Posts Tagged ‘research’

Friday Pat Eyers pushed our two papers on new screens we have developed for sulfotransferases up onto Biorxiv. More about the history of this work later. For now the briefest of summaries.

The heparan sulfate 2-O sulfotransferase paper is here

and the tyrosine sulfotransferase paper is here.

The key messages are:

(1) Mimetics of PAPS, the universal sulfate donor, that inhibit sulfotransferases are present in kinase inhibitor libraries.

(2) We demonstrate selectivity, in that some compounds inhibitor one sulfotransferase better than they do the other.

(3) PAPS mimetics look like providing a rich vein of sulfotransferase inhibitors of varying selectivity, rather like ATP mimetics have done for kinases.

(4) We have two very effective high throughput screens, which means no sulfotransferase is now beyond our reach.

Sulfation has been frustrating due to the lack of chemical tools to selectively inhibit a particular sulfotransferase. With these two papers we can foresee such tools in the not too distant future and with these, we can unpick the role of sulfation in biology, from development, through homeostasis to disease.

Exciting times!


Read Full Post »

Congratulations to Aiseta!

On Monday 4 December Aiseta Baradji successfully defended her thesis. A long journey and a hard one as ever with its ups and downs, surprises and a certain amount of head scratching over data that push us in new directions. In the end a great thesis that will be consulted in the labs of her supervisors for a long time. Now onto the next phase.


Read Full Post »

Two postdoc positions are available in my lab.

Both are part of the larger, European Commission-funded FET-Open programme, ArrestAD, which has recently been funded.

Position 1 aims to characterise heparin-binding proteins in Alzhiemer’s disease.

Position 2 aims to develop inhibitors to Golgi sulfotransferases. (more…)

Read Full Post »


The ArrestAD team had its kick off meeting in Paris on 5 January 2017. This was held on Paris, the base of our coordinator, Dulcé Papy-Garcia and was hosted by the APHP in the Espace Scipion. Team members from outside Paris stayed at the Hotel La Demeure  situated nearby and though on the Boulevard St Marcel, nice and quiet.

The kick off meeting started with a presentation form our coordinator, which provided the backdrop for the day. Science presentations from the participants then followed. These provided an overview of the position of the field of the participant and then summarised research plans. In a multidisciplinary project, one cannot be fully up to speed with the other fields, so we all learned a lot. The more technical part of these presentations gave us an opportunity to discus the nuts and bolts of our research plans and how these fitted together. It…

View original post 115 more words

Read Full Post »

A little late this year, but then there are many calendars, so it is surely the start of the New Year for someone, somewhere, today. (more…)

Read Full Post »

This is a question raised at the end of the excellent article by @Amy_Harmon regarding Open Access and preprints is can biomedical scientists evaluate each other without journals?

The short answer is a resounding yes.  Physical scientists and mathematicians have been posting much of their research as preprints on arXiv for a few decades, with no prejudice to their ability to evaluate the quality of work or of individuals.

The counter argument raised by many in biomedical sciences, from scientists to some journal editors can be boiled down quite simply: We are special and cannot possibly do this.

Various arguments are put forward, from competition (=fear of scooping) to intellectual property. These arguments are heard in many biomedical/biology departments, sometimes leading to quite heated discussions. It is also interesting to note that the defenders of the status quo are not necessarily the older members of the community.

There is a simple answer. Yes you are special, but not in the good sense of the word. (more…)

Read Full Post »

A tweet brought me to a PeerJ blog post on the uptake of open peer review. The post is worth reading. At PeerJ open review is an option – authors and reviewers can opt in or out, and only if both opt in is the reviewing history of a paper published.  One thing that caught my eye was that while 80% of authors opt in, the total number of paper with open reviews is just 40%, which indicates that reviewers are more reticent. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »