Science careers are careers that involve science

This piece was originally published on the BioMed Central blog network, part of Springer Nature.

Dana Berry announces the launch of a new series ‘Science > Careers’ putting the spotlight on scientific careers outside of academia. Here she talks about her own experiences and how she hopes the series will inspire others that are searching for something different.

ScienceCareers640c

Dana Berry. Originally published 9 Feb 2016.

During my senior year of high school I decided that I wanted to be a research biologist. From there it was a straight path; I got my bachelor’s degree in biology, while also working in a lab, spent a year at the NIH after graduation, and then started at NYU for a PhD program in biomedicine.

Two years in I decided to leave. Not only was I not happy with what I was doing in the short term, I wasn’t happy with where it would take me. Leaving school with my masters was a difficult decision, and absolutely right for me, but figuring out what to do next was even more difficult.

I still wanted to be involved in science, I still loved biology, but being in a lab just didn’t fit. How do you do science without being a Scientist?

Searching for advice

I sought out as much advice as I could from other students, postdocs, professors, friends of friends, blogs, anyone and everyone. Because I only had research experience on my CV, and I was opting to not continue lab work in any form, I didn’t know what I was looking for, never mind how to find it.

Searching for a job is difficult at the best of times, but when you don’t know what you’re looking for? Seemingly impossible.

On the whole, the job advice I got was either vague or was only helpful in retrospect. Much of it left me more confused about my future than I was before. What exactly are those jobs that are supposedly so plentiful for graduate students? Typing ‘science communication’ into a job search engine gave me search results that were broad, baffling and relatively useless.

Where I work now

By what still seems like sheer luck, I actually found a job that would utilize my experience and involved my interests. For more than a year now I have been working as a Journal Development Editor at BioMed Central, working mainly with microbiology journals.

Seeing as I got my masters in microbiology, it’s been a pretty good fit. Working at a desk, instead of at the bench, has been great. I get to keep up with the latest research, in a much broader context than as a student, attend conferences to meet with our editorial boards and other leading researchers, and work towards improving the lives of researchers and citizens alike.

More than that, and outside of the obvious publishing experience, I’ve gained experience in marketing, science communication, content management and social media. I’ve also come to discover just how vast the world of science is beyond the lab.

So much out there

The web of scientific careers is bigger than most people realize, and definitely bigger than most graduate students see on a regular basis or are even made aware of. Although career training in graduate school is getting better, there’s still an entrenched feeling of two opposing monolithic choices for students: ‘lab research’ or ‘other’.

These two options are not separate, and they’re significantly more than just two categories. Since I started at BioMed Central, I’ve learned about new science jobs nearly every day. Both jobs that I’ve never heard of and jobs that I knew about, but didn’t know that they could revolve around science. I love finding out about these like-minded people, people who love science but aren’t ‘Scientists’.

Using our experience to educate others

I still think back to the difficulties I had looking for a job two years ago, and I wish I could tell the person I was then everything I know now. But since we haven’t invented that technology yet, I am going to share this knowledge with others who are currently going through it.

I am very happy to announce a new series all about careers in science. Previous posts on our network have touched on career exploration, but with this series I want to delve deeper into what these careers truly involve.

Science is not a solitary pursuit, but a team effort, made up of teachers, journalists, policy makers, publishers, as well as researchers. But how does this team work? What do they do and where do they do it?

Starting right here at BioMed Central, our next post will identify and explain four job types in our publishing team, and how the employee’s previous experience lends itself to their current day-to-day tasks.

Beyond that we’ll have in depth interviews with people in science policy, outreach, teaching, communications, art, administration, technology and probably more publishing. We want to explore every nook and cranny of every sector you’ve heard of, those you haven’t, and then some.

danaberry

 

Dana graduated with a MS in Microbiology from New York University before joining BMC in 2014, where she manages the infectious diseases portfolio.

 

Suggested posts

Surviving academia as an early career researcher: an unreliable guide

Careers for scientists away from the bench

Adios to academia

Microbial sequencing at Nature Methods

Over the years, Nature Methods has published many methods to generate and analyze complex sequence data for microbial studies. We cover highlights from our papers below.

Carl Woese set the stage for a molecular taxonomy of microbial life in 1977 by demonstrating that the 16S ribosomal subunit could form the basis of prokaryotic classification. Amplifying markers such as 16S from microbial mixtures really took off with the advent of high-throughput sequencing, which provided a way to rapidly profile communities sampled directly from the environment. Shotgun sequencing approaches are used more and more for taxonomic profiling as well, enabling gene and genomic sequences to be reconstructed for the functional characterization of communities.

Amplicon-based community profiling
The 454 pyrosequencing platform originally dominated efforts to study the 16S locus because of its long sequence reads. In 2008, Rob Knight and colleagues described the use of error-correcting barcodes for pyrosequencing hundreds of samples together.  Then in 2013, Jeffrey Dangl and colleagues took barcoding to a new level by tagging every template molecule during library prep on the Illumina platform in order to remove much of the PCR bias and error introduced during amplification.

