@magbuendia.bsky.social
Reposted
September 8, 2025 at 4:32 PM
Reposted
Excited to see our PNAS paper highlighted on Kudos, with an accessible take on the findings.
Disease links are not random—they can be predicted from the expression of our genes.
www.growkudos.com/publications...
@pnas.org @alfonsovalencia.bsky.social
📄 doi.org/10.1073/pnas...
Disease links are not random—they can be predicted from the expression of our genes.
www.growkudos.com/publications...
@pnas.org @alfonsovalencia.bsky.social
📄 doi.org/10.1073/pnas...
Molecular map reveals hidden disease connections
Diseases rarely come alone. Many people experience a chain of diagnoses across their lives—for example, smoking-related lung cancer, asthma followed by Parkinson’s disease, or depression alongside lup...
www.growkudos.com
September 8, 2025 at 4:30 PM
Excited to see our PNAS paper highlighted on Kudos, with an accessible take on the findings.
Disease links are not random—they can be predicted from the expression of our genes.
www.growkudos.com/publications...
@pnas.org @alfonsovalencia.bsky.social
📄 doi.org/10.1073/pnas...
Disease links are not random—they can be predicted from the expression of our genes.
www.growkudos.com/publications...
@pnas.org @alfonsovalencia.bsky.social
📄 doi.org/10.1073/pnas...
Reposted
11/ Endless thanks to those who supported, listened, laughed, and advised: my colleagues, Davide Cirillo, and especially @alfonsovalencia.bsky.social, for his unwavering support throughout this wild journey. @bsc-cns.bsky.social
September 2, 2025 at 6:37 PM
11/ Endless thanks to those who supported, listened, laughed, and advised: my colleagues, Davide Cirillo, and especially @alfonsovalencia.bsky.social, for his unwavering support throughout this wild journey. @bsc-cns.bsky.social
Reposted
10/ And yes– I am officially fluent in rebuttals 🥋 It even helped me win Best Talk at ISMB/ECCB 2025 NetBio– for the science, the presentation, and (yes) the Q&A. #ISMBECCB2025
September 2, 2025 at 6:37 PM
10/ And yes– I am officially fluent in rebuttals 🥋 It even helped me win Best Talk at ISMB/ECCB 2025 NetBio– for the science, the presentation, and (yes) the Q&A. #ISMBECCB2025
Reposted
9/ I wouldn’t wish this road on anyone.
But I’m proud we used the struggle to dig deeper– and that’s where we found some of the most interesting science.
🧬 Novel, underdiagnosed links & mechanisms with therapeutic potential
🧍Works even for rare diseases
🌐 A truly useful resource for the community
But I’m proud we used the struggle to dig deeper– and that’s where we found some of the most interesting science.
🧬 Novel, underdiagnosed links & mechanisms with therapeutic potential
🧍Works even for rare diseases
🌐 A truly useful resource for the community
September 2, 2025 at 6:37 PM
9/ I wouldn’t wish this road on anyone.
But I’m proud we used the struggle to dig deeper– and that’s where we found some of the most interesting science.
🧬 Novel, underdiagnosed links & mechanisms with therapeutic potential
🧍Works even for rare diseases
🌐 A truly useful resource for the community
But I’m proud we used the struggle to dig deeper– and that’s where we found some of the most interesting science.
🧬 Novel, underdiagnosed links & mechanisms with therapeutic potential
🧍Works even for rare diseases
🌐 A truly useful resource for the community
Reposted
8/ Science already takes time, I hope to help make it worth it.
Finally, terrified, we sent it to PNAS @pnas.org.
After one round of review, reports came back: supportive. Positive.
Accepted 🎉 🎉
Finally, terrified, we sent it to PNAS @pnas.org.
After one round of review, reports came back: supportive. Positive.
Accepted 🎉 🎉
September 2, 2025 at 6:37 PM
8/ Science already takes time, I hope to help make it worth it.
Finally, terrified, we sent it to PNAS @pnas.org.
After one round of review, reports came back: supportive. Positive.
Accepted 🎉 🎉
Finally, terrified, we sent it to PNAS @pnas.org.
After one round of review, reports came back: supportive. Positive.
Accepted 🎉 🎉
Reposted
7/ What I learned:
Publishing can be arbitrary.
Some reviewers make up their minds before seeing the evidence.
One reviewer can wield disproportionate power.
Rebuttals must be painfully clear.
Editors often fail to step in, even when the situation is obvious.
Don’t assume fairness in peer review
👇
Publishing can be arbitrary.
Some reviewers make up their minds before seeing the evidence.
One reviewer can wield disproportionate power.
Rebuttals must be painfully clear.
Editors often fail to step in, even when the situation is obvious.
Don’t assume fairness in peer review
👇
September 2, 2025 at 6:37 PM
7/ What I learned:
Publishing can be arbitrary.
Some reviewers make up their minds before seeing the evidence.
One reviewer can wield disproportionate power.
Rebuttals must be painfully clear.
Editors often fail to step in, even when the situation is obvious.
Don’t assume fairness in peer review
👇
Publishing can be arbitrary.
