Search

Mentorship is vital for early career researchers in training positions, allowing them to navigate the challenges of work and life in research environments. However, the quality of mentorship received by trainees can vary by investigator and by institution. One challenge faced by those hoping to improve trainee mentorship is that the extent to which mentorship is offered to and experienced by research trainees is not well characterized. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a survey to examine the quality of mentorship received by trainees in research environments, to identify characteristics of positive and negative mentorship, and to highlight best practices to improve trainee mentorship. We received 2,114 responses from researchers at graduate and postdoctoral career stages worldwide. Quantitative analysis showed that at least ∼25-45% of respondents were dissatisfied with some aspects of their mentorship. Qualitative responses revealed that common issues in mentorship include unclear expectations in research and mentoring interactions, lack of guidance, and inadequate support of trainee independence and career goals. Our findings also identified key mentorship elements desired by trainee mentees. Based on trainee suggestions, we describe strategies for individual mentors, departments, and institutions to improve the training experience for graduate and postdoctoral researchers.

Faculty at research institutions play a central role in advancing knowledge and careers, as well as promoting the well-being of students and colleagues in research environments. Faculty members must balance a host of activities - such as performing research, teaching, sourcing funds, administrative and service duties - with their roles as educators and mentors. Mentorship from experienced peers has been touted as critical for enabling these myriad roles to allow faculty development, career progression, and satisfaction. However, there is little information available on who supports faculty and best ways to structure a faculty mentorship program for early- and mid-career academics. Furthermore, the extent to which mentorship and mentoring programs have been offered to faculty members has not been widely characterized. It is also unclear what challenges faculty receiving mentorship may face and which aspects could be further improved. In the interest of advocating for increased and enhanced faculty mentoring and mentoring programs, we surveyed faculty (i.e., group leaders) around the world to gather data on whether and how they receive mentoring from peers, senior researchers, informal mentoring programs, or formal mentoring programs at their institutions. We received responses from 457 early- and mid-career faculty and found that a substantial portion of respondents either reported having no mentor or a lack of a formal mentoring scheme. Qualitative responses on the quality of mentorship revealed that the most common complaints regarding mentorship included lack of mentor availability, unsatisfactory commitment to mentorship, and non-specific or non-actionable advice. Our findings further identified key mentorship elements desired by faculty mentees. Based on these suggestions, we identify a need for training for faculty mentors as well as strategies for individual mentors, departments, and institutions for funding and design of more intentional and supportive mentorship programs for early- and mid-career faculty.

The vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) family of cytokines are key drivers of blood vessel growth and remodeling. These ligands act via multiple VEGF receptors (VEGFR) and co-receptors such as Neuropilin (NRP) expressed on endothelial cells. These membrane-associated receptors are not solely expressed on the cell surface, they move between the surface and intracellular locations, where they can function differently. The location of the receptor alters its ability to ’see’ (access and bind to) its ligands, which regulates receptor activation; location also alters receptor exposure to subcellularly localized phosphatases, which regulates its deactivation. Thus, receptors in different subcellular locations initiate different signaling, both in terms of quantity and quality. Similarly, the local levels of co-expression of other receptors alters competition for ligands. Subcellular localization is controlled by intracellular trafficking processes, which thus control VEGFR activity; therefore, to understand VEGFR activity, we must understand receptor trafficking. Here, for the first time, we simultaneously quantify the trafficking of VEGFR1, VEGFR2, and NRP1 on the same cells - specifically human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs). We build a computational model describing the expression, interaction, and trafficking of these receptors, and use it to simulate cell culture experiments. We use new quantitative experimental data to parameterize the model, which then provides mechanistic insight into the trafficking and localization of this receptor network. We show that VEGFR2 and NRP1 trafficking is not the same on HUVECs as on non-human ECs; and we show that VEGFR1 trafficking is not the same as VEGFR2 trafficking, but rather is faster and weighted to intracellular expression, due to faster internalization and lower recycling, resulting in increased overall degradation. As a consequence, the VEGF receptors are not evenly distributed between the cell surface and intracellular locations, with a very low percentage of VEGFR1 being on the cell surface. Our findings have implications both for the sensing of extracellular ligands and for the composition of signaling complexes at the cell surface versus inside the cell.