On the computational side, Christopher Quince and colleagues presented PyroNoise in 2009 for ‘denoising’ or removing errors from pyrosequencing flowgrams. Jens Reeder and Rob Knight followed a year later with Denoiser, a fast heuristic alternative. Gene Tyson and colleagues moved away from flowgrams with their Acacia software, which corrects sequence files directly and can also work on Ion Torrent data due to its similar error profile containing homopolymeric repeats.

Once cleaned up, marker sequences need to be grouped into ‘operational taxonomic units’ (OTUs) that roughly correspond to genera, species or strains. Among many algorithms that do this, Robert Edgar introduced UPARSE (we realized that there is some ambiguity but it is pronounced YOU-parse) in 2013 for accurate OTU clustering in the face of erroneous or chimeric sequence reads.

To stitch the computational analysis steps together, ‘quantitative insights into microbial ecology’, or QIIME (pronounced chime) from Rob Knight and colleagues offers a user-friendly modular pipeline for amplicon sequence analysis.

Metagenomic community profiling
In shotgun metagenomics approaches, all fragments of genomic DNA in a sample are sequenced and classified. Isidore Rigoutsos and colleagues introduced PhyloPythia in 2007 to assign fragments to higher taxonomic groups or ‘bins’ based on matching the frequency of tetranucleotide sequences with signatures from known taxa. Its faster, open-source successor PhyloPythiaS from Alice McHardy and colleagues came out in 2012.

Arthur Brady and Steven Salzberg also used sequence composition, or combined it with sequence alignment with Phymm and PhymmBL in 2009; their PhymmBL expanded includes additional functionality and parallelization and came out in 2011.

In 2012, Curtis Huttenhower and colleagues described MetaPhlAn, which limits analysis to clade-specific marker genes to speed up the classification of sequence reads. Peer Bork and colleagues also extracted a limited marker set from metagenomic data in their metagenomic OTUs (mOTU) approach in 2013, but used 40 universally conserved prokaryotic genes. Both methods work best in systems like the human gut that have a large number of sequenced reference genomes.

Genomes from mixtures
Earlier this year, Christopher Quince, Anders Andersson and colleagues published an unsupervised binning method called CONCOCT to help reconstruct genomes from mixtures. It uses sequence composition and differential coverage across samples to assign pre-assembled contiguous sequences (contigs) to species or strain bins.

Single-cell sequencing is another way to obtain microbial genomes. Paul Blainey and Stephen Quake discuss challenges and opportunities for single-cell sequencing in a Commentary in our Method of the Year issue in 2014. When cultures are available, long-read single-molecule sequencing technology can provide very high quality genome sequences; the HGAP software from Jonas Korlach and colleagues makes this possible using a single Pacific Biosciences sequencing library.

With genomic sequences in hand, there remains the question of how to fit them within an appropriate taxonomy. Peer Bork and colleagues tackled the problem in 2013 with their species identification (SpecI) tool, that bases classification on the same 40 markers as mOTU.

Functional analysis and ecology
An array of tools have been designed to wrestle ecological and biological insights from metagenomic sequence data, such as the GENE PRediction IMprovement Pipeline (GenePRIMP) for annotating prokaryotic genomes by Amrita Pati and colleagues in 2010 and the metagenomeSeq method to test for the differential microbe abundance across environments or conditions by Mihai Pop and colleagues in 2013 (also see a comment by Bork and colleagues and the authors’ reply).

In 2010, Rob Knight and colleagues compared 51 methods for their ability to identify biologically relevant distribution patterns using real and simulated 16S pyrosequencing data from samples that were clustered or assayed along environmental gradients. In 2012, Jack Gilbert and colleagues developed microbial assemblage prediction (MAP), an artificial neural network approach to model microbial community structure across the Western English Channel that combines time course metagenomic data from a single site with bioclimatic data gathered over the entire channel.

Quality control and bias
Generating accurate and robust microbial sequence data requires rigorous benchmarking and controls, and experimental methods are constantly improving. Nikos Kyrpides and colleagues studied the use of simulated data to evaluate metagenomic analysis methods in 2007. In 2010, Philip Hugenholtz and colleagues evaluated two methods to deplete rRNA from metatranscriptomes.

J Gregory Caporaso and colleagues further demonstrated the effect of Illumina read quality on taxonomic assignment and diversity assessment in 2013, and Scott Kelley and colleagues developed SourceTracker software to identify contaminants in microbial sequencing studies.

We look forward to many more contributions in the field of microbial sequencing.

