Search

Muscle disease: understanding different forms of a key muscle protein Contraction and relaxation of both heart and skeletal muscles are regulated by different forms of a protein called MyBP-C, mutations in this protein being important causes of heart and skeletal muscle diseases. Although the cardiac form has been well studied, the two skeletal forms are not well understood. Taejeong Song and Sakthivel Sadayappan at the University of Cincinnati, USA, have reviewed current understanding of the structure and function of MyBP-C proteins, and links between mutations and disease. They report that mutations in the cardiac form are the most common cause of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, disease of the heart muscle. Mutations in skeletal MyBP-C are associated with muscle diseases such as distal arthrogryposes, contracture hands and feet that stiffens joints and reduces mobility. Further study of MyBP-C function may help in developing gene therapies.

In this study, we expand upon the biogeography of biological soil crusts (BSCs) and provide molecular insights into the microbial community and biochemical dynamics along the vertical BSC column structure, and across a transect of increasing BSC surface coverage in the central Mojave Desert, CA, United States. Next generation sequencing reveals a bacterial community profile that is distinct among BSCs in the southwestern United States. Distribution of major phyla in the BSC topsoils included Cyanobacteria (33 ± 8%), Proteobacteria (26 ± 6%), and Chloroflexi (12 ± 4%), with Phormidium being the numerically dominant genus. Furthermore, BSC subsurfaces contained Proteobacteria (23 ± 5%), Actinobacteria (20 ± 5%), and Chloroflexi (18 ± 3%), with an unidentified genus from Chloroflexi (AKIW781, order) being numerically dominant. Across the transect, changes in distribution at the phylum (p < 0.0439) and genus (p < 0.006) levels, including multiple biochemical and geochemical trends (p < 0.05), positively correlated with increasing BSC surface coverage. This included increases in (a) Chloroflexi abundance, (b) abundance and diversity of Cyanobacteria, (b) OTU-level diversity in the topsoil, (c) OTU-level differentiation between the topsoil and subsurface, (d) intracellular ATP abundances and catalase activities, and (e) enrichments in clay, silt, and varying elements, including S, Mn, Co, As, and Pb, in the BSC topsoils. In sum, these studies suggest that BSCs from regions of differing surface coverage represent early successional stages, which exhibit increasing bacterial diversity, metabolic activities, and capacity to restructure the soil. Further, these trends suggest that BSC successional maturation and colonization across the transect are inhibited by metals/metalloids such as B, Ca, Ti, Mn, Co, Ni, Mo, and Pb.

There is an increasing demand for emerging scientists to improve their ability to communicate with public audiences, yet little research investigates the effectiveness of science communication training for graduate students. We responded to this need by developing SciWrite@URI—an interdisciplinary model for science graduate students designed around three learning outcomes based on tenets from the field of writing and rhetoric—habitual writing, multiple genres, and frequent review. SciWrite students completed courses and a science communication internship, attended writing workshops, and became tutors at a newly established Graduate Writing Center. After 2 years of training, students more frequently wrote multiple drafts and engaged in peer review, increased their confidence as writers, and decreased their apprehension about writing. We conclude the tenets of the SciWrite program helped students improve as science communicators, and we make suggestions for effective ways graduate departments and training programs might implement and build on our model.

We respond to a surging interest in science communication training for graduate scientists by advocating for a focus on rhetorically informed approaches to STEM writing and its assessment. We argue that STEM communication initiatives would benefit by shifting from a strategic focus on products to a flexible understanding of writing as a practice worthy of attention and study. To do that, we use our experience across two universities and two distinct programmatic contexts to train STEM graduate students in writing and communication. We draw from cross-disciplinary conversations to identify four facets of “good” STEM writing: (1) connecting to the big picture; (2) explaining science; (3) adhering to genre conventions; and (4) choosing context-appropriate language. We then describe our ongoing conversations across contexts to develop and implement flexible rubrics that capture and foster conversations around “good” writing. In doing so, we argue for a notion of writing rubrics as boundary objects, capable of fostering cross-disciplinary, integrative conversations and collaborations that strengthen student writing, shift STEM students toward a rhetorically informed sense of “good” writing, and offer that kinds of assessment data that make for persuasive evidence of the power of writing-centric approaches for STEM administrators and funders.

