Transportation is one of the main environmental issues of a scientific conference, usually accounting for around half of the event’s total CO2 emissions.
But innovative ideas can help mitigate this impact, without compromising the benefits of bringing people together. Sally Lowell and her colleagues recently ran a multi-hub conference across three different regional locations for the European Society for Developmental Biology meeting which ran in September 2023.
Shreyasi Mukherjee is a postdoc at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, using stem cell-derived embryo models to study how epigenetic complexes regulate tissue organization and cell fate decisions during very early embryonic development. Shreyasi is keen to write about the fast-evolving field of stem cell-based embryo models. Having experienced working in India, the UK and the US, she also plans to highlight the scientists and research from the Global South countries on the Node. We chatted to Shreyasi to find out more about her background and her plans as a Node Correspondent.
Congratulations on being selected as one of our new correspondents! What made you decide to apply to become a Node correspondent?
I follow many of The Company of Biologists journals like Development, Journal of Cell Science and Disease Models and Mechanisms. I had recently transitioned from PhD to postdoc and veered into a slightly new field. There is so much literature and it is overwhelming. I was looking for opportunities to write for preLights because I thought that would help me hold myself accountable and stay current in the field. But I also enjoyed the different kind of articles the Node puts out. When I saw the opportunity to become a correspondent, it was a no brainer for me to try and see what happens.
Have you done much science communication/ writing before?
I’ve written my PhD thesis and papers in the last couple of years, but I haven’t really done much other types of science writing. When I was working as research assistant, I would help organise an event where students from high school and undergrads come to the lab and we talked to them about our research. I’ve tried to do similar outreach things throughout my PhD and even now, I still talk to high school and college students back in India. I’m trying to show them what the career trajectory in research looks like. I’m also involved with the Genetics Society of America and doing some science outreach with them. We’re organising Capitol Hill Day, as a part of the upcoming TAGC conference.
Over the past few years, I’ve become more cognizant of the necessity to do science communication, not just for the scientific community, but to get the public and even our families to understand the importance of basic biological research. I really enjoy the science TikToks and podcasts out there, which I think are great ways to give people snapshots of how science actually happens.
What is your background and what is your current research focus?
I grew up and did my undergrad in India, where the education system is very different. You don’t really get a chance to do hands on research as an undergrad. This is true for most places except a few of the more elite institutions. You learn a lot of the concepts but at that point you don’t really know what research looks like as a career.
I wanted to see what research was all about, so I got a scholarship to do my master’s at the University of Edinburgh in neuroscience. That was a valuable experience because I got to do my dissertation in a lab setting. After that, I wanted to get more research experience, so I came back to India and worked as a research assistant for a few years. I worked with flies, looking at chromatin dynamics in early fly development and how perturbations in the environment can cause transgenerational or intergenerational effects in flies. That was my first experience thinking about research questions and executing a research hypothesis.
I did my PhD in developmental biology at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. It was a great experience. I mainly worked with human embryonic stem cell-based differentiation systems, trying to understand the mechanisms that provide transcriptional specificity to the Wnt pathway.
While I was doing my PhD, I knew that I wanted to look more into the interplay of developmental signalling and other processes during early development, like epigenetic regulation and transcription factor activity. I wanted to integrate and study all of that in a 3D model that has more spatial context. I decided to be more invested in the epigenetic field when I transitioned to my postdoc. I’m now using stem cell derived embryo models and studying how epigenetic complexes, especially the Polycomb complexes, regulate tissue organisation and cell fate decisions during very early embryonic events like gastrulation. Even though it wasn’t too much of a field switch, it’s still very intimidating because there is so much literature on chromatin function between the many epigenetic complexes and so much interplay. But there are still many outstanding questions in chromatin regulation that I think are very interesting, especially during the cell fate transitions in development.
You’ve worked in quite a few different countries. How has that experience shaped you?
There’re a lot of immigrants who have gone to other countries for their PhDs. I think their journeys are all a bit unconventional and unique. I think my experience has helped me become a better scientist. The structure in which science works, the funding for science, the resources that are allocated — all these things are so different back in India. The way you’re viewed on the global level is also different. When I was working in India, I would reach out to people and rarely get a response. When I started applying to PhD programmes, I got rejected several times because they said that I needed to have research experience in Western countries. That made me very discouraged because I didn’t know how I could change this. Now that I’m in the US, people reply very quickly and nicely when I email. I think there are a lot of perception issues based on where people come from.
