@synsci/cli-darwin-x64 1.1.70 → 1.1.72

package/bin/skills/venue-templates/references/cell_press_style.md

@@ -0,0 +1,483 @@
+# Cell Press Writing Style Guide
+
+Comprehensive writing guide for Cell, Neuron, Immunity, Molecular Cell, Developmental Cell, Cell Reports, and other Cell Press journals.
+
+**Last Updated**: 2024
+
+---
+
+## Overview
+
+Cell Press journals emphasize **mechanistic depth**, **rigorous experimentation**, and **biological insight**. Unlike Nature/Science, which prioritize broad accessibility, Cell papers are written for biologists who appreciate technical detail and comprehensive data.
+
+### Key Philosophy
+
+> "Cell papers tell a complete mechanistic story with exhaustive experimental support."
+
+**Primary Goal**: Provide deep biological insight with extensive experimental validation that advances understanding of fundamental mechanisms.
+
+---
+
+## Unique Cell Press Features
+
+Cell Press has several distinctive elements not found in other journals:
+
+### 1. Summary (Not Abstract)
+
+Cell uses "Summary" instead of "Abstract" - functionally similar but emphasizes synthesis.
+
+### 2. Graphical Abstract (REQUIRED)
+
+A visual summary appearing on the table of contents. **This is mandatory for all Cell Press journals.**
+
+### 3. eTOC Blurb
+
+A 30-50 word "elevator pitch" for the electronic table of contents.
+
+### 4. Highlights
+
+3-4 bullet points (≤85 characters each) capturing key findings.
+
+### 5. In Brief
+
+A one-sentence summary of the paper.
+
+---
+
+## Audience and Tone
+
+### Target Reader
+
+- Expert biologist in the relevant field
+- Familiar with techniques and terminology
+- Expects comprehensive data and mechanistic depth
+- Values rigor and reproducibility
+
+### Tone Characteristics
+
+| Characteristic | Description |
+|---------------|-------------|
+| **Technical** | Appropriate jargon for the field |
+| **Mechanistic** | Focus on how and why, not just what |
+| **Comprehensive** | Thorough exploration of the question |
+| **Data-rich** | Extensive experimental support |
+| **Precise** | Exact terminology and quantification |
+
+### Voice
+
+- **First person ("we") acceptable**: "We demonstrate that..."
+- **Active voice encouraged**: "We identified..." 
+- **Confident but measured**: Strong claims require strong evidence
+
+---
+
+## Summary (Abstract)
+
+### Style Requirements
+
+- **150 words maximum** for Cell; varies for other Cell Press journals
+- **Flowing paragraph** (not structured sections)
+- **Dense with information**: Every sentence should convey key points
+- **Mechanistic focus**: What was discovered and how it works
+
+### Summary Structure
+
+1. **Context** (1 sentence): The biological question/problem
+2. **Approach** (1 sentence): What you did
+3. **Key findings** (2-4 sentences): Main results with mechanism
+4. **Significance** (1 sentence): What this reveals about biology
+
+### Example Summary (Cell Style)
+
+```
+Cellular senescence is a stress response that arrests proliferation and 
+promotes tissue remodeling, but the mechanisms controlling senescent cell 
+fate remain unclear. Here, we identify the transcription factor FOXO4 as a 
+critical regulator of senescent cell viability. FOXO4 is highly expressed 
+in senescent cells and sequesters p53 away from mitochondria, preventing 
+apoptosis. Using a cell-penetrating peptide that disrupts FOXO4-p53 
+interaction, we selectively induce senescent cell apoptosis in vitro and 
+in vivo. Administration of this peptide to aged mice restores fitness, fur 
+density, and renal function. These findings reveal FOXO4-p53 as a senescence 
+vulnerability and establish proof-of-concept for targeted senolytic 
+interventions in aging.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Graphical Abstract
+
+### Purpose
+
+A single-panel visual summary for the table of contents that captures the entire paper's message.
