Aa
Cell in top 100 of past century
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., USA (April 6, 2009) Cell Press, an imprint of Elsevier, announced today that its flagship journal, Cell, as well as Current Biology and The American Journal of Human Genetics, were voted among the Special Library Association's (SLA) Top 100 Journals in Biology and Medicine of the past century.
The Top 100 list is compiled by the 680-plus members of the SLA's Biomedical and Life Sciences Division (DBIO) on the most influential journals in biology and medicine over the last century. The "Journal of the Century" and the Top Ten journal titles will be announced at the Centennial Conference of the Special Libraries Association on June 16th in Washington, D.C.
"We are honoured to be recognized by the SLA for influence and impact in biology, on behalf of Cell Press' two titles Cell and Current Biology, and on behalf of our publishing partner, the American Society of Human Genetics, for the AJHG," said Lynne Herndon, President and CEO of Cell Press.
Established in 1909 to serve a 'specialized' clientele in business, government, social agencies, and academia, the SLA is now an 11,000 member professional organization of subject specialist librarians, information managers, and publishing industry representatives. Each topical division has contributed a Centennial-themed event throughout the year. In 2008, the BioMedical & Life Sciences Division (DBIO) convened an international panel of nine eminent subject experts to compile a ballot for an electronic poll of SLA members concerning the 100 most influential journals of biology and medicine over the 100 years of SLA's existence.
Cell, the pioneer Cell Press title, published its first issue in 1974, and has become one of the most highly-respected and prominent journals in the field. This journal publishes exciting and significant developments in the biological sciences, including cell biology, neuroscience, immunology, virology and microbiology, cancer, human genetics, and disease. Cell's distinct narrative format allows authors to tell a full and complete story, plus creates a unique opportunity to promote interdisciplinary thinking across fields. (www.cell.com )
Current Biology, launched in February of 1991, and became part of Cell Press in early 2001. This journal delivers high-impact research in all areas of biology, from molecular biology to evolution. Current Biology's broad scope, top-flight research papers, and engaging magazine section set it apart as a distinctive leading journal. (www.cell.com/current-biology)
Established in 1949, the American Journal of Human Genetics, is published monthly by Cell Press. This journal provides a record of research and review relating to heredity in humans and to the application of genetic principles in medicine and public policy, as well as in related areas of molecular and cell biology. (www.cell.com/AJHG)
The Top 100 list is compiled by the 680-plus members of the SLA's Biomedical and Life Sciences Division (DBIO) on the most influential journals in biology and medicine over the last century. The "Journal of the Century" and the Top Ten journal titles will be announced at the Centennial Conference of the Special Libraries Association on June 16th in Washington, D.C.
"We are honoured to be recognized by the SLA for influence and impact in biology, on behalf of Cell Press' two titles Cell and Current Biology, and on behalf of our publishing partner, the American Society of Human Genetics, for the AJHG," said Lynne Herndon, President and CEO of Cell Press.
Established in 1909 to serve a 'specialized' clientele in business, government, social agencies, and academia, the SLA is now an 11,000 member professional organization of subject specialist librarians, information managers, and publishing industry representatives. Each topical division has contributed a Centennial-themed event throughout the year. In 2008, the BioMedical & Life Sciences Division (DBIO) convened an international panel of nine eminent subject experts to compile a ballot for an electronic poll of SLA members concerning the 100 most influential journals of biology and medicine over the 100 years of SLA's existence.
Cell, the pioneer Cell Press title, published its first issue in 1974, and has become one of the most highly-respected and prominent journals in the field. This journal publishes exciting and significant developments in the biological sciences, including cell biology, neuroscience, immunology, virology and microbiology, cancer, human genetics, and disease. Cell's distinct narrative format allows authors to tell a full and complete story, plus creates a unique opportunity to promote interdisciplinary thinking across fields. (www.cell.com )
Current Biology, launched in February of 1991, and became part of Cell Press in early 2001. This journal delivers high-impact research in all areas of biology, from molecular biology to evolution. Current Biology's broad scope, top-flight research papers, and engaging magazine section set it apart as a distinctive leading journal. (www.cell.com/current-biology)
Established in 1949, the American Journal of Human Genetics, is published monthly by Cell Press. This journal provides a record of research and review relating to heredity in humans and to the application of genetic principles in medicine and public policy, as well as in related areas of molecular and cell biology. (www.cell.com/AJHG)
Thanks for the article! (From a personal standpoint, it's both interesting and gratifying.) As medicine starts to explore things on a cellular, molecular, and genetic level across all specialties, there's great promise for improved cures and better understanding of diseases and virions (both active and 'occult.') Good post.