Do you have any ideas about what kind of content you will contribute to the Node?
I would like to highlight the research being done in Global south countries. Most research being talked about, even if they’re from countries in the Global South, are normally from elite institutions or projects with a lot of international collaborations. There are a lot of disparities in terms of funding and allocation of resources, even simple things like buying cell culture equipment. Scientists often end up spending a disproportionate amount of funding on publishing and buying consumables due to currency conversions. By writing about the research going on in the Global South, I hope to explore the researchers’ career trajectories and highlight any unique challenges they face in research. There’s also another interesting perspective there because many of those scientists left their country to do a postdoc in a Western country, but then went back home to set up their own labs, which I think is extremely necessary. It will be interesting to get their perspective about how they adjusted to the transition. I hope that writing more about the research in the Global South can create a change in perception when people are judging job applications from candidates.
We look forward to seeing more research from the Global South being highlighted! Is there anything else you want to write for the Node?
I would like to get more up to date on the literature around modelling development with stem cells. There are now so many in vitro embryo models that recapitulate different processes. These models are not all-encompassing, but they’re good in studying many aspects of morphogenesis, tissue organisation, and species-specific developmental processes. This is very exciting because I think in developmental biology, we are at the point where technologies like single cell and spatial transcriptomics allow us to get very high-resolution information into early developmental processes.
I’m also interested in comparing the models derived from conventional versus unconventional organisms. I was recently reading a preprint about spheroids derived from cavefish which was fascinating. I love the idea of a bottom-up approach in making an embryo.
What do you hope to gain from the experience of being a Node correspondent?
I would love to get to know other correspondents and gain a sense of community within the science writing field. I really look forward to learning from other correspondents and from The Company of Biologists team and expand my professional network. It would be really cool to see what happens behind the scenes in publishing.
The Node is such an international community. I’m hoping to learn how to write in a way that’s more globally accessible to reach an international audience.
Finally, is there anything about you that people find surprising? What do you like to do in your spare time?
Something that really helped me through grad school was getting into comedy. I started taking improv classes, because during the pandemic, I wanted to be involved in something that was the complete opposite of academia.
It was such a great experience for me. I found a community of really funny people. It has helped me develop my public speaking skills and have more perspective on things. It’s also gotten me interested in other forms of comedy. Since then, I’ve also been dabbling in doing sketch writing, stand-up and long-form comedy!
That sounds fun! Do you mix science with comedy or are they separate?
