La revisión por pares pospublicación: otro control de calidad del registro científico en biomedicina / Post-publication peer review: another sort of quality control of the scientific record in biomedicine

Resumen La revisión por pares tradicional atraviesa por crecientes cuestionamientos, dado el aumento en el fraude científico detectado y la crisis de replicación que recientemente se ha presentado en la investigación biomédica. Investigadores, instituciones académicas y agencias de financiamiento activamente promueven el análisis del registro científico y se han desarrollado múltiples herramientas para lograrlo. Diferentes revistas biomédicas se fundaron con la revisión por pares pospublicación como característica; existen varias plataformas digitales que hacen posible este proceso. Asimismo, cada vez hay más revistas biomédicas que permiten comentar artículos publicados en sus sitios web, lo cual también es posible en repositorios de preimpresiones. Sumado a esto, las casas editoriales y los investigadores están usando ampliamente las redes sociales para la difusión y discusión de artículos, lo cual a veces culmina en refutaciones y retracciones.

Abstract Traditional peer review is undergoing increasing questioning, given the increase in scientific fraud detected and the replication crisis biomedical research is currently going through. Researchers, academic institutions, and research funding agencies actively promote scientific record analysis, and multiple tools have been developed to achieve this. Different biomedical journals were founded with post-publication peer review as a feature, and there are several digital platforms that make this process possible. In addition, an increasing number biomedical journals allow commenting on articles published on their websites, which is also possible in preprint repositories. Moreover, publishing houses and researchers are largely using social networks for the dissemination and discussion of articles, which sometimes culminates in refutations and retractions.

Post-publication peer review: another sort of quality control of the scientific record in biomedicine.

Traditional peer review is undergoing increasing questioning, given the increase in scientific fraud detected and the replication crisis biomedical research is currently going through. Researchers, academic institutions, and research funding agencies actively promote scientific record analysis, and multiple tools have been developed to achieve this. Different biomedical journals were founded with post-publication peer review as a feature, and there are several digital platforms that make this process possible. In addition, an increasing number biomedical journals allow commenting on articles published on their websites, which is also possible in preprint repositories. Moreover, publishing houses and researchers are largely using social networks for the dissemination and discussion of articles, which sometimes culminates in refutations and retractions.La revisión por pares tradicional atraviesa por crecientes cuestionamientos, dado el aumento en el fraude científico detectado y la crisis de replicación que recientemente se ha presentado en la investigación biomédica. Investigadores, instituciones académicas y agencias de financiamiento activamente promueven el análisis del registro científico y se han desarrollado múltiples herramientas para lograrlo. Diferentes revistas biomédicas se fundaron con la revisión por pares pospublicación como característica; existen varias plataformas digitales que hacen posible este proceso. Asimismo, cada vez hay más revistas biomédicas que permiten comentar artículos publicados en sus sitios web, lo cual también es posible en repositorios de preimpresiones. Sumado a esto, las casas editoriales y los investigadores están usando ampliamente las redes sociales para la difusión y discusión de artículos, lo cual a veces culmina en refutaciones y retracciones.

Identification of human miR-1839-5p by small RNA-seq, a miRNA enriched in neoplastic tissues.

BACKGROUND: MicroRNAs (miRNAs) modulate gene expression through destabilization or translational inhibition of cytoplasmic transcripts or by transcriptional regulation through binding to genomic DNA. Although miRNAs are globally down-regulated in cancer, some are overexpressed in neoplastic tissues, playing key roles in tumorigenesis (oncomiRs), sometimes behaving as effective cancer markers. METHODS: Using total RNA from human uterus adenocarcinoma and non-neoplastic uterus, we conducted a small RNA-sequencing experiment followed by prediction of novel miRNAs using MirDeep* software. Synteny analysis and whole genome alignments were performed using BLAST. We also evaluated expression by a reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in normal tissues of the FSD2 gene, which spans the human miR-1839-5p gene in the opposite direction. RESULTS: MirDeep* analysis predicted a miRNA not previously annotated in databases, identical to and likely the orthologue of mouse miR-1839-5p. Whole-genome local alignments of this miRNA revealed a single perfect hit that is indeed syntenic to mouse miR-1839-5p. Alignments with other mammalian orthologues showed considerable conservation. We validated the prediction via a stem-loop RT-PCR assay, also employed to screen RNA samples from several additional normal and cancer tissues, showing increased expression in neoplastic tissues compared to their respective non neoplastic counterparts. Human heart tissue expresses both miR-1839-5p and FSD2. CONCLUSIONS: Human tissues express an orthologue of mouse miR-1839-5p and, given its expression pattern, we suggest that this miRNA could be explored as a potential oncomiR or cancer marker. Also, according to the genomic organization of miR-1839-5p and FSD2, perfect complementarity exists between the two elements, making possible miRNA-directed cleavage in human cardiac tissue.