Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1) are upregulated in myofibroblasts at sites of fibrosis in experimental enterocolitis and in Crohn's disease (CD). We compared the sites of expression of IGF-I and TGF-β1 in a rat peptidoglycan-polysaccharide (PG-PS) model of chronic granulomatous enterocolitis and fibrosis. We used the human colonic CCD-18Co fibroblast/myofibroblast cell line to test the hypothesis that TGF-β1 and IGF-I interact to regulate proliferation, collagen synthesis, and activated phenotype typified by expression of α-smooth muscle actin and organization into stress fibers. IGF-I potently stimulated while TGF-β1 inhibited basal DNA synthesis. TGF-β1 and IGF-I each had similar but not additive effects to induce type I collagen. TGF-β1 but not IGF-I potently stimulated expression of α-smooth muscle actin and stress fiber formation. IGF-I in combination with TGF-β1 attenuated stress fiber formation without reducing α-smooth muscle actin expression. Stress fibers were not a prerequisite for increased collagen synthesis. TGF-β1 upregulated IGF-I mRNA, which led us to examine the effects of IGF-I in cells previously activated by TGF-β1 pretreatment. IGF-I potently stimulated proliferation of TGF-β1-activated myofibroblasts without reversing activated fibrogenic phenotype. We conclude that TGF-β1 and IGF-I both stimulate type I collagen synthesis but have differential effects on activated phenotype and proliferation. We propose that during intestinal inflammation, regulation of activated phenotype and proliferation may require sequential actions of TGF-β1 and IGF-I, but they may act in concert to increase collagen deposition.
ABSTRACT Here, we use recent U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) data to document trends in the NIH‐funded workforce over time. Consistent with previous studies that were initiated by NIH, we find that the number of scientists funded on competing R01‐equivalent (R01 Eq.) and research project grants (RPGs) increased 2–5% per year between 2009 and 2016. Primary beneficiaries of this growth were experienced investigators (Exps), whereas the share of funding awarded to early‐stage investigators (ESIs) and new investigators (NIs) declined. The decline occurred even after NIH instituted the New and Early‐Stage Investigator policy in 2009. When we evaluate the investigator pool, we find that women and racial and ethnic minorities represent a higher percentage of NIs and ESIs relative to Exps. Thus, trends of diminishing support for NIs and ESIs may negatively impact the diversity of the current and future biomedical research workforce. We find some recent gains among women and Hispanics as part of the applicant and awardee pool for both R01 Eq. and RPGs, but significant, large gaps persist among nationally underrepresented racial minorities. Our findings suggest a need to prioritize investments and support of ESIs and NIs, groups in which women and racial and ethnic minorities represent a larger proportion of the applicant pool, to enhance diversity in the NIH‐funded workforce.—Nikaj, S., Roychowdhury, D., Lund, P. K., Matthews, M., Pearson, K. Examining trends in the diversity of the U.S. National Institutes of Health participating and funded workforce. FASEB J. 32, 6410–6422 (2018). www.fasebj.org
Postdoctoral training in the biological sciences continues to be an important credential for academic careers. Traditionally, this training is focused on an independent research experience. In this article, we describe a postdoctoral training program designed to prepare postdoctoral scholars for the responsibilities of an academic career that balances both research and teaching. The results showed that the research productivity of the postdoctoral scholars involved in the program was not statistically different from that of a comparison group of postdoctoral scholars not in the program. The measures of productivity including scientific seminars presented, students mentored, service contributions, and engagement in professional development activities were significantly greater for the scholars in the program. Moreover, the scholars in the program obtained faculty positions at a threefold greater rate than did a national sample of postdoctoral scholars. This study demonstrates the value of a structured program that combines research and teaching opportunities and serves as a model for aligning training initiatives with specific career trajectories.
While women have been well represented in medical school and biomedical doctoral degree programs, they do not comprise half of academic medicine faculty positions. Furthermore, there is a significant paucity of women in academic medicine leadership positions, as evidenced by the fact that only 16% of dean positions at United States Medical schools are filled by women. In this commentary, the authors review the state of women in academic medicine and argue that increased representation of women in the academic workforce will lead to economic gains, increased scientific discovery, and improvements to women's health.
Clinician-investigators, also called physician-scientists, offer critical knowledge and perspectives that benefit research on basic science mechanisms, improved diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, population and outcomes medicine, health policy, and health services, yet few clinically trained health professionals pursue a research career. Sustaining this workforce requires attention to the unique challenges faced by investigators who must achieve clinical and research competence during training and their careers. These challenges include the duration of required clinical training, limited or discontinuous research opportunities, high levels of educational debt, balancing the dual obligations and rewards of clinical care and research, competition for research funding, and the need for leadership development after training. Women and individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups comprise a small percentage of this workforce.The authors summarize the recent literature on training for clinician-investigators, emphasizing approaches with encouraging outcomes that warrant broader implementation. Using this overview as background, they convened three workshops at the National Institutes of Health in 2016 to identify and refine key priorities for potential new pilot programs to recruit and retain the clinician-investigator workforce. From these workshops emerged three priorities for future pilot programs: (1) support for research in residency, (2) new research on-ramps for health professionals at multiple career stages, and (3) national networks to diversify and sustain clinician-investigator faculty. Implementation of any pilot program will require coordinated commitment from academic health centers, medical licensing/certification boards, professional societies, and clinician-investigators themselves, in addition to support from the National Institutes of Health.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