For me, they are completely separate. Although for stand up, I do have a little bit of material about how ridiculous it is to go to grad school. Comedy has really helped me in the past few years because I always know that no matter how bad my day is, in the evenings I get to laugh with a group of people I enjoy spending time with. It also helps put things in perspective — when you have a bad day because your Western blot didn’t work, but your scene partner is a physician, and they had a really bad day but they’re still there being so funny. It’s important to think beyond just being in the lab. I think most beginner improv classes are free so everybody should just go take one. You can be silly and not think about anything else!
Agnese Kocere, Elena Chiavacci, Charlotte Soneson, Harrison H. Wells, Kevin Manuel Méndez-Acevedo, Jacalyn S. MacGowan, Seth T. Jacobson, Max S. Hiltabidle, Azhwar Raghunath, Jordan A. Shavit, Daniela Panáková, Margot L. K. Williams, Mark D. Robinson, Christian Mosimann, Alexa Burger
Sandra de Haan, Agustin A. Corbat, Christopher R. Cederroth, Lisa G. Autrum, Simona Hankeova, Elizabeth C. Driver, Barbara Canlon, Matthew W. Kelley, Emma R. Andersson
Claire S. Simon, Afshan McCarthy, Laura Woods, Desislava Staneva, Qiulin Huang, Madeleine Linneberg-Agerholm, Alex Faulkner, Athanasios Papathanasiou, Kay Elder, Phil Snell, Leila Christie, Patricia Garcia, Valerie Shaikly, Mohamed Taranissi, Meenakshi Choudhary, Mary Herbert, Joshua M. Brickman, Kathy K. Niakan
Irfan S. Kathiriya, Martin H. Dominguez, Kavitha S. Rao, Jonathon M. Muncie-Vasic, W. Patrick Devine, Kevin M. Hu, Swetansu K. Hota, Bayardo I. Garay, Diego Quintero, Piyush Goyal, Megan N. Matthews, Reuben Thomas, Tatyana Sukonnik, Dario Miguel-Perez, Sarah Winchester, Emily F. Brower, André Forjaz, Pei-Hsun Wu, Denis Wirtz, Ashley L. Kiemen, Benoit G. Bruneau
Vinay Shukla, Ayelen Moreno-Irusta, Kaela M. Varberg, Marija Kuna, Khursheed Iqbal, Anna M. Galligos, John D. Aplin, Ruhul H. Choudhury, Hiroaki Okae, Takahiro Arima, Michael J. Soares
Mohammad Alhashmi, Abdulrahman ME Gremida, Santosh K Maharana, Marco Antonaci, Amy Kerr, Noor A Al-Maslamani, Ke Liu, Maria M Meschis, Hazel Sutherland, Peter Wilson, Peter Clegg, Grant N Wheeler, Robert J van ’t Hof, George Bou-Gharios, Kazuhiro Yamamoto
Jeremie Oliver Pina, Resmi Raju, Daniela M Roth, Emma Wentworth Winchester, Cameron Padilla, James Iben, Fabio R Faucz, Justin L Cotney, Rena N D’Souza
Neha E. H. Dinesh, Nissan Baratang, Justine Rosseau, Ronit Mohapatra, Ling Li, Ramshaa Mahalingam, Kerstin Tiedemann, Philippe M. Campeau, Dieter P. Reinhardt
Devon E. Mason, Paula Camacho, Megan E. Goeckel, Brendan R. Tobin, Sebastián L. Vega, Pei-Hsun Wu, Dymonn Johnson, Su-Jin Heo, Denis Wirtz, Jason A. Burdick, Levi Wood, Brian Y. Chow, Amber N. Stratman, Joel D. Boerckel
Claudio Araya, Raegan Boekemeyer, Francesca Farlie, Lauren Moon, Freshta Darwish, Chris Rookyard, Leanne Allison, Gema Vizcay-Barrena, Roland Fleck, Millaray Aranda, Masa Tada, Jonathan D W Clarke
José González-Martínez, Estefanía Ayala, Agustín Sanchez-Belmonte, Alejandro García, Enrique Nogueira, Anna Melati, Daniel Gimenez, Ana Losada, Sagrario Ortega, Marcos Malumbres
Bernard K. van der Veer, Lehua Chen, Spyridon Champeris Tsaniras, Wannes Brangers, Qiuying Chen, Mariana Schroiff, Colin Custers, Harm H.M. Kwak, Rita Khoueiry, Robert Cabrera, Steven S. Gross, Richard H. Finnell, Yunping Lei, Kian Peng Koh
Antonia Hauth, Jasper Panten, Emma Kneuss, Christel Picard, Nicolas Servant, Isabell Rall, Yuvia A. Pérez-Rico, Lena Clerquin, Nila Servaas, Laura Villacorta, Ferris Jung, Christy Luong, Howard Y. Chang, Oliver Stegle, Duncan T. Odom, Agnese Loda, Edith Heard
Mona Steichele, Lara Sauermann, Qin Pan, Jasmin Moneer, Alexandra de la Porte, Martin Heß, Moritz Mercker, Catharina Strube, Marcell Jenewein, Angelika Böttger
Margarida Viola, Maarten P. Bebelman, Renee G. C. Maas, Frederik J. Verweij, Cor S. Seinen, Saskia C. A. de Jager, Pieter Vader, D. Michiel Pegtel, Joost P. G. Sluijter
