Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More information

Talk:Bioblast 2012: Scientific Committee

From Bioblast

Discussion on preliminary structure for presentations

  • I think that the 'Preliminary structure' format of 2 x (20 + 10) min and 3 x (10 + 5) min is optimal if there are significantly more than 35 people who want to speak. I agree that there should be no oral presentations without abstract. As a subject for discussion I would suggest: What mitochondrial research questions do we need to focus on and solve in the next 10 years? Guy Brown, UK (2012-11-13)
  • It would be nice to have two long (20+10 or 25+5) presentations, as proposed in your preliminary time-table. You have a big choice of potential speakers. As an example, I may propose Rossignol for "Historical perspective" and Mary-Ellen Harper for "Evolutionary perspective". Rossignol served recently as guest editor for the "mitochondrial" issue of the International Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, and Mary-Ellen is doing interesting studies on the role of uncoupling proteins. Another fascinating subject for "evolutionary perspectives" would be the role of mitochondria in cancerogenesis (I have no particular speaker in mind). I wonder how many people from your partcipants list would submit abstracts and would be willing to speak. If more than 35, you may shorten the time allocated for coffee breaks to 30 min thus gaining four more slots for short presentations. Another possibility would be to extend the afternoon session on Wednesday. I will think about the topic(s) of a final discussion session and will let you know soon. Lech Wojtczak, PL (2012-11-13)
  • I vote for the 10+5 min oral presentations. About discussion, I suggest the topic of: "role of mitochondria in disease progression". As a general comment, the 7x 10+5 talks after lunch is too many in a row. How about breaking it in 4x10+5, coffee break, 3x10+5 ? or make a 5, lunch, 4, break, 5, end; instead of 5, lunch, 7, break, 2, end. Christos Chinopoulos, HU (2012-11-13)
  • I vote for short presentations of 10+5 min for the majority; with a few feature lectures selected for extended (20+10) time slots (e.g. bioenergetic perspective; evolutionary perspective) I agree, no presentation without abstract. If submitted abstract/ presentation volume is too high, then selection for presentation should be based on the deadline + an evaluation process. Those who may be your 'feature' lectures can be considered in a separate category e.g., 'invited lectures'. For a final discussion topic, a "world-view on mitochondrial genetics and function, leading to a new mitochondrial medicine" sounds very interesting. The topic could be applicable to a wide range of interests. Robert C Boushel, DK (2012-11-13)
  • 10+5 minutes will give a chance for everybody including youngest scientists and students. On the other hand, it is an attractive idea of great themes and perspectives in 20+10 minutes, but the time control should be rigorous. The manager in chief may give a "yellow card" not to "punish", but to give a public signal that the time is over and presentation has to be concluded. I am afraid that many short presentations become exhaustive and disperse the attention. One possibility is to select some presentations 20+10 for the more experienced researcher and reserve one day for a section like a poster section. However, it is not needed to be strictly "poster". It may be a presentation in the notebook in a round table by a short group (like up to 10 people) and then the people will change to other tables and so on. I don't care to be included in the round table with my notebook. Antonio Galina, BR (2012-11-13)
  • I think having one "longer" session at the start of each day is a good idea, if the topics are broad in perspective. I would suggest having a discussion about the value of different protocols (eg. room air saturation vs hyperoxic, titrations vs. max substrate protocols,titrations for H2O2 and problems with that, etc). There are a lot of protocols out there and I think it's important for everyone to have an open discussion about the role of each one, as every protocol has it's merits in answering specific questions. Graham Holloway, CA (2012-11-13)
  • I agree with the preliminary programme you have included. Some topics are of general interest and it is worth to devote more time to bioenergetics perspective and evolutionary perspective. I agree on a first cut off for oral presentations. If you do not receive an abstract on time, no oral presentation. It should be a balance between senior and junior scientist presenting. It could be already decided how many spots for each group of scientists will be reserved (always having into account the quality of the abstracts presented) and the spirit of gentle science. One topic that I would like to discuss is Where are we from here? The future of mitochondrial physiology. If this topic is not already covered, I would suggest it as a topic for a final discussion session. It is a unique opportunity to do so having into account the number of experts attending to the meeting and the diversity of our research lines. Pablo Garcia-Roves, ES (2012-11-13)
  • I would think it is nice to have the lead-in talks extended (in order to be more introductory, provide more background for the diverse community), this has the touch of a daily "key lecture". Dominik Pesta D, US (2012-11-13)
  • Your proposal is fine. Most 10+5, and only specials 20+10. I guess that most have not directly applied for allowance to present, but may have been asked. If so, give them some line. Usually the presentations from good scientists (and presenters) are interesting and personally I do not read the abstract from senior guys giving a lecture. My suggestion for discussion: How do we best measure / estimate mitochondrial content/volume/amount? Flemming Dela, DK (2012-11-13)
