Open Access: Achievements and Challenges

Main Library, Open Access

Open Access: Achievements & Challenges Christian Gutknecht, Main Library University of Zurich

Opendata.ch 2012 Conference 28.6.2012, Zurich

www.oai.uzh.ch

(except University Logo)


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/08/open-access-research-inevitable-nature-editor

2

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/08/open-access-research-inevitable-nature-editor


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/19/open-access-academic-publishing-finch-report

3

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/19/open-access-academic-publishing-finch-report


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices

4

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices


Open Access via Repository (Green Road)

Publisher researchers

publish a paper in a traditional journal

Publisher

from other researchers in the field were denied [16]. These results

do not include other data practices which may also negatively

affect the progress of science, such as significant delays in the

fulfillment of requests, refusals to publicly present research

findings, and the failure to discuss research with others [16].

Disciplines or subdisciplines have their own culture of data-

sharing. Some do better (geophysics, biodiversity, and astronomy)

than others [17].

Individual Choice vs. Institutional Policies

The extent to which researchers share or withhold data is not

primarily an individual choice. Underlying policies and practices

have great influence on encouraging or inhibiting data sharing.

Several researchers who failed to share their data in the study by

Savage and Vickers, et al., claimed that it would take too much

work to provide raw data. The authors came to the conclusion that

researchers often fail to develop clear, well-annotated datasets to

accompany their research (i.e., metadata), and may lose access and

understanding of the original dataset over time. Vickers, et al.

believe that a policy that would require authors to submit datasets

to journals or public repositories at the time of publication would

help to prevent this occurrence [11]. PARSE Insight, a project

concerned with the preservation of digital information in research,

reported from a survey of data managers that 64% claimed their

organizations had policies and procedures in place to determine

what kinds of data are accepted for storage and preservation, with

specific policies for the time frame and method of submission.

Though this number constitutes a majority, 32% reported a lack of

such policies or procedures [8].Policies and procedures sometimes serve as an active rather

than passive barrier to data sharing. Campbell et al. (2003)

reported that government agencies often have strict policies about

secrecy for some publicly funded research. In a survey of 79

technology transfer officers in American universities, 93%

reported that their institution had a formal policy that required

researchers to file an invention disclosure before seeking to

commercialize research results. About one-half of the participants

reported institutional policies that prohibited the dissemination of

biomaterials without a material transfer agreement, which have

become so complex and demanding that they inhibit sharing [15].

Increasing the efficiency of current data practices in a world of

increased data challenges requires a new comprehensive approach

to data policy and practice. This approach would seek to avoid

data loss, data deluge, poor data practices, scattered data, etc., and

thus make better use of (public) funds and resources. NSF recently

took action by announcing that all proposals to NSF involving

data collection must include a data management plan [1] so that

‘‘digital data are routinely deposited in well-documented form, are

regularly and easily consulted and analyzed by specialist and non-

specialist alike, are openly accessible while suitably protected, and

are reliably preserved’’ [18]. Similarly, the European Commission

invited its member states to develop policies to implement access,

dissemination, and preservation for scientific knowledge and data

[5] [19].

Table 2. Subject discipline.

Frequency Percent

environmental sciences & ecology475

36.1

social sciences

20415.5

biology

18113.7

physical sciences

15812.0

computer science/engineering118

9.0

other

987.4

atmospheric science

523.9

medicine

312.4

Total

1317100.0

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021101.t002

Table 3. Data access.

Frequency Percent

An organization-specific system

35138.5%

Long-tem Ecological Research Network292

32.1%

Other data access

24627.0%

A Distributed Active-Archive Center

17319.0%

A Global Biodiversity Information Facility73

8.0%

National Biological Information Infrastructure70

7.7%

National Ecological Observatory Network64

7.0%

International Long-term Ecological Research Network 586.4%

Taiwan Ecological Research Network

7.8%

South African Environmental Observation Network 6.7%


Table 4. Data types.

ResponsesPercent

Experimental

71154.6%

Observational

63248.5%

Data Models

49938.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%

Remote-Sensed Abiotic358

27.5%

Remote-Sensed Biotic264

20.3%

Social Science Surveys251

19.3%

Interviews

19515.0%

Other

80

6.1%


Table 1. Primary work sector.

FrequencyPercent

Academic1058

80.5

Government167

12.7

Commercial34

2.6

Non-profit35

2.7

Other

21

1.6

Total

1315

100.0doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021101.t001

Data Sharing by Scientists

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org

3

June 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 6 | e21101







sharing. Some do better (geophysics, biodiversity, and astronomy)The extent to which researchers share or withhold data is not


























[5] [19].


Experimental

71154.6%

Experimental

71154.6%

Observational

63248.5%

Observational

63248.5%

Data Models

49938.3%

Data Models

49938.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%


27.5%


27.5%


20.3%


20.3%


19.3%


19.3%

Interviews

19515.0%

Interviews

19515.0%

Other

80

6.1%

Other

80

6.1%



3


most important reason for data preservation. Nearly all (98%) ofparticipants agreed that if research is publicly funded, the resultsshould become public property and therefore properly preserved[8].This article reports the results of a survey of scientists’ current

data sharing practices and their perceptions of the barriers andenablers of data sharing. The survey was conducted by theresearch team of the National Science Foundation-fundedDataONE project. DataNet supports short- and long-term datamanagement and open access to data. DataONE is one of theinitially funded NSF DataNet partners. DataONE is a large scalecollaboration to develop an organization that supports the fullinformation lifecycle of biological, ecological, and environmentaldata and tools to be used by researchers, educators, students,decision-makers and the general public. DataONE ‘‘will ensurethe preservation and access to multi-scale, multi-discipline, andmulti-national science data’’ [9] by developing a strong cyberin-frastructure and community engagement programs.DataONE will (i) provide coordinated access to current data

collections; (ii) create a new global cyberinfrastructure thatcontains both biological and environmental data coming fromdifferent resources (research networks, environmental observato-ries, individual scientists, and citizen scientists); and (iii) change thescience culture and institutions by providing education andtraining, engaging citizens in science, and building globalcommunities of practice. In order to facilitate change of thescience culture through cyberinfrastructure for data, it is necessaryto first understand the culture of modern science and the role ofdata in it.

Data SharingEncouraging data sharing and reuse begins with good data

practices in all phases of the data lifecycle such as generating andcollecting the data, managing the data, analyzing the data, andsharing it. However, the data lifecycle cannot be consideredindependently from research lifecycle [10], as data are anindispensible element of scientific research. (See Figure 1.)The specific costs of handling supplementary materials such as

datasets are not well documented. In a recent survey, only authorfees and journal subscription fees were mentioned as currentfunding sources for supplementary materials in journals. Partic-ipants in the survey suggested other potential sources for funding,in particular government funding, support from learned societies,and publishers [11].

Data Sharing/Withholding PracticesData sharing is important. According to a study done by

Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) in 2010 with 3823respondents, access to datasets, data models, and algorithms &programs was ranked important or highly important; however,only 38% of them felt that they were easily accessible [12]. Inaddition, it was the lowest among the other information types(some of them were research articles in journals, reference works,technical information, patent information, etc.). Several previoussurveys have explored the benefits and barriers of sharing data[13] and the extent to which researchers share or withhold data.Results seem to suggest that current sharing practices are minimal,although the amount of data sharing varies among different fields.Some journals have specific guidelines which require authors toshare their data with other researchers. However, the extent towhich these guidelines are carried out remains largely untested.Savage and Vickers requested data from ten researchers who hadpublished articles in PLoS journals, which have specific datasharing policies. Only one author sent an original dataset [14].

