All posts by Kayla Gross

Sackler Award Announcements

Dean’s Fellows: Four students are recognized as Dean’s Fellows each year. This award recognizes outstanding achievement in research and scholarship during a student’s first two years at the Sackler School. The award provides one year of stipend support for the student.  At the completion of the fellowship year, each student also receives a $500 prize to be used in support some aspect of his or her education.”

     Chris Bartolome (Neuroscience, Dr. Dong Kong)
     Keith Eidell (Immunology, Dr. Stephen Bunnell)
     Giang Nguyen (Immunology, Dr. Joan Mecsas)
     Suray Sharma (Biochemistry, Dr. Karl Munger)

Rosenberg Fellow

     Lauren Shull (Molecular Microbiology, Dr. Andrew Camilli)

Sackler Family Translational Cancer Awards: The Sackler Families Collaborative Cancer Biology Award was established in 2010 by a generous gift from the Sackler families. The awards are designed to provide support for innovative studies in cancer biology that will advance our knowledge of this disease and have the potential for translation and an eventual impact on patient care.”

     Christina McGuire (Biochemistry, Dr. Mike Forgac) – “Elucidating the role of V-ATPase assembly during autophagy”

     Nil Vanli (Biochemistry, Dr. Guo-fu Hu) – “RNASE4 and AXL constitute a novel pathway that confers drug resistance and offers a therapeutic target for prostate cancer”

Sackler Student Enrichment Fund

Applications for the Sackler Student Enrichment Fund for the fall cycle are due on October 6, 2016. Awards from this fund provide students the opportunity to travel to a conference to present scientific achievements, to enroll in additional courses, to attend career development seminars, and/or to participate in research/technical skill workshops. It is supported by contributions from the Provost’s Office, the Sackler Dean’s office, the Sackler Relays, outside corporations, and private donors.

For more information about the award and the application requirements, please visit the award page on the Sackler website.

TUNECC makes a case for collaborative competition

The annual Tufts New England Case Competition (TUNECC) is a unique, student-organized venture that brings together outstanding teams of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows from multiple disciplines and institutions to solve a current life sciences business problem. Each year, the TUNECC Executive Board together with the Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD) choose a relevant topic that incorporates both therapeutic and business components to be the focus of the all-day case competition and following panel discussion. Previous years’ topics included new market entry assessment of biologics and post-merger and acquisition integration strategy for a large pharma and an antibiotics biotech. This year the teams tackled Research & Development (R&D) productivity of immuno-oncology field on the example of Juno Therapeutics, a T-cell therapy clinical stage biotech. In addition, a career fair ran throughout the competition, facilitating more opportunities for related conversations and also networking between participants and sponsors.

Two weeks prior to the competition–which took place on August 5th–the assembled teams received their case and were given ten days to brainstorm and structure solutions to the proposed problem. At the competition, the teams presented their proposals in several rounds that were judged by representatives from contributing sponsor companies. For this third year of TUNECC, 17 teams consisting of students from a total of 17 academic institutions nationwide participated, with 5 teams competing in the final round. A first-place prize of $2000 was awarded to the team JT Consulting Solution from Tufts University & Boston University, while second place went to Pennovation, a University of Pennsylvania team ($1000), and third place to Chiron Consulting, a team of students from Vanderbilt University, University of Rochester, University of Arizona and Duke University ($500).

The participating teams this year were highly competitive and deeply engaged in the subject matter, which carried over into a lively discussion during the panel discussion portion of the event. Representatives from sponsoring companies spoke to their experiences with managing company growth and investment to maximize R&D productivity, or rather “doing the best science you can do but also being the most productive.” This conversation evolved as the panel went on, touching on where and why the industry is struggling, the pros and cons of small biotech versus ‘big pharma’ models, and hurdles to approval, pricing, and regulation in drug development. The depth and breadth of the discussion showed how closely intertwined these topics are when considering science in the business setting.

