Building consensus
Building consensus
复制标题
建立共识
DOI：
10.1038/ncb0110-1a
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
21.3
通讯作者：
D. H. Kelly
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. H. Kelly
科学界充满争议，细胞生物学也有一些棘手的问题。领域内激烈的辩论可以使研究领域对内部和外部都充满刺激。但是，很多时候，在支持不可调和的立场的出版物不可避免的来来回回中，领域似乎会停滞不前，因为解决对立观点并取得进展变得越来越具有挑战性。长期存在的争议也会阻碍新研究人员进入该领域，从而阻碍该领域的发展。因此，找到共同点符合所有相关方的最大利益。一组研究高尔基体的研究人员已经着手这样做。高尔基体的结构、它如何划分以及蛋白质如何跨过这个区室运输一直是争论的焦点。今年早些时候，一组研究高尔基体的研究人员在巴塞罗那召开会议，讨论当前的观点并评估已发表工作的优点和缺点。这次会议由 Vivek Malhotra（CRG，巴塞罗那）组织，旨在为有争议的问题提供一个坦诚讨论的论坛，这一目标在主题广泛的传统会议中往往难以实现。会议讨论了高尔基体生物学的四个重要领域；每场会议都会讨论已发表的论文，然后总结总结，随后将其纳入已发表的报告中（J. Cell Biol. 187, 449–453; 2009）。与会者计划三年后再次举行会议，维韦克·马尔霍特拉 (Vivek Malhotra) 表示，“下一次会议将是对本次会议影响力的真正考验。”在一些基本问题上达成了共识，但同样重要的是，这些讨论确定了未来工作中必须解决的关键问题。高尔基体是否是一个独立的细胞器一直是该领域长期存在的问题。会议一致认为，现在有大量证据支持高尔基体是一种自主细胞器，可以独立于内质网维持的观点。脑池成熟——高尔基体池在顺面从头形成，成熟，然后在反面消散——成为货物如何穿过高尔基体运输的首选模型，得到了酵母细胞和哺乳动物数据的支持。然而，高尔基体成熟的机制仍不清楚； COPI 包被的囊泡现已在高尔基体和内质网之间的逆行运输中发挥作用，可能在脑池成熟中发挥作用，但缺乏支持这一观点的明确证据。尽管现在有几项研究指出高尔基池之间存在管状连接，但它们的频率、持续时间和对货物运输的功能意义仍然存在争议。解决管状连接及其形成机制的重要性是未来的重要挑战。还需要确定高尔基体内是否存在专门的领域，并确定它们在货物运输中的作用。 Ben Glick（芝加哥大学）在评论会议的成功时指出：“我认为，会议结束后，我们所有人都对我们的解释如何以及为何存在差异有了更清晰的了解。会议摘要根据与会者的意见进行了反复修改，直到每个人都对语言感到满意为止。这种坦诚、文明的对话对科学有益。”本期刊发表了各个争议领域的论文，这些论文遵循与我们发表的所有论文相同的标准，即所提供的证据是可靠的且可重复的。在所有情况下，该杂志都致力于对论文进行严格和公平的同行评审，最好让具有不同观点的审稿人参与进来。当然，如果没有审稿人的合作，这是不可能的，审稿人必须根据研究中提供的数据来判断作品的优点。当试图反驳以前的模型时，所需的举证责任通常会更高，对于提出挑衅性想法或解决有争议问题的论文尤其如此。
Controversies abound in science, and cell biology has its share of thorny issues. Spirited debates within fields can keep a research area stimulating for both insiders and outsiders. But, too often, in the inevitable backand-forth of publications supporting irreconcilable positions, fields can seemingly stagnate as it becomes increasingly challenging to resolve opposing viewpoints and make progress. Long-standing controversies can also stunt a field’s growth by discouraging new researchers from entering the field. It is therefore in the best interests of all parties involved to find common ground. A group of researchers working on the Golgi have set about doing just that. The structure of the Golgi apparatus, how it is partitioned and how proteins are transported across this compartment have been matters of debate. A group of researchers working on the Golgi convened in Barcelona earlier this year to discuss current views and to assess the strengths and weaknesses of published work. The meeting, organized by Vivek Malhotra (CRG, Barcelona), aimed to provide a forum for candid discussion of contentious issues, a goal that is often difficult to achieve in the context of traditional conferences with broad themes. The meeting addressed four important areas of Golgi biology; published papers were discussed in each session, which then concluded with summaries that were subsequently incorporated into a published report (J. Cell Biol. 187, 449–453; 2009). The participants plan to meet again in three years and, according to Vivek Malhotra, “The next meeting will be a real test of the impact of this meeting.” Consensus was reached on some fundamental issues but, just as importantly, these discussions identified critical questions that must be addressed in future work. Whether the Golgi is an independent organelle has been a long-standing question in the field. It was agreed at the meeting that considerable evidence now supports the view that the Golgi is an autonomous organelle that can be maintained independently of the endoplasmic reticulum. Cisternal maturation — whereby Golgi cisternae form de novo at the cis face, mature and then dissipate at the trans face — emerged as the favoured model for how cargo are transported across the Golgi, bolstered by evidence from both yeast cells and mammalian data. However, mechanism(s) of Golgi maturation are still unclear; COPI-coated vesicles, which now have an established role in retrograde transport between the Golgi and the endoplasmic reticulum, may act in cisternal maturation, but unambiguous evidence supporting such a view is lacking. Whereas several studies have now noted the existence of tubular connections between Golgi cisternae, their frequency, duration and functional significance for cargo transport remain controversial. Addressing the importance of tubular connections and mechanisms of their formation are important future challenges. It will also be necessary to determine whether specialized domains exist within the Golgi and to define their role in cargo transport. Commenting on the success of the meeting, Ben Glick (University of Chicago) noted, “I think all of us emerged from the meeting with a clearer understanding of how and why our interpretations differed. The meeting summary was repeatedly revised in response to input from the participants until everyone was comfortable with the language. This type of frank, civil conversation is a benefit to science.” This journal has published papers in various areas of controversy, and these papers are subject to the same criteria applied to all papers we publish, namely, that the evidence presented is solid and reproducible. In all cases, the journal is committed to providing a rigorous and fair peer review of papers, ideally by involving referees with diverse perspectives. Of course, this is not possible without the cooperation of reviewers who must judge the merits of a work on the strength of the data presented in the study. The burden of proof required can often be higher when trying to disprove previous models and this may particularly be the case for papers presenting provocative ideas or addressing debated issues.