Complementary information

> This page contains information on recently submitted papers and will be updated in real time.

Manuscripts in press/published

  • all publications are online and listed in the publication page

Submitted Manuscripts

I will only add preprints here when I am the lead senior author (unless a preprint was posted on biorXiv)

Francoise Helmbacher#, Sigmar Stricker#. Tissue cross talks governing limb muscle development and regeneration (Review article). Submitted (Ms ID: YSCDB_2019_86)  (#: co-corresponding)
-Submitted on 07/02/2020
-Currently: Under review

Ievgenia Pastushenko, Federico Mauri, Yura Song, Florian de Cock, Gaelle Lapouge, Yacine Bareche, Marjorie Vermeersch, Yves-Rémi Van Eycke, Cédric Balsat, Christine Decaestecker, Youri Sokolow, Matteo Cappello, Sergio Hassid, Beatriz Agreda-Moreno, Luis Rios, Pedro Jaen, Pedro Redondo, Ramon Sieira-Gil, Nicky D’Haene, Virginie Moers, Sophie Lemaire, Samuel Scozzaro, Christine Dubois, David Pérez-Moraga, Isabelle Salmon, Christos Sotiriou, Francoise Helmbacher and Cédric Blanpain. Fat1 deletion promotes hybrid EMT state with enhanced tumor progression, stemness, and metastasis”Submitted (Ms ID: 2019-01-01025)
-Submitted on 21/01/2019
-Under revision since 19/02/2019

Emily J. Lodge, Paraskevi Xekouki, Tatiane S. Silva, Cristiane Kochi, Carlos A. Longui, Fabio Faucz, Alice Santambrogio, James L. Mills, Nathan Pankratz, John Lane, Dominika Sosnowska, Tina Hodgson, Amanda L. Patist, Philippa Francis-West, Francoise Helmbacher, Constantine Stratakis, Cynthia Andoniadou. Requirement of FAT and DCHS protocadherins during hypothalamic-pituitary development Submitted. MS-ID: 134310-INS-RG-1.
-Submitted on 04/11/2019
-Under revision since 28/11/2019

Publication list

Available at the following links:
Scopus Author ID: 6506307667 | |Google scholar profile |

Note to Grant Reviewers:

If you are a grant reviewer, and are considering to reject my application with arguments such as “the team is too small and thus not competitive, hence feasibility is low”, in spite of also writing that the project is excellent and would otherwise deserve being funded, just consider that the only way for the team to regrow is by hiring people, and this requires salaries from grants. Thus, if we don’t get the grant, we can’t hire. And with this, not getting the grant will render the team even less competitive. If you use arguments such as the one above, you will definitely contribute to this!

> Think twice, not getting the grant means that I will use the salary I earn on sending new applications (possibly failing to be funded for similar reasons) instead of devoting it to research. This is wasting public money, and wasting the time of a qualified researcher, who NEVERTHELESS continues being productive. Since I am not intending to resign and give my position back, the only service you can do to help avoiding wasting this salary is to evaluate THE PROJECT, and not the situation of the team !

> When giving more weight to the situation, you give more weight to the outcome of past evaluations that discarded a previous application, than to the quality of a project. If there were biases in the prior evaluations (evaluations that you trust blindly), then you perpetuate them. Thus by giving more weight to the past than to the intrinsic qualities of a project, you simply perpetuate biases.