The Biology Department of Boston College seeks to recruit a tenure-track faculty member with research and teaching interests in the area of Cell & Developmental Biology.
The ideal candidate is expected to establish a rigorous, externally funded research program that contributes to, or complements, current strengths in using in vivo model systems to answer fundamental questions in cell and developmental biology. The successful candidate will receive a highly competitive startup package including research and equipment funds and laboratory space, IT/computational support, grant preparation and management assistance, and access to shared resources and state-of-the-art core facilities including imaging/microscopy (including super-resolution microscopy), NexGen sequencing, flow-cytometry/FACS, NMR, and mass-spectrometry. Finally, all new faculty members receive active and dedicated mentoring to help ensure success at Boston College.
In alignment with the University’s goal of building a culturally diverse, equitable and inclusive academic community, we are seeking individuals who are committed to the advancement of historically underrepresented and marginalized communities in the sciences. In addition, the successful candidate must have a strong record of research productivity, and a desire to teach, advise and mentor graduate students and undergraduate students in the biosciences.
The Biology Department is home to a dynamic research community embedded in a highly ranked, liberal arts university campus located close to downtown Boston and Cambridge. The surrounding region constitutes a global research hub, comprising numerous universities, research institutes, biotechnology firms and pharmaceutical companies. The Biology Department hosts a graduate program in the biosciences; provides lecture and laboratory courses and research opportunities for undergraduates majoring in biology and biochemistry; and actively participates in the Gateway Scholar’s Program for underserved minorities and first-generation college students majoring in STEM fields at Boston College. Faculty and their research teams also have access to new facilities and interdisciplinary collaborations provided by The Schiller Institute for Integrated Science and Society.
Application Instructions
Candidates starting at any rank (Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor) may apply. Applications must include a cover letter, a three-page statement of research accomplishments and goals, and a statement of teaching and mentoring philosophy (2-3 pages). Applicants at the Assistant Professor level should also provide contact information for three (3) references. All applications received by December 1, 2020 will be given full consideration.
The Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Brain Sciences (ELSC) builds upon Hebrew University‘s record of excellence and innovation in its multidisciplinary approach to brain sciences.
ELSC invites applications for postdoctoral fellows in the following fields: theoretical and computational neuroscience, systems neuroscience, molecular and cellular mechanisms, cognitive neuroscience, and neuronal circuits. Postdoctoral fellows receive a competitive stipend for a period of up to two years.
WE OFFER:
State-of-the-art laboratories
Distinguished faculty
Generous Postdoctoral scholarships
Enriched academic milieu
Established ties and frequent collaborations with world renowned labs
Opportunities to audit advanced courses
Rich student and postdoctoral environments
Postdoctoral support staff
Eligibility:
The candidate must be (or have been) a student in an accredited institution of higher education and whose PhD training and post-doctoral projects are in the field of Brain Sciences.
The candidate’s doctoral degree has been submitted in the current year of applying or will be approved by the following year.
Candidates Commitments:
A recipient of an ELSC Fellowship must commence his/her post doctoral training no later than 5 years after completion of the PhD.
A recipient of an ELSC Fellowship must provide written approval from the authority of PhD students in his/her institute, confirming that his/her PhD has been submitted before they begin their post-doctoral training. If PhD was not yet awarded, the candidate must provide approval of a PhD during the first academic year of the post doctoral studies
A letter from the host is mandatory in order to commence the post doctoral studies
A recipient of an ELSC Fellowship must begin the postdoc training within 6 months after receiving the acceptance letter
Terms of Fellowship:
The fellowship can be extended up to 2 years, given availability of funds and the scientific achievements of the candidate. ELSC is not committed to prolong the fellowship in advance.
Preference will be given to students who completed their PhD abroad
In this episode we bring you an in-depth interview with Dr Eric Green, director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute and one of the key instigators of the Human Genome Project, to talk about the past, present and future of human genomics.
Thirty years ago this month saw the birth of one of the most audacious research programmes in biology: The Human Genome Project, an ambitious plan to read the DNA sequence of the entire human genome. Ten years later, in June 2000 – after billions of dollars, countless hours of DNA sequencing, and a huge amount of effort from an international collaboration from 20 institutions in six countries – the first draft of the Human Genome was unveiled.
