Progenitor Cell Biology Consortium
Call for Abstracts
We are soliciting abstracts for presentation at the 7th Annual NHLBI Progenitor Cell Biology Consortium (PCBC) Meeting sessions and the Technology Fair to be held at Houston Methodist Research Institute in Houston, TX, October 13-14, 2015, and Fellows Only Session (FOS) on October 12, 2015. All PCBC investigators, affiliated post-doctoral fellows and graduate students in the field of heart, lung or blood stem and progenitor cell research are invited to submit abstracts for presentation at the 7th Annual PCBC Meeting. Abstracts will be distributed in the meeting book and posted on the PCBC Web Site (www.progenitorcells.org).
Content: Abstracts (350 word limit) should be as specific as possible. Report completed investigation, analyses, designs, or methodological work; do not promise to carry out a project if accepted. Abstracts must describe original work. Each abstract or presentation must be unique. Abstracts may not be duplicative of any other abstract or presentation proposed for the PCBC.
REQUIRED ABSTRACTS/POSTERS
· All current pilot studies and ancillary/collaborative studies recipients MUST submit an abstract.
· All 17 U01 Hub Site Principal Investigators MUST submit at least one abstract for the technology fair.
· The nine Research Hub Lead Principal Investigators are allowed to submit up to FOUR abstracts, with one abstract designated as “plenary”.
· Posters are required for all technology fair, pilot, ancillary/collaborative, and breakout session abstracts.
· Posters are required for any FOS abstracts that are not selected for oral presentation at the FOS meeting.
MAIN MEETING: PLENARY AND BREAKOUT SESSIONS
Topics: Abstracts on topics of interest to the diverse membership of the PCBC are requested. These include identification and characterization of progenitor cell lineages, directing the differentiation of stem and progenitor cells to desired cell fates, and development of new strategies to address the unique challenges presented by the transplantation of these cells. Abstracts are required for plenary session research presentations and for pilot study or ancillary/collaborative study reports.
Submission: Each of the nine Research Hub Lead Principal Investigators may select four abstracts within his/her U01 Hub Site(s) for the meeting. Designate one of the four abstracts for the plenary session and the remaining three abstracts for breakout sessions. The Research Hub Lead Principal Investigator will send abstracts as both a Word document and as a PDF to Ms. Andrea Lefever () by the close of business on Friday, August 21, 2015.
Review: All four abstracts approved by the submitting investigator’s or fellow's Research Hub Lead Principal Investigator (PI) will be accepted. A letter declaring the Research Hub Lead PI approval must accompany each abstract. Any Research Hub Lead PI who wishes to approve more than four abstracts must contact Dr. Terrin ( or 410-706-6139). Permission to submit additional abstracts will be given on a case-by-case basis depending on availability of space for display. Pilot study and ancillary/collaborative study abstracts are not counted against the four abstract limit for the Research Hub.
Presentations: Plenary session presentations will be given by junior investigators (fellows, graduate students or junior faculty). Posters are not required for plenary presentations.
Presentation as a poster on the evening of Tuesday, October 13, 2015, at the meeting reception is REQUIRED for current pilot studies and ancillary/collaborative studies, as well as all other presentations in the breakout sessions. Posters are REQUIRED for all breakout session presentations so consortium members do not have to miss learning about one area of PCBC work because of involvement in another simultaneous breakout session. Posters may be composed of the breakout session PowerPoint presented.
TECHNOLOGY FAIR
Each of the 17 Hub Sites is required to present at least one technology in which the Hub Site investigators are particularly expert at the Hub Site's assigned Technology Fair table. Meeting participants will be able to circulate among the tables to learn about the new, cutting edge technologies of interest. Each abstract will be printed in the meeting booklet and displayed on a poster at the corresponding Hub Site table. The Technology Fair tables will be the base for demonstration of the technologies.
Topics: Abstracts on topics of interest in innovative technologies for stem cell, blood, lung, vascular and heart molecular or cell biology are welcome.
Submission: Each U01 Hub Site Principal Investigator must send at least one abstract as both a Word document and a PDF to by the close of business on Friday, August 21, 2015.
Review: All abstracts approved by a U01 Hub Site Principal Investigator will be accepted.
Presentations: Technology presentations will be given by junior investigators (fellows, graduate students or junior faculty) in the 90-minutes allotted for the Technology Fair. Corresponding posters are REQUIRED at the Technology Fair table. Hub Sites that would like to present technologies with hands-on equipment should contact Michael Terrin ( or 410-706-6139) as soon as possible to determine whether the Hub Site Investigators and the meeting host can arrange for the availability of the equipment, desired, possibly through loan from a manufacturer’s representative.
FELLOWS ONLY SESSION
All PCBC fellows, affiliated trainees, and graduate students in the field of heart/vasculature, lung or blood stem and progenitor cell research are invited to submit abstracts for oral presentation at the 2015 FOS. Abstracts will be distributed in the FOS meeting booklet and posted on the PCBC Web Site.
Topics: Abstracts on topics of interest in the areas of stem cell, blood, lung, and heart are welcome.
Submission: Each of the 17 U01 Hub Site Principal Investigators must send at least one abstract for the FOS. A letter declaring the U01 Hub Site PI approval must accompany each abstract. The submitter or the U01 Hub Site Principal Investigator will send abstracts as both a Word document and a PDF to Ms. Andrea Lefever () by the close of business on Friday, August 21, 2015.
