the Journal of Endocrinology and Journal of Molecular Endocrinology. His major research focus is on the etiopathogenesis of obesity, insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. In this interview, Professor Haluzík tells us more about his research and career.

Tell us about your particular field and research?

Our lab explores the etiopathogenesis of obesity and type 2 diabetes aiming to find preventive and treatment strategies. We are particularly interested in bariatric surgery and endoscopic methods of treatment along with novel pharmaceutical targets. Our research is both experimental and clinical, involving patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes.

What techniques do you use in your research?

At the moment, a lot of our research is focused on immunometabolism/subclinical inflammation in adipose tissue using flow cytometry and continuously trying to refine it. We are also using metabolomic and proteomic methods in collaboration with other laboratories. In patients, we often use glucose clamps to characterise insulin sensitivity before and after interventions. We are also testing numerous novel endoscopic methods for treatment of obesity/type 2 diabetes in both experimental models and in patients.

What inspired you into endocrinology?

It was primarily my mentor, Professor Vratislav Schreiber, who was a leading, internationally-recognised, experimental endocrinologist. His primary focus was hypothalamus/hypophysis research but he was the one who, after discovery of adipose tissue hormone leptin, came up with the idea that we should focus on the endocrine function of fat.

What do you enjoy most about work?

I really enjoy its variability – doing both experimental and clinical research brings some challenges but this combination is never boring. I very much like scientific discussion with my colleagues about our results and brainstorming how to explain it and put it into context. I also like writing the papers, especially when nobody is calling and I have a couple of hours to focus on thinking about data and writing.

What does your day-to-day work life involve?

I do both clinical work (seeing patients with diabetes/endocrine diseases) and experimental research. Nevertheless, I have to admit that I am not very useful in the lab anymore. My job is mostly to write grant applications, organize things, write and refine the papers and support my colleagues and PhD students.

What are you most looking forward to in becoming an editor?

I am very much looking forward to a chance to contribute to shaping and refining the focus of such well-respected journals of Journal of Endocrinology and Journal of Molecular Endocrinology. Also, I really like interaction with the Editorial Board and other members of the team that bring most interesting ideas that help us to improve the journal.

Who/what research has inspired you the most?

My first mentor, Professor Vratislav Schreiber, who contributed to the discovery of TRH. He was very inspiring by a combination of being extremely smart and modest at the same time, while having an unforgettable sense of humour.

What is the best feedback or advice you have ever received?

“Work smart not hard” although I am still learning how to do it, which involves a lot of hard work.

Is there any advice you can give to someone just starting off in science?

Go for it! I would make the same choice again if I could start over. It is a lot of work but you don’t really need any other hobbies. You can think about science all the time.

Meet the Endocrinologist: V. Craig Jordan, Endocrine-Related Cancer author, reviewer and reader

Published on by Society for EndocrinologyLeave a comment

Meet Professor V. Craig Jordan, Professor of Breast Medical Oncology and Molecular and Cellular Oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, leading light in cancer research, and father of the ground-breaking breast cancer drug tamoxifen.

Ever since he favoured studying pharmacology at university over drumming in a rock band, Jordan focused his efforts into developing a thriving career in endocrine breast cancer research. His current work focuses on how oestrogen-induced apoptosis can help prevent breast cancer recurrence after tamoxifen treatment. Jordan’s numerous scientific merits have led to him receiving many awards, including an OBE for services to international breast cancer research and being appointed Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine (UK), Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences (UK), and Elected Member of the National Academy of Sciences (US).

Following Jordan’s guest review published in Endocrine-Related Cancer, we spoke to him about his career highlights and asked for his advice to early career researchers.

Q: What has been your proudest professional experience so far?

To date, my proudest experience has been to successfully reinvent ICI 46,474, a failed contraceptive, as tamoxifen, one of the most valuable breast cancer medicines that we have today. Back in the 1970s no one was interested in medicines that did not kill cancer, and early clinical experience with tamoxifen in metastatic breast cancer demonstrated only palliative activity. When our work started, it was chemotherapy that was on the spotlight – it was what was going to cure cancer.

