Reviewer Spotlight: Aristea Galanopoulou

The quality of eNeuro depends on the effort that is generously contributed by our reviewers, who lend their expertise and time helping to ensure we publish great science. This Reviewer Recognition series introduces the research of selected reviewers, as well as their strategies for approaching peer review of a paper. Aristea Galanopoulou is currently a Professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine focusing on models of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies and post-traumatic epilepsy to identify mechanisms, therapy targets, biomarkers and treatments for epilepsies across the lifespan.

"I am a neurologist and a basic scientist and enjoy most when we can bring knowledge from the bench to the clinics and the reverse."

Aristea Galanopoulou, MD, PhD, FANA, FAES

Tell us about your work. 

My research explores the interplay of age and sex-specific developmental factors and seizures and their role in brain development, epilepsy development and comorbidities and particularly the role of GABAA receptors, mTOR pathway and inflammation. The disease area I investigate is epilepsy. My research team studies models of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies and post-traumatic epilepsy to identify mechanisms, therapy targets, biomarkers and treatments for epilepsies across the lifespan.

My past work reported the central role of GABAA receptor signaling and cation chloride cotransporters in sex-specific brain maturation under normal conditions or after seizures. My group has been studying the role of inflammation and mTOR pathway in developmental epileptic encephalopathies with infantile spasms and provided evidence for potential therapeutic and disease modifying effects in this epilepsy syndrome for a number of repurposed or novel therapeutics. More recently we reported on the complex timecourse and molecular heterogeneity of abnormal phosphorylated forms of tau protein after brain trauma. In efforts to predict the development of epilepsy we are investigating the role of multimodal biomarkers. We demonstrated that panels of early peripheral biomarkers may predict early outcomes of brain trauma but also highlighted the complex factors that need to be considered in the validation of such biomarkers.

How did you become interested in this line of research?

Epilepsy research offers the possibility to observe and study the brain in live mode and explore ways to positively impact the lives of patients with seizures through a better understanding of mechanisms, and the development of novel diagnostic and prognosticating tools and therapeutics to predict, prevent or cure epilepsy. Epilepsy and seizures intimately intersect with other neurological and medical diseases and conditions, which offers the possibility to share knowledge with other research areas. Beyond the intellectual challenge in investigating the complex mechanisms and networks involved in seizures and epilepsies, there is a tight rope path between what is considered normal and pathological. Seizure/epilepsy research in essence tries to decode and restore the borders between health and disease offering a fascinating exploration of the brain.

What do you do when not in the lab?

I am a neurologist and a basic scientist and enjoy most when we can bring knowledge from the bench to the clinics and the reverse. I enjoy music, travel, and discussions and reads that bring an unexpected view on old concepts.

How do you approach a review?

I look for the potential to enrich our knowledge and research armamentarium and whether the actual research results are described in a sound, unbiased and objective manner. When possible, the language used in the manuscripts should be clear and understood by nonspecialists. The latter, I believe, is essential to ensure research growth as it removes the technical linguistic boundaries that hinder understanding, vetting, and utilization of research advances.

What have you learned over the years that has made you an effective reviewer?

Looking for the details of the study design, experimental conditions and analyses is essential to understand the rigor of findings but also potential alternate interpretations that authors failed to report. Differentiating between experimental and biological significance is critical. Extremely technical language may mask weaknesses in study design, understanding of methods, or the interpretation of the results and may hinder potential collaborations with other specialists who could contribute their ideas or solutions.
Being sensitive to diversity issues is also essential to provide opportunities for sound research to be reported, regardless of where it was generated.

What is your experience as a reviewer with eNeuro's consultation review process?

eNeuro's review system has been excellent with attention to the rigor and speed of peer review system with possibility for discussions.

Aristea Galanopoulou, MD, PhD, FANA, FAES
Professor
Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Learn more:

eNeuro offers authors the choice to receive double-blind review.  Additionally, the Reviewing Editor and two reviewers will consult to reach a consensus on the decision and to draft a synthesis of the reviewers' comments explaining the decision. These review syntheses are published alongside each accepted paper.  Learn more about eNeuro's Review Process.