In this episode from our series exploring 100 ideas in genetics, we’re entering the glamorous world of modelling, meeting the supermodels… of science. We’re taking a look at some of the field’s top models – the eclectic collection of organisms that have been put to work in the lab to reveal the secrets of biology.
We’ve picked out the fruit fly, mouse and Arabidopsis as our top models – but what would be yours?
If you enjoy the show, please do rate and review and spread the word. And you can always send feedback and suggestions for future episodes and guests to podcast@geneticsunzipped.com
While many vertebrates have multiple sets of teeth over their lifetime, some, like humans, have just a single set of replacement teeth (diphydonty), while others, like mice, manage with a single set (monophydonty). This diversity raises both evolutionary questions – how did different tooth replacement strategies evolve? – and developmental ones – what mechanisms prevent replacement teeth in animals that have lost them? A new paper in Development tackles these questions with a molecular analysis of mouse tooth development. We caught up with first author Elena Popa and her supervisor Abigail Tucker, Professor of Development and Evolution at King’s College London, to find out more about the work.
Elena and Abigail.
Abigail, can you give us your scientific biography and the questions your lab is trying to answer?
AT My lab is interested in how bodies are formed during development, both from a clinical perspective of understanding birth defects, but also from the point of view of understanding how evolution has shaped our bodies. I started out investigating tadpole tail development for my PhD with Jonathan Slack and then swapped ends and moved to the head for my first postdoc with Paul Sharpe. Here, I investigated how the face and dentition are patterned. This is where I first encountered tooth development, and although I have moved on to study the cranial neural crest, the jaw, cranial glands and ear, I have always kept some experiments going to understand more about the tooth. Teeth are often the only thing left preserved in the fossil record, so they have a central importance to our understanding of evolution. There are still lots of unanswered questions, such as what regulates tooth number, tooth size and tooth shape? It’s a great model for understanding epithelial-mesenchymal interactions, as both tissues are integral to the formation of the final tooth but take it in turns to play the leading role.
Elena, how did you come to join the Tucker lab and what drives your research?
EP Developmental biology was by far my favourite subject during my undergraduate years at Royal Holloway. I didn’t know it was going to be tooth development in particular back then, but as soon as I read about Professor Abigail Tucker’s research I was completely captivated. Her lab provided the opportunity to perform a comparative study of molecular interactions and developmental processes that allow or disrupt tooth replacement in a wide variety of vertebrates. Why can’t we have more than two sets of teeth but snakes can? This was essentially the question that drove my research in the Tucker lab.
What initially led you to try and ‘reawaken’ tooth replacement in the mouse?
EP Why the potential for tooth replacement varies so much across vertebrates is an intriguing question. Having performed an in-depth study of the development of the dental lamina in many different animal models, we suspected that this structure retains the capacity to give rise to a subsequent generation of teeth, even in the molar region of the mouse (the mouse only has one generation of teeth and molars, in general, do not replace). The dental lamina next to the first molar can be seen protruding at E16.5 but disappears soon after birth, and has been termed the rudimentary successional dental lamina (RSDL). We compared the RSDL with the successional lamina of the minipig (which gives rise to a second generation tooth), and found that both expressed the epithelial stem cell marker Sox2; however, Wnt activity was only present in the minipig lamina. Knowing that stimulating Wnt signalling by means of different transgenic lines leads to the formation of supernumerary teeth, we based our experimental design on these comparisons, aiming to recapitulate tooth replacement in the mouse.
Can you give us the key results of the paper in a paragraph?
EP & AT Our results show that, although the mouse normally does not form a second replacement set of teeth, it still has the potential to do so if given the right signals. Stimulation of Wnt signalling in the rudimentary replacement lamina in transgenic mice or isolation of the lamina in culture both led to the formation of a new tooth. We started by showing that the RSDL exhibits molecular similarities to the competent dental lamina in a diphyodont mammal and retains odontogenic capacity, which we were able to reawaken by selectively inducing Sox2+ cells to activate canonical Wnt/β-catenin signalling. We were able to confirm the dental identity of the structures that arose from the RSDL in the mutant mice by performing in situ hybridization for genes known to be expressed during normal tooth development. The mutant RSDL was also highly proliferative and gave rise to multiple ectopic teeth, many of which were complex in shape and mineralised after transplantation in kidney capsule. We also uncovered an inhibitory relationship between Wnt signalling and Sox2, where ectopic stimulation of Wnt signalling leads to downregulation of Sox2 expression.
