Author response to ‘Regarding the study by Packer et al.’

Response letter regarding the letter to the editors by Brown et al.

We read with interest the letter by Brown and colleagues, which focuses on our model’s assumptions regarding duration of cross-protection against non-vaccine HPV types (20, 30, 50 y and lifetime). Brown et al. begin by highlighting an article reviewing cross protection in different vaccine trials by Malag on et al., which suggests that AS04-adjuvanted HPV16/18 (bHPV, CervarixTM) vaccine-mediate...

Response to comment by Moxon et al.

We would like to thank Clinical Science for the opportunity to respond to the letter [1] which suggests that while we have been able to show that PTP1B inhibitor, trodusquemine, decreases atherosclerotic plaque size as well as serum triglycerides and cholesterol, that we have not shown that it reverses the plaque size, using in vivo imaging techniques such as MRI scanning or ultrasound. Both Ld...

Response to commentary by Gutierrez et al.

Department of Entomology and Nematology, Department of Plant Sciences, and Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA Center for the Economics and Demography of Aging, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA Laboratory of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology, School of Agricultural Sciences, University of Thessaly, Phytokoy St....

Public Participation: Methods Matter; A Response to Boaz et al.

Response by Caplan et al.

W e would like to thank Dr. Wong for the response to our article “No time to waste—the ethical challenges created by CRISPR”. Dr. Wong’s letter addresses a question about the relationship between biology and society: that “prevailing papers” on CRISPR-Cas9 rarely emphasize understanding the microbiological processes that make CRISPR-Cas9 an effective defensive mechanism. Instead, scientists and...