My career development was accelerated by guidance from my mentors Paul Carbone, Bill McGuire, Elwood Jensen, and Harold Rusch; and the success of tamoxifen in the 1980s brought me to the University of Wisconsin, where my Tamoxifen Team discovered Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs). Tamoxifen was the pioneering SERM – there are now five different FDA approved SERMs for multiple indications in women’s health, ranging from treatment and prevention of breast cancer, osteoporosis, alleviation of menopausal symptoms and dyspareunia.

I have personally been delighted at the success of my Tamoxifen Team members, both in academia and the pharmaceutical industry. The development of SERMs was always a team effort, and my election to the National Academy of Science and National Academy of Medicine (and the equivalent in the United Kingdom, Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine) is an honour I share with my Tamoxifen Teams.  The Tamoxifen Team is on the Wall of Honour at the Royal Society of Medicine in London.

Q: What in your working life are you most passionate about?

First of all, I am and have always been passionate about giving opportunities to the young trainees in my Tamoxifen Teams. “We are in it for life” is our team motto – over the last 40 years team members have had my support, and will continue to have it for the rest of their lives. Secondly, my academic passion is focussing on research that can potentially aid the survival of women with breast cancer. And finally, I have had a 40-year long love affair with the triphenylethylene molecule, the oestrogenic basis of the anti-oestrogen tamoxifen. I continue to have a focused interest on the relationship of SERMs with the oestrogen receptor.

Q: What most excites you about your work and the contribution you can make?

Our work on SERMs and acquired resistance to long-term anti-hormone therapy in breast cancer produced some important surprises of clinical significance. Our study of acquired resistance to tamoxifen in the laboratory resulted in our finding that, following long-term anti-oestrogen treatment (5 years), low concentrations of oestrogen kill breast cancer cells. This has clinical significance in physiology and the treatment of breast cancer, a topic which I recently reviewed in Endocrine-Related Cancer (Jordan, VC, 2015, Endocrine Related Cancer. 22:R1 – R31). Moving to the MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, provides an opportunity to extend the lives of women with new treatment strategies following the diagnosis of breast cancer. These are exciting times as it is clear that around the world our knowledge of breast cancer is accelerating. We must know our enemy in order to destroy it!

Q: What is the best feedback or advice you have ever received?

Early in my career there were two memorable moments where individuals changed my perspective.

I was not a good student during grammar school.  I had one interview at Leeds University, Department of Pharmacology, and was lucky to get into university in 1965. My goal was to use organic chemistry to develop drugs to treat cancer. However, a year into my degree I was uncertain I was doing the right courses to get into cancer research. I was then interviewed by Dr Mogey, who was to decide on my change of course. My meeting with Dr Mogey did not go well – he chose to give me honest feedback. He looked at my poor performance to date, stared at me over his half-moon glasses, and said “I don’t think you are good enough to transfer”. In response, I stood up and announced that I would become top of the third year organic chemistry course I was then doing, get a first class pass in biochemistry, and pass my physics course despite the fact I had never taken physics before. I stormed off and narrowly missed smashing his glass door as I slammed it. At that point I learned that either you chose to fight, or you fold. I chose to fight, but not to transfer courses because of my love of chemistry.

Years later I discovered two things about Dr Mogey. Firstly, he recommended me for a prestigious Ackroyd scholarship, which I won for my exam performance in my first year at Leeds. Secondly, he wrote a letter of recommendation for me to become a faculty member in his pharmacology department. Thanks to Dr Mogey’s feedback, I learned the qualities that it took to be an honest and good faculty member, and how to fight to succeed in a chosen path.

Similarly, when I was a visiting scientist at the Worcester Foundation in 1974, a Dr Eliahu Caspi called me into his office for an interview to decide, based on documented performance, whether I was to be offered a job there and not return to England. At the interview, he picked up my CV, glowered at me over his desk and stated “you don’t have a CV, because you haven’t published anything”. This hammer blow was another Mogey moment. I replied that I couldn’t publish because I had still not discovered anything. His advice then was to tell the story so far; to connect my publications together so that I could have a theme – and this became my working model.