In addition to the high degree of participant engagement, the variety of Tufts programs (multiple Sackler and Medford graduate programs as well as the School of Medicine) and academic institutions from across the country represented at TUNECC is a key component to its continual success. Such cross-institutional collaboration encourages broader thinking and discussion by providing new and different perspectives for each participant to consider when tackling life sciences business problems. The increasing commitment of sponsors from life sciences consulting business sectors also strengthened the event, with the number of sponsoring companies increasing to 11 total this year, almost double the number at the event’s initiation. Not only did this impact the case competition itself but also the day-long career fair and topical panel discussion by providing richer opportunities for forming cross-discipline connections. This achievement was a highlight for this year’s TUNECC Chair Alexandra Taracanova (Pharmacology), who commented that it was rewarding to see “industry being supportive…and interested for what we offer as an event” and was very satisficed by “great talent at Tufts being supported by corporate firms.”

Jennifer Nwankwo, PhD (Pharmacology ‘16) was presented with The Founder’s Award of Excellence for founding, leadership and continues support of TUNECC since the day of its inception in 2014. Additionally more past TUNECC executive members and participants, Julia Keith, PhD (Microbiology ‘15) Hailing Yang, PhD (CMP ‘15), Julie Coleman, PhD (Neuroscience ‘16), Michael Baldwin, PhD (CMP ‘15), and Ben Dake, PhD (CMDB ‘15), attended as judges, sponsor representatives, or simply enthusiastic observers this year, providing the event with increased continuity and a strong network of individuals who return and share their experiences in transitioning from academia to life sciences business.

TUNECC will continue to build on its great momentum in the coming year under the direction of Andrew Coleman (Neuroscience). Applications for new Executive Board members will open in December while applications for case competition teams will open sometime in Spring 2017 for the 4th Annual TUNECC in late Summer 2017. To find out more about TUNECC and previous events visit our website.

Corporate Sponsors: Back Bay Life Science Advisors, The Decision Resources Group, Clarion Healthcare, McKinsey & Company, Putnam Associates, CBPartners, Simon-Kucher & Partners, The Boston Consulting Group, L.E.K. Consulting, ClearView Healthcare Partners, and TechAtlas Group of RA Capital Management.

Additional Support: Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development and Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences.

Sackler students collaborate with Emerson College in science communication course

As graduate students, we all know what it is like to present our research to a scientific audience that is not familiar with our research topic and the accompanying task of making the research and larger implications relatable. Most likely, however, the majority of us are not familiar with presenting in detail our research topic to a general audience: those who don’t know what the difference between DNA and RNA is, or what ‘epithelial’ means, or how cell culture works.

This spring, a group of Sackler students were presented with the opportunity–or challenge–to do so through a collaboration with Emerson College. Seven graduate students from various programs were paired with undergraduate students–whose majors ranged from journalism, TV production, video production, and animation–enrolled in an upper-level science course focusing on science media/communication. The main goal was for the Sackler participants to serve as scientist contacts with whom the Emerson students would put together three science-centric media pieces. The first two were written, one being a profile piece on the graduate student scientist who the undergraduates were paired with and the second being an article reviewing, explaining, and reporting on the graduate student’s research topic and field. The information gleaned from both of these interview experiences also culminated in planning and executing a final project in video form. These videos ranged from animated science-explainer videos to mini-films profiling the scientist collaborator, showcasing the broad interests and talents of both student groups.

The course instructor, Dr. Amy Vashlishan Murray–who earned her PhD in genetics from Harvard University–is a strong advocate for comparing, contrasting, and combining science and media. Her passion for science communication started in college and grew deeper in graduate school where she participated in various outreach programs, including the Science in the News lecture series. When she started teaching at Emerson, she created this ‘Science in Translation’ course as a way for her–from the perspective as first a scientist and second a communicator–to make an impact on future contributors to media and communication fields. In particular she designed the course for depth, as it was one of the first upper-level science classes to be introduced to the curriculum at Emerson. She wanted to help art-focused students find “the place of science in their world” by facilitating a “peek behind the curtain” of scientific research.

In addition to teaching, Dr. Vashlishan Murray initiated Boston’s branch of the Ask for Evidence campaign. This program, which is sponsored by the organizations Voice of Young Science USA and Sense About Science, seeks to have members of the public investigate consumer-directed advertisements making science-based claims and test whether those claims are indeed accurate. This effort dually challenges the public to think critically about scientific claims while also challenges those who use scientific claims to do so more carefully and accurately. Her work related to Ask for Evidence helped  her win the 2014 Paul Shin award from the Washington, D.C.-based grassroots group Coalition for the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS), which honors trendsetters and pioneers in the science communication field.

