Peggy Goodell

The Goodell Lab. Hematopoietic stem cells, epigenetics, DNA methylation. Chair, Dept of Mol Cell Biology at Baylor College of Medicine. Tweets my own.

[Nancy Gillis 🆖☮️ @nancykgillis]

More evidence that #ClonalHematopoiesis evolution is context dependent! 🧬 Clonal selection reflects both cancer therapy and germline genetics, with important implications for tMN development.
Huge congrats to @KellyLBolton @IrenaeusChan & colleagues!
https://t.co/L9T9KHPDin

[Elmira Khabusheva @sciencyelmira]

I had an incredible opportunity to talk with Dr. Tolar, the President of BCM, about my research, my involvement with the Postdoctoral Association, and my experience at BCM and in the @Goodell_Lab.
As always, feeling more comfortable pipetting than talking.

[Peggy Goodell @Goodell_Lab]

@TrowbridgeLab @NatureCellBio @jaynathemistry Congrats! Beautiful work!

[Peggy Goodell @Goodell_Lab]

Jeopardy! Champion Stella Trout in the nail-biters of the Champions Wild Card (CWC) Tournament- reruns this week and next! Definitely smarter than her mom! Going to the TOC this year!

https://t.co/8MrxlEjVqk

[Peggy Goodell @Goodell_Lab]

Well, who is curious? How did Stella Trout do in her #Jeopardy! Champions Wild Card quarterfinals game? Did she make it to Final Jeopardy in good standing? Was she confident enough in the #Science category to wager big? Did she answer the #Biology question right?

[Niko McCarty. @NikoMcCarty]

"...deidentified data on 110,303 manuscript submissions over 5 years at Science and Science Advances."

Key results:
- Editors rejected 28.1% of submissions outright.
- They sent the other submissions to an advisory board for feedback, and then rejected 75% of those.
- If a paper makes it to peer review, then it will be accepted about one-third of the time.
- Submissions from "more prestigious" schools are far more likely to make it past the editor. The benefit of being from a prestigious school goes down once the paper makes it to peer review.
- Submissions from China are penalized (less likely to be accepted). Papers with lots of authors also have higher success rates. Note that all of these things are correlations, though; it is possible that papers from China are literally just worse on average, or that papers with large teams really are better, etc.
- And they made the data available!

[Astera Institute @AsteraInstitute]

We recently launched an essay competition for which scientists described structural problems they run into. With nearly 200 submissions, we decided to give out 8 awards, instead of 3. A quick summary here 👇 1 / 5

[Peggy Goodell @Goodell_Lab]

@PracheeAC Really interesting competition! And great summaries of the essays, winners, and process on the blog. Congrats to the winners and to the @AsteraInstitute for putting this together!

[Peggy Goodell @Goodell_Lab]

Great to see innovation in publishing! Thoughtful progress by Editor in Chief of @BiologyOpen @gorelicklab

[Prof. Nikolai Slavov @slavov_n]

Paying peer reviewers led to faster first editorial decisions — an average of 5.5 working days, down from nearly 38 for unpaid reviews.

The review quality, as judged by handling editors on the basis of helpfulness in making an editorial decision, went up.

1/

[Peggy Goodell @Goodell_Lab]

@nancykgillis @MoffittNews Congrats Nancy! I look forward to your continued great work!

[Peggy Goodell @Goodell_Lab]

@bloodgenes @DMSabatini Huge congrats Vijay!!!

[Peggy Goodell @Goodell_Lab]

@BrainResilience @StanfordBrain @StanfordMed @StanfordDeptMed @Stanford @Baylor Thank you all for the excellent visit – it was great to talk to so many wonderful colleagues- sharing ideas and moving science forward. And thanks to the inimitable @BrunetLab for hosting!

[Peggy Goodell @Goodell_Lab]

Two Presidents of @BCMhouston! Excited to welcome Jakub Tolar as our new President and CEO! He brings enormous energy and enthusiasm to take BCM into the next era, bringing deep experience leading a learning health system and his own interests in clinical translation of basic discoveries. Also grateful for the 16-year leadership of Paul E Klotman, who brought us through financial challenges, the pandemic, and a changing academic landscape with calm and humor. He modernized medical education, our infrastructure, and bolstered our finances; we grew and evolved. We are in a fantastic position for the future. Hope to be recruiting soon- watch this space!

[Peggy Goodell @Goodell_Lab]

@imartincorena Congrats! Great to see in final form. And what an issue- shared with @VamsiMootha with a fantastic somatic mosaicism story, tracking clones using mitochondrial DNA variants, and the inimitable @stephxie with human HSCs that exhibit memory of inflammatory exposure.

[Peggy Goodell @Goodell_Lab]

@VamsiMootha Congrats! Fantastic study! #mosaicism #hematology

[Peggy Goodell @Goodell_Lab]

Amazing paper showing somatic mutations and massive clonal selection for lymphocytes that drive autoimmune disease.

Autoimmune diseases are varied and individually relatively uncommon but as a group highly prevalent. These cause lots of morbidity to very many people, with huge personal, societal, and economic impact. If these findings are extended to other autoimmune conditions, they will have huge implications for treatment.

Lots in this paper - somatic evolution, new tech, old theories, mutations in your favorite genes... The thread is a great TL;DR for the paper.

Go deep and read the cited 2007 Goodnow paper (post#6) - amazingly detailed and prescient- from ~20 years ago!

[Inigo Martincorena @imartincorena]

Excited to share our latest work. Applying advanced single-molecule and single-cell DNA sequencing methods, we uncover an extraordinary landscape of somatic mutations in immune checkpoint genes in autoimmune lymphocytes. [1/n] https://t.co/8kQZ0NWl7X

[Peggy Goodell @Goodell_Lab]

@leonard_zon Congrats, Len!

[Peggy Goodell @Goodell_Lab]

@imartincorena Wow! Congrats @imartincorena and team! Amazing tour de force! Huge contribution to understanding autoimmunity.

[Peggy Goodell @Goodell_Lab]

@EinsteinMed @MontefioreNYC Congratulations Uli! Amazing!

[Peggy Goodell @Goodell_Lab]

@landau_lab @CD_AACR Congrats Dan! Awesome paper for the whole field.

[Peggy Goodell @Goodell_Lab]

Data on factors impacting time-to-acceptance could be crowd-sourced.

Major factors:
- time before first editor desk decision (varies a lot by editor and journal)
- review time (huge variation; also heavily influenced by the editors)
- editor decision time after reviews come in (can be longer than one would think)
– revision time (authors chasing very time-consuming experiments for the win; heavily influenced by (lack of) editor guidance, but also topic, model system...)
- second round (all same variables)
- possible appeal time (appeals are high at top journals and take even more time and can add to total time)

Journals track all this data. Authors should have it too.

Decent crowd-sourced data could be in ~real-time, and would help authors make informed decisions. I think many ppl would contribute data from their experience.

[Sasha Gusev @SashaGusevPosts]

Monthly median Received to Accepted time (days) at Nature Genetics