Yifei Miao, Cheng Tan, Nicole M. Pek, Zhiyun Yu, Kentaro Iwasawa, Daniel O. Kechele, Nambirajan Sundaram, Victor Pastrana-Gomez, Keishi Kishimoto, Min-Chi Yang, Cheng Jiang, Jason Tchieu, Jeffrey A. Whitsett, Kyle W. McCracken, Robbert J. Rottier, Darrell N. Kotton, Michael A. Helmrath, James M. Wells, Takanori Takebe, Aaron M. Zorn, Ya-Wen Chen, Minzhe Guo, Mingxia Gu
Pauline Garcia, William Jarassier, Caroline Brun, Lorenzo Giordani, Fany Agostini, Wai Hing Kung, Cécile Peccate, Jade Ravent, Sidy Fall, Valentin Petit, Tom H Cheung, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali, Fabien Le Grand
Olivia Stonehouse, Christine Biben, Tom S Weber, Alexandra Garnham, Katie Fennell, Alison Farley, Antoine Terreaux, Warren Alexander, Mark Dawson, Shalin Naik, Samir Taoudi
George C. Gabriel, Hisato Yagi, Tuantuan Tan, Abha S. Bais, Benjamin J. Glennon, Margaret C. Stapleton, Lihua Huang, William T. Reynolds, Marla G. Shaffer, Madhavi Ganapathiraju, Dennis Simon, Ashok Panigrahy, Yijen L. Wu, Cecilia W. Lo
Carlos A. Pinzon-Arteaga, Ryan O’Hara, Alice Mazzagati, Emily Ballard, Yingying Hu, Alex Pan, Daniel A. Schmitz, Yulei Wei, Masahiro Sakurai, Peter Ly, Laura Banaszynski, Jun Wu
Syed Mohammed Musheer Aalam, Ana Rita Varela, Aalim Khaderi, Ronsard J Mondesir, Dong-Gi Mun, Andrew Ding, Isabelle M.A. Lombaert, Rob P. Coppes, Chitra Priya Emperumal, Akhilesh Pandey, Jeffrey R. Janus, Nagarajan Kannan
Tomasz Jamruszka, Joanna Banasiak, Aleksandra Pawela, Karolina Jarzyniak, Jian Xia, Wanda Biała-Leonhard, Lenka Plačková, Tashi Tsering, Francesca Romana Iacobini, Ondřej Novák, Markus Geisler, Michał Jasiński
Natalia L. Amigo, Leonardo A. Arias, Fernanda Marchetti, Sebastián D’Ippólito, Jesica Frik, María Cristina Lombardo, María Cecilia Terrile, Claudia A. Casalongue, Gabriela C. Pagnussat, Diego F. Fiol
Yang Dong, Zhi-Cheng Hu, Mateusz Majda, Hao-Ran Sun, Yao Zhang, Yi-Ning Ding, Quan Yuan, Tong-Bing Su, Tian-Feng Lü, Feng Gao, Gui-Xia Xu, Richard S. Smith, Lars Østergaard
Gabrielle C. Coffing, Silas Tittes, Scott T. Small, Jeremea O. Songco-Casey, Denise M. Piscopo, Judit R. Pungor, Adam C Miller, Cristopher Niell, Andrew D. Kern
Mohammad Zeeshan, Ravish Rashpa, David J. Ferguson, George Mckeown, Raushan Nugmanova, Amit K. Subudhi, Raphael Beyeler, Sarah L. Pashley, Robert Markus, Declan Brady, Magali Roques, Andrew R. Bottrill, Andrew M. Fry, Arnab Pain, Sue Vaughan, Anthony A. Holder, Eelco C. Tromer, Mathieu Brochet, Rita Tewari
Anna Kasprzyk-Pawelec, Mingjun Tan, Yu Leng Phua, Raneen Rahhal, Alec McIntosh, Harvey Fernandez, Rami Mosaoa, Michael Girgis, Amrita Cheema, Lei Jiang, Lawrence F. Kroemer, Anastas Popratiloff, Cheryl Clarkson, Brian M. Kirmsa, Gray W. Pearson, Eric Glasgow, Christopher Albanese, Jerry Vockley, Maria Laura Avantaggiati
Cheng Zhao, Alvaro Plaza Reyes, John Paul Schell, Jere Weltner, Nicolás M. Ortega, Yi Zheng, Åsa K. Björklund, Laura Baqué-Vidal, Joonas Sokka, Ras Torokovic, Brian Cox, Janet Rossant, Jianping Fu, Sophie Petropoulos, Fredrik Lanner
Kelly J. Clark, Emily E. Lubin, Elizabeth M. Gonzalez, Annabel K. Sangree, Dana E. Layo-Carris, Emily L. Durham, Rebecca C. Ahrens-Nicklas, Tomoki T. Nomakuchi, Elizabeth J. Bhoj
Chloe Moss, Barbara Vacca, Jo Arnold, Chantal Hubens, Dominic M. Lynch, James Pegge, Michael A.R. Green, Charlotte A. Hosie, Tessa E. Smith, Jeremy B.A. Green
Nobuhiko Hamazaki, Wei Yang, Connor Kubo, Chengxiang Qiu, Beth K Martin, Riddhiman K Garge, Samuel G Regalado, Eva Nichols, Choli Lee, Riza M Daza, Sanjay Srivatsan, Jay Shendure
Royal Society Publishing has recently published a special issue from Philosophical Transactions B entitled – Causes and consequences of stochastic processes in development and disease.