Although drawn from a small sample of researchers, these resultsstrongly suggest that journal policies which require data sharing donot necessarily lead authors to make their datasets readily availableto other researchers. The amount of data sharing or data hoardingalso appears to vary according to the researcher’s subjectdiscipline.Researchers who choose to withhold datasets often have specific

reasons for doing so. Savage and Vickers noted reasons thatinclude concerns about patient privacy (for medical fields),concerns about future publishing opportunities, and the desire toretain exclusive rights to data that had taken many years toproduce [14]. In Campbell’s study of data sharing in genetics, thetop reasons cited for withholding data were the amount of effortinvolved in accessing and sharing datasets and the protection of acolleague’s or their own ability to publish [15]. The decision toshare or withhold data is often dependent upon the point of timein the publishing process at which the request is made. Campbell(2003) reported that nearly all (98.7%) of the technology transferofficers surveyed agreed that academic scientists should freelyshare data with other scientists after publication, while only 30.5%agreed that scientists should share data and materials beforepublication. The vast majority also believed that scientists shouldbe more careful when sharing data with industry than with otheracademics [15]. The PARSE Insight survey indicated thatresearchers who are reluctant to share data with others reportedmajor concerns with legal issues, misuse of data, and incompatibledata types [8]. In a survey of geneticists and other life scientists,Campbell et al., found that withholding data may be morecommon in genetics and related fields. Reasons may include theincreased scientific competitiveness of the field, as well as theopportunities for commercial applications. Respondents of thesurvey estimated that ten percent of their requests for information

Figure 1. Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), Stagesof the research and data lifecycle.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021101.g001


PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 2 June 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 6 | e21101

PublisherPublisher














Data Sharingby Scientis

ts: Practices and

Perceptions

Carol Tenopir

1*, SuzieAllard

1, Kimberly Douglass

1, ArsevUmur Ayd

inoglu1, Lei W

u1, Eleano

r Read2,

MaribethManoff

2, Mike Frame3

1 School of Inform

ation Sciences, Univers

ity of Tennessee, Kn

oxville, Tennesse

e, United States o

f America, 2Universi

ty of Tennessee Libraries

, University of Tenn

essee,

Knoxville, Tennes

see, United States o

f America, 3Center f

or Biological Inf

ormatics, United States G

eological Survey

, Oak Ridge, Tennesse

e, United States o

f America

Abstract

Background: Scie

ntific research in the 21st cen

tury is more data inte

nsive and collaborative than in the past. It i

s important

to study the data practice

s of researchers

– data accessibility, disc

overy, re-use, pre

servation and, par

ticularly, data sharing.

Data sharing is a valu

able part of the

scientificmethod allowing

for verification of result

s and extending research

from prior

results.

Methodology/Princ

ipal Findings: A

total of1329 scientist

s participated in this survey explorin

g currentdata sharing

practices and percepti

ons of the barriersand enablers

of datasharing.

Scientists do not make their da

ta electronically

availableto others fo

r variousreasons,

including insufficie

nt time and lack of funding. Most resp

ondentsare satisfied

with

their current pro

cesses for the initial an

d short-term parts of

the data or research lifecycle

(collecting their res

earch data;

searching for, desc

ribing or cataloging, an

alyzing,and short-te

rm storageof their

data) but are not satis

fied with long-term

data preservatio

n. Many organization

s do not provide support

to their researchers

for datamanagem

ent bothin the short-

and long-term. If certa

in conditions are m

et (suchas formal citatio

n and sharingreprints)

respondents agr

ee theyare willin

g

to share their data. There

are also significant differ

ences and approac

hes in data management prac

tices based on primary

fundingagency,

subjectdisciplin

e, age, work focus, an

d world region.

Conclusions/Sign

ificance:Barriers

to effectivedata sha

ring and preservation are deeply r

ooted in the practices and culture

of the researchprocess

as well as the research

ers themselves. N

ew mandatesfor data

management plan

s from NSF and

other federal ag

encies and world-w

ide attention to the need to share and preserve

data could lead to changes

. Large scale

programs, such as the NSF-spo

nsored DataNET(includin

g projectslike DataON

E) will both bring attentio

n and resources to

the issue and make it easierfor scien

tists to apply sound data management prin

ciples.

Citation: Tenop

ir C, Allard S, Doug

lass K, Aydinoglu AU, Wu L, et al.

(2011) Data Sharing

by Scientists: Practi

ces and Perceptions. PLo

S ONE 6(6): e21101.

doi:10.1371/jour

nal.pone.0021101

Editor:Cameron Neylon,

Scienceand Technol

ogy FacilitiesCouncil,

United Kingdom

Received January

3, 2011;Accept

ed May 20, 2011; Publis

hed June 29, 2011

Copyright: ! 2011 Tenopir

et al. This is an open-ac

cess article distributed under th

e terms of the CreativeCommons Attribut

ion License,which permits

unrestricted use, dist

ribution, and reprodu

ction in any medium, provided the original

author and source are credited

.

Funding: The p

roject was funde

d as part of the Na

tional Science Fo

undation, Division

of Cyberinfrastru

cture, Data Obse

rvation Networkfor Earth

(DataONE) NSF

award #0830944under a

Cooperative Agre

ement. Thefunders

had no role in study design, dat

a collection and analysis,

decisionto publish,

or preparation of the

manuscript.

CompetingInteres

ts: Theauthors

have declaredthat no

competing interestsexist.

* E-mail: ctenopir@ut

k.edu

Introduction

Data are the inf

rastructure of sci

ence. Sound data are

critical as

they form the basi

s for good scientific

decisions, wise m

anagement

and use of resources, an

d informed decision-making. M

oreover,

‘‘scienceis becom

ing data intensive and collabor

ative’’ [1]. The

amount ofdata collected

, analyzed, re-a

nalyzed, and stored has

increased enormously due to develop

ments in computational

simulationand modeling,

automated data acquisition, and

communication technolo

gies [2].Followin

g the previousresearch

paradigms (experim

ental, theoretical, and computation

al), this

new era has been called ‘‘the fourth paradigm: data-int

ensive

scientificdiscover

y’’ where ‘‘all of t

he scienceliteratur

e is online,

all of the science

data is online, and they interope

rate with each

other’’ [3]. Digi

tal dataare not only

the outputsof resea

rch but

provideinputs t

o new hypotheses, ena

bling new scientificinsights

and drivinginnovati

on [4].

As science becom

es more dataintensiv

e and collaborative, da

ta

sharingbecomes more important.

Data sharingincludes

the

deposition and preserva

tion of data; however, it is primarily

associated with providin

g access for use and reuse of data.

Data

sharinghas many advanta

ges, including:

N re-analysis of da

ta helpsverify re

sults data, which

is a keypart

of the scientificprocess;

N different interpre

tationsor approac

hes to existingdata

contribute to scientific

progress–especia

lly in an interdisci-

plinarysetting;

N well-managed,long-ter

m preservation helps retain

data

integrity;

N when data is available, (re-)c

ollectionof data

is minimized;

thus, use of resou

rces is optimized;

N data availability provide

s safeguards against

misconduct

relatedto data fabricati

on and falsification;

N replication studies s

erve as training

tools fornew generati

ons of

researchers [5][6

][7]

Additionally, res

earchers, data managers

and publishers in the

PARSEsurvey o

verwhelmingly ag

reed that public fundi

ng was the

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.o

rg

1

June 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue

6 | e21101

5



+ deposit a copy on ZORA

zora.uzh.ch










than others [17].












































[5] [19].


Frequency Percent


36.1

social sciences

20415.5

biology

18113.7

physical sciences

15812.0


9.0

other

987.4

atmospheric science

523.9

medicine

312.4

Total

1317100.0



Frequency Percent


35138.5%


32.1%

Other data access

24627.0%


17319.0%


8.0%


7.7%


7.0%



7.8%




ResponsesPercent

Experimental

71154.6%

Observational

63248.5%

Data Models

49938.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%


27.5%


20.3%


19.3%

Interviews

19515.0%

Other

80

6.1%



FrequencyPercent

Academic1058

80.5

Government167

12.7

Commercial34

2.6

Non-profit35

2.7

Other

21

1.6

Total

1315




3
















ts: Practices and

Perceptions

, Kimberly Douglass

1, ArsevUmur Ayd

inoglu1, Lei W

u1, Eleano

r Read2,

MaribethManoff

1 School of Inform



oxville, Tennesse

e, United States o




essee,

Knoxville, Tennes



or Biological Inf


eological Survey


e, United States o

f America

Abstract

Background: Scie




s important


s of researchers


overy, re-use, pre

servation and, par



able part of the




from prior

results.