Abstract Scientists in applied fields, including conservation biology, face increasing expectations to communicate their research across multiple audiences. As environmental issues become more complex, the need for scientists to clearly communicate with other scientists, managers, stakeholders, tribes, the public, and policy makers becomes ever critical. Despite this need, students in graduate science programs receive limited direct instruction in writing and little training in writing for audiences outside of academia or in different genres. To that end, we developed an interdisciplinary program that incorporates rhetorical theory and writing intensive pedagogy to train graduate science students to write more effectively across genres. During the pilot testing in the first year of this broader, multiyear program, we evaluated changes in the writing practices and confidence of participants as writers and scientists who completed a low‐investment, two‐workshop sequence that highlighted habitual writing, peer review, and writing for multiple audiences and multiple genres. In just six contact hours, we documented significant increases in students' reporting maintaining a more consistent writing routine and writing environment, revising multiple drafts for writing projects, and being willing to have work reviewed by peers or mentors. Upon completion of both workshops, students reported an increase in their confidence as writers. The development of comprehensive graduate writing programs can be costly and time intensive, but our evaluation demonstrates that significant gains in writing capacity and confidence as writers were made by graduate science students with even a low level of investment. We urge graduate science faculty in all Science Technology Engineering Math disciplines to consider how they might offer this two‐workshop sequence or similar low‐investment interventions that will build writing capacity and confidence as writers and scientists in graduate students.

There is an urgent need for scientists to improve their communication skills with the public, especially for those involved in applying science to solve conservation or human health problems. However, little research has assessed the effectiveness of science communication training for applied scientists. We responded to this gap by developing a new, interdisciplinary training model, “SciWrite,” based on three central tenets from scholarship in writing and rhetoric: 1) habitual writing, 2) multiple genres for multiple audiences, and 3) frequent review and created an interdisciplinary rubric based on these tenets to evaluate a variety of writing products across genres. We used this rubric to assess three different genres written by 12 SciWrite-trained graduate science students and 74 non-SciWrite-trained graduate science students at the same institution. We found that written work from SciWrite students scored higher than those from non-SciWrite students in all three genres, and most notably thesis/dissertation proposals were higher quality. The rubric results also suggest that the variation in writing quality was best explained by the ability of graduate students to grasp higher-order writing skills (e.g., thinking about audience needs and expectations, clearly describing research goals, and making an argument for the significance of their research). Future programs would benefit from adopting similar training activities and goals as well as assessment tools that take a rhetorically informed approach.

This article considers the agentic capacity of fish in dam removal decisions. Pairing new materialist explorations of agency with news media, policy documents, and interviews related to a suite of dam decisions in a New England, USA watershed, we identify the ways that river herring seem constrained through technocratic discourse to particular human-defined roles in dam removal discussions. We suggest, meanwhile, that existing human relationships with salmonids like brook trout might serve as a bridge for public stakeholders and restoration managers to recognise the agentic creativity of fish in dam removal and river restoration decisions.

We look to a particular social-ecological system, the restoration community in Rhode Island, USA and the rivers, wetlands, marshes, and estuaries they work to protect, to draw connections between communication, community involvement, and ecological restoration project success. Offering real-world examples drawn from interviews with 27 local, state, federal, and nonprofit restoration managers, we synthesize the mechanisms that managers found effective to argue that the communication employed by resource managers in each phase of the restoration process, in prioritization, implementation, and monitoring, and for garnering broad-based support, shapes the quality of public engagement in natural resources management, which, in turn, can impact the stakeholder, learning, and ecological success of restoration projects. Despite the possible trade-offs and conflicts between social and ecological outcomes, we suggest that managers need to consider their desired social-ecological outcomes and work from the outset to deliberately design mechanisms for communication and public engagement that weave community stakeholders into all phases of restoration projects in sustained and consequential ways.