The issue is organised and edited by Dagan Jenkins, Jonathan Chubb and Gabriel Galea.
About this issue Biology is inherently variable. Some differences between individuals are controlled by genetics and predictable: all Chihuahuas are smaller than Great Danes even though they are members of the same species. This issue presents studies of biological variability which is not predictable, emphasising ‘random’ differences between cells or organisms. Sources of random variability are identified using both statistical methods and cellular analyses, in controlled cultures and growing tissues. Some studies show that consequences of variability can be positive, for example by allowing a population to resist external stresses, like plants resisting unpredictable weather. In other situations, it can be detrimental, such as by allowing some cancer cells to resist treatment or resulting in error-prone embryo development which causes malformations at birth. This issue arises from a Royal Society discussion meeting held in April 2023.
Purchase the print issue at the reduced price of £40 by contacting sales@royalsociety.org
In a new study, Joshua Gendron and colleagues find that plants can measure two different photoperiods to independently control seasonal flowering and growth, and the vegetative growth is partially dependent on the production of myo-inositol, a precursor required in many processes that control growth (1). First author Qingqing Wang takes us through the story behind the paper.
After earning my PhD in fish reproductive physiology from a laboratory in China, I ventured to the US and secured a postdoctoral position in the Gendron lab, initiating my journey into the field of botany. While transitioning from zoology to botany presented significant hurdles, my background in biology, which encompassed genes, molecules, and proteins, eased the process of assimilating knowledge into the botanical sphere. Fortunately, the steadfast support of my lab colleagues, along with Josh Gendron’s encouragement, fostered within me the belief that creativity and problem-solving acumen are indispensable in scientific research, igniting a fervent passion for botanical pursuits.
In our laboratory, we have elucidated a metabolic daylength measurement (MDLM) system that is crucial for regulating plant growth under short winter photoperiod conditions. Notably, the post-dusk induction of one gene, PHLOEM PROTEIN 2-A13 (PP2-A13), in short days is pivotal for sustaining plant growth in winter but not summer photoperiod (2). This led me to speculate about the existence of a contrasting pathway that is regulated by MDLM system controlling plant summer growth. My exploration of photoperiod-related literature primarily uncovered research focused on the CONSTANS- FLOWERING LOCUS T (CO-FT) module’s role in regulating flowering, leaving much unknown about other pathways controlling plants’ summer growth.
MIPS1 as a model to study photoperiod-controlled growth.
Delving into the RNA-seq database curated by Gendron lab (3), I meticulously examined gene expression profiles from RNA-seq, seeking candidates exhibiting heightened expression under summer long day conditions. Amidst the constraints of Covid-induced isolation, devoid of laboratory benchwork, I seized the opportunity to immerse myself in extensive literature reviews pertaining to each intriguing gene. I came across a gene called MYOINOSITOL-1-PHOSPHATE SYNTHASE 1 (MIPS1), which plays a pivotal role in myo-inositol biosynthesis. Myo-inositol is an essential sugar that governs various cellular processes crucial for growth regulation. Notably, MIPS1 displayed elevated expression under summer long-day photoperiods, and we discovered that its mutant counterpart, mips1, exhibited specific growth defects under summer long-day conditions but not winter short-day conditions, contrasting with the pp2-a13 mutant. We observed that MIPS1 has a long-day-specific growth effect, prompting us to investigate whether growth is photoperiod-controlled and how MIPS1 responds. To address this, I cultivated both wild type and mips1 mutant plants under critical photoperiod conditions and monitored their growth. As the daytime lengthened, wild type growth was minimal in photoperiods less than 12 hours light to 12 hours dark (12L:12D). However, in photoperiods of 12L:12D or longer, wild type growth accelerated significantly, while the mips1 mutant exhibited clear growth defects. Upon seeing these results, I was excited to share the findings with everyone. The two years of effort dedicated to growing plants under various conditions in the same growth chamber proved worthwhile. These results indicate that growth is indeed controlled by photoperiod and requires MIPS1.
