As you can see I've been quite busy... 😀

And to make this more concrete, here is a re-review we just got. The editor overruled this negative reviewer, who here is *lecturing us on the ethos of the journal*.

I've never met anyone in real life who holds this position with whom I can have an actual discussion. Always anonymous peer review.

Sean, this will pass. Harvard will receive federal funds again. I believe that you seriously doubt that right now. I don't. My outlook does not diminish the current crisis whatsoever, of course.

If you believe that, indeed the decision makes sense. In fact, it would be just the first step in a process of shutting down research altogether.

but do you still need an R01 from NIGMS to be eligible for a new MIRA, or was that requirement dropped?

The enrichment results are a bit more nuanced. I am hoping the paper is doing a decent job explaining it.

No need for 'nearest gene' because we map the eQTLs...

In both cases you can estimate variance (2nd central moment) instead of mean, but it tells you different things -- convergence of response on the bulk case, and fidelity of response in the single cell case. Makes sense?

Single-cell RNA-seq can capture variation in expression between cells within the same individual. This tells you how noisy or tightly regulated a gene is in a given context, but it is less about person-to-person differences.

Good question. Bulk RNA-seq captures variation in gene expression between individuals. That includes genetic effects, environmental differences, and other factors that vary from person to person.

So, since 2005, your work resulted in both mine and your promotions! 😀

Congratulations! I'm just going to politely point out that neither have applied to work with us... 😉