New tooth formation from the RSDL, showing Sox9 expression.
When you remove the first-generation tooth, this frees the RSDL to form a tooth bud. How is this potential inhibited in the context of normal development?
EP & AT Tooth number has previously been shown to be controlled by a balance between activators and inhibitors, creating an inhibitory cascade. For example, in many mammals three molars form at the back of the mouth by serial addition from a single molar placode. If the primordium for the subsequent molars is separated from the murine first molar in culture, the second molar initiates development faster and grows to a larger size than if left intact. The first molar therefore appears to be controlling the development of the next tooth in the series. In the shrew, the first generation of teeth initiate but then regress and are replaced by the permanent set of teeth. Here, again, it has been suggested that early formation of the permanent teeth might inhibit the development of the first set: timing and spatial arrangement of tooth germs is therefore clearly important in the control of final tooth number.
In our paper, we show that the RSDL has the potential to form a tooth and speculate that the adjacent molar sends a Wnt-inhibitory signal to the surrounding dental tissue. This then prevents Wnt activity in the RSDL, and leads to its regression. This is relevant to human tooth replacement, as structures similar to the RSDL have been identified next to the permanent teeth during development. In normal development of our dentition, therefore, the permanent tooth may inhibit the generation of a third set of teeth.
Wnt signalling leads to a reduction in Sox2 in the dental epithelium but not associated epithelia – what makes this relationship context dependent?
AT The context-dependent nature of the relationship between Wnts and Sox2 was very striking. This fits, however, with the literature, which has shown similar context-dependent interactions. For example, in the airway submucosa, Sox2 has both an inductive and a repressive effect on Wnt signalling that is dependent on the presence of other factors, whereas in the lung Wnts inhibit Sox2 but only at early stages of development. In the tooth, the repression of Sox2 by Wnts might be dependent on other factors with dynamic temporal and spatial expression patterns. It will be very intriguing to work out what these factors might be.
Do you know of any evolutionary scenarios where monophyodonty transitioned to diphyodonty, and if so does this involve a similar revitalisation to that you have discovered in the mouse?
EP & AT Throughout evolution, the general trend is one where animals reduce the number of tooth generations in favour of more-complex tooth shapes and better occlusion. As in the mouse, there is often evidence of a rudimentary structure, which points to this reduction in number. For example, we have shown that in the diphyodont fruit bat, the canine shows evidence of a third generation as it displayed a vestigial structure homologous to the mouse RSDL next to the second-generation tooth. In nature, there are rare cases proposed where teeth have been lost and then reappear, e.g. in the frog Gastrotheca guentheri, where teeth are found on the lower jaw but are absent in all other frogs. This would suggest that rudimentary tooth structures can be reawakened not just in the lab.
Did the research include any particular result or eureka moment that has stuck with you?
AT For me the eureka moment was when we generated a tooth germ from the RSDL by simply cutting off the main tooth. Really it’s a simple experiment but has a key message, which is that the reason a mouse doesn’t have a second set of teeth is that the first generation of teeth inhibits this from happening. This has important consequences, as it means that if this inhibition could be lifted an extra set of teeth might be possible.
And what about the flipside: any moments of frustration or despair?
EP For my PhD I worked with a lot of non-model organisms (bats, geckos, guinea pigs, opossum) in addition to the minipig and mouse shown here. These samples were always much more difficult to obtain and every time you wanted to look at gene expression it meant cloning, so things took much longer than expected. In addition, the anti-Sox2 antibody has been a particularly tricky to work with across species. Considering that it is at the core of my research, it became frustrating when it simply refused to work. After what felt like hundreds of failed attempts, finally being able to see Sox2 staining under the microscope felt like a huge relief!