~eureka
~eureka
agreed; it's an interesting demonstration that the residual virus is not so unfit as to have forgotten how to tend to business, but still quite a bit short of showing in-vivo transmission. In particular, they stimulated the recipient lymphocytes and did not find sera from all patients to be infectious. I have no idea how accessible chimpanzees are in Newfoundland, but assuming they're working on testing live transmission. Let's hope they don't lose their funding.
On a different tack, it seems some evidence should already be available, anecdotally, in human organ-donation data. How many cases of HCV transmission from SVR-donated organs have been recorded?
BTW - their ref 1 pegs the number of virions required to transmit infection as low as 20:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15044837
On a different tack, it seems some evidence should already be available, anecdotally, in human organ-donation data. How many cases of HCV transmission from SVR-donated organs have been recorded?
BTW - their ref 1 pegs the number of virions required to transmit infection as low as 20:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15044837
Thanks for posting these.
This may be "where the rubber finally begins to meet the road" in terms of 'legitimizing' the existing (and new) research by Pham, Castillo, et al, re occult. We've been wondering for years now when or if mainstream HCV research/thought would do more than throw darts and actually challenge the results via the methodology. Having publications like Hepatology take on the subject seems to raise the bar a bit and push things out further - perhaps offering up a more prestigious reason to chase dollars and research occult from both (or more) sides of the issue(s).
For all practical purposes the virus may appear to be "unfit" - and it may truly be, in terms of actual infectivity and or re-infectivity. But the fact that it remains replicative - with infective potential - certainly calls out for more research on that aspect of it, as well as any potential long-term health concerns.
On a practical/patient level, makes me wonder that if over time should this type information get enough attention, insurance actuaries might begin to change their charts and no longer will it be "clear-for--five-years-and-all's-ok!" for SVR's and Spontaneous'.
TnHepGuy
This may be "where the rubber finally begins to meet the road" in terms of 'legitimizing' the existing (and new) research by Pham, Castillo, et al, re occult. We've been wondering for years now when or if mainstream HCV research/thought would do more than throw darts and actually challenge the results via the methodology. Having publications like Hepatology take on the subject seems to raise the bar a bit and push things out further - perhaps offering up a more prestigious reason to chase dollars and research occult from both (or more) sides of the issue(s).
For all practical purposes the virus may appear to be "unfit" - and it may truly be, in terms of actual infectivity and or re-infectivity. But the fact that it remains replicative - with infective potential - certainly calls out for more research on that aspect of it, as well as any potential long-term health concerns.
On a practical/patient level, makes me wonder that if over time should this type information get enough attention, insurance actuaries might begin to change their charts and no longer will it be "clear-for--five-years-and-all's-ok!" for SVR's and Spontaneous'.
TnHepGuy
'tis true. In
http://cme.medscape.com/viewprogram/17843_pnt
we have Dr. Jensen (somewhat dismissively) summarizing occult HCV infection:
"Intermittently, groups are able to pick up positive virus, sometimes in the periphery, sometimes in the cells, and sometimes in the liver. It is almost always when they do their own highly sensitive PCR and commercial assays cannot pick it up, so you or I ordering an outpatient lab could not pick it up. Interestingly, they are never able to find viral proteins."
whereas from the above paper (in the discussion accompanying Figs 2a/2b) we have:
"To determine whether expression of HCV RNA in in vitro infected T cells was accompanied by synthesis of viral protein, cells exposed to 44/F and 48/F plasma were examined for HCV NS5a protein by confocal microscopy. As illustrated in Fig. 2A, HCV NS5a occurred predominantly as granular intracytoplasmic deposits and at the plasma membrane of the positive cells. The percentages of NS5a-reactive cells enumerated under a confocal microscope were between 0.78% and 1.35%. A flow cytometric analysis gave comparable results of 1.05% to 1.52% of HCV NS5a protein-positive cells (Fig. 2B). "
it seems legitimate for Drs to dismiss occult as an inconsequential health issue (though I would think this paper might make SVRs think twice about sharing a razor), but to dismiss it as spurious bench work seems offensive to the labs doing the research..
