Somatic mutations accumulate in “normal” non-cancerous tissues (blood, skin, liver). But why are mutant clones selected? Do they merely proliferate more, selfishly? Or can clones adapt to disease? Could they protect tissues? We shed light on this: https://t.co/Vu1d4U3stc 1/10
Excited to celebrate academic promotion to Associate Professor with @TiansterZhang, Tuoqi Wu and other colleagues at @UTSWMedCenter ! Congrats to everyone promoted this cycle!
Reminder: Abstracts are due tomorrow (Nov 10) for the upcoming Keystone Symposium on 'Somatic Mosaicism'. We have an exciting line-up of speakers, and we will be selecting more from the abstracts! @nlbigas@GenomeDoctor
https://t.co/LQWxp2F0HD
🗣️ POSTDOC wanted for @Zhu_Lab check out details & research specifics 👇 and join our #relentlessdiscovery in CRI's Tissue Regeneration Program.
https://t.co/DEAeNDJGiX
My biggest struggle with reviews in 2026 is that (AI) reviewers don’t seem to know the difference between limitations and critical issues. An LLM can easily find 100+ limitations in any paper (even the best ones in history), but that doesn’t mean the paper shouldn’t be accepted.
People reviewing papers: Can u stop using AI? First, you can't upload papers onto AI, it's just not cool. 2nd, the reviews are crap-they make no sense, and they often produce stupid comments. 3rd, if you are going to use AI to review, can you take less than 4 months to do it?
@RFrancoDuarte I have never used AI to review a paper for a journal. I don't think everyone does it. If someone spends 5 years to produce the paper, the least we can do is to read the paper with our eyes and then to think about it with our brains. I'm fine with AI polishing.
Can we all collectively agree that paper writing and reviewing is a broken outdated practice and just move on? Just received 2 reports which are verbatim the same thing amd clearlyAI generated.
So. AI writes, AI reviews, AI fixes? What's the point?
Yes. AI can produce a mass of objections for any paper, most of which trivial but dressed up in exaggerated language, or sophistries that miss the main point. Infuriating that some reviewers think this is ok.
@Richard_She Agreed, there should be real penalties for using AI in an egregious way to review papers. This is not the same as using AI to polish a paper. This is using a relentless machine to come up with infinite ways to attack someone's work in often trivial ways.
🧬 A major milestone in gene therapy for liver disease!
For the first time, researchers have published a peer-reviewed clinical case demonstrating successful in vivo base editing in a patient with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency.
🔬 Published in the @JHepatology, the study reports:
💠First peer-reviewed publication of a successfully treated PiZZ AATD patient with in vivo gene therapy
💠High correction efficiency, precise editing, and promising safety profile
💠Conversion of homozygous to heterozygous genotype – a major therapeutic achievement
💠Potential to treat numerous hereditary liver diseases and rare variants
These promising findings mark an important step towards precise, minimally invasive treatments for inherited liver diseases.
While further research is needed to establish long-term safety and efficacy, the study highlights the transformative potential of gene editing in hepatology.
🔗 Read the press release: https://t.co/bcaey2y8Z2
👉Read the article: https://t.co/0SVwJ8mNK7
@DebbieShawcros1@analleo #MHH
Always an amazing time at CRI Retreat. Fantastic science, equally fantastic community. I am always excited to present my work to represent @Gerta_Hoxhaj lab. But more importantly…I’m coming for that golden mic next year! 👊
Wish we could show you more #relentlessdiscovery 👀 from the 2026 annual CRI Retreat 🤫 but let's just say... some great science in the works. Take us back to last week! 🗣️ Shoutout to our grad students & #postdocs who presented 👏
#thursdaythrowback #sciencejobs #regeneration #StemCells #CancerBiology #Metabolism #Cancer