Pulling back the editorial curtain on Nature’s papers

After a brief resurrection during the 2012  Society for Neuroscience meeting, the time has come to get a more regular series going on the old Action Potential blog! There are a lot of great (neuro)science writers out there (just to name a few,) so here at Nature, we wanted to be able to offer something different, something unique to supplement your weekly intake of neuroscience knowledge. Therefore, my editorial colleague I-han Chou and I will regularly blog about the latest neuro papers we publish in the journal, with particular attention to the back stories and our reasoning for offering publication.

Every paper has a story and this will be your opportunity to hear them. We’ll be discussing why we believe a particular paper is a potential game-changer, why we highlighted a technical advance with no biological insight, how two papers with similar findings were co-published and when possible, we will also be inviting commentary from the authors themselves or critical experts in the field to provide balance on the issue of novelty and the future importance of a finding.

We hope you’ll enjoy this series and we’ll try to post something 1-2 times a week, depending on the scheduling of neuroscience publications. On slower weeks, we may re-visit past papers that have a particularly interesting story or lesson. You are free to also make suggestions on coverage (new and old papers.) You can always comment below or use the contact information in the “About this Blog” section.

Finally, for additional coverage, please make sure to bookmark the RSS feed (if you still use that,) circle the Action Potential Google+ Page, circle I-han or myself on G+ and follow I-han or myself on Twitter and let this experimental journey begin…

Building a better mouse test

September’s Editorial praises the new research that more genetic rodent models will enable. However, manipulating important genes in a mouse is not enough. Experimental techniques are also needed. Perhaps nowhere is this more important—and more difficult—than using animals to assess neuropsychiatric diseases. While much can be learned on the level of brain and cell physiology, behavioral tests are important to assess which aspects of physiology are most likely to matter. It’s the behavioral symptoms, not the cell-based ones, that directly affect people’s lives. How useful would a drug be if it cleared away the telltale plaques of Alzheimer’s patients but did nothing to preserve their memories?

To make the most of the ever increasing numbers of rodent genetic models, researchers will need better assays and better ways of assessing their validity for human disease.

Please share your thoughts on how best to assess whether an animal model is relevant for studying neuropsychiatric disease.