Those findings prompted us to investigate the potential involvement of the CO-FT mechanism in regulating MIPS1 expression. Interestingly, genetic data indicated that MIPS1 expression is not controlled by the CO-FTpathway, which led us to wonder a pivotal question: What regulatory network governs MIPS1 expression, thereby determining plant summer growth rate?
Parallel control by MDLM for MIPS1 required for long day rapid growth, and CO-FT for photoperiod flowering.
We employed a starch-less pgm mutant with a dysfunctional MDLM system to examine the regulatory effect of MDLM on MIPS1 expression. As expected, the photoperiodic expression of MIPS1 was absent in the pgm mutant, confirming our hypothesis that MDLM system regulates MIPS1 expression. Then I think about how to design an experiment to decouple photoperiodic growth and photoperiodic flowering. Exposing the plant to low light intensity, nearing the compensation point where photosynthesis equals respiration, could exhaust starch and sucrose reserves and therefore impeding MDLM but not CO-FT system. I grew plants in low light intensity condition and found that the mips1 mutant phenotype disappeared, while flowering time remained consistent with long-day conditions, which is making us exciting. This sustained our model that MDLM regulates plant growth in parallel to CO-FT regulated flowering. To further test this model, I propose a classic experiment akin to the “night break” experiments used to test photoperiodic flowering. In “night break” flowering experiments, long day plant flowers in long day but not short day photoperiod. However, introducing short pulses of light during the night in short-day conditions promotes flowering. Similarly, to assess whether photoperiod regulates rapid growth, we propose dividing the daytime in long-day conditions into two segments: one exposed to high light intensity and the other to low intensity. We found that the mips1 mutant phenotype would manifest in the segment under intense light, while the wild-type size would exceed that of the segment under light exposure during the initial portion. Moreover, flowering timing in both scenarios would mirror that of long-day conditions. This suggests that plants can discern an absolute photoperiod using low light-sensing photoreceptor mechanisms to regulate flowering time. Concurrently, they can gauge the photosynthetic duration as a metabolic day length to govern growth.
Plants detect two different daylengths to control seasonal flowering and growth (Adjusted from previous papers (4, 5)). Photoperiodic flowering detects an “absolute” photoperiod that is sensed by photoreceptors that control CO stability,activated at low light intensities. Photoperiodic growth detects the photosynthetic period measured by the metabolic daylength measurement system, which is defined as the duration of time that light is above the photosynthetic compensation point.
In the end…
This journey has taught me that in scientific research, one must be passionate, diligent, possess problem-solving skills, embrace teamwork, and be willing to challenge and follow classic principles. This model has filled and expanded our understanding of plant regulation by photoperiod, which extends beyond just flowering time; there are many other processes for photoperiodic regulation. Moreover, by utilizing different durations and intensities of light exposure, we can achieve separate regulation of flowering and growth in crops, leading to conservation of energy resources for crops in the future.
References
Q. Wang, W. Liu, C. C. Leung, D. A. Tarté, J. M. Gendron, Plants distinguish different photoperiods to independently control seasonal flowering and growth. Science 383, eadg9196 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg9196; PMID: 38330117
W. Liu, A Feke, C. C. Leung, D. A. Tarte´, W Yuan, M. Vanderwall, G. Sager, X. Wu, A. Schear, D. A. Clark, B. C. Thines, and J. M. Gendron, Ametabolic daylength measurement system mediates winter photoperiodism in plants. Dev. Cell 56, 2501–2515.e5(2021). doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2021.07.016; pmid: 34407427
C. C. Leung, D. A. Tarté, L. S. Oliver, Q. Wang, J. M. Gendron, Systematic characterization of photoperiodic gene expression patterns reveals diverse seasonal transcriptional systems in Arabidopsis. PLOS Biol. 21, e3002283 (2023). doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002283; pmid: 376990558. T. C. Mockler et al., The DIURNAL project: DIURNAL
J. M. Gendron, D. Staiger, New Horizons in Plant Photoperiodism. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 74, 481–509 (2023). doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-070522-055628; pmid: 36854481
J. M. Gendron, C. C. Leung, W. Liu, Energy as a seasonal signal for growth and reproduction. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 63, 102092(2021). doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2021.102092; pmid: 34461431
The Young Embryologist Network conference 2024 (YEN24) is the 16th iteration of the network’s renowned yearly Developmental Biology meeting. This hybrid conference will take place at the Francis Crick Institute on Tuesday 28thMay 2024, and will be streamed worldwide over Zoom. The YEN conference is a unique opportunity for early career researchers in Developmental Biology to share their research, network, and interact with peers and pioneers in the field.
