{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023399014778325122, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016420361247947454, 'mean_word_length': 5.297157622739018, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Disease connections: A new peer‐reviewed dialog

Back when I was a postdoc, in the late 80s, the connection between basic research and human disease was tenuous. It was really not clear whether studying frog development would give insight into human disease, much less whether studying fruit flies would. Today, we think of fruit flies as minipeople, with most of the essential human organs and many regulatory genes in common. But 20 years ago, although conservation of the homeobox was known, the number of human genes with orthologs in frogs or Drosophila was a mystery. Grant applications in those days carried weak statements like: “mechanisms of development are likely to be similar between humans and frogs (or flies, worms, mice), and this research will therefore give fundamental insight into the causes of human birth defects (or cancer, neurological disease).” Who knew whether this was a solid claim or an idle boast? Today, we know that conservation is the rule and that developmentally important gene circuitry seems similar in most organisms. Further, the notion that disease states can reflect normal development gone wrong is clear. For example, cancer genes are developmentally important genes expressed abnormally, while metastasis and neural crest migration seem extraordinarily similar. Indeed, this type of understanding has validated the use of model organisms to define human gene function and to set up useful disease models in non-human systems. In this context, it is particularly important that communication among physicians, physician–scientists, and basic scientists be accurate, open, fluid, and as close to real-time as feasible. These exchanges must cross disciplines, and clear, open dialog is therefore crucial. Such dialog includes critical analysis of new information obtained from human or animal models and whether a particular synthesis advances the area of translational biomedicine. We are therefore excited to launch the new peer-reviewed Disease Connections section of Developmental Dynamics. Disease Connections will highlight research concerning the function of genes implicated in human disease, use of non-human animal models to investigate the etiology of human disorders, and use of a model as a tool for therapeutic drug screening. We invite your contributions to MiniReviews or Research Articles, and welcome your suggestions to make Disease Connections a useful and relevant dialog.