Dr. Vashlishan Murray took a flexible and welcoming approach to the class, letting it serve the needs of her students and science collaborators in equal turn; she frequently took into account and implemented suggestions from both groups throughout the course. The Sackler students started off the semester by attending an improv class with the Emerson students to pull down any initial social barriers and to encourage critical thinking about how we communicate not just with words but with movement and facial expressions and how one-on-one versus group communication works. We also were invited to many of the course’s classes, some discussion-based and others in which guest lecturers spoke, including science communicators from Story Collider and Stat News. The tables turned when we were the ones presenting in the form of 8-minute research flash talks, which the Emerson students critiqued based on how well we communicated the science for a general audience.

The majority of our time for this collaboration, however, was spent working with the students themselves. The semester-long relationship of in-person interviews, email correspondence, planning and filming sessions for the final video project, and discussions following the completion of each media piece facilitated deeper understanding and engagement on both sides.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the enthusiasm (for the scientific content and for the cause of science communication) expressed by many, if not most, of the students in the class,” Melissa LaBonty, one of the program collaborators and a CMDB graduate student, commented when asked about her experience with the Emerson students.I was also happy to learn that given the correct information and background, a lot of non-scientists can become just as passionate about our scientific interests as we are!”

Dr. Vashlishan Murray was able to share some of the Emerson students’ responses and noted that the majority of them mentioned the collaborative aspect of the course as the most impactful. In particular, she highlighted that many of them described their experience this semester as finding “the humanity in science.”

As for what future iterations of the course will be like, Dr. Vashlishan Murray mentioned she’d like to delve deeper into communication theory in relation to science for the Emerson students. For the scientist collaborators, more feedback about their communication skills and more involvement with the guest speakers are things she’d like to expand upon. Both additions would strengthen an already engaging and transformative experience that this course provided, enriching the knowledge gain for both the science-focused and communication-focused student groups.

Tufts “Meet The Scientist” event builds bridges with local community

Inspired by a conversation between post-docs at a science and education conference, the Tufts’ TEACRS (Training in Education and Critical Research Skills) and TII (Tufts Innovation Institute) worked together to host a community outreach event this May. The “Meet the Scientist” event took place on the Medford campus and consisted of a science faculty-hosted panel session and an activity session, with attendees including local families and students from all levels of schooling. The panel session allowed community members to ask insightful and probing questions of Tufts faculty that facilitated an open, honest, and engaging conversation about science and science research. Following this, the activity session consisted of six stations hosted by TEACRS post-doc trainees. Children, teens and adults alike had the opportunity to play with silk and DNA legos, to look at flies and talk about circadian rhythms, to isolate some of their own DNA, and to watch how music played from a mobile phone could make a cockroach’s leg muscles move.

With a strong turnout and enthusiastic hosts as well as attendees, this event succeeded in strengthening bridges between Tufts’ scientists and the local community. This type of connection is a significant component in narrowing the gap between the public and their understanding of science and strengthening trust in scientists and the work we do.

Sackler Spotlight – Bina Julian, PPET and Jen Nwankwo, PPET

This spring, two outstanding Sackler students–Bina Julian (PPET) and Jen Nwankwo (PPET)–were awarded the Tufts Presidential Award for Citizenship and Public Service. Established in 1999 by former university president John DiBiaggio, this award honors both undergraduate and graduate students who have shown substantial commitment to and achievements in building community through service and leadership. To highlight these accomplishments, we interviewed Bina and Jen about the work that led to their nomination and eventual awarding as well as what they do at the bench as well (note: at the time of publishing, Jen was out of town, thus we will update this article once we get a chance to talk with her).

Can you tell us about the work that led to you being nominated for this award?

Bina: I have a really strong desire to help people achieve their goals by increasing their self-awareness and connecting them with opportunities. And a parallel desire to figure out how to scale that impact when something works well…probably because I’m an engineer. That’s what drew me to the Tufts Biomedical Business Club (TBBC).

Our TBBC team runs like a small startup. From the beginning, we all saw the potential to connect Tufts students with professional resources, the Boston biotech community and each other. So we each went out and made connections [see Collaborator List] and designed ways for our members to learn and practice the business of science [see About TBBC]. Soon opportunities started coming to us, external groups reached out to collaborate, and our members were being recruited for jobs. I’m really proud of what we’ve built and how many people we’ve helped over the years.