Q: Based on your experience, what qualities or skills do you feel young scientists need to be successful?

I believe there are two essential skills that every young person must master. Firstly, without the ability to stand up and give a presentation you cannot communicate with your colleagues. Secondly, it is fundamental that you become encyclopaedic about your topic of research. The postdoctoral fellows of my current Tamoxifen Team at the MD Anderson Cancer Center are required to present historical papers from past Tamoxifen Teams – not only to hone their presentation skills, but also to learn about the development of models that we have created in the past and still use for our experiments today. After six months of presentations, I consider these trainees to be fully prepared to go into scientific meetings with enough confidence and a sound background of relevant knowledge.

Q: What advice would you give early-career researchers when thinking about publishing their work?

We return to Dr Caspi, who we met earlier in this interview and who advised me to publish. I echo his advice – if you do not publish the results you have found and tell the story so far, you have never done the work. If it’s not in print, it never happened; and you cannot claim primacy of an idea.

Every ambitious young person first wants to publish in Nature or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which I don’t think is a good plan to start with – it helps the mentor’s reputation, not the young researcher’s. When I returned to the University of Leeds from the Worcester Foundation in 1974, I decided to publish my work in the Journal of Endocrinology, the European Journal of Cancer and, since I was a pharmacologist, the British Journal of Pharmacology. Between 1974 and 1980 I published 11 referred articles in the Journal of Endocrinology. I wanted to create impact for my work on the new anti-cancer drug tamoxifen. In 1975, I attempted to publish three papers on tamoxifen in a single issue of the Journal of Endocrinology, and almost succeeded! So my second piece of advice is to attract attention, and to publish in journals from professional societies. I published my highest cited (445) scientific paper on tamoxifen in the Journal of Endocrinology; a paper that turned out to become the blueprint for all future SERMs over the next decade.

Q: What do you enjoy doing in your spare time?

For me this has always been age dependant. As a young man at Leeds University, between 1966 and 1979, I was an Army Reserve Officer in the Intelligence Corps, and remained with the Special Air Service as a Regular Army Reserve Officer until the age of 55. During the past two decades I have enjoyed the beautiful mountains of the Austrian Tyrol and international travel. During the last decade I have taken much pleasure in my library of 6,000 hardback books and, over the years, in the exchanged correspondence with several of the authors who are soldiers, scientists, TV presenters and one spy.

Q: Who do you admire most and why?

I admire individuals who, against all odds, can achieve success in an activity that advances society.

Dr Margaret Foti is the CEO of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), the oldest cancer research organization in the world. She initially joined the AACR as an editorial assistant for their single journal Cancer Research and became the youngest managing editor of a major scientific journal in the country. Under her leadership, the AACR membership has grown from 3,000 to 37,000 with representatives from 108 countries. The journal portfolio has grown from 1 to 8 major scientific journals. She worked for a PhD along the way and was honoured with an MD. Marge is the modern AACR.

Dr Angela H. Brodie died on June 7, 2017. Angela told her students to do research that serves to help mankind. She trained as an endocrinologist and, together with her husband Harry, discovered the first selective aromatase inhibitor. At that time no companies were interested in developing an aromatase inhibitor to treat breast cancer, so Angela did it herself. The medicine was synthesised at the University of Maryland, shipped to England and tested showing positive results. She succeeded when others would not have given battle. Her determination resulted in the development of three FDA aromatase inhibitors and hundreds of thousands of lives saved. Angela had a calm, shy personality, but a will of steel.

Members of the Society for Endocrinology get free online access to the current content of Endocrine-Related Cancer, as well as Journal of Endocrinology, Journal of Molecular Endocrinology and Clinical Endocrinology, via the Members’ Area.

Looking to publish your research? Our members also enjoy no colour or supplementary data charges when publishing in Endocrine-Related Cancer, Journal of Endocrinology and Journal of Molecular Endocrinology. Find out more about member benefits.

