Finally, the finish line is approaching! You have completed your specific aims, significance and innovation, and the bulk of your research strategy. You have sent those files for numerous rounds of pre-peer review by your trusted colleagues and mentors. Now it’s time to focus on some smaller, yet still very important details.
In the previous post, we described how to write an effective significance and innovation section, focused on defining the problem and providing a high-level overview of your proposed solution. In this post, we’ll outline the approach, wherein you’ll expand upon the solution and illustrate exactly how you plan to conduct the research.
The significance and innovation section is a recent (within the last 10 years) addition to the NIH and most other foundation grant applications. It is a place for you to showcase WHY the work should be done – WHY there is a significant need for your study, and HOW the work is different from everyone else’s approach. What makes it groundbreaking, original research, work that will advance our scientific knowledge?
So you’re thinking of writing a grant? Or maybe your mentor has politely suggested that it would be in your best interest to do so?
Where do you start?
In recent years, immune checkpoint proteins in the tumor microenvironment have been under intense study. If you work in the immuno-oncology field, chances are you are either performing multiplex IHC (mIHC) or would like to. Ultimately, a multiplexed image like the one featured here provides a multi-layered depiction of a tumor, such that each antibody corresponds to a different fluorescent signal. If you want to detect more targets in your IHC, but aren’t sure how to design a panel of antibodies and fluorophores for mIHC, we’ll walk you through the process in this post.
Earlier this week, Dr. James Allison and Dr. Tasuku Honjo were announced as joint winners of the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work in the field of immunotherapy and checkpoint immune regulation. Their studies have sparked decades of clinical advances, and changed the future of cancer therapy. A webinar presented by Dr. Allison in conjunction with Dr. Gordon Freeman and Dr. Philip Gotwals is featured in this week's blog post.
Researchers who run a lot of chromatin immunoprecipitation "ChIP" assays – maybe even your advisor – might subscribe to the idea that polyclonal antibodies perform better than monoclonal antibodies. But is that always actually true?
It’s worth your time to understand the differences between the two in terms of antigen recognition and specificity, and dispel some myths.
Research trends in macrophage plasticity
It’s an exciting time for immuno-oncology research, as potential predictive biomarkers from an expanding collection of cell types are being pursued. Explore the plasticity of tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and challenges in distinguishing M1- versus M2- functional states in this 5-minute video featuring CST Developmental Scientist Sarah Klein, PhD.
Can't see the embedded video? Click here to watch.
Science is science, even if it's examining totally different aspects of nature like stem cell niches versus marine habitat niches. As a company grounded in science, CST values the efforts of non-profit organizations in our community that are working to protect our ecosystems.
So you've set the timer to five minutes for the first of three TBST washes for your western blot membrane. Now what? Sure, you could check your email or social media for the 30th time before lunch. Or you could do something informative, like check out a CST Tech Tips video! This is a new short video series featuring the same scientists who develop and validate CST antibodies, here to offer insights and protocol tips.