Receiving this award especially acknowledges the work past and present TBBC leaders have done to shape TBBC into a sustainable and engaging training ground.


 

Box 1: Tufts Biomedical Business Club

TBBC is a way for researchers to gain industry awareness and professional development.  Members get introduced to TBBC by attending our seminars featuring business leaders in several areas including venture capital (Bob Tepper, Third Rock), biotech startups (Sandra Glucksman, Editas), and consulting (Chris Von Seggern, ClearView).  Many take a step further and participate in one of our self-guided initiatives, like Case Study Group, Biotech Journal Club, Biotech Buzz or hosting a speaker.  Others gain critical business experience by competing in our Tufts New England Case Competition (TUNECC) or the Gordon Institute’s Tufts $100K New Ventures Competition.  Regardless of whether or not our members become PIs, entrepreneurs or consultants, we hope their time with TBBC empowers them with the network and perspective to pursue a successful career.

Recent TBBC Connections

Internal Connections: TUSM Advancement Office, Sackler Graduate Student Council, Sackler Dean’s Office, Gordon Institute, Tufts Entrepreneurial Leadership Program, Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, Tufts Clinical & Translational Science Institute, Tufts Entrepreneurial Network (of student leaders), Tufts Entrepreneur Society (undergrad group), Tufts Institute for Innovation, Tufts MedStart, Tufts MD-MBA Program  , Tufts Office of the Vice Provost Office, Tufts Postdoctoral Association, Tufts Tech Transfer Office, TUSM Public Health and Professional Degree Programs

External Connections: Venture Café, Biotech Connection Boston, Boston Entrepreneurs and Advanced Degree Meetup Group, Northeastern Biotech Entrepreneurs, Boston University BEST Program, Hopkins Biotech Network, MIT Biotech Group, Harvard Graduate Consulting Club, Yale Graduate Consulting Club

Guest speakers from: Back Bay Life Science Advisors, Biologics Consulting Group, Biomille, Brean Capital, BrightMed, Campbell Alliance, Center for Integration of Science and Industry, Bentley University, ClearView Healthcare Partners,Cowen and Company, Cyta Therapeutics, Decision Resources Group, Dyax Corp., Edits, Flagship Ventures, Foundation Medicine, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Google, Health Advances, LLC, Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures, LEK Consulting, MPM Capital, Novartis, NYU Entrepreneurial Institute, Polaris Ventures, Propel Careers, RA Capital, Simon-Kucher & Partners, T2 Biosystems, The Isis Group, Third Rock Ventures, Thomas, McNerney & Partners, Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, Tufts Gordon Institute, Tufts Institute for Innovation, Vaxess Technologies, Visterra, Inc.


How do you feel that your work connects to your current and future research/career goals?

Bina: I think it highlights the kind of impact I would like to have and scale up. I’d like my future career to bring together my skills as an engineer, a scientist, an educator and a “connector.”

What was the experience of being nominated like?

Bina: I actually had no idea I was being nominated. I have Jaclyn Dunphy and Julie Coleman to thank for going above and beyond to find this award and gather recommendation letters from current and former TBBC executives. When I got the award email and learned what they had done, I was incredibly moved and humbled.

[The Presidential Awards Ceremony took place on April 21st, 2016.  Awards were presented by Tufts University President Anthony Monaco, Tisch College of Civic Life Dean Alan Solomont and nominators.  Watch segments from the awards ceremony here.]

How would you like to see your work continued past your time at Tufts? How do you feel your efforts currently support that vision?

Bina: I hope that TBBC will continue to have an impact and that our connections within and outside of Tufts stay strong. It’s encouraging to meet engineering, policy, medical, dental, nutrition and even veterinary students at our events; they bring such different perspectives to our discussions and also connect Sackler students with opportunities happening at other institutions.

I hope future leaders extend TBBC’s mission with fresh ideas and diligently assess the needs of its members so TBBC stays relevant. Most of all I hope that future TBBC leaders make a conscious effort to not only hone their own leadership skills, but also invest in the professional development of their teammates.