Methodology/Princ

ipal Findings: A






of datasharing.


ta electronically


r variousreasons,




with

their current pro





earch data;

searching for, desc



rm storageof their


fied with long-term

data preservatio




for datamanagem



in conditions are m



respondents agr

ee theyare willin

g



ences and approac



fundingagency,

subjectdisciplin


d world region.

Conclusions/Sign

ificance:Barriers






ers themselves. N

ew mandatesfor data

management plan

s from NSF and

other federal ag

encies and world-w



. Large scale





n and resources to



ciples.

Citation: Tenop



(2011) Data Sharing



S ONE 6(6): e21101.

doi:10.1371/jour

nal.pone.0021101


Scienceand Technol


United Kingdom

Received January

3, 2011;Accept


hed June 29, 2011










.

Funding: The p

roject was funde

d as part of the Na

tional Science Fo

undation, Division

of Cyberinfrastru

cture, Data Obse


(DataONE) NSF


Cooperative Agre

ement. Thefunders



decisionto publish,


manuscript.

CompetingInteres

ts: Theauthors




k.edu

Introduction

Data are the inf

rastructure of sci


critical as

they form the basi


decisions, wise m

anagement



oreover,





, analyzed, re-a







gies [2].Followin


paradigms (experim


al), this


ensive

scientificdiscover


he scienceliteratur

e is online,

all of the science


rate with each



the outputsof resea

rch but

provideinputs t



and drivinginnovati

on [4].

As science becom



ta



the





Data


ges, including:

N re-analysis of da

ta helpsverify re

sults data, which

is a keypart



tationsor approac

hes to existingdata


progress–especia


plinarysetting;



data

integrity;


ollectionof data

is minimized;

thus, use of resou

rces is optimized;



misconduct




erve as training


ons of

researchers [5][6

][7]

Additionally, res



PARSEsurvey o

verwhelmingly ag


ng was the


rg

1


6 | e21101



zora.uzh.ch

Publisherresearchers

publish a paper

in a traditional journal

Publisher
























Frequency Percent

Frequency Percent

Frequency Percent

Frequency Percent


35138.5%


35138.5%


35138.5%


35138.5%


35138.5%


35138.5%


32.1%


32.1%


32.1%


32.1%


32.1%


32.1%

Other data access

24627.0%

Other data access

24627.0%

Other data access

24627.0%

Other data access

24627.0%

Other data access

24627.0%

Other data access

24627.0%


17319.0%


17319.0%


17319.0%


17319.0%


17319.0%


17319.0%


8.0%


8.0%


8.0%


8.0%


8.0%


8.0%


7.7%


7.7%


7.7%


7.7%


7.7%


7.7%


7.0%


7.0%


7.0%


7.0%


7.0%


7.0%








7.8%


7.8%


7.8%


7.8%


7.8%


7.8%


7.8%








Data types.

ResponsesPercent

ResponsesPercent

ResponsesPercent

ResponsesPercent

Experimental

71154.6%

Experimental

71154.6%

Experimental

71154.6%

Experimental

71154.6%

Experimental

71154.6%

Experimental

71154.6%

Observational

63248.5%

Observational

63248.5%

Observational

63248.5%

Observational

63248.5%

Observational

63248.5%

Observational

63248.5%

Data Models

49938.3%

Data Models

49938.3%

Data Models

49938.3%

Data Models

49938.3%

Data Models

49938.3%

Data Models

49938.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%


27.5%


27.5%


27.5%


27.5%


27.5%


27.5%


20.3%


20.3%


20.3%


20.3%


20.3%


20.3%


19.3%


19.3%


19.3%


19.3%


19.3%


19.3%

Interviews

19515.0%

Interviews

19515.0%

Interviews

19515.0%

Interviews

19515.0%

Interviews

19515.0%

Interviews

19515.0%

Other

80

6.1%

Other

80

6.1%

Other

80

6.1%

Other

80

6.1%

Other

80

6.1%

Other

80

6.1%




3


































[5] [19].


Experimental

71154.6%

Experimental

71154.6%

Observational

63248.5%

Observational

63248.5%

Data Models

49938.3%

Data Models

49938.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%


27.5%


27.5%


20.3%


20.3%


19.3%


19.3%

Interviews

19515.0%

Interviews

19515.0%

Other

80

6.1%

Other

80

6.1%



3


Although drawn from a small sample of researchers, these resultsstrongly suggest that journal policies which require data sharing donot necessarily lead authors to make their datasets readily availableto other researchers. The amount of data sharing or data hoardingalso appears to vary according to the researcher’s subject

Researchers who choose to withhold datasets often have specificreasons for doing so. Savage and Vickers noted reasons thatinclude concerns about patient privacy (for medical fields),concerns about future publishing opportunities, and the desire toretain exclusive rights to data that had taken many years toproduce [14]. In Campbell’s study of data sharing in genetics, thetop reasons cited for withholding data were the amount of effortinvolved in accessing and sharing datasets and the protection of acolleague’s or their own ability to publish [15]. The decision toshare or withhold data is often dependent upon the point of timein the publishing process at which the request is made. Campbell(2003) reported that nearly all (98.7%) of the technology transferofficers surveyed agreed that academic scientists should freelyshare data with other scientists after publication, while only 30.5%agreed that scientists should share data and materials beforepublication. The vast majority also believed that scientists shouldbe more careful when sharing data with industry than with otheracademics [15]. The PARSE Insight survey indicated thatresearchers who are reluctant to share data with others reportedmajor concerns with legal issues, misuse of data, and incompatibledata types [8]. In a survey of geneticists and other life scientists,Campbell et al., found that withholding data may be morecommon in genetics and related fields. Reasons may include theincreased scientific competitiveness of the field, as well as theopportunities for commercial applications. Respondents of thesurvey estimated that ten percent of their requests for information

Figure 1. Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), Stages



PublisherPublisher











ts: Practices and

Perceptions

, Kimberly Douglass

1, ArsevUmur Ayd

inoglu1, Lei W

u1, Eleano

r Read2,

MaribethManoff

1 School of Inform



oxville, Tennesse

e, United States o




essee,

Knoxville, Tennes



or Biological Inf


eological Survey


e, United States o

f America

Abstract

Abstract

Background:

Background: Scie




s important

Scientific researc

h in the 21st century is m

ore data intensive and collabor

ative than in the past. It is important


s of researchers


overy, re-use, pre

servation and, par



s of researchers


overy, re-use, pre

servation and, par



able part of the




from prior


able part of the




from prior

results.results.

Methodology/Princ

ipal Findings:

Methodology/Princ

ipal Findings: A




A total of1329 scientist





of datasharing.


ta electronically



of datasharing.


ta electronically


r variousreasons,




with


r variousreasons,




with

their current pro





earch data;

their current pro





earch data;

searching for, desc



rm storageof their


fied with long-term

searching for, desc



rm storageof their


fied with long-term

data preservatio




for datamanagem


data preservatio




for datamanagem



in conditions are m



respondents agr

ee theyare willin

g


in conditions are m



respondents agr

ee theyare willin

g



ences and approac





ences and approac



fundingagency,

subjectdisciplin


d world region.

fundingagency,

subjectdisciplin


d world region.

