Tap tap tap ka-CHUNK! That was the sound of fruit flies being given concussions in an Emory laboratory recently.
Emory MD/PhD student Joe Behnke, working with neuroscientist James Zheng, has developed a model for studying repetitive head trauma in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster – analogous to CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy) in humans. The results were published in Scientific Reports.
CTE is a term for neurodegeneration linked to repeated concussions or blows to the head, which has been observed in athletes and military veterans. Head trauma has also been linked to other neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis).
What’s critical about using fruit flies is that it speeds up time. It can take years or decades for CTE or other neurodegenerative conditions to appear in humans, but Behnke and Zheng can experiment with a mutant fly strain or other interventions in a few weeks. They describe their model as a platform for future studies, in which they can unleash all of the genetic tools fruit flies have to offer.
To begin with, Behnke worked out a system for giving flies controlled blows to the head. He says that it exploits the climbing instinct flies have when startled, called negative geotaxis. When he taps a vial with flies in it three times, they reorient themselves and begin climbing up. Then a stronger blow, delivered in a crash test-like apparatus, gives flies the desired head injury. Previous models in flies hadn’t really focused on the head, but gave them injuries all over their bodies.
Already, Behnke and Zheng have been able to demonstrate that female fruit flies are more vulnerable to repeated head injuries than males. Repeated head injury results in locomotor deficits and shortened lifespan and accelerates age-related degeneration.
The triple play is this — on her blog, Emma has discussed how she has to deal with antibiotic resistance. Emory Antibiotic Resistance Center director David Weiss’ lab has published a lot on colistin: how it’s a last-resort drug because of side effects, and how difficult-to-detect resistance to it is spreading. Emma has some personal experience with colistin that for me, brought the issue closer. Read more
For podcast listeners in the Emory biomedical research community, Behind the Microscope is a must-follow. It is produced by four students in Emory’s MD/PhD program: Carey Jansen, Joe Behnke, Michael Sayegh and Bejan Saeedi. They’re focused on career issues such as mentorship and grant strategy rather than the science itself (thus, complementary to Lab Land).
In their list of interviewees so far, they lean toward their fellow “double docs.” Since starting off in October, they’ve talked with Anita Corbett, Brian Robinson, Sean Stowell, Stefi Barbian and Steven Sloan (MD/PhDs underlined). Here are the Apple and Google podcast listings; episodes are also available on platforms such as Anchor.fm.
Editor’s note: guest post from Neuroscience graduate student Erica Landis.
Neuroscience graduate student Erica Landis
Evidence is increasing that lack of reproducibility, whatever the cause, is a systemic problem in biomedical science. While institutions like the NIH and concerned journal editors are making efforts to implement more stringent requirements for rigorous and reproducible research, scientists themselves must make conscious efforts to avoid common pitfalls of scientific research. Here at Emory, several scientists are making greater efforts to push forward to improve scientific research and combat what is being called “the reproducibility crisis.”
In 2012, C. Glenn Begley, then a scientist with the pharmaceutical company Amgen, published a commentary in Nature on his growing concern for the reproducibility of preclinical research. Begley and his colleagues had attempted to replicate 53 published studies they identified as relevant to their own research into potential pharmaceuticals. They found that only 6 of the 53 publications could be replicated; even with help from the original authors. Similar studies have consistently found that greater than 50 percent of published studies could not be replicated. This sparked a period of great concern and questioning for scientists. It seemed to Begley and others that experimenter bias, carelessness, poor understanding of statistics, and the career-dependent scramble to publish contributes to a misuse of the scientific method. These factors contribute to what is now called the reproducibility crisis. In April 2017, Richard Harris published Rigor Mortis, a survey of the problem in preclinical research, which has kept the conversation going and left many wondering what the best solution to these issues could be. To combat the reproducibility crisis, Harris argues that funding agencies, journal editors and reviewers, research institutions, and scientists themselves all have a role to play.