The only way any of this vision will survive is if everyone gets involved – students, faculty, administration, alumni, and the biotech community at large.  We’re a completely student run organization with a multi-year, personal commitment to produce high quality events and initiatives for our members. Whether its volunteers, event ideas, business workshops, speaker connections, conference discounts, alumni mentorship, job/intern opportunities and of course financial support – the executive team welcomes donations in all forms!

Last but not least, can you tell us about the work that you do in the lab?

Bina: I’m a Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics grad student working with Dr. Alan Kopin, who directs the Molecular Pharmacology Research Center at Tufts Medical Center. The Kopin lab studies G Protein-Coupled Receptors (GPCRs), a superfamily of 7-transmembrane receptors known for modulating a wide array of intracellular signals in response to extracellular stimuli. These cell receptors are considered highly “druggable” as they are targeted by nearly 40% of FDA approved drugs.

Cells use GPCRs to sense cues in their environment and make decisions. I study a GPCR subfamily of chemokine receptors, whose primary function influences decisions surrounding cell migration. My thesis work characterizes a rather understudied chemokine receptor called CCR6. Notably, CCR6 is highly expressed on and influences the migration of Th17 cells – an immune cell type whose aberrant recruitment to inflamed tissue is associated with several chronic inflammatory diseases. Many are interested in the therapeutic potential of CCR6, yet few tools exist to tease apart and modulate CCR6 receptor signaling.

In the lab I’ve developed molecular tools and assays that can enable screens to identify and characterize CCR6 modulators.  Most recently I established a Bioluminescent Resonance Energy Transfer (BRET) assay to measure beta arrestin recruitment to CCR6.  Most people know that GPCRs signal through G proteins as their name suggests, but they have an alternative pathway mediated through beta arrestin.  The BRET assay allows me to observe dynamic protein-protein interactions with CCR6 and tagged signaling molecules.  We are also interested in how naturally occurring variations in CCR6 affect signaling and if these alterations could predispose individuals to disease.

CCR6 plays a complex role in inflammation at the level of individual cell types and the field needs tools to tease apart its influence. And unlike the reputation of its GPCR superfamily, chemokine receptors have had little drug development success (only one FDA approved compound modulates the migratory function of its chemokine receptor target). Overall I hope the insights from our study of CCR6 variants as well as the genetic constructs and assays we’ve developed can be used by both immunologists and pharmacologists to translate this work to help patients.

Top Techniques: Confocal Microscopy

by Alenka Lovy

What is confocal microscopy?

Reading and thinking about cell biology is very interesting no doubt, but I find that to be able to see biological processes by live microscopy just amplifies the questions at hand so much! Have you ever seen movies of cells dividing? I remember when I first did. It was hard to go from the picture perfect diagrams of the textbook to the real thing, but after a few times of watching the movies I saw the perfect (or not so perfect) progression through all the steps. Maybe it was the timing of it, or just being able to see the tangle of chromosomes trying to line up, and then the sudden division, I found it so breathtaking! Live cell microscopy has been my tool of preference to answer many biological research questions ever since.

Confocal microscopes in particular are powerful because they optically slice through a specimen (even live cells) and allow 3D image reconstruction in up to four different fluorescent channels. Confocals are built to scan point by point through your sample using laser light, and image just one particular plane of focus. This is very different to the standard fluorescent microscope which illuminates and images the entire sample at once, including out-of-focus light. The confocal is used to obtain clearer images of subcellular details that cannot be imaged with the fluorescent microscope and is especially useful for co-localization studies. There are many exciting techniques you can use with the confocal including fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) with which you can observe protein mobility and recovery, fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) which can show protein interactions, as well as photoactivation/uncaging studies.


BOX 1: What confocal can do for you (and your mitochondria)

Using a photoactivatable GFP targeted to the mitochondria to measure mitochondrial fusion is a nice demonstration of the precision and quantitation that can be achieved using a confocal. Mitochondria are amazingly motile and networked and look like spaghetti . They also undergo constant fission and fusion, which can be difficult to capture. The top panel in the figure below shows the mitochondrial network (z stack) labeled with TMRE in Hela cells imaged every 15 min for 1 hr. It is impossible to capture which mitochondria are fusing.

red

green

However, if a small portion of the network is photoactivatedand then imaged in z stacks over time, the signal can be monitored over time (bottom panel in the above figure). As the mitochondria fuse, the GFP protein becomes diluted in the larger volume of the network that has not been photoactivated, and the extent of dilution can be quantified and used as a measure of mitochondrial fusion.


