Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas

<jats:title>A close-up view of cardiac cell mechanics</jats:title> <jats:p> Heart cells contain a very well-organized array of cytoskeletal elements, including actin and microtubules that help them to perform their mechanical functions. Robison <jats:italic>et al.</jats:italic> used an advanced imaging approach to study the inner workings of mouse cardiac myocytes in real time. They observed microtubule “buckling” under contractile force in beating cardiomyocytes. This buckling was regulated by interaction with desmin and by the tubulin tyrosination state. The findings suggest a role for stable detyrosinated microtubules whose buckling under tension contributes to cardiac muscle strength. </jats:p> <jats:p> <jats:italic>Science</jats:italic> , this issue p. <jats:related-article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="doi" related-article-type="in-this-issue" xlink:href="10.1126/science.aaf0659">10.1126/science.aaf0659</jats:related-article> </jats:p>

<jats:title>Training immune cells to remember</jats:title> <jats:p> Classical immunological memory, carried out by T and B lymphocytes, ensures that we feel the ill effects of many pathogens only once. Netea <jats:italic>et al.</jats:italic> review how cells of the innate immune system, which lack the antigen specificity, clonality, and longevity of T cell and B cells, have some capacity to remember, too. Termed “trained immunity,” the property allows macrophages, monocytes, and natural killer cells to show enhanced responsiveness when they reencounter pathogens. Epigenetic changes largely drive trained immunity, which is shorter lived and less specific than classical memory but probably still gives us a leg up during many infections. </jats:p> <jats:p> <jats:italic>Science</jats:italic> , this issue p. <jats:related-article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="doi" related-article-type="in-this-issue" xlink:href="10.1126/science.aaf1098">10.1126/science.aaf1098</jats:related-article> </jats:p>

<jats:p>Until recently, the only insight that the research community had into published papers that might be suspect, and thus candidates for retraction, was through the formal investigations by institutions or funders and the official announcements made by journals. Today, online communities such as PubPeer and Retraction Watch could be the first to raise an alert that a paper may require additional scrutiny. The involvement of such online entities has made the standardization of processes to address allegations more complex and has led to less patience from the scientific community and the public with what are often long timelines in institutional misconduct investigations. Editors are caught in the middle: They want to correct the literature as quickly as possible to avoid misleading readers with flawed information, but they also want to ensure that authors have received due process, even as rumors of scientific misconduct may be amplified through social media. Last month, a Journals Summit convened by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences tackled this topic in the larger context of research integrity, and several solutions emerged.</jats:p>