It seems I have got a conference season. Three conferences within 2 months – no complains though. This time I went to the Matrix Biology Ireland Meeting in Galway. It was fantastic mix of topics and speakers ranging from new approaches in bone and heart repair to new matrixes in reconstruction of body tissues and diseases in the lab to minimise use of animals in pre-clinical studies.
My talk was focused on neuroblastoma microenvironment and cell-to-cell communication through exosomes. I wrote about it in October post. I talked about things that did work and did not as well as new directions. One of the new directions is reconstructing neuroblastoma by growing neuroblastoma cells on collagen based scaffolds in 3D. Collagen constitutes most of our tissues to keep it shape and strength. These scaffolds are sponge-like matrixes built from collagen and other components. Of course cells grow differently on these matrixes. They have a different shape and growing properties in 3D. Neuroblatoma cells look like water drops on the cotton wool-like collagen scaffolds. In contrast, when they grow on plastic in 2D, they are flat. Studies show that cells in 3D respond to cytotoxic stress in a similar pattern as if being within a body (details in recent reviews 1-4). It would be a great breakthrough once these models are optimised for neuroblstoma research field. It will help to test all new and known drugs in the environment close to clinical settings. It could be a step forward to personilised therapies for children with neuroblastoma by isolating cancer cells, growing them in 3D and testing how they respond to all therapies available. It will facilitate more efficient design of treatment for relapsed or poorly responding tumours, sparing patients unnecessary rounds of chemotherapy and ultimately increasing survival.
I’ve always felt that a selection of abstracts for an oral presentation is biased. The overall background and views of conference organisers would affect works selected for an oral presentation. The same abstract was not selected for an oral presentation by one committee, but was supported by the other. Never give up!
Schweiger PJ, Jensen KB.Modeling human disease using organotypic cultures. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2016 43:22-29.
Salamanna F, Contartese D, Maglio M, Fini M. A systematic review on in vitro 3D bone metastases models: A new horizon to recapitulate the native clinical scenario? Oncotarget. 2016 7(28):44803-44820.
Picollet-D’hahan N, Dolega ME, Liguori L, Marquette C, Le Gac S, Gidrol X, Martin DK. A 3D Toolbox to Enhance Physiological Relevance of Human Tissue Models. Trends Biotechnol. 2016 34(9):757-69.
Nyga A, Neves J, Stamati K, Loizidou M, Emberton M, Cheema U. The next level of 3D tumour models: immunocompetence. Drug Discov Today. 2016 21(9):1421-8.
Ok. Now, when the stress of the presentation is over, I am happy to share new technologies used during the SIOP2016. As I mentioned yesterday, my work was selected for e-poster presentation. It looked this way:
It is definitely a step forward. Anyone can look up any poster, listen to a commentary recorded by the author, zoom in and out and send a request/comment to the author. It looks cool and trendy. Though, you can feel invisible as no physical copy displayed in a designated area. No crowds of poster presenters and judges. No waiting faces desperate to share their study…
The actual Poster Discussion session was a traditional presentation when my poster was up on the big screen, I had 8 minutes to convince the audience navigating through figures. This session was late and no many attendees survived to come and challenge your statements. Nevertheless, it was enjoyable experience. 🙂
SIOP is the International Society of Paediatric Oncology. It is a global multidisciplinary society representing doctors, nurses, other health care professionals, scientists and patients or their relatives. The Society’s motto is ‘no child should die of cancer’. The meeting 2017 is being held in Dublin, the city where I live and work.
Indeed, it was appealing to attend the key meeting in childhood oncology field. As any participant, I had an opportunity to submit an abstract about my research. To no surprise at all, I received email notifying me on my work being selected for e-Poster presentation. Common stuff. The email also said that it would be displayed at designated stations, like big screens throughout the meeting. Very unusual format, but we are living in the digital technology era; things are changing all the time. So, I would not need to stay by the poster this time. Great – more time for networking and talks.
Then I received another email informing about a Poster Discussion session, which I assumed to be a standard procedure when a group of selected piers stand by your poster and ask Qs. None comes in majority cases. A participant stands and waits and waits till the session is over. So, of course I took it easy.
A day before the meeting, I downloaded the meeting app and started to browse along the content and features. Out of curiosity, I checked details of the Poster Discussion session. This was the moment of mental breakdown – I discovered being selected for an oral poster presentation! My chances were 1 in 1475 (the number of submitted abstracts). I should probably also buy a lottery ticket tonight. Could lucky things come together?
I will reflect on the new e-poster presentation experience later today…