After what felt like hundreds of failed attempts, finally being able to see Sox2 staining under the microscope felt like a huge relief!
So what next for you after this paper?
EP I have loved my time in science and particularly in the Tucker lab, where I had the opportunity to learn a great deal and diversify my wet lab skillset beyond what I could have ever hoped for. I’ve now shifted my focus to science media production, observing and documenting scientific discoveries from behind a camera lens.
Where will this work take the Tucker lab?
AT For me the next question is what signals from the first tooth stop the second generation forming? Our results predict that such signals prevent canonical Wnt signalling from being activated in the RSDL. Expression patterns predict possible roles for dickkopf 2 and dickkopf 3 that could be tested in culture or in vivo. Another avenue is the vestibular lamina. This is a really understudied structure but appears to have the potential to form teeth when stimulated by Wnt signalling. I am really interested in the relationship between the dental lamina and vestibular lamina, as these two epithelial structures are united during early development, forming from the same placode. What signals determine whether you become a dental lamina and form teeth, or a vestibular lamina and form the cheek ridge, is next on my list.
Finally, let’s move outside the lab – what do you like to do in your spare time in London?
EB I think the UK is an incredibly beautiful country, so I tend to spend most of my free time travelling and exploring its fantastic landscapes. My favourite places to go are Cornwall and the Lake District. I also have a characterful little Whippet puppy, who takes up a lot of my time at the moment!
AT I commute into London from Kent where I live with my husband, children, cat, bearded dragon and five snakes. I love London, having grown up there, but have become a convert to the countryside. I love cooking, eating and travel, and am writing this from the Atacama desert in Chile.
The Miller lab is seeking a highly motivated, organized and enthusiastic postdoctoral fellow to study embryonic kidney development and its relationship to kidney pathologies, including cystic kidney diseases and cancer. We are interested in the role of Wnt signaling in shaping nephric tubules, utilizing Xenopus (frog) embryos and mammalian tissue culture as models. Current goals include: 1) Determining how junctions are formed during tubule formation; 2) Modeling how patient mutations result in human developmental kidney diseases; 3) Discovering novel components affecting nephron development; 4) Visualizing in vivo tube formation using advanced live imaging techniques; 5) Generating transgenic animals to visualize nephrogenesis in vivo
Current projects utilize developmental, molecular and cell biological approaches including imaging in living embryos. Applicants with a Ph.D., M.D. or equivalent and a strong background in Developmental Biology, Embryology, Cell Biology, Molecular Biology and/or Stem Cell Biology are highly encouraged to apply. Salary and benefits are commensurate with relevant experience. Review of applications will continue until the position has been filled.
Please send your CV, cover letter indicating current and future research interests, and the name/email address of three references to:
In the summer of 2018, two commentaries from the Science Media Center (anopen letter from Chief Executive Fiona Fox and a‘World View’ in Nature news by Senior Press Manager Tom Sheldon) voiced concerns about how preprints in the life sciences could pose a potential threat to science reporting in the mass media. These articles initiated (often heated) debates within the scientific community, underlining the need for public discussions between researchers, press officers and journalists. Open Research London, a London collective of academics and librarians, and the Open Access team at the Francis Crick Institute, led by Head Librarian Frank Norman, collaborated to nucleate a platform for such discussions through an evening event at the Crick on the 6th of February.
Jane Hughes, Director of Communications at the Crick and chair of the event, kicked off the evening by asking a large audience whether they think preprints need to change or, instead, whether science reporting must adapt – with an overwhelming show of hands for the latter option.
This set the stage for Tom Sheldon, who acknowledged that preprints have been tremendously useful for science, but warned about unforeseen side-effects – such as a potential dismantling of the press embargo system. He made a strong case for preserving embargoes: for accuracy, as they give journalists time to assess claims and solicit expert comment, and for impact, ensuring maximal reach for important findings. In the case of acontroversial study claiming that genetically modified maize and Roundup can cause tumours and early death in rats (since retracted), he pointed out that embargo policies gave journalists the time to consult experts, who were quick to identify significant flaws in the study. As a result, many articles in the mass media (e.g. BBC and Reuters) reported the scepticism surrounding the research. Sheldon noted that if the criticism had followed the breaking news, it would have been too late, buried by the next news cycle. In a second example, a major clinical trial showed that e-cigarettes are more effective than nicotine replacement therapies in helping smokers to quit. In this case, the embargo helped these findings make it to the front page of multiple newspapers simultaneously, maximising impact.