Conclusions/Sign

ificance:

Conclusions/Sign

ificance:Barriers




Barriersto effective

data sharing and preserva

tion are deeply rooted in the practice

s and culture



ers themselves. N

ew mandatesfor data

management plan

s from NSF and



ers themselves. N

ew mandatesfor data

management plan

s from NSF and

other federal ag

encies and world-w



. Large scale

other federal ag

encies and world-w



. Large scale





n and resources to





n and resources to



ciples.



ciples.

Citation: Tenop



(2011) Data Sharing



S ONE 6(6): e21101.

doi:10.1371/jour

nal.pone.0021101


Scienceand Technol


United Kingdom

Received January

3, 2011;Accept


hed June 29, 2011










.

Funding: The p

roject was funde

d as part of the Na

tional Science Fo

undation, Division

of Cyberinfrastru

cture, Data Obse


(DataONE) NSF


Cooperative Agre

ement. Thefunders



decisionto publish,


manuscript.

CompetingInteres

ts: Theauthors




k.edu

Introduction

Data are the inf

rastructure of sci


critical as

they form the basi


decisions, wise m

anagement



oreover,





, analyzed, re-a







gies [2].Followin


paradigms (experim


al), this


ensive

scientificdiscover


he scienceliteratur

e is online,

all of the science


rate with each



the outputsof resea

rch but

provideinputs t



and drivinginnovati

on [4].

As science becom



ta



the





Data


ges, including:

N re-analysis of da

ta helpsverify re

sults data, which

is a keypart



tationsor approac

hes to existingdata


progress–especia


plinarysetting;



data

integrity;


ollectionof data

is minimized;

thus, use of resou

rces is optimized;



misconduct




erve as training


ons of

researchers [5][6

][7]

Additionally, res



PARSEsurvey o

verwhelmingly ag


ng was the


rg

1


6 | e21101

6




zora.uzh.ch



Publisher








than others [17].












































[5] [19].


Frequency Percent


36.1

social sciences

20415.5

biology

18113.7

physical sciences

15812.0


9.0

other

987.4

atmospheric science

523.9

medicine

312.4

Total

1317100.0



Frequency Percent


35138.5%


32.1%

Other data access

24627.0%


17319.0%


8.0%


7.7%


7.0%



7.8%




ResponsesPercent

Experimental

71154.6%

Observational

63248.5%

Data Models

49938.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%


27.5%


20.3%


19.3%

Interviews

19515.0%

Other

80

6.1%



FrequencyPercent

Academic1058

80.5

Government167

12.7

Commercial34

2.6

Non-profit35

2.7

Other

21

1.6

Total

1315




3


































[5] [19].


Experimental

71154.6%

Experimental

71154.6%

Observational

63248.5%

Observational

63248.5%

Data Models

49938.3%

Data Models

49938.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%


27.5%


27.5%


20.3%


20.3%


19.3%


19.3%

Interviews

19515.0%

Interviews

19515.0%

Other

80

6.1%

Other

80

6.1%



3















PublisherPublisher















ts: Practices and

Perceptions

Carol Tenopir

1*, SuzieAllard


1, ArsevUmur Ayd

inoglu1, Lei W

u1, Eleano

r Read2,

MaribethManoff

2, Mike Frame3

1 School of Inform



oxville, Tennesse

e, United States o




essee,

Knoxville, Tennes



or Biological Inf


eological Survey


e, United States o

f America

Abstract

Background: Scie




s important


s of researchers


overy, re-use, pre

servation and, par



able part of the




from prior

results.

Methodology/Princ

ipal Findings: A






of datasharing.


ta electronically


r variousreasons,




with

their current pro





earch data;

searching for, desc



rm storageof their


fied with long-term

data preservatio




for datamanagem



in conditions are m



respondents agr

ee theyare willin

g



ences and approac



fundingagency,

subjectdisciplin


d world region.

Conclusions/Sign

ificance:Barriers






ers themselves. N

ew mandatesfor data

management plan

s from NSF and

other federal ag

encies and world-w



. Large scale





n and resources to



ciples.

Citation: Tenop



(2011) Data Sharing



S ONE 6(6): e21101.

doi:10.1371/jour

nal.pone.0021101


Scienceand Technol


United Kingdom

Received January

3, 2011;Accept


hed June 29, 2011










.

Funding: The p

roject was funde

d as part of the Na

tional Science Fo

undation, Division

of Cyberinfrastru

cture, Data Obse


(DataONE) NSF


Cooperative Agre

ement. Thefunders



decisionto publish,


manuscript.

CompetingInteres

ts: Theauthors




k.edu

Introduction

Data are the inf

rastructure of sci


critical as

they form the basi


decisions, wise m

anagement



oreover,





, analyzed, re-a







gies [2].Followin


paradigms (experim


al), this


ensive

scientificdiscover


he scienceliteratur

e is online,

all of the science


rate with each



the outputsof resea

rch but

provideinputs t



and drivinginnovati

on [4].

As science becom



ta



the





Data


ges, including:

N re-analysis of da

ta helpsverify re

sults data, which

is a keypart



tationsor approac

hes to existingdata


progress–especia


plinarysetting;



data

integrity;


ollectionof data

is minimized;

thus, use of resou

rces is optimized;



misconduct




erve as training


ons of

researchers [5][6

][7]

Additionally, res



PARSEsurvey o

verwhelmingly ag


ng was the


rg

1


6 | e21101

7


Open Access via Publisher (Golden Road)

researchers








than others [17].












































[5] [19].


Frequency Percent


36.1

social sciences

20415.5

biology

18113.7

physical sciences

15812.0


9.0

other

987.4

atmospheric science

523.9

medicine

312.4

Total

1317100.0



Frequency Percent


35138.5%


32.1%

Other data access

24627.0%


17319.0%


8.0%


7.7%


7.0%



7.8%




ResponsesPercent

Experimental

71154.6%

Observational

63248.5%

Data Models

49938.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%


27.5%


20.3%


19.3%

Interviews

19515.0%

Other

80

6.1%



FrequencyPercent

Academic1058

80.5

Government167

12.7

Commercial34

2.6

Non-profit35

2.7

Other

21

1.6

Total

1315




3


































[5] [19].


Experimental

71154.6%

Experimental

71154.6%

Observational

63248.5%

Observational

63248.5%

Data Models

49938.3%

Data Models

49938.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Biotic Surveys

44634.3%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%

Abiotic Surveys442

33.9%


27.5%


27.5%


20.3%


20.3%


19.3%


19.3%

Interviews

19515.0%

Interviews

19515.0%

Other

80

6.1%

Other

80

6.1%



3





























ts: Practices and

Perceptions

Carol Tenopir

1*, SuzieAllard


1, ArsevUmur Ayd

inoglu1, Lei W

u1, Eleano

r Read2,

MaribethManoff

2, Mike Frame3

1 School of Inform



oxville, Tennesse

e, United States o




essee,

Knoxville, Tennes



or Biological Inf


eological Survey


e, United States o

f America

Abstract

Background: Scie




s important


s of researchers


overy, re-use, pre

servation and, par



able part of the




from prior

results.

Methodology/Princ

ipal Findings: A






of datasharing.


ta electronically


r variousreasons,




with

their current pro





earch data;

searching for, desc



rm storageof their


fied with long-term

data preservatio




for datamanagem



in conditions are m



respondents agr

ee theyare willin

g



ences and approac



fundingagency,

subjectdisciplin


d world region.

Conclusions/Sign

ificance:Barriers






ers themselves. N

ew mandatesfor data

management plan

s from NSF and

other federal ag

encies and world-w



. Large scale





n and resources to



ciples.

Citation: Tenop



(2011) Data Sharing



S ONE 6(6): e21101.

doi:10.1371/jour

nal.pone.0021101


Scienceand Technol


United Kingdom

Received January

3, 2011;Accept


hed June 29, 2011










.