Dr Eric Green has seen the Human Genome Project through from its inception through to the published sequence and into what’s now the fully-fledged field of human genomics. Today, he’s the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, and a leading light in the world of genes, genomes and genome sequencing. I called him up to chat about the past, present and future of the human genome – starting by going all the way back to the beginning of the Human Genome Project.
Mustafa Güven gives a student’s perspective on Development’s recent virtual meeting: From Stem Cells to Human Development. Below the piece you’ll also find Mustafa’s Turkish translation of the report. For a ‘behind the scenes’ look at the meeting, go here.
As a fourth-year medical student from Van, Turkey, I have witnessed birth and death on the same day. It is interesting how the two most certain things in human life bring the most joy and sadness. But between birth and death, these two inevitable events, change and development never stop.
I am fascinated by how development can occur without any problems, where even minor troubles can be fatal. And here we are, alive and full of passion to understand development and the “troubles” better.
The meeting poster
Embryology was by far my favorite lesson in my years studying basic medicine. I would always sit in the front of class and listen to the lectures as if I was enchanted. I continued to learn more about development in the following years, and so it was a wonderful opportunity to attend the virtual “From Stem Cell to Human Development” meeting, hosted by the journal Development on 8-11 September. I wasn’t sure if my knowledge was sufficient to benefit from this meeting but I wanted to take my chances. Also, I was very nervous before the meeting because I had not attended a meeting where many great scientists that I read works of would be close enough to say ‘hi’ to, at least virtually. Thanks to the interactive environment of the platform used, I wasn’t nervous after the first day.
The Remo software used for the meeting
Although online conferences might not be as efficient as regular ones, I think they offer important opportunities. In normal times, I would not have been able to attend this congress, mainly because of economic reasons and also because of my studies. I also think that online meetings will become part of every conference, and the quality of them will improve over time. The platform used in this conference, called Remo, was already good quality. There were different floors and tables for different purposes as if it was a real conference building. Two floors were for poster sessions but unfortunately, I could only check out two posters. I have had time to explore more after the meeting finished. The only negative thing I can say is that, although I don’t know why, I had a little difficulty concentrating on pre-recorded talks. I wonder if this is something other people experience?
In each of the sessions I was like “wow, cool!”, but I still would like to highlight some of the talks that really stuck with me.
The meeting started with Wieland Huttner (Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Germany) explaining his lab’s research on how the size of the brain, especially the neocortex, increased during evolution. They investigated the effects of the ARHGAP11B gene on basal progenitor cells, which are the driving force in neuronal proliferation, and conducted further experiments on marmosets and human cerebral organoids. The results were exciting: ARHGAP11B is necessary for neuronal proliferation and folding of the neocortex, and exerts its effects through metabolic pathways. I’m looking forward to see the possible clinical applications. I was also amazed by the lab’s extensive collaborations.
This conference was exciting in many ways. Listening to the pioneering scientists developing new methods was one of them. It is exciting because thanks to new methods, I hope we will see rapid developments in treatment in the near future. Samira Musah (Duke University, USA) was one of these researchers. She is working on a relatively little studied but nonetheless vitally important organ: the kidney. After giving shocking statistics about chronic kidney disease, she talked about her group’s research interests and the field’s current limitations. One of the main limitations to study kidney diseases is the lack of physiologically relevant models. Using induced pluripotent stem cells, her lab managed to establish iPSs derived-podocytes (special cells that play crucial roles in filtration). Another important topic they are working on is a currently popular one: the kidney tropism of COVID-19. I hope to read their papers on the subject soon.
Because of my background, I was more interested in the talks related to current clinical applications, which in turn I was able to understand more. In this regard, James Wells (Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, USA) gave a particularly interesting talk. His lab’s discoveries about endocrine cell development in the gastrointestinal tract were remarkable. He showed that the deletion of neurogenin-3 culminates in the loss of enteroendocrine cells of the pancreas and intestines. This loss can cause diabetes and malabsorption. What I found interesting is that they can induce neurogenin-3 and restore the function of these cells. They also discovered the roles of a peptide, PYY, using neurogenin-3 deficient organoids in enteroendocrine cell functions. He talked about how additional PYY can improve malabsorption parameters in mice. These results are very promising for severe malabsorption patients because they require parenteral nutrition for the rest of their lives.