Sheldon then went on to envisage how such stories concerning human health might have been covered had the study been posted as a preprint. In the first hypothetical, he argued a journalist might have rushed to cover a study without consulting experts, thereby misinforming the public. In the second hypothetical, initial reporting on the preprint might have made an embargo pointless or incompatible with journal policies- meaning the story would never make it to multiple news outlets, leaving the public uninformed about important results. Sheldon then concluded that preprints necessarily disrupt the current system and – even though there have so far been no examples of preprints causing damage – we must ensure that the public understanding of science is not a casualty. In his opinion, we cannot expect journalists to change, and it is publishers, scientists and press officers who carry the responsibility to adapt.
Clare Ryan, Head of Media Relations at the Wellcome Trust, shared Sheldon’s view that we won’t be able to change journalism, and should aspire to influence press officers, scientists and journals instead. In her talk, she suggested that the focus of science news should shift away from journal papers. After using a clip from John Oliver’s popular weekly show to showcase some major issues with science news, she went on to explain her vision of science in the media. Instead of forcing each ‘new discovery’ into the spotlight of the daily news (which doesn’t reflect the gradual, self-correcting nature of scientific progress in real life), journalists could aim to include more personality, complexity, and also disagreement in their stories. ‘Science is more War and Peace than David Copperfield’, after all, and we should seek to give the public better insights into how science really works. She ended with some practical advice, including ‘stop writing so many press releases!’, a sentiment that resonated strongly with the audience. Later in the Q&A session, Fiona Fox also emphasized that press officers should never write a press release about a preprint.
Slide from Clare Ryan’s talk
Robin Lovell-Badge, Senior Group Leader at the Francis Crick Institute, shifted the discussion towards the values of preprints in his talk titled ‘Preprints are the future’. After calling out some limitations of traditional journal publishing (such as cost, speed, and a peer-review process that doesn’t work too well), he also gave several examples of big studies published in the top journals, which later had to be retracted (e.g. the fraudulent Wakefield study on the link between MMR vaccines and autism), arguing that just because something is peer-reviewed does not mean it is sound. Quoting Michael Eisen, ‘the biggest threat to the proper public understanding of science is not preprints – it’s the lie we tell the public (and ourselves) that journal peer review works to separate valid and invalid science.’
Lovell-Badge then listed numerous well-known benefits of preprints, contrasting it with journal publication. For example, data and methods can be accessed much earlier when preprinted, and these are usually of high quality; he reasoned that since the work can be evaluated by the whole community, authors often take extra care to make sure what they post is valid. He suggested the rise of preprints gives us a good opportunity to create a new system that more rapidly, effectively and fairly engages the scientific community to assess the validity, audience and impact of published works. In such a system, it is also possible to review papers at any point, thereby contributing to an evolving understanding of the value and impact of the work. In contrast to the two speakers before him, he did think that journalists have a major responsibility in how science news is reported in the mass media.
The final speaker of the evening was Teresa Rayon, postdoctoral researcher at the Francis Crick Institute and member of the team of early-career researchers atpreLights. She started her talk with a reminder that in our digital age, there are plenty of ways to communicate research transparently and get the society engaged with science (e.g. through blogging, social media). Recent data about the first five years of bioRxiv (also discussedhere) highlights potential indicators (e.g. number of downloads) of preprint quality and impact, which could help journalists eager to report on preprints. She then introducedpreLights, a community platform where early-career scientists highlight preprints they feel are important; taking the audience through herfirst preLights post as an example, she stressed the value of expert yet accessible opinion on a piece of work, and of open correspondence with preprint authors. Gratifyingly, the authors acknowledged the discussion prompted by her preLights post in theopen peer review report associated with the final published paper. Rayon went on to illustrate the preLighter community’s commitment to preprints and open science by summarizing the important points from their commentary on whypreprints promote transparency and communication, rather than distortion and confusion. Finally, she proposed that initiatives like preLights can help science reporting by highlighting work to scientists, journals and journalists (without the use of jargon), having a community of experts who can give their opinion (similar to the community of experts at the Science Media Centre), and giving a voice to the new generation of researchers, who are eager to improve communication with journalists.