Funding: The p

roject was funde

d as part of the Na

tional Science Fo

undation, Division

of Cyberinfrastru

cture, Data Obse


(DataONE) NSF


Cooperative Agre

ement. Thefunders



decisionto publish,


manuscript.

CompetingInteres

ts: Theauthors




k.edu

Introduction

Data are the inf

rastructure of sci


critical as

they form the basi


decisions, wise m

anagement



oreover,





, analyzed, re-a







gies [2].Followin


paradigms (experim


al), this


ensive

scientificdiscover


he scienceliteratur

e is online,

all of the science


rate with each



the outputsof resea

rch but

provideinputs t



and drivinginnovati

on [4].

As science becom



ta



the





Data


ges, including:

N re-analysis of da

ta helpsverify re

sults data, which

is a keypart



tationsor approac

hes to existingdata


progress–especia


plinarysetting;



data

integrity;


ollectionof data

is minimized;

thus, use of resou

rces is optimized;



misconduct




erve as training


ons of

researchers [5][6

][7]

Additionally, res



PARSEsurvey o

verwhelmingly ag


ng was the


rg

1


6 | e21101

publish a paper in a Open Access journal

Publisher

8


9


Open Access via publisher (Golden Road)

Solomon and Björk (2012). A study of open access journals using article processing charges. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Preprint available at: http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/apc2/.

To publish in Open Access Journals authors sometimes (but not always!) have to pay a fee per article: •! Range of fee: 8 – 3900 USD

•! Average fee: 906 USD

•! 7892 journals in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)

Some Journals use explicitly: or :

10

http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/apc2/


Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003)

Open access contributions include original scientific research results, raw data and metadata, source materials, digital representations of pictorial and graphical materials and scholarly multimedia material.

„

http://oa.mpg.de/lang/de/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/

Our mission of disseminating knowledge is only half complete if the information is not made widely and readily available to society. New possibilities of knowledge dissemination [...] through the open access paradigm via the Internet have to be supported. „

11

http://oa.mpg.de/lang/de/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/


Swiss Signatories of the Berlin Declaration

http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/berlin-prozess/signatoren/

12

http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/berlin-prozess/signatoren/


Guidelines Swiss National Science Foundation (since 2007)

The SNSF requires grantees to provide open access to research results obtained with the help of SNSF grants (Article 44 Funding Regulations).

„

http://www.snf.ch/SiteCollectionDocuments/allg_reglement_valorisierung_e.pdf

13

http://www.snf.ch/SiteCollectionDocuments/allg_reglement_valorisierung_e.pdf


Guidelines University of Zurich (since 2008)

The University of Zurich requires their researchers to deposit a copy of all their published scientific works in the Zurich Open Repository and Archive (ZORA) with open access, if there are no legal objections.

„The University of Zurich encourages and supports their authors to publish their research articles in Open Access journals where a suitable journal exists and provides the support to enable that to happen.

„http://www.oai.uzh.ch/en/working-with-zora/regulations/guidelines

14

http://www.oai.uzh.ch/en/working-with-zora/regulations/guidelines


35% 38% 44% 44%

15

35% 38% 44% 44% 44% 44%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Closed Access 5235 5167 4708 5123 899 Open Access 2784 3149 3463 3300 424

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

Publications in ZORA (2008 – June 2012)

35% 38% 42% 39%

Open Access includes publications with an embargo and publications which are freely accessible at the publishers website


Why not 100% Open Access? Some personal observations...

16


Legal Objections „ Copyright Transfer Statement The author signs for and accepts responsibility for releasing this material on behalf of any and all co-authors. The copyright transfer covers the exclusive right and license to reproduce, publish, distribute and archive the article in all forms and media of expression now known or developed in the future, including reprints, translations, photographic reproductions, microform, electronic form (offline, online) or any other reproductions of similar nature.

Example CTA of Springer: http://www.springer.com/?SGWID=3-102-45-69724-0

17

http://www.springer.com/?SGWID=3-102-45-69724-0


Reluctance to share accepted manuscript

Journal of Neuroscience, in press

Section: Cellular/Molecular Neuroscience

Senior Editor: Dr. Gail Mandel

Src-family kinases stabilize the neuromuscular synapse in vivo

via protein interactions, phosphorylation, and cytoskeletal linkage

of acetylcholine receptors

Abbreviated title: Src action in postsynaptic stabilization

Gayathri Sadasivam*, Raffaella Willmann*, Shuo Lin§, Susanne Erb-Vögtli*, Xian Chu Kong§,

Markus A. Rüegg§, and Christian Fuhrer*

*Department of Neurochemistry, Brain Research Institute, University of Zürich,

Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland

§Biozentrum, University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 70, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland

Address for correspondence: Christian Fuhrer, Brain Research Institute, University of Zürich,

Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland. Tel.: +41 44 635 33 10. Fax: +41 44 635

33 03. E-mail: [email protected]

Number of Figures: 10; 1 Supplementary Figure; Number of pages: 32

Key words: Src, acetylcholine receptor, neuromuscular synapse, agrin, tyrosine-phosphorylation,

postsynaptic membrane

Acknowledgements: We thank Dr. Mathias Höchli and Dr. Anne Greet Bittermann from the

Laboratory of Electron Microscopy at the University of Zürich for their excellent technical

assistance with the confocal microscope. This work was supported by the Eric Slack-Gyr

Foundation, and by grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Foundation

for Research on Muscle Diseases and the Zürich Neuroscience Center (to C.F.).

1

Cellular/Molecular

Src-Family Kinases Stabilize the Neuromuscular Synapse InVivo via Protein Interactions, Phosphorylation, andCytoskeletal Linkage of Acetylcholine Receptors

Gayathri Sadasivam,1 Raffaella Willmann,1 Shuo Lin,2 Susanne Erb-Vogtli,1 Xian Chu Kong,2 Markus A. Ruegg,2 andChristian Fuhrer1

1Department of Neurochemistry, Brain Research Institute, University of Zurich, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland, and 2Biozentrum, University of Basel,CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland

Postnatal stabilization and maturation of the postsynaptic membrane are important for development and function of the neuromuscularjunction (NMJ), but the underlying mechanisms remain poorly characterized. We examined the role of Src-family kinases (SFKs) in vivo.Electroporation of kinase-inactive Src constructs into soleus muscles of adult mice caused NMJ disassembly: acetylcholine receptor(AChR)-rich areas became fragmented; the topology of nerve terminal, AChRs, and synaptic nuclei was disturbed; and occasionallynerves started to sprout. Electroporation of kinase-overactive Src produced similar but milder effects. We studied the mechanism of SFKaction using cultured src!/!;fyn!/! myotubes, focusing on clustering of postsynaptic proteins, their interaction with AChRs, and AChRphosphorylation. Rapsyn and the utrophin-glycoprotein complex were recruited normally into AChR-containing clusters by agrin insrc!/!;fyn!/! myotubes. But after agrin withdrawal, clusters of these proteins disappeared rapidly in parallel with AChRs, revealing thatSFKs are of general importance in postsynaptic stability. At the same time, AChR interaction with rapsyn and dystrobrevin and AChRphosphorylation decreased after agrin withdrawal from mutant myotubes. Unexpectedly, levels of rapsyn protein were increased insrc!/!;fyn!/! myotubes, whereas rapsyn– cytoskeleton interactions were unaffected. The overall cytoskeletal link of AChRs was weakbut still strengthened by agrin in mutant cells, consistent with the normal formation but decreased stability of AChR clusters. These datashow that correctly balanced activity of SFKs is critical in maintaining adult NMJs in vivo. SFKs hold the postsynaptic apparatus togetherthrough stabilization of AChR–rapsyn interaction and AChR phosphorylation. In addition, SFKs control rapsyn levels and AChR-cytoskeletal linkage.