Being able to re-watch the talks was very beneficial, as I could revise the parts that I didn’t understand at first. Also, I couldn’t attend each live session, so I could catch up later. After listening to the talks for the second time, I see that my knowledge wasn’t completely sufficient after all, but I am glad that I pushed myself. I had a chance to get to know amazing scientists and listen to the cutting edge of developmental biology. These all made me look at the future with more hope and enthusiasm, and I hope I can find a chance to attend this meeting again, but this time in person.
Bir Öğrencinin Bakış Açısından: From Stem Cells to Human Development (PDF)
Dördüncü sınıf tıp öğrencisi olarak aynı gün içerisinde doğuma ve ölüme şahit oldum. İnsan hayatında gerçekleşmesi en kesin bu iki olayın en çok neşe ve üzüntüyü getirmesi ilginçtir. Bu iki kaçınılmaz olay arasında değişim ve gelişim ise asla durmaz.
Bir insanın dünyaya gelme sürecinde küçük sorunların bile ölümle sonuçlanabilirken gelişimin sorunsuz bir şekilde tamamlanması beni şaşırtıyor. Biz ise işte burada, hayatta ve insan gelişimini ve “sorunları” daha iyi anlamak için tutkuyla dolu haldeyiz.
Embriyoloji, temel tıp yıllarında açık ara en sevdiğim ders oldu. Sınıfta her zaman en önde oturur ve büyülenmiş bir şekilde dersleri dinlerdim. İlerleyen yıllarda gelişimsel biyoloji hakkında daha çok şey öğrenmeye devam ettim ve 8-11 Eylül tarihlerinde Development Dergisi’nin ev sahipliğinde sanal olarak düzenlenen “From Stem Cells to Human Development” toplantısına katılma gibi harika bir şansım oldu. Bilgilerimin bu toplantıdan yararlanmaya yeterli olup olmadığından emin değildim ama her ne olursa olsun şansımı denemek istedim. Aynı zamanda, toplantıdan önce çok gergindim çünkü makalelerini okuduğum birçok büyük bilim insanının sanal olarak da olsa ‘merhaba’ diyecek kadar yakın olacağı bir toplantıya katılmamıştım. Kullanılan platformun interaktif ortamı sayesinde ilk günden sonra bu gerginlik geçmişti.
Çevrimiçi konferanslar her ne kadar normal konferanslar kadar verimli olmasa da önemli fırsatlar sunduklarını düşünüyorum. Normal zamanlarda bu kongreye hem ekonomik nedenlerden hem de ders dönemim başladığından dolayı katılamazdım. İlerleyen dönemlerde çevrimiçi toplantıların her konferansın bir parçası olacağını ve zamanla kalitesinin artacağını düşünüyorum. Bu konferansta kullanılan Remo adlı platform ise şimdiden çok güzeldi. Sanki gerçek bir konferans binasıymış gibi çeşitli amaçlar için farklı katlar ve masalar vardı. Poster sunumları için de iki kat ayrılmıştı ama maalesef sadece iki poster sunumunu canlı olarak dinleyebildim. Posterleri daha fazla keşfetmek için toplantı bittikten sonra zamanım oldu. Nedenini tam olarak bilmesem de önceden kaydedilmiş konuşmalara konsantre olmakta biraz güçlük çekmem online konferansla ilgili söyleyebileceğim tek olumsuz şey olabilir.
Her konuşmada kendi kendime “vay, çok havalı” dedim ancak bazı konuşmaları ayrıca vurgulamak ve sanal deneyimimi daha detaylı paylaşmak istiyorum.
İlk gün, Wieland Huttner’ın evrim sırasında beynin, özellikle de neokorteksin, boyutunun nasıl arttığına dair laboratuvarlarında yaptıkları araştırmalarını anlatmasıyla başladı. Nöronal proliferasyonda itici güç olan bazal progenitör hücrelerinde ARHGAP11B geninin etkilerini araştırdıklarını, ileri çalışmalar için bir maymun türü olan marmosetler ve insan beyin organoidleri üzerinde ileri deneyler yaptıklarını anlattı. Sonuçlar çok heyecan vericiydi: ARHGAP11B’nin, neokortekste sinir hücrelerinin artması ve neokorteksin katlanması için gerekli olduğunu ve metabolik yolaklar üzerinden etki ettiğini göstermişler. Olası klinik uygulamaları görmek için sabırsızlanıyorum. Laboratuvarlarının dünyanın dört bir yanıyla yaptıkları ortak çalışmalarına da hayran kaldım.