Teresa Rayon, postdoctoral researcher and preLighter
The prolonged, animated, and ultimately inconclusive discussion that followed these presentations highlighted just how essential it is to initiate and encourage conversations that bring together journalists, press officers, scientists and activists. There appeared to be a reasonably broad consensus that, pending further changes in the science publishing landscape, it might be necessary to have a self-imposed moratorium on mainstream reporting on preprints, giving the work time to accrue established modes of peer-review and community approval before its wider dissemination.
Given the tight deadlines of science reporting and the pressures of the newsroom, in the longer term it will be incumbent on advocates of preprints and publishing reform to familiarise journalists and press officers with the broader ecosystem around preprints. Ultimately, we believe that open community curation and peer review can provide a treasure trove of information that will complement and enrich the traditional reporting model consisting largely of a stamp of approval provided by 2-3 peer reviewers and journal editors.
Curious about the discussion? Take a look at #ORLFeb19 on Twitter!
We thank Teresa Rayon and Frank Norman for feedback on the post
Journal of Cell Science and its publisher, The Company of Biologists, are seeking to appoint a Community Manager, based in Cambridge, UK, to run a new microscopy resource website.
An extensive consultation told us that the microscopy community would welcome a trusted, curated and centralised site to connect people, resources and information. Our exciting new initiative is therefore intended to create a platform for the microscopy community to share news and techniques, discuss issues relevant to the field and read about the latest research and events.
We are now looking for an enthusiastic and motivated person to join us to develop, launch and maintain this site, which will be hosted by Journal of Cell Science but will be relevant to all of the Company of Biologists’ journals.
Core responsibilities of the position include:
Creating and commissioning content, including writing posts and soliciting content from the academic community, societies, companies and other organisations.
Providing user support and ensuring site functionality on a day-to-day basis.
Providing creative and practical input into the design and development of the site.
Maintaining and developing the site’s presence on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
Developing and managing sponsorship, ads and commercial relationships.
Representing Journal of Cell Science and the resource site at international conferences.
Applicants should have a PhD with research experience in a relevant scientific field and extensive imaging experience – ideally involving the application or development of new methods for microscopy or image analysis. The successful candidate will have proven social media skills and a clear understanding of the online environment as it applies to scientists. Applicants should have excellent writing and communication skills, and strong interpersonal and networking abilities – both online and in person. Experience with additional media, such as video or podcasting, and an eye for aesthetics, would be an advantage. We are looking for an individual with fresh ideas and a willingness to learn new skills, and who will contribute broadly to the Company’s activities.
This is an exciting opportunity to develop a hub for the microscopy community – in a similar vein to the Company’s established community site for developmental biologists, the Node – and to engage with relevant people at all levels: academics, developers, facilities, institutes and companies. The Community Manager will work alongside an experienced in-house team, including the Executive Editor of Journal of Cell Science, as well as with the journal’s international team of academic editors. Additional responsibilities may be provided for the right candidate. The Company of Biologists is based in attractive modern offices on the outskirts of Cambridge, UK.
The Company of Biologists (biologists.com) exists to support biologists and inspire advances in biology. At the heart of what we do are our five specialist journals – Development, Journal of Cell Science, Journal of Experimental Biology, Disease Models & Mechanisms and Biology Open – two of them fully open access. All are edited by expert researchers in the field, and all articles are subjected to rigorous peer review. We take great pride in the experience of our editorial team and the quality of the work we publish. We believe that the profits from publishing the hard work of biologists should support scientific discovery and help develop future scientists. Our grants help support societies, meetings and individuals. Our workshops and meetings give the opportunity to network and collaborate.