  • Personally I think it is often more useful to have slightly longer talks so that the speakers have a little more relaxed time to out their work into context. If these are selected carefully, the remainder can have an opportunity to talk to everyone at their posters. How about a compromise of 15 minutes and 5 minutes for questions?! For a discussion topic - do you want something fairly meaty and scientific (roles of mitophagy in health and disease...?) or something more topical? In the latter case the ethical and scientific issues arising from nuclear transplantation for the treatment of mitochondrial disease might make a good topic for discussion. Michael Duchen, UK (2012-11-13)
  • I vote for all oral presentations to be short (10 +5) - except for a couple of selected topics (e.g. bioenergetic perspective; evolutionary perspective; ...), as per your proposed schedule. Regarding the final discussion topics: Yes it will be good in my opinion to discuss a GMN. I also think that it might be good to have a general discussion about experimental approaches. E.g., how best to study mitochondrial processes in isolated mitos vs intact cells, which of course depends on what processes you wish to study, and upon what biological preparations you are working with (e.g., brain vs muscle vs liver tissues; or, in primary cells in culture, or in adherent vs non-adherent transformed cell types). It might be educational and fun to get people talking about O2k, eg, with fluometry and many other approaches such as traditional enzyme activity assays and newer spinning disk confocal microscopy of things like mito ROS flickering and fusion fission. That's just one idea – with so many great "mitochondriacs" attending, there should be many good ideas for an enjoyable and informative discussion. Mary-Ellen Harper, CA (2012-11-13)
  • I would favor a few linger perspective talks; but would only want to give one myself if others were too, I don't want to be a special case. I can get my stuff across in 10 min if need be but I think it would be better with a bit longer to set the scene. Nick Lane, UK (2012-11-13)
  • Congratulations on the outstanding list of attendees for the Bioblast conference! Regarding the format for the presentations, I support reserving a couple of 20+10 min "keynote" slots for the more "honored" guests that will present particularly stimulating or broadly interesting topics, leaving the remaining 10+5 min slots for quality research abstracts from attendees that are of sufficient/related interest, but perhaps not as broadly significant to the group as a whole. While I hope there will be room in the program for both, I'd obviously vote for Catherine's talk over mine if space/time runs short. Depending on space and the number of abstracts submitted, we could have one of the discussion sessions for poster presentations/discussion of abstracts not selected for oral presentations. This might encourage other junior scientists planning to attend to present their work as well. Thanks again for the opportunity to be involved in this exciting event. Adam Chicco, US (2012-11-13)
  • I really like the format you have listed. My preference is for the oral presentations to be short (10 + 5 min) with the starting talk to be (20 + 10). My preference for topics for discussions during the final session could be on the Global network and avenues for public engagement by researchers in educating the public. Shilpa Iyer, US (2012-11-14)
  • I vote for 10+5 min because it will enable to have a large view of the different research programs and it will give the opportunity to a larger number of scientists to be fully involved and to present their data. I vote for no oral presentation without abstract. Here are some ideas for discussion topics: Screening of mitochondrial disorders: experience, recommendations and perspectives. Monitoring of mitochondrial disorders and/ or performances in clinical practice and on a fundamental point of view. Current issues regarding the therapeutic interventions to improve the mitochondrial function. Collaborative work: what do we need and what are we ready to share? Dominique Votion, BE (2012-11-14)
  • I vote for giving a few selected topics 20+10 min, in agreement your preliminary program. I also agree that an oral presentation should have abstract. It is good that we aim for having talks for all abstracts, but I think it is acceptable that we have to make a selection due to limited time. Is it possible to open for posters? Karl Johan Tronstad, NO (2012-11-14)
  • I would suggest to keep MiPArt for after dinner time. It would add slots for 2 more talks. The Bioenergetic and Evolutionary perspective lectures could be shorter (15+5), and coffee breaks could be a little shorter. This format would give slots for 40 lectures. Zuzana Sumbalova, SK (2012-11-15)
  • I guess the first talk of a session (depending on the speaker and topic) could be 20+5 minutes and the remainder 10+5 min? No oral presentation without abstract? I agree with your idea. Topic for a final discussion session: Mitochondrial ROS signaling versus ROS damage Werner Koopman, NL (2012-11-15)
  • I would certainly choose the option of a few selected topics be given an extended 20+10 min. I think no oral presentation without abstract is reasonable and understandable. Suggestion for discussion: Methodological diversities in studying mitochondria from various cells and tissues. Cezary Watala, PL (2012-11-15)
  • I like more, but short presentations. For a final discussion I would be interested in something along the lines of What is the global physiological impact of changes within the skeletal muscle mitochondria. Carsten Lundby, CH (2012-11-19)
  • ...Latent Mitochondrial Dysfunction ... would be fully in-line with my current research interests. As you said, it is too bad the Bioblast conference will only be two days, but it looks to be an excellent two days nonetheless. I look forward to it. Russel Hepple, CA (2012-11-20)