Bu konferans birçok yönden heyecan vericiydi. Yeni yöntemler geliştiren öncü bilim insanlarını dinlemek kesinlikle bunlardan biriydi. Heyecan verici çünkü geliştirilen yeni “yöntemler” sayesinde yakın gelecekte kliniğe yansıyacak hızlı gelişmeler göreceğimizi umuyorum.
Samira Musah da bu araştırmacılardan biriydi. Nispeten az çalışılmış ama yine de hayati önemi olan bir organ üzerinde çalışıyorlar: böbrek. Konuşmasında kronik böbrek hastalığı hakkında şok edici istatistikler verdikten sonra, grubunun araştırma ilgi alanlarından ve alanın mevcut sınırlamalarından bahsetti. Böbrek hastalıkları üzerine çalışmanın ana sınırlamalarından biri fizyolojik şartlara uygun çalışma modellerin olmamasıymış. Laboratuvarında, indüklenmiş pluripotent kök hücreleri (İPSC) kullanarak, podositleri (filtrasyonda önemli rol oynayan özel hücreler) oluşturmayı başardıklarını anlattı. Üzerinde çalıştıkları bir diğer önemli konu ise şu anda popüler olan bir konu: COVID-19’un böbrek tropizmi. Yakın zamanda çalışmalarını okumayı umuyorum.
Güncel klinik pratiklerini değiştirme potansiyeli olan konuşmalar hem tıp arka planımdan hem de bu konuşmaları daha iyi anlayabildiğimden dolayı daha çok ilgimi çekti. Bu bakımdan James Wells’in konuşması özellikle ilginçti. Laboratuvarının gastrointestinal sistemdeki endokrin hücre gelişimi hakkındaki keşifleri dikkat çekiciydi. Neurogenin-3 gen delesyonunun pankreas ve bağırsaklardaki enteroendokrin hücrelerinin kaybıyla sonuçlandığını göstermişler. Bu hücrelerin kaybı şeker hastalığına ve emilim bozukluklarına neden olabilmekte. Neurogenin-3’ü indükleyebilmeleri ve bu hücrelerin işlevini geri kazanabilmelerini göstermeleri en çok heyecan verici kısmıydı. Ayrıca enteroendokrin hücre fonksiyonlarında neurogenin-3 geninden yoksun organoidleri kullanarak bir peptit olan PYY’nin rollerini keşfetmişler. PYY’nin farelere dışardan verilerek malabsorpsiyonla, emilim bozukluğu, ilgili değerleri nasıl iyileştirebildiğinden bahsetti. Bu sonuçlar, ağır emilim bozukluğu olan hastalar için çok umut verici; çünkü hayatları boyunca damar yoluyla beslenmeye ihtiyaç duymaktalar.
Konuşmaların kaydedilmesi de büyük kolaylık sağladı. İlk dinlediğimde anlamadığım kısımların üzerinden geçebildiğim için sunumları tekrar izleyebilmek faydalı oldu. Bir de her canlı oturuma katılamadığım için kaçırdığım konuşmaları daha sonra dinleyebildim. Konuşmaları ikinci kez dinledikten sonra bilgimin tamamen yeterli olmadığını gördüm ancak kendimi zorladığım için mutluyum. Harika bilim insanlarını tanıma ve gelişimsel biyolojinin öncü çalışmalarını dinleme şansım oldu. Bunların hepsi geleceğe daha fazla umut ve şevkle bakmamı sağladı. Umarım bu toplantıya tekrar katılma, lakin bu sefer yüz yüze, şansı bulabilirim.
Recruiting 16 motivated students from around the world to join a fully-funded four year PhD programme in an international scientific environment at the Novo Nordisk Foundation Research Centers. Positions starting September 2021. Applicants of all nationalities may be awarded funding, provided they fulfill all of the eligibility criteria.
Programme Outline
The four-year programme is divided into a pre-doctoral year followed by three years of PhD training at one of the four Novo Nordisk Foundation Research Centers based at the University of Copenhagen or the Technical University of Denmark:
The pre-doctoral year includes short rotation projects, choice of a lab for the long-term (PhD) project, and common research-based courses. Approximately 15% of time during the pre-doctoral year is spent on courses, and the rest of the time on research. Awardees must pass an assessment at the end of the pre-doctoral year to qualify for the following three years of PhD education.
