Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Colquhoun, D.

Publications and source records attributed to Colquhoun, D..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Deciphering the zebrafish hepatic duct heterogeneity and cell plasticity using lineage tracing and single-cell transcriptomics

Despite the livers recognized regenerative potential, the role of the hepatic ductal cells (a.k.a. biliary epithelial cells), its heterogeneity, and functionality remain incompletely understood in this process. This study provides a comprehensive examination of the molecular and cellular mechanisms underpinning liver ductal development and liver regeneration in zebrafish, with a spotlight on the functional roles of her family genes in these processes. Using state-of-the-art knock-in zebrafish models and single-cell transcriptomics we reveal the differential expression patterns of the different her genes, of which her2, her6, and her9, were identified as specific molecular signatures for distinguishing different ductal cell types with unique morphology and spatial distribution. Particularly, her9 serves as a pan-ductal marker and shows responsiveness to the synergistic effect of Notch and BMP signaling. By analyzing multiple single-cell RNA-seq datasets, we identify numerous ductal markers which are functional proteins for ductal integrity, and most notably CRISPR mutagenesis demonstrates that her9 is essential for hepatocyte recovery. Using multiple transgenic and knock-in zebrafish lines and genetic fate mapping, we provide a detailed characterization of the ductal remodeling process under development and extreme loss of intra-hepatic duct, highlighting the remarkable ductal cell plasticity. Single-cell transcriptomics of lineage-traced her9-expressing liver ducts in static and regenerative states uncover distinct cell clusters with unique molecular signatures and morphology, reflecting the livers regenerative dynamics and highlight relevant key biological processes that could be leveraged to expedite liver regeneration.

developmental biology↗

The Reproducibility Of Research And The Misinterpretation Of P Values

We wish to answer this question If you observe a \"significant\" P value after doing a single unbiased experiment, what is the probability that your result is a false positive?. The weak evidence provided by P values between 0.01 and 0.05 is explored by exact calculations of false positive rates.\n\nWhen you observe P = 0.05, the odds in favour of there being a real effect (given by the likelihood ratio) are about 3. This is far weaker evidence than the odds of 19 to 1 that might, wrongly, be inferred from the P value. And if you want to limit the false positive rate to 5 percent, you would have to assume that you were 87% sure that there was a real effect before the experiment was done.\n\nIf you observe P = 0.001, which gives likelihood ratio of 100:1 odds on there being a real effect, that would usually be regarded as conclusive, But the false positive rate would still be 8% if the prior probability of a real effect was only 0.1\n\nDespite decades of warnings, many areas of science still insist on labelling a result of P < 0.05 as \"significant\". This must account for a substantial part of the lack of reproducibility in some areas of science. And this is before you get to the many other well-known problems, like multiple comparisons, lack of randomisation and P-hacking. Science is endangered by statistical misunderstanding, and by people who impose perverse incentives on scientists.

scientific communication and education↗