+
+### Requirements
+
+- **Size**: Square format, typically 1200 × 1200 pixels
+- **Layout**: Clean, uncluttered
+- **Content**: Show workflow, key finding, and mechanism
+- **Text**: Minimal labels, large readable fonts
+- **Color**: Vibrant but professional
+
+### Design Elements
+
+```
+Typical Graphical Abstract Components:
+1. Starting point (cell, organism, condition)
+2. Intervention/treatment (arrows, symbols)
+3. Key measurement or observation
+4. Outcome/conclusion (visual representation)
+5. Minimal text labels connecting elements
+```
+
+### Example Description (for schematic generation)
+
+```
+"Graphical abstract showing: Left panel - normal cells with FOXO4 (blue) 
+and p53 (green) separate. Center panel - senescent cells with FOXO4 
+binding p53, preventing apoptosis. Right panel - FOXO4 peptide disrupts 
+interaction, allowing p53 to reach mitochondria, triggering apoptosis. 
+Arrow at bottom showing aged mouse → treatment → rejuvenated mouse."
+```
+
+---
+
+## Highlights
+
+### Format
+
+3-4 bullet points, each ≤85 characters (including spaces)
+
+### Content Guidelines
+
+- Start with an action verb or key noun
+- Include specific findings
+- Make each highlight standalone
+- Cover different aspects of the paper
+
+### Example Highlights
+
+```
+• FOXO4 is selectively expressed in senescent cells
+
+• FOXO4 sequesters p53, preventing senescent cell apoptosis
+
+• A FOXO4-targeting peptide induces selective senescent cell death
+
+• Senolytic peptide treatment restores function in aged mice
+```
+
+---
+
+## eTOC Blurb
+
+### Format
+
+30-50 words for the electronic table of contents
+
+### Writing Guidelines
+
+- Written by authors (editors may modify)
+- Start with author names or key finding
+- Make it a complete, engaging sentence
+- Highlight the most exciting aspect
+
+### Example eTOC Blurb
+
+```
+Baar et al. identify FOXO4 as a vulnerability of senescent cells and 
+develop a peptide that induces targeted apoptosis of senescent cells. 
+Treatment of aged mice with this senolytic peptide restores fitness 
+and organ function.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Introduction
+
+### Length and Structure
+
+- **4-6 paragraphs** (800-1200 words)
+- More comprehensive than Nature/Science
+- Can include more technical detail and literature
+
+### Paragraph-by-Paragraph Guide
+
+**Paragraph 1: Biological Context**
+- Establish the biological process or system
+- Why is this important to understand?
+- Set up the key players and mechanisms
+
+**Paragraphs 2-3: State of the Field**
+- Detailed review of relevant prior work
+- Establish what is known mechanistically
+- More comprehensive than Nature/Science
+
+**Paragraph 4: The Gap**
+- What remains unknown or controversial?
+- Why is this a critical question?
+- What has prevented progress?
+
+**Paragraph 5: Your Approach**
+- How did you tackle this question?
+- What techniques/systems did you use?
+- Why was your approach appropriate?
+
+**Final Paragraph: Key Findings Preview**
+- Brief statement of what you discovered
+- How does this advance the field?
+- Set up the structure of results
+
+### Example Introduction Paragraph
+
+```
+Cellular senescence is characterized by stable cell-cycle arrest, profound 
+chromatin alterations, and a complex secretory phenotype known as the 
+senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) (Coppé et al., 2008; 
+Rodier and Campisi, 2011). Senescent cells accumulate with age and at 
+sites of pathology, where they can drive tissue dysfunction through 
+SASP-mediated inflammation and disruption of tissue architecture (van 
+Deursen, 2014). The targeted elimination of senescent cells—senolysis—has 
+emerged as a promising therapeutic strategy, with genetic and pharmacological 
+approaches demonstrating benefits in mouse models of aging and age-related 
+disease (Baker et al., 2011, 2016; Chang et al., 2016).