Supervisors and Research Areas
Applicants pre-select one of the four Novo Nordisk Foundation Research Centers in their application. Each Center conducts research in several connected research areas in biotechnology or biomedicine. CBMR investigates how the interaction between genes and environment affects human metabolism, CFB promotes a sustainable biobased chemical industry using specifically designed cell cultures (cell factories) to produce chemicals and pharmaceuticals, CPR works on integrative protein technologies, and DanStem investigates stem cell differentiation and the role of cancer stem cells in different types of cancer. See the programme website, application webpage, and Center websites (links above) for more information.
Potential supervisors and projects are listed on the programme website: Potential Supervisors
The research project will consist of studying how cells become different from one another, forming spatial patterns of different cell types in plant tissues such as the leaf epidermis and the shoot meristem. This will involve time-lapse microscopy, quantitative image analysis and mathematical modelling. This position is initially for 3 years and can start from January 2021, although the start date is flexible.
We are seeking a highly motivated candidate that is willing to combine computational and experimental work in plants. The ideal candidate would have a PhD in Quantitative Biology, Systems Biology, Biophysics or a related field. Applicants coming from Physics, Maths, Computer Science, Engineering background or related fields are also very welcome to apply. The applicant should have expertise in, at least, one of the following topics: quantitative image analysis, quantitative time-lapse microscopy and/or mathematical modelling. Some experience in programming is expected.
Application Deadline: November 18th 2020.
See the full advert and application instructions in the following link .
Meyer HM, Teles J, Formosa-Jordan P et al. (2017) Fluctuations of the transcription factor ATML1 generate the pattern of giant cells in the Arabidopsis sepal. Elife. 6, 1–41.
Formosa-Jordan P, Teles J and Jönsson H (2018) Single-cell approaches for understanding morphogenesis using Computational Morphodynamics, in Mathematical Modelling in Plant Biology, Morris R (eds) (Springer, Cham).
Torii KU (2012) Two-dimensional spatial patterning in developmental systems. Trends Cell Biol 22(8): 438–446.
The wings of vertebrates, like birds and bats, emerged relatively recently, and we understand that these wings evolved from forelimbs. Even for the mythological dragon there seems to be a consensus (at least in recent depictions) that their wings are also derived from their forelimbs. Insects, however, possess both wings AND limbs on their winged segments, suggesting that their wings are not evolved from modified limbs, which begs the question “where did insect wings come from?” Despite their status as the first animals to take to the skies, the answer to this question has remained poorly understood and under debate for over 200 years1,2. This debate has culminated in two leading hypotheses on the origin of insect wings, each linked to different origin tissues: a lateral outgrowth of the dorsal body wall (tergum) and ancestral proximal leg structures (pleuron in insects)2.
Historically, scientists have attempted to dissect the evolutionary origin of insect wings through identifying structures related to wings in non-winged segments of insects (wing serial homologs) and other wingless arthropods (wing homologs)3. The idea behind this approach is that the wing homologs in other segments have been modified to differing degrees, suggesting that wing homologs from wingless segments might provide us with a series of “snapshot” views into the evolution of wings and help us reconstruct how this complex structure came to be. Until relatively recently, attempts to identify wing-related structures in non-winged segments relied on these structures sharing morphological similarity with wings (i.e. looking like wings), which understandably limited the identification of wing homologs. Recently, with the application of molecular evolutionary and developmental biology (evo-devo) approaches, the diversity of the tissues identified as wing homologs has increased3. Some of these studies have even provided evidence that insect wings are not derived from either tergum or pleuron (ancestral proximal leg), but potentially from a combination of these two tissues (i.e. they have a dual origin)4–9.
In our recent paper, we applied this molecular evo-devo approach to the identification of wing-related structures in a crustacean10. The reasoning behind looking for “wings” in a crustacean is that crustaceans and insects share a common ancestor. Therefore, by identifying the potential wing homologs of a crustacean and comparing them to the wing serial homologs of insects, we can gain a better understanding of what tissues were present in the common ancestor of these groups that had the potential to become wings in insects. Parhyale hawaiensis, the crustacean we chose for our study (Fig 1), provided a great “model” crustacean for our investigation because their dorso-ventral body plan is very similar to that of insects, which makes comparisons between the two much simpler.
Fig 1. The crustacean Parhyale hawaiensis.
