bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Branch, T.

Publications and source records attributed to Branch, T..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Differential endothelial cell cycle status in postnatal retinal vessels revealed using a novel PIP-FUCCI reporter and zonation analysis

Cell cycle regulation is critical to blood vessel formation and function, but how the endothelial cell cycle integrates with vascular regulation is not well-understood, and available dynamic cell cycle reporters do not precisely distinguish all cell cycle stage transitions in vivo. Here we characterized a recently developed improved cell cycle reporter (PIP-FUCCI) that precisely delineates S phase and the S/G2 transition. Live image analysis of primary endothelial cells revealed predicted temporal changes and well-defined stage transitions. A new inducible mouse cell cycle reporter allele was selectively expressed in postnatal retinal endothelial cells upon Cre-mediated activation and predicted endothelial cell cycle status. We developed a semi-automated zonation program to define endothelial cell cycle status in spatially defined and developmentally distinct retinal areas and found predicted cell cycle stage differences in arteries, veins, and remodeled and angiogenic capillaries. Surprisingly, the predicted dearth of proliferative tip cells at the vascular front was accompanied by an unexpected enrichment for endothelial tip cells in G2, suggesting G2 stalling as a contribution to tip-cell arrest. Thus, this improved reporter precisely defines endothelial cell cycle status in vivo and reveals novel G2 regulation that may contribute to unique aspects of blood vessel network expansion.

cell biology↗

Controlled experiment finds no detectable citation bump from Twitter promotion

Multiple studies across a variety of scientific disciplines have shown that the number of times that a paper is shared on Twitter (now called X) is correlated with the number of citations that paper receives. However, these studies were not designed to answer whether tweeting about scientific papers causes an increase in citations, or whether they were simply highlighting that some papers have higher relevance, importance or quality and are therefore both tweeted about more and cited more. The authors of this study are leading science communicators on Twitter from several life science disciplines, with substantially higher follower counts than the average scientist, making us uniquely placed to address this question. We conducted a three-year-long controlled experiment, randomly selecting five articles published in the same month and journal, and randomly tweeting one while retaining the others as controls. This process was repeated for 10 articles from each of 11 journals, recording Altmetric scores, number of tweets, and citation counts before and after tweeting. Randomization tests revealed that tweeted articles were downloaded 2.6-3.9 times more often than controls immediately after tweeting, and retained significantly higher Altmetric scores (+81%) and number of tweets (+105%) three years after tweeting. However, while some tweeted papers were cited more than their respective control papers published in the same journal and month, the overall increase in citation counts after three years (+7% for Web of Science and +12% for Google Scholar) was not statistically significant (p > 0.15). Therefore while discussing science on social media has many professional and societal benefits (and has been a lot of fun), increasing the citation rate of a scientists papers is likely not among them.

scientific communication and education↗