Applicants should send a CV along with a covering letter that summarises their relevant experience, and in particular their specific microscopy/imaging expertise, any links to online activities), current salary, and why they are enthusiastic about this opportunity.
Applications and informal queries should be sent by email no later than 22nd March 2019 to hr@biologists.com.
We may request written tests in advance of any interview.
In this episode we’re looking at the genetics of failure – why we fail to lose weight thanks to our genes, and why ignoring genetic information and DNA diversity leads to billions of dollars being wasted on drugs that don’t work.
Cambridge University neuroscientist Giles Yeo talks about his new book, Gene Eating: The science of obesity and the truth about diets, explaining why weight loss is just physics, but the process of losing, gaining or maintaining weight is all about our biology.
Can you blame your genes if you can’t fit into your jeans?
Then we report back from the recent Festival of Genomics in London, UK, speaking with biomedical industry expert Paul-Peter Tak, Cecilia Lindskog from the Human Protein Atlas project, and Paul Matthews from Global Gene Corp, to find out why precision and personalised healthcare will only work if it’s based on the right information
If you enjoy the show, please do rate and review and spread the word. And you can always send feedback and suggestions for future episodes and guests to podcast@geneticsunzipped.com
The Turing Centre for Living Systems (CENTURI) wishes to attract talented postdoctoral fellows to the Luminy campus. To do so, CENTURI will fund up to 5 postdoctoral positions to start in 2019, for a maximum of two years. Postdocs will work in an interdisciplinary life science environment, and have backgrounds in any of the following fields: cell or developmental biology, immunology, neurobiology, biophysics, theoretical physics, computer science, bioinformatics, applied mathematics, engineering.
Candidates can either apply to one of the advertised CENTURI projects or submit their own project, providing that they meet the application criteria and that their application is supported by at least one host lab.
Students will be co-supervised by two or three supervisors from our community. Candidates can apply to a maximum of three projects.
Selection criteria
Candidates will be evaluated on the following criteria:
– Scientific level and publications
– Ability to work in a multidisciplinary research environment
– Ability to work on a collaborative research project
– Enthusiasm and communication skills
Duration: 2 year
Deadline for application: April 26, 2019
Interviews in Marseille (pre-selected candidates only): June 27 – 28, 2019
The Seifert lab in the Department of Biology at the University of Kentucky (UK) is seeking exceptionally creative postdoctoral researchers to join our group. We utilize a diverse array of species to study the cellular and molecular basis for complex tissue regeneration in mammals. To pursue this line of research we maintain and use our active breeding colonies of spiny mice in the US (Acomys cahirinus) and in Kenya (Acomys percivali and Acomys kempi). Our US colony provides molecular tractability whereas our work in Kenya with wild-trapped rodent species (regenerating and non-regenerating) provides phylogenetic perspective to understand the distribution of regenerative ability. Successful applicants will initially join an NIH funded project investigating how immune cells regulate the regenerative response to injury. Specifically, the project investigates how specific macrophage phenotypes induce behavioral changes in local fibroblasts during blastema formation. Ideal candidates will have a strong background in developmental biology, experience working with model or non-model organisms, expertise in microscopy and comfortability with bioinformatics. While these are funded positions, postdocs in the Seifert lab are strongly encouraged to develop their own projects and external funding portfolios as a pathway toward independence. Salary follows NIH guidelines for postdoctoral researchers. Informal inquiries are strongly encouraged. For additional information visit: http://www.ashleyseifert.com/opportunities.html
Review of applications will begin on a rolling basis and will continue until the position has been filled. Ideal start date is summer 2019. Candidates will have completed their Ph.D. prior to starting the position but need not have defended their dissertation prior to applying. Applicants should send a single pdf document to Ashley Seifert (awseifert@uky.edu) that includes their CV, names of three references, and a 1-2-page synopsis of their current research interests and how these complement our overall research program.
The Department of Biology houses a strong group of research labs interested in regenerative and stem cell biology using a diverse array of animal models (e.g., spiny mice, salamanders, planarians, lampreys, zebrafish) and in vitro systems. Together, these labs create a vibrant atmosphere to pursue interdisciplinary projects across comparative genomics, developmental, regenerative and evolutionary biology.