Review: All abstracts approved by fellow’s U01 Hub Site Principal Investigator (PI) will be accepted for review. A designated committee of fellows will review all submitted abstracts and determine which abstracts will be selected for oral presentation at the FOS. Abstracts not selected for oral presentation will be included in the Tuesday, October 13, 2015, poster session and reception.
Presentations: FOS presentations will be given by fellows or graduate students. Posters will be required for any abstract not selected for oral presentation.
GENERAL INFORMATION (FOR ALL ABSTRACTS)
Abstracts will appear in print exactly as submitted. All errors and misspelling are the responsibility of the author. The ENTIRE abstract, including title, author(s), institutional affiliation of FIRST author and text must not exceed 350 words. The abstract must contain, in the following order: (a) Title of paper in all capital letters with no abbreviation, (b) Full name of authors without degrees or titles, (c) Institutional affiliation, city, state or country of first author, and (d) Text of the abstract.
· All accepted breakout session abstracts will be scheduled for poster presentation at the meeting reception in the evening of Tuesday, October 13, 2015.
· The presenting author of an accepted abstract must register for the meeting.
· Expenses (e.g., airfare, lodging) associated with the submission and presentation of an abstract are the responsibility of the presenter and the presenter’s Hub Site.
Rules for Submitting an Abstract
· Submission of an abstract constitutes a commitment by the author(s) to present it. Failure to present, if not justified, will jeopardize future acceptance of abstracts.
· The presenter must be one of the co-authors listed.
· There is a limit of 4 abstracts plus the number required for presentation of pilot studies or ancillary/collaborative studies per Research Hub.
Preparing an Abstract
Abstract Title
· The abstract title conveys to the reader what the study is about. The title should not be misleading and must pertain to research hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions of the study.
· The title may be in the form of a question or may be formatted to suggest the conclusions, if appropriate.
· A short, concise title is preferable as it may more easily catch a reader’s attention.
· Do not use abbreviations in the title.
Abstract Data
· Proofread abstracts carefully to avoid errors before submission. The abstract will be published in the meeting booklet exactly as it has been submitted.
Abstract Text
· Use a standard Arial 11-point typeface.
· Describe briefly the objectives of the study unless they are contained in the title. Include a brief statement of methods if pertinent. State findings in detail sufficient to support conclusions.
· Abstracts should not describe research in which the chemical identity or source of the reagent is proprietary or cannot be revealed.
· Use generic names.
· Do not begin sentences with numerals.
· Standard abbreviations may be used without definition. Nonstandard abbreviations (kept to a minimum) must be placed in parentheses after the first use of the word or phrase abbreviated.
· Do not include references, credits or grant support.
· Do not include the names or personal information of any patient.
· Abstracts are limited to 350 words. This includes the text plus any graphics. All figure graphics (figures) and text-based graphics (tables) should be provided as 72 dpi, pre-sized jpg images, with a maximum width of 450 pixels. Only .jpg images should be submitted. Black-and-white digital images should be in grayscale mode. Color images should be saved in RGB color mode. Addition of an image whether a figure or table deducts 250 characters. Spaces do not count as characters.
General Suggestions
Authors
· Authorship credit should be awarded only to those individuals who substantially contribute to: 1) conception and design or analysis and interpretation of the data; and 2) drafting of the abstract or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the abstract submitted (i.e., U01 Principal Investigator). Participation solely in the collection of data does not justify authorship.
· To allow more space for scientific material, avoid including postal codes in the author and institution listing.
· If the author is submitting more than one abstract to a meeting, the author’s name must be identical on each abstract.
Purpose
· The introductory sentence(s) may state a research hypothesis, purpose or objective. Alternatively, the sentence(s) may state the current evidence for a particular finding. A hypothesis is a supposition or conjecture used as a basis for further investigations. The purpose is a statement of the reason for conducting a particular project. The objective is the end result that the scientist is trying to achieve by conducting a particular experiment.
· This part of the abstract should be limited to one to three sentences.
Methods
· Included in these sentences may be a description of the study population (e.g., human subjects or animal species) and outcome variables (e.g., cell fates).
· Analytical techniques (e.g., HPLC, surface marker assays, immunohistochemistry, in vitro system), as well as frequency and collection procedures for sample procurement, should be described. A brief description of statistical methods may be included.
Results
· The results should be stated succinctly to support only the research hypothesis or conclusions made. Most scientists choose a numerical presentation of the results with statistical significance indicated by p-values. Standard deviations, standard errors of the mean, or ranges should be presented where appropriate.
· Tables should have no more than four columns.
Conclusions
· The conclusion(s) should be brief, highlight the impact of the research, and follow the methods and results in a logical fashion. A common mistake is to restate results in this section. Rather, the utility of the data and their potential role in the management of patients should be emphasized.
· New information or conclusions not supported by data in the results section should be avoided.
Common Mistakes
1. Failure to state the hypothesis. We advise a formal statement such as, “We assessed the hypothesis that … “
2. Failure to state a conclusion. We encourage a final sentence that says: “In conclusion…”
3. Failure to state sample size. The reviewers want to assess the quality of the data – they need a mean, SEM and a sample size.
4. Don’t use complex graphics. Simple line or bar graphs work best. Make sure the font is adequate on each axis to be seen. Check a printed version of the abstract before submitting.
5. Don’t leave abstract writing until the 11th hour – this increases the stress and leads to errors.
6. Work that is duplicative is not well received.
7. Show your abstract to colleagues prior to submission – incorporate their suggestions.
6/3/15
4