 

 

Man, I feel like a woman

Published on by Society for Endocrinology1 Comment

The Journal of Molecular Endocrinology is the only Society-owned basic science journal dedicated to looking at hormones at the cellular and molecular level. In a series of blog posts, we look back at some of the most cutting-edge research published by our members in our journals. This first piece was written by Douglas Gibson (@douglasagibson), a postdoctoral research at University of Edinburgh.

Remember that members can now publish in JOE, JME and ERC free of charge!

We often think of hormones as ‘male’ or ‘female’ because of how they shape the features we associate with each sex. So androgens – the ‘male’ hormones – might make you think of ‘manly’ things like body hair, muscles and deep voices, but what if I told you that they play an important role in women becoming pregnant too?

It’s difficult to separate androgens from their macho reputation, particularly when examples of androgen excess in women, such as in athletic doping, also produce masculinizing effects. Despite this, androgens have long been known to be important in controlling many processes in female physiology. Indeed, androgens can be detected at significant concentrations in the blood of women and in some cases may even exceed those of men! However, although androgens are abundant in the blood they are usually only activated in specific tissues when they are needed. In this clever way they don’t have widespread and uncontrolled effects.

One surprising place where androgens were recently found to be activated is inside the womb. Every month, the structure of the womb lining – known as the endometrium – is reorganised to create an environment that can support and sustain pregnancy. However, without the right hormonal signals, the endometrium will not provide the conditions required for a fertilised egg to implant.

Recent studies have found that hormones produced inside the womb play a pivotal role in the early stages of pregnancy. It was previously thought this vital role was carried out solely by hormone signals from the ovary but new research has found that ‘male’ hormones (androgens) help to prepare the womb lining to encourage a successful pregnancy.

In our study, we wanted to understand how the signals inside the womb lining affected the early stages of pregnancy. In fact, we found that androgens can act in two key ways; by acting as a direct signal in the womb but also by being converted into ‘female’ hormones (estrogens) in the early stages of pregnancy. We found that estrogens within the womb signal to cells that control blood vessel development which is essential for promoting exchange of nutrients between mother and baby.

So amazingly, androgens seem to provide a delicate balance to control key changes in the womb in pregnancy. However as fewer of these key hormones are produced as women age, this could partly explain why some older women find it difficult to conceive. Our research is now focussing on how changes in the availability of androgens can affect the way the womb lining prepares for pregnancy. We hope to be able to apply this new understanding to improve fertility treatments which in the future may mean that older women seeking motherhood may have a better chance of successfully conceiving.

Life as a young lab head

Published on by Society for Endocrinology1 Comment

Earlier this year, the Endocrine Society and the Endocrine Society of Australia published a paper titled ‘Career advancement: Meeting the challenges confronting the next generation of endocrinologists and endocrine scientists‘. Endocrinologists are facing challenges in reduced funding, competing responsibilities and gender issues. Giving us the personal side of the story, Australian prostate cancer researcher Luke Selth tells us about the ups and downs of life as a young lab head…

“As I sit down to write this, there is a foul odour permeating my cancer research lab. I know what you’re thinking: one of the PhD students has left a Bunsen burner on and I’m on butane high. I wish it was so simple.

No, the stench is a heady mixture of stress and worry. I am expecting the outcomes of two National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant applications this week. We also have two research papers currently under review at a prominent journal in the field of cancer biology (seriously, how can it take 62 days to review a paper?).

It feels as though the next week could literally make or break my career. Is this an exaggeration? Well, no, actually. Let me break it down for you…

pull-quote-2a

The grant applications

My lab’s research is focused on identifying the molecular mechanisms underlying prostate cancer progression, and developing new therapeutic strategies for this important disease. Both of my Project Grant applications are in this field and, realistically, there’s every chance neither will be funded.

