@mitodynamics.bsky.social
Hopeless mitochondriak. Professor at McGill Neuro_MNI. Opinions my own.
Canada’s research and scientific spending is declining relative to other nations, Council of Canadian Academies report says, by @ivansemeniuk.bsky.social www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/scien... via @theglobeandmail.com
18.11.2025 15:47 — 👍 21 🔁 10 💬 1 📌 2
LRRK2G2019S RAW macrophages show changes in iron homeostasis.
Single cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) and flow cytometry show increased neutrophil presence in colonic lamina propria of LRRK2 G2019S mice following infection.
New CRN Team Desjardins #preprint and #publication!
⬅️ LRRK2(G2019S) disrupts iron balance in macrophages, blocking ferritinophagy under iron overload bit.ly/47VzxvC
➡️ LRRK2(G2019S) mutant mice show stronger gut inflammation post-infection, linking gut immune changes to early PD bit.ly/3LVKlCk
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year.
A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision.
A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year.
The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:
a 🧵 1/n
Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Montreal #mitochondria lovers! Come and join us at the next MitoClub!
04.11.2025 21:42 — 👍 17 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0The Manx pub corner bank and Frank.
01.11.2025 22:58 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
CRISPR screen by @mitodynamics.bsky.social & colleagues identifies Mitochondrial anchored protein ligase (MAPL) as a regulator of gasdermin-mediated release of mtDNA from lysosomes, driving pyroptotic cell death; Depletion of MAPL, LRRK2 or VPS35 blocks cell death
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Thanks Marco! It all came from a genome wide Crispr screen so we were surprised too!
14.10.2025 12:27 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
Mitochondrial anchored protein ligase (MAPL) induces pyroptosis through an inflammatory pathway involving mitochondria and lysosomes @natcellbio.nature.com
@mitodynamics.bsky.social @mitocollier.bsky.social @mcgilluniversity.bsky.social
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
New paper - MAPL strikes again! Interested in mitochondrial signalling, inflammation, lysosome biology, pyroptosis, and Parkinson's disease? Have a look, there's something for everyone! Feeling grateful! @mitocollier.bsky.social Funded by #CIHR, @asapresearch.parkinsonsroadmap.org.
rdcu.be/eKKz1 🇨🇦
Yes! That’s what I was talking about so I agree 100%!
24.05.2025 00:10 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
JCS poster ‘Mitochondria–membranous organelle contacts at a glance’ Antigoni Diokmetzidou, Luca Scorrano
Also in this Issue:
- Editorial from Ana Garcia-Saez & @mitodynamics.bsky.social
- Interviews with Tom MacVicar, Samantha Lewis & Heidi McBride
- Mitochondria–membrane contacts poster
- Quality control of un-imported mitochondrial proteins poster
- Mitochondrial cholesterol transport Perspective
Thank you to everyone who submitted and reviewed! And to Seema and the editors for making it a seamless experience. Keep sending your work to JCS - it’s a fantastic journal and a science family that cares.
15.05.2025 22:16 — 👍 17 🔁 3 💬 0 📌 0
youtube.com/watch?v=V11q...
The election in Canada is so important. Please give this thoughtful interview a listen before you vote. Canada can provide leadership and vision through this tumultuous period if we put Carney the helm.
So happy to see the swell of science activism today! Never forget the power you have. US innovation is second to none - use it now! We may boo your dear leader but we’ve got your back!
08.03.2025 01:20 — 👍 17 🔁 1 💬 1 📌 0Thanks Alex. It is so horrifying to imagine the callous insanity in your White House. I know you all have a lot to deal with but these threats are shaking the foundation for all Canadians, and the world. Stay strong! We shall overcome. We must.
08.03.2025 01:11 — 👍 3 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 1Congratulations Anu! Such an important need for this.
14.12.2024 23:03 — 👍 2 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
In Melbourne for Aussiemit2024! Grateful for the invitation and excited to catch up with the awesome Aussie science.
25.11.2024 20:45 — 👍 14 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
www.mcgill.ca/neuro/channe...
My laboratory discovered a mechanism to make Lewy Bodies in dopaminergic neurons. Lewy Bodies are a hallmark of Parkinson's disease. The key? Immune challenge, demonstrating a role for the immune system in Parkinson's
People working on #cancermetabolism, #mitochondrialbiology, #metabolism, please reach out! Share this so I can follow who is here! I will share paper on cancer metabolism, but anything else related to mitochondria and metabolism.
13.11.2024 19:24 — 👍 82 🔁 42 💬 6 📌 3Hello! Just migrating over in search of some good science, cell biology, mitochondria, and all things new and exciting.
13.11.2024 19:07 — 👍 29 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0