+```
+
+---
+
+## Results
+
+### Organization
+
+Cell papers typically have **5-8 results sections**, each with a descriptive subheading:
+
+```
+Results
+├── Section 1: Discovery of the phenomenon
+├── Section 2: Characterization of the mechanism  
+├── Section 3: Identification of molecular players
+├── Section 4: Functional validation
+├── Section 5: In vivo confirmation
+├── Section 6: Therapeutic proof-of-concept
+└── Section 7: Broader implications
+```
+
+### Subheading Style
+
+Cell uses **declarative subheadings** stating the finding:
+
+❌ "Analysis of FOXO4 expression" (descriptive - avoid)
+✅ "FOXO4 Is Selectively Upregulated in Senescent Cells" (declarative)
+
+### Results Writing Style
+
+- **Comprehensive detail**: Cell expects more methodological context in Results than Nature
+- **Figure-by-figure narrative**: Each major figure often corresponds to a results section
+- **Statistical rigor**: All quantifications with statistics
+- **Biological interpretation**: More interpretation woven in than pure Results sections
+
+### Example Results Paragraph
+
+```
+To identify transcription factors regulating senescent cell viability, we 
+performed RNA sequencing on proliferating and senescent human fibroblasts 
+(IMR90 cells induced to senesce by replicative exhaustion, ionizing 
+radiation, or oncogene-induced senescence). Differential expression 
+analysis revealed 47 transcription factors significantly upregulated 
+across all senescence modalities (FDR < 0.05, fold change > 2; Figure 1A 
+and Table S1). Among these, FOXO4 showed the highest and most consistent 
+upregulation (12.3 ± 2.1-fold; Figure 1B), a finding we confirmed by 
+quantitative RT-PCR (Figure 1C) and immunoblot analysis (Figure 1D). 
+Immunofluorescence microscopy revealed nuclear FOXO4 accumulation in 
+senescent but not proliferating cells (Figure 1E,F).
+```
+
+---
+
+## Discussion
+
+### Structure
+
+Cell discussions are **thorough and mechanistic**:
+
+**Paragraph 1: Summary**
+- Restate key findings
+- Synthesize the main message
+
+**Paragraphs 2-4: Mechanistic Interpretation**
+- Deep dive into how your findings fit with known biology
+- Propose models
+- Discuss molecular mechanisms in detail
+
+**Paragraph 5: Comparison with Literature**
+- How do your findings relate to prior work?
+- Resolve apparent contradictions
+
+**Paragraph 6: Implications and Applications**
+- Therapeutic implications
+- Broader significance
+
+**Paragraph 7: Limitations**
+- Honest assessment
+- Open questions remaining
+
+**Final Paragraph: Conclusions**
+- Big-picture take-home message
+- Future directions
+
+---
+
+## Experimental Procedures / STAR Methods
+
+### STAR Methods Format
+
+Cell uses a structured **STAR Methods** section:
+
+```
+RESOURCE AVAILABILITY
+  Lead Contact
+  Materials Availability
+  Data and Code Availability
+
+EXPERIMENTAL MODEL AND SUBJECT DETAILS
+  Cell Lines
+  Animals
+  Human Subjects
+
+METHOD DETAILS
+  [Detailed protocols for each technique]
+
+QUANTIFICATION AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
+```
+
+### Key Reagent Table (KEY RESOURCES TABLE)
+
+Cell requires a comprehensive table of all key resources:
+
+| REAGENT or RESOURCE | SOURCE | IDENTIFIER |
+|---------------------|--------|------------|
+| Antibodies | | |
+| Rabbit anti-FOXO4 | Abcam | Cat#ab12345 |
+| Chemicals | | |
+| Doxorubicin | Sigma-Aldrich | Cat#D1515 |
+| Cell Lines | | |
+| IMR90 | ATCC | CCL-186 |
+
+---
+
+## Figures
+
+### Figure Philosophy
+
+Cell papers are **figure-heavy** with extensive multi-panel figures:
+
+- **6-8 main figures** typical
+- **Multi-panel format**: 6-12 panels per figure common
+- **Data-dense**: Comprehensive experimental support
+- **Extended Data**: Supplementary figures for additional validation
+
+### Panel Labeling
+
+Panels labeled with lowercase letters: **(A)**, **(B)**, **(C)**
+
+### Figure Legend Format
+
+```
+Figure 3. FOXO4 Sequesters p53 in the Nucleus of Senescent Cells
+
+(A) Immunofluorescence microscopy of p53 (green) and FOXO4 (red) in 
+proliferating (left) and senescent (right) IMR90 cells. DAPI (blue) 
+marks nuclei. Scale bar, 10 μm.