Key words: Src; acetylcholine receptor; neuromuscular synapse; agrin; tyrosine phosphorylation; postsynaptic membrane

IntroductionNeuromuscular junctions (NMJs) develop in a series of steps inwhich the postsynaptic membrane first forms by concentratingacetylcholine receptors (AChRs) and associated proteins in a flattopology. Postnatally, NMJs mature and AChRs get arranged atthe crests of postjunctional folds. Concomitantly, all but oneaxon withdrew, paralleled by destabilization of adjacent AChRs(Sanes and Lichtman, 2001). Maturation and stabilization ofAChR clusters ensure proper synaptic development, which formsthe basis for nerve-evoked muscle contractibility.

Much is known about the molecular pathways that first formNMJs. Neural agrin, by activating the muscle-specific kinase(MuSK), is crucial by triggering downstream cascades (for re-

view, see Bezakova and Ruegg, 2003; Luo et al., 2003). Central inthese is rapsyn, the main AChR-anchoring protein mediatingclustering (Gautam et al., 1995). Rapsyn increasingly binds toAChRs in response to agrin (Moransard et al., 2003), mediatesagrin-induced phosphorylation of the AChR ! and " subunits(Mittaud et al., 2001), and links the receptor to !-dystroglycan, acomponent of the postsynaptic utrophin-glycoprotein complex(UGC) (Cartaud et al., 1998; Bartoli et al., 2001). In clustering,AChRs become immobilized and less detergent extractable, bothin agrin-treated myotubes (Prives et al., 1982; Stya and Axelrod,1983; Podleski and Salpeter, 1988) and developing NMJs(Dennis, 1981; Slater, 1982). The players in this cytoskeletal linkremain uncertain. Agrin-induced phosphorylation of AChR ! isinvolved (Borges and Ferns, 2001) and can occur through Abl-and Src-family kinases (SFKs) (Finn et al., 2003; Mittaud et al.,2004).

Much less is known about the mechanisms that mature NMJsand stabilize AChR clusters postnatally. Although MuSK is re-quired (Kong et al., 2004), some of these pathways may not beessential in initial NMJ formation (Willmann and Fuhrer, 2002),as illustrated by mice lacking utrophin and dystrophin or theUGC components #-dystrobrevin or dystroglycan (Grady et al.,

Received May 25, 2005; revised Sept. 28, 2005; accepted Sept. 29, 2005.This work was supported by the Eric Slack-Gyr Foundation and by grants from the Swiss National Science Foun-

dation, the Swiss Foundation for Research on Muscle Diseases, and the Zurich Neuroscience Center (C.F.). We thankDrs. Mathias Hochli and Anne Greet Bittermann (Laboratory of Electron Microscopy, University of Zurich) for theirexcellent technical assistance with the confocal microscope.

Correspondence should be addressed to Christian Fuhrer, Brain Research Institute, University of Zurich, Winter-thurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected].

DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2103-05.2005Copyright © 2005 Society for Neuroscience 0270-6474/05/2510479-15$15.00/0

The Journal of Neuroscience, November 9, 2005 • 25(45):10479 –10493 • 10479

Accepted manuscript (Post-Print) Published PDF

Department of Neurochemistry, Brain Research Institute, University of Zu ¨rich, Switzerland, and

Postnatal stabilization and maturation of the postsynaptic membrane are important for development and function of the neuromuscularjunction (NMJ), but the underlying mechanisms remain poorly characterized. We examined the role of Src-family kinases (SFKs)Electroporation of kinase-inactive Src constructs into soleus muscles of adult mice caused NMJ disassembly: acetylcholine receptor(AChR)-rich areas became fragmented; the topology of nerve terminal, AChRs, and synaptic nuclei was disturbed; and occasionallynerves started to sprout. Electroporation of kinase-overactive Src produced similar but milder effects. We studied the mechanism of SFK

;fyn!/! myotubes, focusing on clustering of postsynaptic proteins, their interaction with AChRs, and AChRphosphorylation. Rapsyn and the utrophin-glycoprotein complex were recruited normally into AChR-containing clusters by agrin in

myotubes. But after agrin withdrawal, clusters of these proteins disappeared rapidly in parallel with AChRs, revealing thatSFKs are of general importance in postsynaptic stability. At the same time, AChR interaction with rapsyn and dystrobrevin and AChRphosphorylation decreased after agrin withdrawal from mutant myotubes. Unexpectedly, levels of rapsyn protein were increased in

myotubes, whereas rapsyn– cytoskeleton interactions were unaffected. The overall cytoskeletal link of AChRs was weakbut still strengthened by agrin in mutant cells, consistent with the normal formation but decreased stability of AChR clusters. These datashow that correctly balanced activity of SFKs is critical in maintaining adult NMJs in vivo. SFKs hold the postsynaptic apparatus togetherthrough stabilization of AChR–rapsyn interaction and AChR phosphorylation. In addition, SFKs control rapsyn levels and AChR-

Src; acetylcholine receptor; neuromuscular synapse; agrin; tyrosine phosphorylation; postsynaptic membrane

Neuromuscular junctions (NMJs) develop in a series of steps inwhich the postsynaptic membrane first forms by concentratingacetylcholine receptors (AChRs) and associated proteins in a flattopology. Postnatally, NMJs mature and AChRs get arranged atthe crests of postjunctional folds. Concomitantly, all but oneaxon withdrew, paralleled by destabilization of adjacent AChRs

view, see Bezakova and Ruegg, 2003; Luo et al., 2003). Central inthese is rapsyn, the main AChR-anchoring protein mediatingclustering (Gautam et al., 1995). Rapsyn increasingly binds toAChRs in response to agrin (Moransard et al., 2003), mediatesagrin-induced phosphorylation of the AChR(Mittaud et al., 2001), and links the receptor tocomponent of the postsynaptic utrophin-glycoprotein complex

Image: Charles Le Brun, 1760

18


Reluctance to share accepted manuscript

Journal of Neuroscience, in press

Section: Cellular/Molecular Neuroscience

Senior Editor: Dr. Gail Mandel

Src-family kinases stabilize the neuromuscular synapse in vivo

via protein interactions, phosphorylation, and cytoskeletal linkage

of acetylcholine receptors


Gayathri Sadasivam*, Raffaella Willmann*, Shuo Lin§, Susanne Erb-Vögtli*, Xian Chu Kong§,

Markus A. Rüegg§, and Christian Fuhrer*

*Department of Neurochemistry, Brain Research Institute, University of Zürich,

Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland

§Biozentrum, University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 70, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland

Address for correspondence: Christian Fuhrer, Brain Research Institute, University of Zürich,

Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland. Tel.: +41 44 635 33 10. Fax: +41 44 635

33 03. E-mail: [email protected]

Number of Figures: 10; 1 Supplementary Figure; Number of pages: 32

Key words: Src, acetylcholine receptor, neuromuscular synapse, agrin, tyrosine-phosphorylation,

postsynaptic membrane

Acknowledgements: We thank Dr. Mathias Höchli and Dr. Anne Greet Bittermann from the

Laboratory of Electron Microscopy at the University of Zürich for their excellent technical

assistance with the confocal microscope. This work was supported by the Eric Slack-Gyr

Foundation, and by grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Foundation

for Research on Muscle Diseases and the Zürich Neuroscience Center (to C.F.).

