skip to main content

Title: The International Virus Bioinformatics Meeting 2022
The International Virus Bioinformatics Meeting 2022 took place online, on 23–25 March 2022, and has attracted about 380 participants from all over the world. The goal of the meeting was to provide a meaningful and interactive scientific environment to promote discussion and collaboration and to inspire and suggest new research directions and questions. The participants created a highly interactive scientific environment even without physical face-to-face interactions. This meeting is a focal point to gain an insight into the state-of-the-art of the virus bioinformatics research landscape and to interact with researchers in the forefront as well as aspiring young scientists. The meeting featured eight invited and 18 contributed talks in eight sessions on three days, as well as 52 posters, which were presented during three virtual poster sessions. The main topics were: SARS-CoV-2, viral emergence and surveillance, virus–host interactions, viral sequence analysis, virus identification and annotation, phages, and viral diversity. This report summarizes the main research findings and highlights presented at the meeting.
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; more » ; ; ; ; ; ; « less
Award ID(s):
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. The CSSI 2019 workshop was held on October 28-29, 2019, in Austin, Texas. The main objectives of this workshop were to (1) understand the impact of the CSSI program on the community over the last 9 years, (2) engage workshop participants in identifying gaps and opportunities in the current CSSI landscape, (3) gather ideas on the cyberinfrastructure needs and expectations of the community with respect to the CSSI program, and (4) prepare a report summarizing the feedback gathered from the community that can inform the future solicitations of the CSSI program. The workshop participants included a diverse mix of researchers and practitioners from academia, industry, and national laboratories. The participants belonged to diverse domains such as quantum physics, computational biology, High Performance Computing (HPC), and library science. Almost 50% participants were from computer science domain and roughly 50% were from non-computer science domains. As per the self-reported statistics, roughly 27% of the participants were from the different underrepresented groups as defined by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The workshop brought together different stakeholders interested in provisioning sustainable cyberinfrastructure that can power discoveries impacting the various fields of science and technology and maintaining the nation's competitiveness in the areas such asmore »scientific software, HPC, networking, cybersecurity, and data/information science. The workshop served as a venue for gathering the community-feedback on the current state of the CSSI program and its future directions. Before they arrived at the workshop, the participants were encouraged to take an online survey on the challenges that they face in using the current cyberinfrastructure and the importance of the CSSI program in enabling cutting-edge research. The workshop included 16 brain-storming sessions of one hour each. Additionally, the workshop program included 16 lightning talks and an extempore session. The information collected from the survey, brainstorming sessions, lightning talks, and the extempore session are summarized in this report and can potentially be useful for the NSF in formulating the future CSSI solicitations. The workshop fostered an environment in which the participants were encouraged to identify gaps and opportunities in the current cyberinfrastructure landscape, and develop thoughts for proposing new projects.« less
  2. Since the summer of 2006, the NSF-funded AERIM Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program in the department of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University has been offering rich research, professional development, networking and cohort-building experiences to undergraduate students in the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields. With a focus on hands-on automotive and energy research projects and a proximity to many automotive companies, the program has been successful at attracting a diverse group of students. In fact, a total of 104 students from 70 different universities have participated in the program over the past 15 years, with about 70% of the participants coming from groups that have traditionally been underrepresented in engineering (women in particular). Most research projects have been team-based and have typically involved experimental and analytical work with perhaps a handful of numerical simulation-based projects over the years. Prior assessment has shown that students greatly valued and benefited from interacting with faculty mentors, industry professionals, industry tours, and each other. As a result of limitations placed on in-person meeting and on-campus activities impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, the program had to pivot to a virtual format in the summer of 2021. This virtual format brought about several challengesmore »and opportunities, which will be discussed in this paper. Despite the virtual format, the program was successful at attracting a diverse group of students in 2021. Twelve undergraduate students from eight different institutions took part remotely in the program and encompassed several time zones ranging from Eastern Standard Time to Alaska Standard Time. The 2021 cohort included seven women, three underrepresented minorities, and two students with a reported disability. Also noteworthy is the fact that half of the students were first generation in college students. While the PIs were happy with the student make up, running the program in a virtual format was very challenging. For one, what was traditionally a hands-on, experimental