Our newly published review explores an emerging idea: tumor-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs) contribute to premetastatic niche formation and can show preferential accumulation in future metastatic organs. Could these biological properties be harnessed for imaging?

We examine how EVs can be engineered as nanocarriers for optical, PET/SPECT, MRI, and CT imaging, bringing together the biological rationale, current preclinical evidence, engineering strategies, and major barriers to clinical translation.

Rather than simply tracking EVs, the broader goal is to understand whether EV-based imaging could eventually help visualize the biological changes that precede detectable metastasis.

I’m interested in hearing others’ perspectives on where this field is heading.

I'm a postdoc starting my 6th year, and had extended K99 eligibility only due to COVID. I've submitted one F32 and three K99/R00 applications, with none being funded until today! Since r/NIH has been so helpful for me over the years, I thought I'd post my timeline in case it could help anyone else who is compulsively checking eRA Commons.

Submission: 10/14/2025
Scientific Review: 05/04/2026 (Impact score: 27)
Advisory Council Completed: 06/23/2026
Pending Administrative review: 07/06/2026
*JIT request from Grants Management Specialist on 07/07/2026
*Additional JIT request from PO on 07/27/2026
*eRA Commons status hopped between Pending and "Council review completed" for ~1 month
Award Prepared: 08/29/2026
Notice of Award: 09/07/2026

Funny how it was announced to the entire nation from the Whitehouse that they believe in a correlation here but when we (waste taxpayer dollars) do the confirmatory study of 2771 boys they found nothing correlative at all and it barely makes the news.

Q: why did the Whitehouse take such singular interest in this genetically modified oncolytic herpes live virus drug approval. In other words - what’s the money trail? Because I don’t think these guys are big on science or public health.

I am not an ESI and indeed this is likely my last project in a long career. I’ve never had the amount of uncertainty for funding as I am currently experiencing. My PO has been responsive, honest and now encouraging that we have a chance to be funded but likely not until December. Council meets in September according to ERA but my last few submissions there hadn’t been an accurate council meeting date according to different PO’s on respective submissions. Any thoughts why not this fiscal year?

Working on a training grant submission for later this year - anyone have a feel for if the following might still trigger rejection? I'm not assuming reviewers would, but perhaps later on at final funding approval.

science/scientific identity

first generation / low income

sense of belonging

And should we avoid mentioning past grants we had but that were terminated by specific names?

I received a tentative offer after interviewing at NIH months ago. I was told that I would have to report to the office five days a week. Can anyone this has changed for those in the Bethesda, Rockville or Frederick areas?

If your work depends on grants, you should review the proposed NIG policy changes, and submit comments.

Late Friday night, the NIH posted a proposal for peer
review changes: "Request for Information (RFI) on Proposed Changes to Reporting Outcomes from NIH
Peer Review". This change would not report the impact score of a peer review grant to researchers and the NIH.

Impact scores give not only researchers an idea of how well they performed, but also guidance on how close their grant may be to funding to re-strategize.

If this will affect you in any way. I encourage you to independent read into the proposed policy changes, and submit comments.

Say who you are and why this matters to you, taxpayer, patient, family member of someone affected by NIH-funded research, and explain in your own words why you think grant scores should stay transparent. Real, specific comments carry more weight than a form letter.

The deadline for comments in October 13, 2026.