1

Cellular/Molecular

Src-Family Kinases Stabilize the Neuromuscular Synapse InVivo via Protein Interactions, Phosphorylation, andCytoskeletal Linkage of Acetylcholine Receptors

Gayathri Sadasivam,1 Raffaella Willmann,1 Shuo Lin,2 Susanne Erb-Vogtli,1 Xian Chu Kong,2 Markus A. Ruegg,2 andChristian Fuhrer1

1Department of Neurochemistry, Brain Research Institute, University of Zurich, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland, and 2Biozentrum, University of Basel,CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland

Postnatal stabilization and maturation of the postsynaptic membrane are important for development and function of the neuromuscularjunction (NMJ), but the underlying mechanisms remain poorly characterized. We examined the role of Src-family kinases (SFKs) in vivo.Electroporation of kinase-inactive Src constructs into soleus muscles of adult mice caused NMJ disassembly: acetylcholine receptor(AChR)-rich areas became fragmented; the topology of nerve terminal, AChRs, and synaptic nuclei was disturbed; and occasionallynerves started to sprout. Electroporation of kinase-overactive Src produced similar but milder effects. We studied the mechanism of SFKaction using cultured src!/!;fyn!/! myotubes, focusing on clustering of postsynaptic proteins, their interaction with AChRs, and AChRphosphorylation. Rapsyn and the utrophin-glycoprotein complex were recruited normally into AChR-containing clusters by agrin insrc!/!;fyn!/! myotubes. But after agrin withdrawal, clusters of these proteins disappeared rapidly in parallel with AChRs, revealing thatSFKs are of general importance in postsynaptic stability. At the same time, AChR interaction with rapsyn and dystrobrevin and AChRphosphorylation decreased after agrin withdrawal from mutant myotubes. Unexpectedly, levels of rapsyn protein were increased insrc!/!;fyn!/! myotubes, whereas rapsyn– cytoskeleton interactions were unaffected. The overall cytoskeletal link of AChRs was weakbut still strengthened by agrin in mutant cells, consistent with the normal formation but decreased stability of AChR clusters. These datashow that correctly balanced activity of SFKs is critical in maintaining adult NMJs in vivo. SFKs hold the postsynaptic apparatus togetherthrough stabilization of AChR–rapsyn interaction and AChR phosphorylation. In addition, SFKs control rapsyn levels and AChR-cytoskeletal linkage.




view, see Bezakova and Ruegg, 2003; Luo et al., 2003). Central inthese is rapsyn, the main AChR-anchoring protein mediatingclustering (Gautam et al., 1995). Rapsyn increasingly binds toAChRs in response to agrin (Moransard et al., 2003), mediatesagrin-induced phosphorylation of the AChR ! and " subunits(Mittaud et al., 2001), and links the receptor to !-dystroglycan, acomponent of the postsynaptic utrophin-glycoprotein complex(UGC) (Cartaud et al., 1998; Bartoli et al., 2001). In clustering,AChRs become immobilized and less detergent extractable, bothin agrin-treated myotubes (Prives et al., 1982; Stya and Axelrod,1983; Podleski and Salpeter, 1988) and developing NMJs(Dennis, 1981; Slater, 1982). The players in this cytoskeletal linkremain uncertain. Agrin-induced phosphorylation of AChR ! isinvolved (Borges and Ferns, 2001) and can occur through Abl-and Src-family kinases (SFKs) (Finn et al., 2003; Mittaud et al.,2004).

Much less is known about the mechanisms that mature NMJsand stabilize AChR clusters postnatally. Although MuSK is re-quired (Kong et al., 2004), some of these pathways may not beessential in initial NMJ formation (Willmann and Fuhrer, 2002),as illustrated by mice lacking utrophin and dystrophin or theUGC components #-dystrobrevin or dystroglycan (Grady et al.,


dation, the Swiss Foundation for Research on Muscle Diseases, and the Zurich Neuroscience Center (C.F.). We thankDrs. Mathias Hochli and Anne Greet Bittermann (Laboratory of Electron Microscopy, University of Zurich) for theirexcellent technical assistance with the confocal microscope.

Correspondence should be addressed to Christian Fuhrer, Brain Research Institute, University of Zurich, Winter-thurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected].


The Journal of Neuroscience, November 9, 2005 • 25(45):10479 –10493 • 10479

Accepted manuscript (Post-Print) Published PDF

Department of Neurochemistry, Brain Research Institute, University of Zu ¨rich, Switzerland, and

Postnatal stabilization and maturation of the postsynaptic membrane are important for development and function of the neuromuscularjunction (NMJ), but the underlying mechanisms remain poorly characterized. We examined the role of Src-family kinases (SFKs)Electroporation of kinase-inactive Src constructs into soleus muscles of adult mice caused NMJ disassembly: acetylcholine receptor(AChR)-rich areas became fragmented; the topology of nerve terminal, AChRs, and synaptic nuclei was disturbed; and occasionallynerves started to sprout. Electroporation of kinase-overactive Src produced similar but milder effects. We studied the mechanism of SFK

;fyn!/! myotubes, focusing on clustering of postsynaptic proteins, their interaction with AChRs, and AChRphosphorylation. Rapsyn and the utrophin-glycoprotein complex were recruited normally into AChR-containing clusters by agrin in

myotubes. But after agrin withdrawal, clusters of these proteins disappeared rapidly in parallel with AChRs, revealing thatSFKs are of general importance in postsynaptic stability. At the same time, AChR interaction with rapsyn and dystrobrevin and AChRphosphorylation decreased after agrin withdrawal from mutant myotubes. Unexpectedly, levels of rapsyn protein were increased in

myotubes, whereas rapsyn– cytoskeleton interactions were unaffected. The overall cytoskeletal link of AChRs was weakbut still strengthened by agrin in mutant cells, consistent with the normal formation but decreased stability of AChR clusters. These datashow that correctly balanced activity of SFKs is critical in maintaining adult NMJs in vivo. SFKs hold the postsynaptic apparatus togetherthrough stabilization of AChR–rapsyn interaction and AChR phosphorylation. In addition, SFKs control rapsyn levels and AChR-

Src; acetylcholine receptor; neuromuscular synapse; agrin; tyrosine phosphorylation; postsynaptic membrane

Neuromuscular junctions (NMJs) develop in a series of steps inwhich the postsynaptic membrane first forms by concentratingacetylcholine receptors (AChRs) and associated proteins in a flattopology. Postnatally, NMJs mature and AChRs get arranged atthe crests of postjunctional folds. Concomitantly, all but one

view, see Bezakova and Ruegg, 2003; Luo et al., 2003). Central inthese is rapsyn, the main AChR-anchoring protein mediatingclustering (Gautam et al., 1995). Rapsyn increasingly binds toAChRs in response to agrin (Moransard et al., 2003), mediatesagrin-induced phosphorylation of the AChR(Mittaud et al., 2001), and links the receptor tocomponent of the postsynaptic utrophin-glycoprotein complex

Gayathri Sadasivam,Christian Fuhrer1

1Department of Neurochemistry, Brain Research Institute, University of ZuCH-4056 Basel, Switzerland

Postnatal stabilization and maturation of the postsynaptic membrane are important for development and function of the neuromuscularjunction (NMJ), but the underlying mechanisms remain poorly characterized. We examined the role of Src-family kinases (SFKs)Electroporation of kinase-inactive Src constructs into soleus muscles of adult mice caused NMJ disassembly: acetylcholine receptor(AChR)-rich areas became fragmented; the topology of nerve terminal, AChRs, and synaptic nuclei was disturbed; and occasionallynerves started to sprout. Electroporation of kinase-overactive Src produced similar but milder effects. We studied the mechanism of SFKaction using culturedphosphorylation. Rapsyn and the utrophin-glycoprotein complex were recruited normally into AChR-containing clusters by agrin insrc!/!;fyn!/! myotubes. But after agrin withdrawal, clusters of these proteins disappeared rapidly in parallel with AChRs, revealing thatSFKs are of general importance in postsynaptic stability. At the same time, AChR interaction with rapsyn and dystrobrevin and AChRphosphorylation decreased after agrin withdrawal from mutant myotubes. Unexpectedly, levels of rapsyn protein were increased insrc!/!;fyn!/! myotubes, whereas rapsyn– cytoskeleton interactions were unaffected. The overall cytoskeletal link of AChRs was weakbut still strengthened by agrin in mutant cells, consistent with the normal formation but decreased stability of AChR clusters. These datashow that correctly balanced activity of SFKs is critical in maintaining adult NMJsthrough stabilization of AChR–rapsyn interaction and AChR phosphorylation. In addition, SFKs control rapsyn levels and AChR-cytoskeletal linkage.





dation, the Swiss Foundation for Research on Muscle Diseases, and the ZuDrs. Mathias Hochli and Anne Greet Bittermann (Laboratory of Electron Microscopy, University of ZuDrs. Mathias Hochli and Anne Greet Bittermann (Laboratory of Electron Microscopy, University of ZuDrs. Mathias Hoexcellent technical assistance with the confocal microscope.

