Vaccination-induced functional competence of circulating human tumor-specific CD8 T-cells

T-cells specific for foreign (e.g., viral) antigens can give rise to strong protective immune responses, whereas self/tumor antigen-specific T-cells are thought to be less powerful. However, synthetic T-cell vaccines composed of Melan-A/MART-1 peptide, CpG and IFA can induce high frequencies of tumor-specific CD8 T-cells in PBMC of melanoma patients. Here we analyzed the functionality of these T-cells directly ex vivo, by multiparameter flow cytometry. The production of multiple cytokines (IFNγ, TNFα, IL-2) and upregulation of LAMP-1 (CD107a) by tumor (Melan-A/MART-1) specific T-cells was comparable to virus (EBV-BMLF1) specific CD8 T-cells. Furthermore, phosphorylation of STAT1, STAT5 and ERK1/2, and expression of CD3 zeta chain were similar in tumor- and virus-specific T-cells, demonstrating functional signaling pathways. Interestingly, high frequencies of functionally competent T-cells were induced irrespective of patient's age or gender. Finally, CD8 T-cell function correlated with disease-free survival. However, this result is preliminary since the study was a Phase I clinical trial. We conclude that human tumor-specific CD8 T-cells can reach functional competence in vivo, encouraging further development and Phase III trials assessing the clinical efficacy of robust vaccination strategies.

Bringing results to fruition through publication: An analysis of a peer-reviewed, open access and context-focused journal's editorial practice

When it comes to helping to shape sustainable development, research is most useful when it bridges the science–implementation/management gap and when it brings development specialists and researchers into a dialogue (Hurni et al. 2004); can a peer-reviewed journal contribute to this aim? In the classical system for validation and dissemination of scientific knowledge, journals focus on knowledge exchange within the academic community and do not specifically address a ‘life-world audience’. Within a North-South context, another knowledge divide is added: the peer review process excludes a large proportion of scientists from the South from participating in the production of scientific knowledge (Karlsson et al. 2007). Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is a journal whose mission is based on an editorial strategy to build the bridge between research and development and ensure that authors from the global South have access to knowledge production, ultimately with a view to supporting sustainable development in mountains. In doing so, MRD faces a number of challenges that we would like to discuss with the td-net community, after having presented our experience and strategy as editors of this journal. MRD was launched in 1981 by mountain researchers who wanted mountains to be included in the 1992 Rio process. In the late 1990s, MRD realized that the journal needed to go beyond addressing only the scientific community. It therefore launched a new section addressing a broader audience in 2000, with the aim of disseminating insights into, and recommendations for, the implementation of sustainable development in mountains. In 2006, we conducted a survey among MRD’s authors, reviewers, and readers (Wymann et al. 2007): respondents confirmed that MRD had succeeded in bridging the gap between research and development. But we realized that MRD could become an even more efficient tool for sustainability if development knowledge were validated: in 2009, we began submitting ‘development’ papers (‘transformation knowledge’) to external peer review of a kind different from the scientific-only peer review (for ‘systems knowledge’). At the same time, the journal became open access in order to increase the permeability between science and society, and ensure greater access for readers and authors in the South. We are currently rethinking our review process for development papers, with a view to creating more space for communication between science and society, and enhancing the co-production of knowledge (Roux 2008). Hopefully, these efforts will also contribute to the urgent debate on the ‘publication culture’ needed in transdisciplinary research (Kueffer et al. 2007).

Peer Review Processes for Transdisciplinary Articles: A Reflection on Journal's Practices

Publishing is an essential means of validation and communication of research. This is no different in transdisciplinary research, where publishing also aims at contributing to the development of society through sharing of knowledge. In the scientific world, authors need to disseminate and validate results, reflect on issues, and participate in debates. On the other hand, institutions and individuals are assessed according to their publication record – as probably the most influential of all current evaluation criteria. Occupying the space between article production and counting impact factors, journal editors and reviewers play an important role in defining and using rules to assess and improve the work submitted to them. Publishing transdisciplinary research poses specific challenges, in particular with regard to peer-review processes, as it addresses different knowledge communities with different value systems and purposes.

Board examination for anatomical pathology in Switzerland: two intense days to verify professional competence

About 15 years ago, the Swiss Society of Pathology has developed and implemented a board examination in anatomical pathology. We describe herein the contents covered by this 2-day exam (autopsy pathology, cytology, histopathology, molecular pathology, and basic knowledge about mechanisms of disease) and its exact modalities, sketch a brief history of the exam, and finish with a concise discussion about the possible objectives and putative benefits weighed against the hardship that it imposes on the candidates.