http://cme.medscape.com/viewprogram/17843_pnt
we have Dr. Jensen (somewhat dismissively) summarizing occult HCV infection:
"Intermittently, groups are able to pick up positive virus, sometimes in the periphery, sometimes in the cells, and sometimes in the liver. It is almost always when they do their own highly sensitive PCR and commercial assays cannot pick it up, so you or I ordering an outpatient lab could not pick it up. Interestingly, they are never able to find viral proteins."
whereas from the above paper (in the discussion accompanying Figs 2a/2b) we have:
"To determine whether expression of HCV RNA in in vitro infected T cells was accompanied by synthesis of viral protein, cells exposed to 44/F and 48/F plasma were examined for HCV NS5a protein by confocal microscopy. As illustrated in Fig. 2A, HCV NS5a occurred predominantly as granular intracytoplasmic deposits and at the plasma membrane of the positive cells. The percentages of NS5a-reactive cells enumerated under a confocal microscope were between 0.78% and 1.35%. A flow cytometric analysis gave comparable results of 1.05% to 1.52% of HCV NS5a protein-positive cells (Fig. 2B). "
it seems legitimate for Drs to dismiss occult as an inconsequential health issue (though I would think this paper might make SVRs think twice about sharing a razor), but to dismiss it as spurious bench work seems offensive to the labs doing the research..
"It's also interesting they had no difficulty immuno-staining for a viral protein, NS5a.."
Whew.
Whew.
along the lines of prestige journals (and sorry if tn already posted this ) here's a recent twist for those following the unfolding occult HCV story:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19177592
A long-standing controversy has been whether the post SVR HCV RNA is indicative of viable virus capable of adverse health consequences. The Newfoundland gang last showed that among SVRs levels of cytokine were elevated relative to healthy controls but in different ways than among CHC patients
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19215578
suggesting there are some health consequence to the residual virus. However an important open question remained whether the remnants are infectious . The above conclusively establishes they are, though the work in limited to cultured immune cells
"In summary, the current study provides the first experimental evidence that HCV RNA detectable at low quantities for years after apparently complete resolution of CHC reflects the existence of traces of biologically competent virus that in some situations can retain infectivity."
That this was published in Hepatology, a more clinically-oriented journal, than used for some of the Michalak group's other papers ,may suggest occult HCV is coming out of the research-curiosity niche. It's also interesting they had no difficulty immuno-staining for a viral protein, NS5a, whereas Dr. Jensen in a CME round-table discussion posted by mikesimon a while back, made much of the failure to detect viral proteins in occult infection.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19177592
A long-standing controversy has been whether the post SVR HCV RNA is indicative of viable virus capable of adverse health consequences. The Newfoundland gang last showed that among SVRs levels of cytokine were elevated relative to healthy controls but in different ways than among CHC patients
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19215578
suggesting there are some health consequence to the residual virus. However an important open question remained whether the remnants are infectious . The above conclusively establishes they are, though the work in limited to cultured immune cells
"In summary, the current study provides the first experimental evidence that HCV RNA detectable at low quantities for years after apparently complete resolution of CHC reflects the existence of traces of biologically competent virus that in some situations can retain infectivity."
That this was published in Hepatology, a more clinically-oriented journal, than used for some of the Michalak group's other papers ,may suggest occult HCV is coming out of the research-curiosity niche. It's also interesting they had no difficulty immuno-staining for a viral protein, NS5a, whereas Dr. Jensen in a CME round-table discussion posted by mikesimon a while back, made much of the failure to detect viral proteins in occult infection.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Hepatitis C Community
Learn about this treatable virus.
Getting tested for this viral infection.
3 key steps to getting on treatment.
4 steps to getting on therapy.
What you need to know about Hep C drugs.
How the drugs might affect you.
These tips may up your chances of a cure.
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