 

References:
Alice Carolyn McHardy et al.
Accurate phylogenetic classification of variable-length DNA fragments
Nature Methods 4, 63-72 (2007) doi:10.1038/nmeth976

Konstantinos Mavromatis et al.
Use of simulated data sets to evaluate the fidelity of metagenomic processing methods
Nature Methods, 4 (6), pp. 495-500 (2007) doi:10.1038/nmeth1043

Micah Hamady, Jeffrey J Walker, J Kirk Harris, Nicholas J Gold & Rob Knight
Error-correcting barcoded primers for pyrosequencing hundreds of samples in multiplex
Nature Methods 5, 235-237 (2008) doi:10.1038/nmeth.1184

Christopher Quince et al.
Accurate determination of microbial diversity from 454 pyrosequencing data
Nature Methods 6, 639-641 (2009) doi:10.1038/nmeth.1361

Arthur Brady & Steven L Salzberg
Phymm and PhymmBL: metagenomic phylogenetic classification with interpolated Markov models
Nature Methods 6, 673-676 (2009) doi:10.1038/nmeth.1358

J Gregory Caporaso et al.
QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data
Nature Methods 7, 335-336 (2010) doi:10.1038/nmeth.f.303

Jens Reeder & Rob Knight
Rapidly denoising pyrosequencing amplicon reads by exploiting rank-abundance distributions
Nature Methods 7, 668-669 (2010) doi:10.1038/nmeth0910-668b

He et al.
Validation of two ribosomal RNA removal methods for microbial metatranscriptomics
Nature Methods 7, 807-812 (2010) doi:10.1038/nmeth.1507

Amrita Pati et al.
GenePRIMP: a gene prediction improvement pipeline for prokaryotic genomes
Nature Methods 7, 455-457 (2010) doi:10.1038/nmeth.1457

Justin Kuczynski,  Zongzhi Liu,  Catherine Lozupone,  Daniel McDonald,  Noah Fierer &  Rob Knight
Microbial community resemblance methods differ in their ability to detect biologically relevant patterns
Nature Methods 7, 813-819 (2010) doi:10.1038/nmeth.1499
Patil et al.
Taxonomic metagenome sequence assignment with structured output models
Nature Methods 8, 191-192 (2011) doi:10.1038/nmeth0311-191

Arthur Brady & Steven L Salzberg
PhymmBL expanded: confidence scores, custom databases, parallelization and more
Nature Methods 8, 367-367 (2011) doi:10.1038/nmeth0511-367

Dan Knights et al.
Bayesian community-wide culture-independent microbial source tracking
Nature Methods 8, 761-763 (2011) doi:10.1038/nmeth.1650

Lauren Bragg, Glenn Stone, Michael Imelfort, Philip Hugenholtz &  Gene W Tyson
Fast, accurate error-correction of amplicon pyrosequences using Acacia
Nature Methods 9, 425-426 (2012) doi:10.1038/nmeth.1990

Nicola Segata et al.
Metagenomic microbial community profiling using unique clade-specific marker genes
Nature Methods 9, 811-814 (2012) doi:10.1038/nmeth.2066

Peter E Larsen,  Dawn Field &  Jack A Gilbert
Predicting bacterial community assemblages using an artificial neural network approach
Nature Methods 9, 621-625 (2012) doi:10.1038/nmeth.1975

Robert C Edgar
UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads
Nature Methods 10, 996-998 (2013) doi:10.1038/nmeth.2604

Derek S Lundberg,  Scott Yourstone,  Piotr Mieczkowski,  Corbin D Jones &  Jeffery L Dangl
Practical innovations for high-throughput amplicon sequencing
Nature Methods 10, 999-1002 (2013) doi:10.1038/nmeth.2634

Shinichi Sunagawa et al.
Metagenomic species profiling using universal phylogenetic marker genes
Nature Methods 10, 1196-1199 (2013) doi:10.1038/nmeth.2693

Daniel R Mende,  Shinichi Sunagawa,  Georg Zeller &  Peer Bork
Accurate and universal delineation of prokaryotic species
Nature Methods 10, 881-884 (2013) doi:10.1038/nmeth.2575

Chen-Shan Chin et al.
Nonhybrid, finished microbial genome assemblies from long-read SMRT sequencing data
Nature Methods 10, 563-569 (2013) doi:10.1038/nmeth.2474

Nicholas A Bokulich et al.
Quality-filtering vastly improves diversity estimates from Illumina amplicon sequencing
Nature Methods 10, 57-59 (2013) doi:10.1038/nmeth.2276

Joseph N Paulson,  O Colin Stine,  Héctor Corrada Bravo &  Mihai Pop
Differential abundance analysis for microbial marker-gene surveys
Nature Methods 10, 1200-1202 (2013) doi:10.1038/nmeth.2658

Paul C Blainey &  Stephen R Quake
Dissecting genomic diversity, one cell at a time
Nature Methods 11, 19-21 (2014) doi:10.1038/nmeth.2783

Johannes Alneberg et al.
Binning metagenomic contigs by coverage and composition
Nature Methods (2014) doi:10.1038/nmeth.3103