research program had to pivot to completely simulation/analytical based projects. This brought about issues related to remote access to software, time lags and difficulties with engaging students while computer simulations were running remotely. While the program was able to offer several seminars and meetings with industry professionals in a virtual fashion, it was not possible to provide industry tours or the casual conversations that would spontaneously occur when meeting face to face with industry professionals. Finally, with students logging in from their homes across the country and across different time zones rather than living together in the Oakland University dorms, the usual bonding and group interactions that would normally occur over the summer were difficult to replicate. In this paper we discuss what was learned from these challenges and how the virtual format also offered opportunities that will be utilized in future years.« less
  3. In 2019, University of Houston (UH) at Houston, Texas was awarded an NSF Research Experience for Teachers (RET) site grant titled “RET Site: High School Teacher Experience in Engineering Design and Manufacturing.” The goal of the project is to host 12 high school teachers each summer to participate in engineering design and manufacturing research and then convert their experience into high school curriculum. In summer of 2021, the first cohort of 12 teachers from Region 4 of Southeast Texas participated in the RET program at UH College of Technology (COT). This six-week program, open to local high school STEM teachers in Texas, sought to advance educators’ knowledge of concepts in design and manufacturing as a means of enriching high school curriculums and meeting foundational standards set by 2013’s Texas House Bill 5. These standards require enhanced STEM contents in high school curricula as a prerequisite for graduation, detailed in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills standard. Due to the pandemic situation, about 50% of the activities are online and the rest are face to face. About 40% of the time, teachers attended online workshops to enhance their knowledge of topics in engineering design and manufacturing before embarking on applicable researchmore »projects in the labs. Six UH COT engineering technology professors each led workshops in a week. The four tenure-track engineering mentors, assisted by student research assistants, each mentored three teachers on projects ranging from additive manufacturing to thermal/fluids, materials, and energy. The group also participated in field trips to local companies including ARC Specialties, Master Flo, Re:3D, and Forged Components. They worked with two instructional track engineering technology professors and one professor of education on applying their learnings to lesson plan design. Participants also met weekly for online Brown Bag teacher seminars to share their experiences and discuss curricula, which was organized by the RET master teacher. On the final day of the program, the teachers presented their curriculum prototype for the fall semester to the group and received completion certificates. The program assessment was led by the assessment specialist, Director of Assessment and Accreditation at UH COT. Teacher participants found the research experience with their mentors beneficial not only to them, but also to their students according to our findings from interviews. The mentors will visit their mentees’ classrooms to see the lesson plans being implemented. In the spring of 2022, the teachers will present their refined curricula at a RET symposium to be organized at UH and submit their standards-aligned plans to for other K-12 educators to access.« less
  4. Objective Over the past decade, we developed and studied a face-to-face video-based analysis-of-practice professional development (PD) model. In a cluster randomized trial, we found that the face-to-face model enhanced elementary science teacher knowledge and practice and resulted in important improvements to student science achievement (student treatment effect, d = 0.52; Taylor et al, 2017; Roth et al, 2018). The face-to-face PD model is expensive and difficult to scale. In this paper, we present the results of a two-year design-based research study to translate the face-to-face PD into a facilitated online PD experience. The purpose is to create an effective, flexible, and cost-efficient PD model that will reach a broader audience of teachers. Perspective/Theoretical Framework The face-to-face PD model is grounded in situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship frameworks. Teachers engage in learning science content and effective science teaching practices in the context in which they will be teaching. There are scaffolded opportunities for teachers to learn from analysis of model videos by experienced teachers, to try teaching model units, to analyze video of their own teaching efforts, and ultimately to develop their own unit, with guidance. The PD model attends to the key features of effective PD as described by Desimonemore »(2009) and others. We adhered closely to the design principles of the face-to-face model as described by Authors, 2019. Methods We followed a design-based research approach (DBR; Cobb et al., 2003; Shavelson et al., 2003) to examine the online program components and how they promoted or interfered with the development of teachers’ knowledge and reflective practice. Of central interest was the examination of mechanisms for facilitating teacher learning (Confrey, 2006). To accomplish this goal, design researchers engaged in iterative cycles of problem analysis, design, implementation, examination, and redesign (Wang & Hannafin, 2005) in phase one of the project before studying its effect. Data Three small pilot groups of teachers engaged in both synchronous and asynchronous components of the larger online course which began implementation with a 10-week summer course that leads