Correspondence should be addressed to Christian Fuhrer, Brain Research Institute, University of Zuthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected] 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected] 190, CH-8057 Zu



ann*, Shuo Lin§, Susanne Erb-Vögtli*, Xian Chu Kong§,

Institute, University of Zürich,

-8057 Zürich, Switzerland

lbergstrasse 70, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland

, Brain Research Institute, University of Zürich,

zerland. Tel.: +41 44 635 33 10. Fax: +41 44 635

cular synapse, agrin, tyrosine-phosphorylation,

Höchli and Dr. Anne Greet Bittermann from the

of Zürich for their excellent technical

was supported by the Eric Slack-Gyr

tional Science Foundation, the Swiss Foundation

Zürich Neuroscience Center (to C.F.).

1

manuscript (Post-Print)

Postnatal stabilization and maturation of the postsynaptic membrane are important for development and function of the neuromuscularjunction (NMJ), but the underlying mechanisms remain poorly characterized. We examined the role of Src-family kinases (SFKs)

Sharing a non-final version?

No Way!!

Image: Charles Le Brun, 1760

19


Assumed conflicts with publishers and editors

„ Ich fürchte schlicht Komplikationen mit den jeweiligen Herausgebern, die ich ja nicht gefragt habe. Ein gutes Verhältnis zu denen ist mir aber wichtig, und das möchte ich nicht aufs Spiel setzen. Seminarleiter, April 2012

20


Unawareness of the problems (eg. prices)

21


Academic evaluation and reputation system

22


No time for Open Access

Photo by Timm Suess

23


No interest & Ignorance of guidelines

„ Danke für Ihre freundliche Frage. Ich verzichte auf die Präsentation in ZORA. Danke und mit den besten Grüssen Professorin, März 2012

24


Open Access Funding at the University of Zurich

25


+ Open Access Publishing Fund

for social sciences and humanities

Memberships

http://www.oai.uzh.ch/en/at-the-uzh/funding/

26

http://www.oai.uzh.ch/en/at-the-uzh/funding/


BioMed Central – 220 Open Access Journals

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-5-85

27

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-5-85


Number of BioMed Central publications in ZORA

0 3 5 13 19 21 25

48

92 85

127

162

12

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

28


Year 2011 •! Open Access funding: 162‘000 CHF

•! Journal subscriptions: 4‘061‘000 CHF (only Main Library)

Open Access funding vs. Journal subscriptions

Jahresbericht 2011 der Haupbibliothek Universität Zürich Images: Fly by Domini Li, Wellcome Images, B0004872, Elephant: Meyers Konversationslexikon

29


Challenge: Who can do what?

Researcher

University

Libraries Publisher

Funder

30


Who is doing the coordination?

Researcher

University

Libraries Publisher

Funder

31


European Commisson Main Library University of Zurich is on of 41 project partners in the EU-Project:

Open Access and Open Science expected to be a key part for the upcoming Horizon 2020 research program

http://www.openaire.eu/en/open-access/country-information/switzerland

32

http://www.openaire.eu/en/open-access/country-information/switzerland


SCOAP3

33


Summary

•  Open Access is a proven and solid business model •  It works for top journals •  Open Access is growing slowly, but constantly

•  100% Open Access is not expected to cost less, but there is added value.

•  … Open Access to research data is an upcoming topic

34


BACKUP-SLIDES


http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/elsevier-my-part-in-its-downfall/

Publications

Data

Funding

!Linked Research

?

API

Supporting Open Science in Europe

Who bene� ts from OpenAIRE? EU researchers who access, deposit and link to research output

National Open Access initiatives

Repository managers

Policy makers and funders who monitor funded work

Publishers who wish to raise visibility of output

Potential data providers who want to explore linking up their research

What is OpenAIRE? A Participatory European Open Access infrastructure to manage scientifi c publications and associated information via repository networks

Harvests and indexes FP7 Open Access publications

Harvests subsets of related data, and other contextual information, cross-linking them to demonstrate Enhanced Publications

The OpenAIRE portal provides a suite of services

- deposit and access - guidelines and a helpdesk

OpenAIRE runs a series of workshops, and produces reports on Open Access issues

Why is OpenAIRE important? By facilitating Open Science and Open Access, OpenAIRE allows scientists to access, reuse and enhance and research output

OpenAIRE provides a cross-discipline support service for European Scientists

Tools such as publication usage statistics

OpenAIRE is based on

- versatile technology and innovative research - European outreach effort which advocates

Open Access

Who is OpenAIRE? OpenAIRE is an FP7 funded project, now in its second phase of funding until May 2014

41 project partners include 3 scientifi c communities: EBI, DANS and BADC

Collaboration with EuroCRIS, EUDAT, DataCite, COAR, LIBER, SPARC Europe

Project Coordinator: Mike Hatzopoulos, [email protected]

Services

Supports researchers

and third-parties to

search, access, and

reuse research

output

Infrastructure

OpenAIRE gathers

research output from repo-

sitory network, identifying

associated links and

enabling enhanced

publications

Research

Repositories

link to OpenAIRE:

publications, data,

funding

information

Austria (University of Wien)Belgium (University of Gent)Bulgaria (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences)Croatia (Ruder Boskovic Institute)Cyprus (University of Cyprus)Czech Republic (Technical University of Ostrava)Denmark (Technical University of Denmark)Estonia (University of Tartu)Finland (University of Helsinki)

France (Couperin)Germany (University of Konstanz)Greece (National Documentation Center)Hungary (HUNOR)Iceland Landspitali (University Hostpital)Italy (CASPUR)Ireland (Trinity College)Latvia (University of Latvia)Lithuania (Kaunas Technical University)

Luxemburg (University of Luxemburg)Malta (Malta Council for Science & Technology and University of Malta)Netherlands (Utrecht University)Norway (University of Tromsoe)Poland (ICM ñ University of Warsaw)Portugal (University of Minho)Romania (Kosson)Slovakia (University Library of Bratislava)

Slovenia (University of Ljubljana)Spain (Spanish Foundation for Science & Technology)Sweden (National Library of Sweden)Switzerland (University of Zurich) Turkey (Izmir Institute of Technology)UK (University of Nottingham)

Funded by the European Union

Participating countries Contact & Info

Visit the OpenAIRE Portal http://www.openaire.eu

Follow us on Twitterhttp://twitter.com/OpenAire_eu

»Modern science needs the free fl ow of knowledge … in an e-infrastructure that is open across national borders, disciplines and scientifi c communities« Neelie Kroes (European Commission, 2012)

28.6.2012 36


Coordination of Libraries?

A possible explanation is that to do something about the situation requires coordinated action. Even if one library refuses to subscribe to Elsevier journals, plenty of others will feel that they can’t refuse, and Elsevier won’t mind too much. But if all libraries were prepared to club together and negotiate jointly, doing a kind of reverse bundling — accept this deal or none of us will subscribe to any of your journals — then Elsevier’s profits (which are huge, by the way) would be genuinely threatened. However, it seems unlikely that any such massive coordination between libraries will ever take place.

Timothy Gowers, Mathematician, Cambridge University

„


37



Van Noorden, Richard (2012) Nature 486, 302–303, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/486302a

38

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/486302a


PLOS: Public Library of Science

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000308

39

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000308

Open Access: Achievements and Challenges

Education

resea data

data preservation

data ing

data acce

data field

data sharing practices

scien sharing

main library university