Anthropologist and retail consultant Michael Powell takes us on a stroll down Aisle #6. What's in the center of the grocery store and why is it causing a crisis in the industry?

BACKGROUND:  Traditionally, the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 3-digit score has been used as a metric to stratify plastic surgery residency candidates. The transition to a pass/fail exam may impact the manner in which integrated plastic surgery residency program directors (PS-RPD) evaluate candidates. It may also limit opportunities for applicants to differentiate themselves from their counterparts. METHODS: A 14-question survey was distributed via email to 76 PS-RPDs collected from the American Medical Association (AMA) residency program site, FRIEDA. It was sent three times from March 3 - March 14, 2020. McNemar tests were performed on the current metrics of evaluation in comparison to metrics expected to be used in the absence of a 3-digit Step 1 score, assuming a P < 0.05 level for statistical significance.  Results: Of the 76 integrated plastics programs surveyed, 24 PS-RPDs responded (31.6% response rate); 91.3% of PS-RPDs strongly disagree or disagree that Step 1 should be pass/fail; 78.3% of PS-RPDs strongly disagree or disagree that diversity will increase. The top five evaluation metrics PS-RPDs expect to utilize following the transition to pass/fail are: letters of recommendation (87.0%; CI 72% - 100%; p=0.500), Step 2 score (78.3%; CI 60% - 96%; p=0.001), research (56.5%; CI 35% - 78%; p=0.125), elective rotation (56.5%; CI 35% - 78%; p=1.000), and personal knowledge of the applicant (52.2%; CI 30% - 74%; p=0.500).  Conclusions: In the absence of a Step 1 score, PS-RPDs may require more holistic metric(s) to evaluate the best fit for their program. This study found that PS-RPDs expect their candidate evaluation process to remain highly similar with the only statistically significant change being an increased emphasis on the candidates Step 2 score.

Abstract Background HIV-1 budding is directed primarily by two motifs in Gag p6 designated as late domain-1 and −2 that recruit ESCRT machinery by binding Tsg101 and Alix, respectively, and by poorly characterized determinants in the capsid (CA) domain. Here, we report that a conserved Gag p6 residue, S40, impacts budding mediated by all of these determinants. Results Whereas budding normally results in formation of single spherical particles ~100 nm in diameter and containing a characteristic electron-dense conical core, the substitution of Phe for S40, a change that does not alter the amino acids encoded in the overlapping pol reading frame, resulted in defective CA-SP1 cleavage, formation of strings of tethered particles or filopodia-like membrane protrusions containing Gag, and diminished infectious particle formation. The S40F-mediated release defects were exacerbated when the viral-encoded protease (PR) was inactivated or when L domain-1 function was disrupted or when budding was almost completely obliterated by the disruption of both L domain-1 and −2. S40F mutation also resulted in stronger Gag-Alix interaction, as detected by yeast 2-hybrid assay. Reducing Alix binding by mutational disruption of contact residues restored single particle release, implicating the perturbed Gag-Alix interaction in the aberrant budding events. Interestingly, introduction of S40F partially rescued the negative effects on budding of CA NTD mutations EE75,76AA and P99A, which both prevent membrane curvature and therefore block budding at an early stage. Conclusions The results indicate that the S40 residue is a novel determinant of HIV-1 egress that is most likely involved in regulation of a critical assembly event required for budding in the Tsg101-, Alix-, Nedd4- and CA N-terminal domain affected pathways.

Funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) Program fosters the development and implementation of innovative research aimed at improving minority health and reducing or eliminating health disparities. Currently, there are 21 RCMI Specialized (U54) Centers that share the same framework, comprising four required core components, namely the Administrative, Research Infrastructure, Investigator Development, and Community Engagement Cores. The Research Infrastructure Core (RIC) is fundamentally important for biomedical and health disparities research as a critical function domain. This paper aims to assess the research resources and services provided and evaluate the best practices in research resources management and networking across the RCMI Consortium. We conducted a REDCap-based survey and collected responses from 57 RIC Directors and Co-Directors from 98 core leaders. Our findings indicated that the RIC facilities across the 21 RCMI Centers provide access to major research equipment and are managed by experienced faculty and staff who provide expert consultative and technical services. However, several impediments to RIC facilities operation and management have been identified, and these are currently being addressed through implementation of cost-effective strategies and best practices of laboratory management and operation.