Some reviewers make up their minds before seeing the evidence.
One reviewer can wield disproportionate power.
Rebuttals must be painfully clear.
Editors often fail to step in, even when the situation is obvious.
Don’t assume fairness in peer review
👇
Reposted
6/ The results stood firm.
The reviewer did not.
It was tragic. And honestly, a bit comic.
The reviewer did not.
It was tragic. And honestly, a bit comic.
September 2, 2025 at 6:37 PM
6/ The results stood firm.
The reviewer did not.
It was tragic. And honestly, a bit comic.
The reviewer did not.
It was tragic. And honestly, a bit comic.
Reposted
5/ At one point, I was literally making diagrams with dogs 🐕 and dolphins 🐬 to explain a basic concept every colleague understood instantly.
I even tested the reviewer’s hypothesis, which meant redoing everything with a dataset 3× bigger (yes, manually annotated).
I even tested the reviewer’s hypothesis, which meant redoing everything with a dataset 3× bigger (yes, manually annotated).
September 2, 2025 at 6:37 PM
5/ At one point, I was literally making diagrams with dogs 🐕 and dolphins 🐬 to explain a basic concept every colleague understood instantly.
I even tested the reviewer’s hypothesis, which meant redoing everything with a dataset 3× bigger (yes, manually annotated).
I even tested the reviewer’s hypothesis, which meant redoing everything with a dataset 3× bigger (yes, manually annotated).
Reposted
4/ Publishing turned into a saga.
⏳ 4 years of my PhD
❌ 1 rejection after 3+ years
🔄 5 rounds of revisions
🤯 And an absurd fight with a single reviewer stuck on a single, simple statistical concept.
By then, I was validating my patience, not the data.
⏳ 4 years of my PhD
❌ 1 rejection after 3+ years
🔄 5 rounds of revisions
🤯 And an absurd fight with a single reviewer stuck on a single, simple statistical concept.
By then, I was validating my patience, not the data.
September 2, 2025 at 6:37 PM
4/ Publishing turned into a saga.
⏳ 4 years of my PhD
❌ 1 rejection after 3+ years
🔄 5 rounds of revisions
🤯 And an absurd fight with a single reviewer stuck on a single, simple statistical concept.
By then, I was validating my patience, not the data.
⏳ 4 years of my PhD
❌ 1 rejection after 3+ years
🔄 5 rounds of revisions
🤯 And an absurd fight with a single reviewer stuck on a single, simple statistical concept.
By then, I was validating my patience, not the data.
Reposted
3/ So I went all in.
📑 Months of manual curation
🧮 Developing methods from big omic data
🧬 Introducing patient stratification to uncover disease links
And it worked. The signal was strong, robust, exciting.
We thought “this will be hard work, but reasonably straightforward”
Reader, it was not.
📑 Months of manual curation
🧮 Developing methods from big omic data
🧬 Introducing patient stratification to uncover disease links
And it worked. The signal was strong, robust, exciting.
We thought “this will be hard work, but reasonably straightforward”
Reader, it was not.
September 2, 2025 at 6:37 PM
3/ So I went all in.
📑 Months of manual curation
🧮 Developing methods from big omic data
🧬 Introducing patient stratification to uncover disease links
And it worked. The signal was strong, robust, exciting.
We thought “this will be hard work, but reasonably straightforward”
Reader, it was not.
📑 Months of manual curation
🧮 Developing methods from big omic data
🧬 Introducing patient stratification to uncover disease links
And it worked. The signal was strong, robust, exciting.
We thought “this will be hard work, but reasonably straightforward”
Reader, it was not.
Reposted
2/ It was 2019.
I’d started working on a question that hooked me immediately:
Why do diseases co-occur with each other?
👉 These patterns are everywhere in medicine, but their molecular basis was very elusive.
I’d started working on a question that hooked me immediately:
Why do diseases co-occur with each other?
👉 These patterns are everywhere in medicine, but their molecular basis was very elusive.
September 2, 2025 at 6:37 PM
2/ It was 2019.
I’d started working on a question that hooked me immediately:
Why do diseases co-occur with each other?
👉 These patterns are everywhere in medicine, but their molecular basis was very elusive.
I’d started working on a question that hooked me immediately:
Why do diseases co-occur with each other?
👉 These patterns are everywhere in medicine, but their molecular basis was very elusive.
Reposted
1/ Everything that could go wrong in paper publishing… did.
A story of patience, absurdity, and persistence 🌀 <1min
From Alfonso Valencia’s lab and a very stubborn PhD student (me).
A story of patience, absurdity, and persistence 🌀 <1min
From Alfonso Valencia’s lab and a very stubborn PhD student (me).
September 2, 2025 at 6:37 PM
1/ Everything that could go wrong in paper publishing… did.
A story of patience, absurdity, and persistence 🌀 <1min
From Alfonso Valencia’s lab and a very stubborn PhD student (me).
A story of patience, absurdity, and persistence 🌀 <1min
From Alfonso Valencia’s lab and a very stubborn PhD student (me).