We started our search for wing homologs in Parhyale by identifying structures that are dependent on the gene vestigial (vg). vg is a critical wing gene in insects and has often been used for the molecular identification of wing homologs. We looked at expression and function of vg in Parhyale and noticed something striking. First, vg is expressed in both the tergal edge and the proximal leg segments. Second, when we knocked-out the function of vg via CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing, we saw that the development of BOTH of these tissues (tergum and proximal leg, related to insect pleuron11) was disrupted (Fig 2). We expanded our expression and function analyses to two more insect wing genes, nubbin (nub) and apterous (ap) and saw a similar outcome – these genes are expressed and/or function in both tergum and proximal leg segments (Fig 2). We were curious how big the overlap was between genes that function in wing development (wing gene network, WGN) and genes that function in tergum and proximal leg development of crustaceans, so we investigated the expression of a few additional wing genes in Parhyale. Many of these genes were also expressed in the tergum and proximal leg of Parhyale, and one of these genes, optomotor-blind (omb), showed impressive expression pattern overlap with the functional and expression domains of vg, nub, and ap (Fig 2).
Fig 2. The functional domains of vg, nub, and ap and expression domain of omb in Parhyale. Abbreviations are as follows: te, tergum; co, coxa; cp, coxal plate; gi, gill; ba, basis.
Through these investigations, we were able to show that a gene network similar to the WGN operates in both the tergal edge and proximal leg of Parhyale, suggesting that the evolution of this network precedes the emergence of insect wings. It also seems that both of these structures qualify as candidates for wing homologs of a crustacean. When we compare these structures to those that have been identified as wing serial homologs in the wingless segments of insects, we see a striking similarity; two separate tissues dependent on wing genes, one of tergal and one of pleural/proximal leg-related identity (Fig 3). The similarity between the wing-related structures in insects and crustaceans appears to point to a dual evolutionary origin of the insect wing and suggests that insect wings evolved through the merger of two previously distinct structures.
Fig 3. The evolutionary relationship among wing homologs. Blue and yellow represent tergal and pleural wing homologs respectively.
An aside about terminology: Historically, tissues related to wings on non-winged segments (either in insects or crustaceans) have been referred to as “wing homologs”. We are starting to see that this terminology is problematic especially when you consider the evolutionary order of the emergence of these structures. It seems that the “ancestral state” for wings is really two separate, previously existing structures in the form of tergum and pleuron (or ancestral proximal leg segments). Only in the winged segments of insects do these two previously separate structures seemingly merge to form the wing (Fig 3). Therefore, more accurate terminology for the wing-related structures on non-winged segments might instead be “tergal serial homologs” or “pleural serial homologs” as this is more representative of the ancestral state for these tissues. After all, it is becoming increasingly apparent with recent studies that these “tergal” and “pleural” serial homologs provide an “evolutionary hotspot” for the development of morphological novelties including, but not limited to, beetle thoracic horns, tree hopper helmets, beetle abdominal gin traps, and wings12.
References:
Grimaldi, D. & Engels, M. S. Insects take to the skies. in Evolution of the Insects 155–187 (Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Clark-Hachtel, C. M. & Tomoyasu, Y. Exploring the origin of insect wings from an evo-devo perspective. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci.13, 77–85 (2016).
Tomoyasu, Y., Ohde, T. & Clark-Hachtel, C. M. What serial homologs can tell us about the origin of insect wings. F1000Research6, 268 (2017).
Clark-Hachtel, C. M., Linz, D. M. & Tomoyasu, Y. Insights into insect wing origin provided by functional analysis of vestigial in the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.110, 16951–16956 (2013).
Medved, V. et al. Origin and diversification of wings: Insights from a neopteran insect. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.112, 15946–15951 (2015).
Elias-Neto, M. & Belles, X. Tergal and pleural structures contribute to the formation of ectopic prothoracic wings in cockroaches. R. Soc. Open Sci.3, 160347 (2016).
Linz, D. M. & Tomoyasu, Y. Dual evolutionary origin of insect wings supported by an investigation of the abdominal wing serial homologs in Tribolium. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.115, E658–E667 (2018).
Tomoyasu, Y. Evo–devo: The double identity of Iisect wings. Curr. Biol.28, R75–R77 (2018).
Clark-Hachtel, C. M., Moe, M. R. & Tomoyasu, Y. Detailed analysis of the prothoracic tissues transforming into wings in the Cephalothorax mutants of the Tribolium beetle. Arthropod Struct. Dev.47, 352–361 (2018).