I’d like to stress that this isn’t because they are bad applications. ‘You’re biased’, I hear you muttering, and I can’t argue with that – of course everyone thinks their own research is the most novel and exciting. However, I have evidence to back this notion up: both have made it through the dreaded ‘Not for further consideration’ cut, which means they were ranked in the top 50% of applications.

So we are through the first hurdle. However, given that last year’s success rate was 13.7%, this means that both grants still only have around a 1 in 4 chance of being funded. Of course, that’s if the success rate doesn’t decrease even further this year – there’s every indication that it will. When I started writing NHRMC grant applications 5 years ago, 22.9% of applications were being funded. This worrying trend, largely due to the lack of real increase in the overall NHMRC budget, has caused a lot of scientists to change professions or leave the country – a “brain drain” that will be difficult to recover from.

The low success rate means the outcomes often feel like a bit of a lottery. All of the applications still in the hunt are strong; it’s extremely difficult for a review panel to choose the best. In a perfect world (or, more accurately, a perfect Australian economy), most of them would be funded. But this isn’t a perfect world, and so some randomness ensues. This process of assessing applications in this type of funding scheme has been studied: Fang and colleagues provided evidence that the peer review process used by the National Institute of Health (USA) does not necessarily fund the best science – and that using a lottery-style system to awards grants would actually yield equivalent, if not better, research outcomes.

In short, a bit of bad luck could see both of my applications – which collectively took around 2 months of full-time work to prepare – down the drain.

pull-quote-3a

The papers

The old mantra of “publish or perish” is stronger than ever in Australian science. Consistently publishing in high quality journals is required for grant success, which in turn is required to keep consistently publishing in high quality journals; it’s a feedback loop that sadly consumes much of my attention.

The two papers that are currently under review are both strong bodies of work. But, again, there’s every chance they will be rejected – the current acceptance rate at the journal I have submitted to is around 20-25%.

The possible outcomes

OK, so what happens if my grant applications and research papers are both tossed out like old agar plates? Well, I will have just enough funding to keep my small research group going next year, but virtually nothing for the following year (not even my salary). The stench of worry in my lab will become even more pungent. I’m a passionate guy, and in such a situation I’d like to allow myself the release of smashing a glass beaker or two – but I couldn’t afford the cost of replacements…

pull-quote-4a

Alternatively, there is the possibility that I win the lottery. Sure, there’s been a lot of work done by my group, but in the end I truly believe there is a significant amount of luck involved. If the papers are accepted and grants are funded, suddenly the lab’s future and finances will look flush again. There will be no need to let anyone go, and I can cancel that online barista course I signed up for!

This roller-coaster we call a science career

Of course I’ve simplified things. There is a whole spectrum of possibilities between total failure and total success. But what I’m hoping to convey is the reality of life for a young lab head trying to make his or her way in the world of biomedical research. This job is a bloody roller-coaster, and it seems perverse that I spend up to half of my time applying for money so that I can simply do my job.

pull-quote-5a

I’m often asked by my close friends and family why I stick with it. One response is that I’m not sure any café would want a washed-up scientist as their barista! Seriously though, I love my job for many reasons, the most important being that I have a scientific curiosity that can probably only be sated by this type of research and a vision to improve outcomes for cancer patients. Fortunately, the satisfaction of discovery, coupled with a real chance to improve the health of our society, far outweigh my grant- and paper-related pessimism.

So, even if the grants and papers don’t come through this week, I’m going to persist – and I have many inspirational colleagues and mentors who do the same, year in and year out.

References:

  1. Fang FC, Bowen A, & Casadevall A (2016) NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity. Elife 5.

How to get into peer review and why

Published on by Society for EndocrinologyLeave a comment

Peer Review Week 2016 is taking place from September 19-26. The global event celebrates the essential role that peer review plays in maintaining scientific quality. The central message is that good peer review is critical to scholarly communications.

This year, the theme is ‘Recognition for Review’, so we have asked some of our members to tell us about how they first got involved in peer review, why it’s important to them, and why is it essential for the continuation of high-quality science and clinical research.