+
+(B) Quantification of nuclear p53 intensity in proliferating versus 
+senescent cells. Data represent mean ± SEM; n = 3 biological replicates, 
+>100 cells per condition. ***p < 0.001, two-tailed Student's t test.
+
+(C and D) Co-immunoprecipitation of FOXO4 and p53 in proliferating (C) 
+and senescent (D) cell lysates. IgG, immunoglobulin G control.
+
+(E) Proximity ligation assay for FOXO4-p53 interaction. Red dots indicate 
+interaction events. Scale bar, 10 μm.
+
+(F) Model of FOXO4-mediated p53 sequestration in senescent cells.
+
+See also Figure S3 and Table S2.
+```
+
+---
+
+## References
+
+### Citation Style
+
+- **Author-year format**: (Smith et al., 2023) or Smith et al. (2023)
+- **Multiple citations**: (Smith et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2021)
+- **Two authors**: (Smith and Jones, 2023)
+- **Three or more**: (Smith et al., 2023)
+
+### Reference Format
+
+```
+Baker, D.J., Wijshake, T., Tchkonia, T., LeBrasseur, N.K., Childs, B.G., 
+van de Sluis, B., Kirkland, J.L., and van Deursen, J.M. (2011). Clearance 
+of p16Ink4a-positive senescent cells delays ageing-associated disorders. 
+Nature 479, 232–236.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Cell Press Journal Comparison
+
+| Journal | Focus | Article Length | Figures |
+|---------|-------|---------------|---------|
+| **Cell** | Breakthrough biology | Long | 7-8 main + ED |
+| **Neuron** | Neuroscience | Long | 6-8 main |
+| **Immunity** | Immunology | Medium-Long | 6-7 main |
+| **Molecular Cell** | Molecular mechanisms | Medium | 5-7 main |
+| **Developmental Cell** | Development | Medium | 5-7 main |
+| **Cell Reports** | Solid science | Medium | 4-6 main |
+
+---
+
+## Common Mistakes
+
+1. **Insufficient mechanism**: Describing what happens without how
+2. **Under-controlled experiments**: Missing key controls
+3. **Weak phenotype validation**: Single approach instead of multiple
+4. **Missing in vivo work**: Cell papers often expect animal studies
+5. **Incomplete figure panels**: Not showing all relevant conditions
+6. **Forgetting graphical abstract**: Required element
+7. **Exceeding highlight character limits**: ≤85 characters per bullet
+
+---
+
+## Pre-Submission Checklist
+
+### Required Elements
+- [ ] Graphical abstract (square format)
+- [ ] Highlights (3-4 bullets, ≤85 characters each)
+- [ ] eTOC blurb (30-50 words)
+- [ ] Summary (≤150 words)
+- [ ] Key Resources Table
+
+### Content
+- [ ] Mechanistic depth throughout
+- [ ] Multiple complementary approaches
+- [ ] In vivo validation (if applicable)
+- [ ] Declarative subheadings
+- [ ] Comprehensive figure panels
+
+### Style
+- [ ] Technical precision in terminology
+- [ ] Author-year citations
+- [ ] Figure legends complete and standalone
+- [ ] STAR Methods properly formatted
+
+---
+
+## See Also
+
+- `venue_writing_styles.md` - Master style overview
+- `journals_formatting.md` - Technical formatting requirements
+- `nature_science_style.md` - Comparison with Nature/Science style
+