into study groups of participants meeting through one academic year. We iteratively designed, tested, and revised 17 modules across three pilot versions. On average, pilot groups completed one module every two weeks. Pilot 1 began the work in May 2019; Pilot 2 began in August 2019, and Pilot 3 began in October 2019. Pilot teachers responded to surveys and took part in interviews related to the PD. The PD facilitators took extensive notes after each iteration. The development team met weekly to discuss revisions. We revised all modules between each pilot group and used what we learned to inform our development of later modules within each pilot. For example, we applied what we learned from testing Module 3 with Pilot 1 to the development of Module 3 for Pilots 2, and also applied what we learned from Module 3 with Pilot 1 to the development of Module 7 for Pilot 1. Results We found that community building required the same incremental trust-building activities that occur in face-to-face PD. Teachers began with low-risk activities and gradually engaged in activities that required greater vulnerability (sharing a video of themselves teaching a model unit for analysis and critique by the group). We also identified how to contextualize technical tools with instructional prompts to allow teachers to productively interact with one another about science ideas asynchronously. As part of that effort, we crafted crux questions to surface teachers’ confusions or challenges related to content or pedagogy. We called them crux questions because they revealed teachers’ uncertainty and deepened learning during the discussion. Facilitators leveraged asynchronous responses to crux questions in the synchronous sessions to push teacher thinking further than would have otherwise been possible in a 2-hour synchronous video-conference. Significance Supporting teachers with effective, flexible, and cost-efficient PD is difficult under the best of circumstances. In the era of covid-19, online PD has taken on new urgency. NARST members will gain insight into the translation of an effective face-to-face PD model to an online environment.« less
  5. Responding to the need to teach remotely due to COVID-19, we used readily available computational approaches (and developed associated tutorials ( to teach virtual Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) laboratories that fulfil generally accepted main components of CUREs or Undergraduate Research Experiences (UREs): Scientific Background, Hypothesis Development, Proposal, Experiments, Teamwork, Data Analysis, Conclusions, and Presentation1. We then developed and taught remotely, in three phases, protein-centric CURE activities that are adaptable to virtually any protein, emphasizing contributions of noncovalent interactions to structure, binding and catalysis (an ASBMB learning framework2 foundational concept). The courses had five learning goals (unchanged in the virtual format),focused on i) use of primary literature and bioinformatics, ii) the roles of non-covalent interactions, iii) keeping accurate laboratory notebooks, iv) hypothesis development and research proposal writing, and, v) presenting the project and drawing evidence based conclusions The first phase, Developing a Research Proposal, contains three modules, and develops hallmarks of a good student-developed hypothesis using available literature (PubMed3) and preliminary observations obtained using bioinformatics, Module 1: Using Primary Literature and Data Bases (Protein Data Base4, Blast5 and Clustal Omega6), Module 2: Molecular Visualization (PyMol7 and Chimera8), culminating in a research proposal (Module 3). Provided rubrics guide student expectations. Inmore »the second phase, Preparing the Proteins, students prepared necessary proteins and mutants using Module 4: Creating and Validating Models, which leads users through creating mutants with PyMol, homology modeling with Phyre29 or Missense10, energy minimization using RefineD11 or ModRefiner12, and structure validation using MolProbity13. In the third phase, Computational Experimental Approaches to Explore the Questions developed from the Hypothesis, students selected appropriate tools to perform their experiments, chosen from computational techniques suitable for a CURE laboratory class taught remotely. Questions, paired with computational approaches were selected from Modules 5: Exploring Titratable Groups in a Protein using H++14, 6: Exploring Small Molecule Ligand Binding (with SwissDock15), 7: Exploring Protein-Protein Interaction (with HawkDock16), 8: Detecting and Exploring Potential Binding Sites on a Protein (with POCASA17 and SwissDock), and 9: Structure-Activity Relationships of Ligand Binding & Drug Design (with SwissDock, Open Eye18 or the Molecular Operating Environment (MOE)19). All involve freely available computational approaches on publicly accessible web-based servers around the world (with the exception of MOE). Original literature/Journal club activities on approaches helped students suggest tie-ins to wet lab experiments they could conduct in the future to complement their computational approaches. This approach allowed us to continue using high impact CURE teaching, without changing our course learning goals. Quantitative data (including replicates) was collected and analyzed during regular class periods. Students developed evidence-based conclusions and related them to their research questions and hypotheses. Projects culminated in a presentation where faculty feedback was facilitated with the Virtual Presentation platform from QUBES20 These computational approaches are readily adaptable for topics accessible for first to senior year classes and individual research projects (UREs). We used them in both partial and full semester CUREs in various institutional settings. We believe this format can benefit faculty and students from a wide variety of teaching institutions under conditions where remote teaching is necessary.« less