 

Li Chan is a clinical scientist in paediatric endocrinology at Queen Mary’s University London. She discusses why peer review is important to her – and you.

li-chen

Remember that peer review isn’t just about the journals and funding bodies; it’s also important to the author and the reviewer. The author receives constructive feedback to ensure that their work is presented in the best way and backed up by necessary experimental data. Reading other reviewers’ comments and alternative views on a given set of data may allow you to consider your work from another point of view – and that could make the difference between published and unpublished.

On the other hand, the reviewer gains career development and insight. The reviews you write for others will only aid your own future submissions. Over the years I have learnt an immense amount from both writing reviews and receiving them – and I believe this understanding of both sides of the process is necessary for it to work really effectively.

But how did I get into peer review? During my PhD years, my supervisor would ask me if I wanted to review a submission. I always said yes – working with my supervisor at the start was a useful way of learning the process as I could discuss my final report with someone more experienced. Gradually, I developed my own style and expertise.

If you are a young researcher wanting to get into peer review, I would recommend you speak to senior members of staff. They will only view your enthusiasm with positivity. And don’t think for a moment you’re underqualified; science is such a broad subject – we need reviewers with expertise in all areas, and that includes yours!

 

Karen Chapman is the Society General Secretary, as well as a member of the Editorial Board for the Journal of Endocrinology and Journal of Molecular Endocrinology. She discusses the importance of peer review in career development.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Publications are the main criterion we are judged on – and I believe the quality of our outputs is dependent upon a thorough review process. With this in mind, I believe we all must do our part to get involved in peer review. We depend on others to review our own papers, and so we all need to reciprocate.

After over 30 years as a research scientist (and not far off 30 years as an Editorial Board member of one sort or another), I have plenty of experience of peer review – from both sides. Yes, it is tough to read the rejection letters and to have your research critically appraised by someone whose identity you can only guess at, but most of the time the reviewers have a fair point, and often their comments substantially improve a manuscript.

Many of us (me included) get into peer review by appraising a manuscript passed to us by a co-worker or lab head. My first one took me forever. I think I read all the references! However, I soon learned to speed up, and concentrate on the data and how they are interpreted. This process also taught me what to look for in my own research and how to evaluate my data through a reviewer’s eyes. I believe reviews work best when a writer suggests a mechanistic experiment that can really nail the conclusions presented. It does happen; and this could be the sign of a great reviewer!

You stand to gain an awful lot from getting involved with peer review, but if you still aren’t convinced, remember that reviewing is also beneficial for keeping up with what is new. It’s a great way to stay ahead of the game!

 

We’ll be on Twitter all week showing our support for the campaign using the official hashtag #RecognizeReview  – and we’d love to hear your experiences of peer review! Also, check out some of our online talks for even more advice on getting into the peer review game:

Wayne Tilley – The Peer Review Process
Dr Josef Koehrle – Responding to reviewers comments

You can also sign up for free webinars and talks through the Peer Review Week 2016 official website.

 

Endocrine Connections celebrates a birthday – and brings you plushies

Published on by Society for EndocrinologyLeave a comment

This month, the Society for Endocrinology’s open-access journal, Endocrine Connections, is marking four years since the publication of its first issue.

To celebrate Endocrine Connections’s achievements, as well as the fourth anniversary of the first issue, you are invited to vote for your favourite article from the shortlist below. This list has been produced based on  scientific quality, originality and level of interest among the wider scientific audience – as well as download numbers to date.

But what’s in it for you? As well as supporting your colleagues’ research, by voting for your favourite, you will be entered into a draw to win an endocrinology-themed plushie; a new mascot, perhaps, for you laboratory or office!