What facilities does Tufts have for confocal microscopy and other imaging techniques?

The Tufts Imaging Facility has four confocal microscopes and most are equipped with the standard 405nm, 488nm, 561nm and 633nm laser lines, which is important to know when choosing fluorophores. Using the Fluorescence SpectraViewer online will help you determine if the emission spectra of your fluorophores overlap such that crosstalk between them can be minimized. We have two inverted microscopes equipped for live cell imaging, and two upright microscopes that are usually used for fixed samples and 3D reconstructions. While imaging living cells, you can use an automated focusing mechanism which employs an infrared laser that keeps track of the coverslip, and therefore your sample. If you’ve ever had to adjust the focus yourself over several hours, you know just how powerful this feature is!

The Nikon A1R inverted confocal has a resonant scanner capable of high speed imaging (500 frames/sec at 512×512 pixel resolution) suitable for ion imaging and is being used for calcium imaging in cardiomyocytes. It also comes in handy during very long tiled scans with z-stacks, and although the image quality is slightly sacrificed, depending on the resolution needed, the gain in speed may well be worth it.

The Leica SP8 inverted confocal has a HyD sensitive detector and can be used with very low laser powers allowing longer imaging of easily bleached samples. For example, measuring how quickly a photoactivated GFP spreads within the mitochondrial network every minute over an hour would bleach the signal before all the information was collected on a regular detector compared to a HyD detector.

Another good technique to avoid bleaching in live cell imaging is to use the total internal reflection microscope (TIRFM). On this microscope, you can adjust the angle of laser light with which you illuminate your sample. There is a particular angle at which all the laser light is internally reflected, except for a 100nm evanescent wave. With this you can then image processes close to the membrane, such as receptor insertion/cycling. Very often you can image a little bit deeper than the 100nm, and because the laser is at an angle, you will not bleach your specimen as fast. As opposed to confocal, the TIRF system has a sensitive EMCCD camera, enabling faster imaging (I have been looking at calcium sparks at 50 ms/frame).

The Leica upright microscope has water immersion objectives that have a large working distance and work well for thick cleared samples such as mouse brains or zebrafish embryos.

Finally, in addition to standard fluorescent microscopes, we also have the automated Keyence fluorescence microscope which can scan up to 3 slides and stitch large images together in four channels as well as in brightfield. If large tiled scans are needed, this may be the instrument of choice due to the speed and ease of use.

For more information about the instruments in the Tufts Imaging Facility, please visit our website. If you would like to use an instrument or need help planning an experiment please email me at:

Alenka.Lovy@tufts.edu.

If you’d like to learn more about microscopy in general, the Molecular Expressions Microscopy Primer is a great resource.

Qualifying Exam Survival Toolkit: Faith, Trust, & Post-Its

I read my drafted email with the attached qualifying exam proposal for the fifteenth time, hit send, and then I felt like I was going to throw up.

It was March, the snow outside was half-melted and tinged gray with grime, and I had just submitted my qualifying exam proposal. Three weeks of carrying highlighters in my pockets, drinking tea morning to night, and rarely parting from my computer, and it all came down to the click of a button. At the time, it felt like the most deciding thing I would ever do during my PhD, and that was terrifying. Looking back, it was probably just the irregular sleep hours and too much takeout that had me feeling slightly nauseous.

So, my advice, first and foremost: buy a lot of groceries and do your laundry ahead of time. I sound like a parent, I know, but still: do it. Good food and clean clothes–as well as having those tasks checked off your list in advance–really can save you in the midst of spirals of self-doubt or experimental design frustration. And you will have those moments, but it is important to know they will either pass eventually, or you will beat it by finding a way to prove yourself wrong.

Everyone–and I do mean everyone–told me, with fond amusement: you’ll be fine, it won’t be that bad, no one is out to get you. And I can tell you, with complete certainty, that is true in retrospect. I have become the older student whom I regarded with respectful but extreme skepticism this time last year. Like they said, I ended up being just fine. Still, I remember the stress and the worry, the cycle of figuring out a problem in my proposal to only have that create yet another problem, and so it went, on and on. So I will avoid telling you what most others will and instead advise this: trust your knowledge and your intuition, even if you try to convince yourself otherwise, because you do know what you are talking about. Have faith. You are going to be your own worst enemy in this four weeks of research and writing, planning and designing, but at least it is an enemy you know well. Use that to your benefit: trust your doubt, because it will help you find holes in your work where others will as well.