Clark-Hachtel, C. M. & Tomoyasu, Y. Two sets of candidate crustacean wing homologues and their implication for the origin of insect wings. Nat. Ecol. Evol. (2020). doi:10.1038/s41559-020-1257-8
Bruce, H. S. & Patel, N. H. Insect wings and body wall evolved from ancient leg segments. bioRxiv (2018). doi:10.1101/244541
Linz, D. M., Hu, Y. & Moczek, A. P. From descent with modification to the origins of novelty. Zoology143, 125836 (2020).
A four year postdoctoral position in the lab of Alex Gould is now available. Previous work in the laboratory, using Drosophila, has shown that the neural stem cell niche plays a critical role in sparing the developing CNS from stresses such as nutrient restriction and hypoxia (PMID: 26451484, PMID: 21816278). We are now looking for a highly motivated researcher to identify metabolic interactions between neural stem cells and their niche during stress protection. The successful applicant will have access to state-of-the-art techniques such as single-cell sequencing, gene editing and metabolomics. They will also have a unique opportunity to utilize cryogenic mass spectrometry imaging, a new method recently developed in the laboratory for visualizing metabolism in tissues at single cell resolution (PMID: 32603009). Applications are particularly encouraged from candidates with molecular biology and gene cloning skills. Prior experience with Drosophila is useful but not essential. Examples of other projects ongoing in the lab can be found at www.agouldlab.com and at www.crick.ac.uk/research/labs/alex-gould. The successful applicant will have good organisational and communication skills and a PhD in a relevant area (or be in the final stages of completion).
In my first post a few months back, I talked about the need for working scientists to create new habits of mind by practicing the craft of being a writer. Since then, I took my own advice. I abandoned Twitter, helped folks in the lab to get five papers into the BioRxiv, and finally finished an essay I’ve been working on for two years (with luck, you can read it in Development soon…). Last week, though, I was reading an interview in the New York Times with the newest winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, the poet Louise Glück, and I was inspired.
She said this: “Though I couldn’t always write, I could always read other people’s writing.”
I love this. Here’s a Nobel Laureate acknowledging that she couldn’t always write, acknowledging perhaps as well that she can’t always write. We can all relate. Any writer faces writer’s block, but in science there’s often a far more tangible reason for not being able to write: Not enough data to write a paper! So, what do you do? How do you keep your writing practice moving forward when there’s nothing pressing to write about? Glück gives us the answer: You read.
There’s a catch, though; you have to read like a writer. This is rule #4 of DevBiolWriteClub. Happily, starting to read like a writer is simple and quick. The hard part of course is that it only matters if you keep it up, day after day, for a long, long time. There are no shortcuts.
So, what does it mean to read like a writer? In my view, there are two components. The first one is simple. You just do the work, with intent, every damn day.
Here’s what this looks like for me: I wake up, get eggs and coffee, and settle into the New York Times for at least 30 minutes, often for an hour. I do this, seven days a week. Usually, I read the front section and the columnists. When the news is too ugly, I skip all that and plunge straight into Arts or Food, sometimes Travel. I even sometimes read the Style section; I will read any article about Prince Harry and Meghan in its entirety, so long as it’s written well. Then I’m off to work (just in the next room these days), where of course I read all day. Emails do not count, but papers certainly do. At my mid-afternoon coffee break, if I can’t find someone to talk to me, I usually read a book, science history mostly or popular science. Finally, at the end of the night, I read more. Now it’s purely for fun, but it still counts. Novels, short stories, biography, satire, history. I once read an entire book by Nick Hornby that was just about reading books. There must be 30 books in various states of read or unread stacked next to my bed. My wife hates this mess. Regardless, I read a book in bed before I sleep every single night.
What does your reading schedule look like? How much did you read yesterday?
Ask yourself: How does your time spent reading compare with your time on Twitter or Reddit or TikTok? (Or in my case playing my kids’ Xbox.) It’s probably obvious that we might carve out at least a little extra time for reading. Now, do a more challenging exercise: How did your reading time yesterday compare with your time planning, performing, or interpreting experiments? Would your career benefit from exchanging 25 minutes a day of lab time for reading time? Over the next few months, no. Over the next ten years, though? The answer is certainly yes.
Next, ask yourself, “what did I read today?” In fact, ask yourself this question every single day. It’s a 10 second step that will put you on the right path. It will instill a habit of noticing what you read; this is the second component of reading like a writer.