  1. Research paper: Efficacy of increased resistant starch consumption in human type 2 diabetes C L Bodinham et al.
  2. Research paper: Effect of lifestyle intervention on the reproductive endocrine profile in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis Liza Haqq et al.
  3. Review: The heart as an endocrine organ Tsuneo Ogawa and Adolfo J de Bold.
  4. Review: The appraisal of chronic stress and the development of the metabolic syndrome: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies N Bergmann et al.
  5. Review: Heroes in endocrinology: Nobel Prizes Wouter W de Herder.
  6. Research paper: Variation in the biochemical response to L-thyroxine therapy and relationship with peripheral thyroid hormone conversion John E M Midgley et al.
  7. Review: Mitochondrial dysfunction and insulin resistance: an updateby Magdalene K Montgomery and Nigel Turner.
  8. Review: Update on strategies limiting iatrogenic hypoglycemia Aldo Bonaventura et al.
  9. Research paper: Bone metastases and skeletal-related events from neuroendocrine tumours Katherine Van Loon et al.
  10. Review: Cardiac natriuretic peptides and obesity: perspectives from an endocrinologist and a cardiologist Hugo R Ramos et al.

Vote now and look out for plushies!

Awareness of BRCA2 gene mutations in men becoming women

Published on by omarjamshedLeave a comment

A recent case study in Endocrine-Related Cancer describes the case of a transgender woman developing breast cancer linked to a mutation in the BRCA2 gene. In this post Dr Adrian Daly talks about the potential implications of their findings – and what it could mean for screening techniques.

140926_PIV_Transparent_9__c__2014_Amazon.com_Inc.__or_its_affiliates.jpg

Few medical issues have seen greater changes in public awareness recently than those related to transgender individuals.  Discussions around transgender identity were previously marginalized.

In contrast, today it is front and center in debates related to equality in many countries.  Along with the work of activists, the arts and media have played a central role in this radical change in openness regarding transgendered people and their experiences.  Leading characters in mainstream television drama are played by transgender actors such as Laverne Cox in Orange is the New Black, while popular series like Transparent have the transgender experience as the main theme of the show.

The real life experiences of gender transformation of the former Olympian and reality TV star Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner have been chronicled intimately. The upshot of this has been to dispel many taboos about discussing transgender related issues in the mainstream media.  This, in turn, improves awareness around these issues and how transgender is managed.

Endocrinologists play a key role in this specialized area of medical care.  Cross hormonal therapy is a cornerstone of gender transformation and is responsible for many desired changes sought by patients.  For male to female transformation, this involves taking doses of female hormones like estrogens and blocking male hormones with anti-androgen therapy.  This process leads to important physical changes like breast growth.

Hormonal therapy not only brings welcomed transformations but also changes in screening activities.  Male to female transgender individuals should learn and adopt breast examination and routine mammography similar to genetic females.  While male to female patients treated with hormones don’t appear to have an increased risk of breast cancer, there is a risk factor in this condition that might need better awareness in patients and doctors alike.

As published on 21 March 2016 in Endocrine-Related Cancer, a study involving the group of Prof. Albert Beckers at the University of Liège, Belgium described the case of a male to female transgender patient that developed breast cancer after 7 years of oestrogen and anti-androgen therapy.  The patient had to stop their hormone therapy and undergo surgery, but despite this, the cancer recurred and required chemotherapy.  Unbeknownst to the patient, multiple cousins had developed breast cancer and were found to have a mutation in the BRCA2 gene.

While the risks of cancer related to BRCA2 gene mutations have focused mainly on women, male mutation carriers are at greatly increased risk of male breast cancer and BRCA2 appears to act as a risk factor for prostate cancer, another hormone related tumor.  Indeed multiple members of the family also had developed prostate cancer.

“This very difficult case highlights two important points.”, said Dr. Vinciane Corman a lead author of the study. “Firstly, the awareness of family cancer risk due to BRCA2 gene mutations needs to involve both males and females, and families need to be thoroughly informed.  Information about a major risk factor like a BRCA2 mutation can lead to better decision making by potential carriers”.

She continued, “Secondly, the current cancer screening guidelines for BRCA2 mutation carriers have been written with the typical (or cisgendered) population in mind.  Due to greater openness about discussing transgendered individuals, future iterations of these guidelines might need to consider how best to manage these rare but difficult cases of BRCA2 mutation carriers that are considering being treated with cross sex hormones.”