A course for teaching design research methodology

Design research informs and supports practice by developing knowledge to improve the chances of producing successful products.Training in design research has been poorly supported. Design research uses human and natural/technical sciences, embracing all facets of design; its methods and tools are adapted from both these traditions. However, design researchers are rarely trained in methods from both the traditions. Research in traditional sciences focuses primarily on understanding phenomena related to human, natural, or technical systems. Design research focuses on supporting improvement of such systems, using understanding as a necessary but not sufficient step, and it must embrace methods for both understanding reality and developing support for its improvement. A one-semester, postgraduate-level, credited course that has been offered since 2002, entitled Methodology for Design Research, is described that teaches a methodology for carrying out research into design. Its steps are to clarify research success; to understand relevant phenomena of design and how these influence success; to use this to envision design improvement and develop proposals for supporting improvement; to evaluate support for its influence on success; and, if unacceptable, to modify, support, or improve the understanding of success and its links to the phenomena of design. This paper highlights some major issues about the status of design research and describes how design research methodology addresses these. The teaching material, model of delivery, and evaluation of the course on methodology for design research are discussed.

A DNA methylation prognostic signature of glioblastoma: identification of NPTX2-PTEN-NF-kappa B nexus

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common, malignant adult primary tumor with dismal patient survival, yet the molecular determinants of patient survival are poorly characterized. Global methylation profile of GBM samples (our cohort; n = 44) using high-resolution methylation microarrays was carried out. Cox regression analysis identified a 9-gene methylation signature that predicted survival in GBM patients. A risk-score derived from methylation signature predicted survival in univariate analysis in our and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) cohort. Multivariate analysis identified methylation risk score as an independent survival predictor in TCGA cohort. Methylation risk score stratified the patients into low-risk and high-risk groups with significant survival difference. Network analysis revealed an activated NF-kappa B pathway association with high-risk group. NF-kappa B inhibition reversed glioma chemoresistance, and RNA interference studies identified interleukin-6 and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 as key NF-kappa B targets in imparting chemoresistance. Promoter hypermethylation of neuronal pentraxin II (NPTX2), a risky methylated gene, was confirmed by bisulfite sequencing in GBMs. GBMs and glioma cell lines had low levels of NPTX2 transcripts, which could be reversed upon methylation inhibitor treatment. NPTX2 overexpression induced apoptosis, inhibited proliferation and anchorage-independent growth, and rendered glioma cells chemosensitive. Furthermore, NPTX2 repressed NF-kappa B activity by inhibiting AKT through a p53-PTEN-dependent pathway, thus explaining the hypermethylation and downregulation of NPTX2 in NF-kappa B-activated high-risk GBMs. Taken together, a 9-gene methylation signature was identified as an independent GBM prognosticator and could be used for GBM risk stratification. Prosurvival NF-kappa B pathway activation characterized high-risk patients with poor prognosis, indicating it to be a therapeutic target. (C) 2013 AACR.