And there will be holes; you can’t catch them all. This is where help from older students comes in. Your practice talk with them will be one of the most valuable experiences in this process. Be prepared for your 10-15 minute talk to take an hour, or probably two, to be critiqued by your peers. You may not be able to answer all of their questions, but those are questions you then will be able to answer in your exam if they get asked. Their advice on layout and presenting style is also invaluable; they have gone through this before, and their experiences and mistakes in their own exams will be your gain. Take full advantage, even if you have to bribe them to attend with baked goods (just kidding!).

Lastly, invest in some post-its. Keep them everywhere–by your desk, by your bed, in your bag. When an idea or a question or a worry strikes, you’ll have somewhere to record it, especially if you don’t have time to deal with it at that moment.

Faith. Trust. Post-its. 

Good luck!

New Dietary Guidelines focus on longevity of healthy eating habits

This year, Valentine’s Day may end up being a little less sweet, at least for those following the new 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This most recent report on the current status of nutritional health in the U.S. suggests reduction in sugar intake as one major priority for improving the diet of the American public. While not a particularly unexpected suggestion, sugar overconsumption was emphasized more than in past reports, which primarily focused on decreasing total calorie consumption as well as sodium and saturated fat intake. While the report also dictated that these latter two troublesome nutrient groups also be consumed less, it was sweet versus savory that emerged as the one of the more challenging adversaries to healthy diet that needs to be faced in coming years.

This eighth edition of the guidelines was released at the start of the new year by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Updated every five years since its introduction in 1980, this report not only outlines the current state of nutritional health in the U.S. but also provides standards for improvement over the next five-year period. Each report encourages changes in Americans’ diet to improve overall health and prevent disease by suggesting key recommendations for beneficial food and beverage consumption as well as methods that organizations can use to enforce their implementation.

To make these recommendations, a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee consisting of leading nutrition scientists and medicals experts reviews available nutritional data in the form of existing literature reviews, committee-generate literature reviews, national data from federal agencies, and food pattern modeling analyses. From there, they summarize the scientific evidence and the corresponding proposals for dietary changes to pass off to a combined HHS and USDA policy contingent that assembles the final report. Professionals from federal and private organizations can then use this report to direct and shift public perception and practices regarding nutrition. The ultimate goal is to have these changes then improve public health in relation to diet and overall well-being.

Currently, about 60% of the U.S. population over two years of age exhibits a healthy eating index, while only around 20% meet physical activity guidelines. However, this is contrasted by the fact that over half the population of American adults has one or more diet-related chronic diseases. Thus, this year’s report framed its key recommendations in the context of being necessary to reduce chronic disease; specifically, they highlighted how a healthy diet can reduce the risk or progression of obesity, type-2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. It argues that encouraging disease prevention through healthy diet would not only improve quality of life, it would also reduce national medical expenses by a significant amount. Chronic disease focus was an expansion of previous years’ disease prevention aims, which centered on weight and obesity alone.


“This edition of the Dietary Guidelines focuses on shifts to emphasize the need to make substitutions—that is, choosing nutrient-dense foods and beverages in place of less healthy choices—rather than increasing intake overall.”2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.


As such, the key recommendations in previous reports emphasized calorie intake in addition to calorie balance (intake versus expenditure of calories) as crucial to maintaining health-beneficial weight. In contrast, this year’s report instead put the term eating patterns in the spotlight, with emphasis on variety within food groups and nutrient density, as part of their five key recommendations (see Box 1). While earlier editions of the guidelines also encouraged these three principles, the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines push them front and center as a way to encourage the American public to make more long-term, and thus hopefully longer lasting, changes to their diets.

 


Box 1: Terms to Know

Eating pattern: The combination of foods and beverages that constitute an individual’s complete dietary intake over time.

Nutrient dense: A characteristic of foods and beverages that provide vitamins, minerals, and other substances that contribute to adequate nutrient intakes or may have positive healthy effects, with little or no solid fats and added sugars, refined starches, and sodium.