As this new habit matures, you’ll find yourself noticing what you read when you read it. Eventually, this will grow into not just noticing what you read but also noticing the writing as you read (that was a really well written sentence; that was not, etc.). The key to developing this habit is to avoid the normal scientist’s instinct of simply devouring the content of a paper, squeezing it for every possible insight. Instead, try to carve out a small part of your consciousness and keep it focused on seeing the writing.
This will be an unfamiliar way of reading for many, so some exercises might help develop the practice. I like to underline sentences I think are particularly well written. An exclamation mark in the margin is my shorthand to indicate that a sentence was underlined for the writing, not the content. If you get through a week of papers without ever noticing a great sentence, another exercise may be useful: Make it a habit to simply ask yourself at the end of each paper, “what was my favorite sentence?” then spend a few minutes answering yourself. Even when I read for fun, I do something like this: Dog-eared pages in books in my library indicate that hidden on this page, somewhere, is a sentence I really liked.
Ok, so now we know what we need to do. Read and notice what you’re reading. The next question, then, is what should you read? Scientific papers first and foremost. I tell my PhD students to maintain a steady diet of one paper per day (or seven papers per week). Now, this does not mean you spend over an hour each day deeply reading, analyzing and annotating each paper (i.e. don’t read each one as if you were preparing it for journal club). Just read it, start to finish. Note the parts you like and dislike. Notice the writing independently from the content. That 25 minutes I talked about? Use 22 of them to read the paper and three to think about the writing. Then you’re done. Until tomorrow.
Obviously, this regimen will not sustain you over the long term; you have to have variety. So, find a way to read some non-science writing every single day. This can be books, magazines, or newspapers. The key is to read something that is professionally edited, so there is at least some expectation that the writing is good. (Reddit, Twitter, and internet screeds do not count; good blogs do count.)
A student subscription to the NY Times is $1.88 per week with the LA Times and Washington Post being similar. Scientific American and National Geographic are 20 bucks a year for students. The Economist is a bit more, but most university libraries and even local libraries provide broad newspaper and magazine access. Used bookstores provide incredible value. There’s just no excuse. You have to read widely, and you have to at least try to notice what you’re reading. Do this every day, even if only for a few minutes.
Build this habit now, and in a few years, you’ll be a better writer. Again, I wish I could tell you it’d happen faster, but it won’t. Just do the work.
I’ll end with something I read in another great piece in the New York Times. The Pulitzer Prize winner Viet Thahn Nguyen wrote: “… people ask me what it takes to be a writer. The only things you have to do, I tell them, are read constantly; write for thousands of hours; and have the masochistic ability to absorb a great deal of rejection…” That last bit will sound immediately familiar to scientists. We’d all do well to make that first part seem familiar as well.
The Kodjabachian lab at the Institute of Developmental Biology of Marseille (IBDM) is seeking a young and talented postdoctoral scientist with strong background in cell and developmental biology, and a keen interest in integrative quantitative biology and interdisciplinary research. Our lab uses advanced imaging techniques (such as confocal videomicroscopy, super-resolution microscopy and 3D electron microscopy) to study the biology of ciliated epithelia at multiple scales.
In vertebrate ciliated epithelia, flows of biological fluids are powered by the coordinated beating of myriads of ciliaharbored by multiciliated cells (MCC). In recent years, the global MCC transcriptome has been decrypted in Xenopus, mouse and human. Through this project, funded by ANR, we now wish to elucidate the functional MCCproteome. The selected candidate will be in charge of testing the functional importance of candidates selected through proteomic screens currently running in the team. He/she will use Xenopus epidermis, inducible MCC culture, and mouse post-natal brain as models to elucidate the mechanisms underlying vertebrate MCC construction.
IBDM offers a vibrant, international, and interactive environment to study the fundamental principles of cell and developmental biology. IBDM is also part of the Turing Center for Living Systems (CENTURI), a large interdisciplinary program allowing rich collaboration with theoreticians, physicists and computer scientists.
The ideal candidate must hold a PhD for less than two years, and have skills in cell culture, cell imaging, molecular biology, and biochemistry. The position is opened for one year renewable up to 3 years starting as early as January 2021. Applicants must email a CV, a statement of interest and contact details for 2-3 references to Laurent Kodjabachian.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...
(9 votes)
(1 votes)