The BSDB Archive covers 70 years of our society’s history, providing deep insights into its early years, its long trail of scientific conferences, workshops and committee meetings; it includes an almost complete collection of the many newsletters that have been published since issue 1 came out in 1979. A year ago, many of the archive’s documents were made digitally available (see box below) and described in a dedicated blog post by Andreas Prokop (LINK). The sheer number of >30,000 downloads from this digital archive within less than a year (LINK), clearly illustrates the wider interest in these historical documents, which hopefully help also some of our younger members to understand how Developmental Biology as a discipline became established in the UK.
The BSDB will likely not go further with the archive’s digitisation, but has taken an important alternative step to make its contents available to those taking a serious interest. Thus, Sarah Wilmot at the Historical Collections of the John Innes Centre (collections.jic.ac.uk) has kindly agreed to host and curate the BSDB archive, and we are most grateful for her outstanding professional support that now makes the collection fully accessible for further investigation. As Carsten Timmermann wrote from his perspective as science historian: “Your archive is a little treasure trove and will enable us to understand the history of Developmental Biology in this country much better. I wish other societies would follow your example. If we had a whole set of similar archives at our disposal, this would help us to study the way the life sciences overall have developed, comparing and contrasting sub-disciplines and understanding trends. For example, one could look at conference programmes in different fields within the life sciences and study how molecular methods have transformed biology.” In this context it is of particular interest, that the BSDB Archive will be accessible side-by-side with the one of the Genetics Society, thus providing an even greater opportunity to perform studies into the UK’s science history.
Hopefully, the “open source” nature of the BSDB Archive , be it in its digital form or as hard copy collection, will attract wider interest and inspire others to join in and help develop its full potential – be it biologists browsing around, or (hobby) historians making systematic scientific use of it. But if you do so, please be so kind to share any new insights, anecdotes that come to mind or any knowledge that complements the information currently available. Also, if you hold additional documents that might add to the collection, we have now means to archive it in appropriate ways. Just send a quick email to comms@bsdb.organd we will take appropriate action!
On the 4th and 5th of February, the Crick hosted its first Developmental Biology Symposium in honour of Rosa Beddington FRS (1956-2001). Covering themes from embryonic growth to metabolism and aging, the symposium attracted more than 200 delegates from across the globe.
The symposium harnessed an impressive richness in diversity of topics and captured the raw excitement within the developmental biology field – a fitting tribute to Rosa, who was an outstanding embryologist, artist and mentor to many in the field.
The use of new interdisciplinary approaches was a recurring theme throughout the meeting. Sessions were “open plan”, drawing interesting parallels with the Crick’s research ethos, where different disciplines intermingle as an important driver for creativity and discovery. Advances in sequencing technologies are now providing unprecedented molecular resolution of how stem cells develop into the myriad of functional cell types within the body. Computer modelling techniques are providing striking predictions of how biological systems work and are helping to bridge the gap from single cells to whole tissues and organisms. Researchers are broadening our understanding of animal development and its relevance to health and disease using a veritable feast of model organisms (sea urchins, worms, crickets and killifish to name a few). And we are now beginning to develop an understanding of the complex processes that define our lifespan and, perhaps more importantly, our healthspan.
The Crick-Beddington symposium was a resounding success. With a strong focus on unpublished work, it highlighted that collaborative efforts across disciplines are accelerating fundamental insights into biological systems. An exciting future for developmental biology lies ahead.
Vicki Metzis and Alex Gould
Thanks to the Medical Research Foundation Rosa Beddington Fund and all sponsors of the Crick-Beddington 2019 event which can be accessed together with the full programme here.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...
(3 votes)
The BSDB Archive covers 70 years of our society’s history, providing deep insights into its early years, its long trail of scientific conferences, workshops and committee meetings; it includes an almost complete collection of the many newsletters that have been published since issue 1 came out in 1979. A year ago, many of the archive’s documents were made digitally available (see box below) and described in a dedicated blog post by Andreas Prokop (