Variety: A diverse assortment of foods and beverages across and within all food groups and subgroups selected to fulfill the recommended amounts without exceeding the limits for calories and other dietary components.


The revised Dietary Guidelines themselves are not particularly different than past years and are what you would expect. Lots of veggies and fruit, some dairy, protein and grains, with limited amounts (<10% of overall calorie intake) of salt, fat, oil, and sugar is the recommended pattern of eating for the U.S.-style diet plan. Two alternatives were also described, where the Mediterranean-style plan contains more fruit and seafood and less diary while the Vegetarian plan obviously eliminates meat, poultry, and seafood while emphasizing legume, soy product, and whole grains intake.

In addition to listing daily intake amounts and limits for the food groups, each plan also frames these recommendations in the context of weekly amounts and limits. The unique aim of this dual description is to encourage more flexibility in adhering to the guidelines. It will hopefully allow Americans to recognize even if they cannot consistently meet daily quotas of appropriate nutrient and food group intake, they still can adhere to a healthy eating plan on a broader time scale.

The report also placed heavy emphasis on considering the nutrient density of consumed food. For example, a glass of juice serves as a fruit serving, but eating ‘whole fruit’ such as an apple or orange is better, as is eating whole grain bread over other types. The lack of variety in food groups—especially vegetables and protein—consumed by Americans was also a concern. Specifically, more range in veggie types (dark green, red and orange, legumes, and starchy) as well as a shift away from meat and poultry towards seafood was encouraged. Again, these are suggestions that have been made previously by the USDA and HHS, but combined with the flexibility from the newly emphasized weekly guidelines and eating patterns as a whole, the hope is to increase specifically the ease of following these nutritional recommendations.

The report also warns to keep an eye out for hidden sources of nutrient groups that should be ingested in limited amounts and have been linked by moderate to strong evidence to chronic disease (such as sugar, saturated or trans fats, sodium, and oil). For example, many types of meat are a source of high saturated fat, and yogurt can often contain high amounts of sugar, with processed foods and mixed dishes (such as burger or pasta plates) at restaurants typically containing significant amounts of salt. Given that the average American consumes almost twice the recommended levels of both sugar and salt in their diet, shifting eating patterns to lessen intake of these disease-linked food groups would be one significant way of improving general health.

To shift American diet towards a healthier nutritional composition, the guidelines helpfully provide a wide variety of suggestions in how to make this change. To incorporate more fruits and vegetables, they suggested skewing the balance of mixed meals towards these groups. For example, making an omelet for breakfast or a stir-fry for dinner that is composed of more vegetables than meat or poultry. They also give specific examples of how to make healthier exchanges in other food choices: celery and humus instead of chips and salsa, baked chicken over fried, an apple or unsalted nuts instead of commercially made granola bars, and oil instead of butter or shortening for cooking. It emphasizes that small modifications, when combined with one another, can compound into large changes to diet that, if maintained, can lead to beneficial improvements in health.

One outstanding gender-specific suggestion included reduced meat consumption by teen and adult males, who tend to over-consume that food subgroup. Additionally, adolescents and young adults as a whole typically demonstrate the worst adherence to past guidelines. This report’s heavy focus on how to shift eating patterns towards more nutrient-dense options hopefully will encourage adoption of healthy nutrition at a young age that will then be preserved into adolescence and adulthood.

Improving access to healthy food both outside and inside American homes was a major hurdle that the Dietary Guidelines identified in implementing these shifts in eating patterns. Grocery store development and access to other sources of food such as farmers markets, shelters, food banks, and community gardens or cooperatives were specific examples provided for how government and private sector professionals can make that challenge smaller. Household food insecurity—defined as the lack of consistent maintenance of healthy food choices within a home—was also a major concern, especially for families or individuals who struggle financially. Educational and nutrition assistance programs would need expansion and increased penetrance into communities to combat this issue in a more effective manner, especially given this report’s focus on healthy diet patterns that have longevity.

More than anything else, the Dietary Guidelines, 2015-2020 heavily emphasizes cementing long-term healthy eating habits by encouraging variety and flexibility in food choices over counting total calories or quantifying diet by calories alone. Directing changes to national nutrition in this way will hopefully begin to address the significant need for large changes in American diet required to reduce chronic disease in our population.