This year, we will bring together a global audience. We are actively recruiting local representatives from universities and institutes worldwide to establish remote hubs for participants to gather, watch talks and engage in the conversation. We are also awarding travel grants, generously supported by the Company of Biologists.
YEN24 features a diverse line-up of invited speakers, covering a wide spectrum of topics in Developmental Biology. We will hear from Aydan Bulut Karslioglu (MPI-MG) on environmental regulation of embryonic gene expression and cell fate specification, and Kristian Franze (University of Cambridge, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg) on the mechanical control of vertebrate neural development. This year, we are delighted to host Pavel Tomancak (MPI-CBG, CEITEC) as keynote speaker, whose lab uses an interdisciplinary toolkit and comparative approach to understand the evolution of tissue morphogenesis.
We are also excited to host three speakers engaging with the social, legal and ethical implications of biological research in ‘Science in Society’ perspectives talks. Naomi Moris (The Francis Crick Institute) uses synthetic embryos to understands fundamental principles of human development, and recently contributed to a re-evaluation of the term ‘embryo’, defining a roadmap for the use of in vitro embryo models in research. Laurence Lwoff (Council of Europe) is head of the Human Rights and Biomedicine Division at the Council of Europe, and works on an intergovernmental steering committee advising on the protection of human rights in biomedical research. Steve Crabtree (BBC Science Unit) is an award-winning executive producer at BBC Studios, and former series editor for the flagship science series Horizon, where he commissioned and produced over 70 episodes.
We are also inviting abstracts from early career researchers to highlight a cross-section of research in the field in short talks and posters.
Registration for the YEN Conference 2024 is now open! Use our google form to sign up and send in your abstract: tinyurl.com/YENMeeting24.
We hope to see you there!
Head to our website, and follow us on social media for the latest news and announcements
Alex Neaverson is a third-year PhD student at the University of Cambridge, studying regeneration of the Hensen’s Node in chick embryos. Alex is a keen artist and has recently got into scientific illustration while doing an internship at a research charity. As a Node correspondent, she plans to use her artistic skills to create illustrated career timelines of developmental biologists and draw graphical summaries to highlight research conducted by different teams around the world.
Congratulations on being selected as one of our new correspondents! What made you decide to apply to become a Node correspondent?
I’ve known about the Node since I started my PhD in 2021. The Node’s a great resource for bringing developmental biologists together. I really like how there’s a mixture of scientific articles and opinion pieces, and I like the ‘Lab meeting’ posts where you get to know all the different labs. I especially like the SciArt profiles. I love seeing my two big passions — biology and art — mixed together, sometimes in really unusual ways. I’ve always kept art and science separate in my life, where science has been my job and art has been my hobby. But I recently started getting into scientific illustration. I thought considering the Node publishes the SciArt profiles, you might be open to something slightly different from a Correspondent. Maybe you’d like to have someone who can create illustrations as a means of communicating science, instead of purely writing text-based articles. I deliberated over it for a while, but I spoke to my PI and he thought it was a great idea, so I took a chance and clearly it paid off!
How did you get into scientific illustration?
Scientific illustration is something that is very new to me. Art has always been a hobby. I love painting people and animal portraits. I have only started doing scientific illustration during my internship with Alzheimer’s Research UK (ARUK) last year. As part of my PhD course, I had to do a 3-month internship. There was an internship fair and while most organisations had very specific projects in mind, Jorge from ARUK’s Research team was very open to ideas and said that my project could depend on my interests.
My internship ended up being about translating research on dementia prevention into infographics that could be understood by a layperson. I wanted to do this in a more creative way. ARUK was very encouraging, and I was able to get a tablet to do digital illustration and attend online courses for Adobe Illustrator. The resource that I contributed to for ARUK is called the Impact Hub, which is used by the Science communication team and other teams in the charity to communicate the impact of the research funded by the charity. The infographics I created have to clearly communicate the science in a way that can be understood by anybody. That internship was where I started to meld science and art together.
Examples of illustrations Alex did during her internship at Alzheimer’s Research UK (click to enlarge image)
Apart from scientific illustration, have you done much science communication and public outreach?
Before I started my PhD, I worked as a research assistant at the Wellcome Sanger Institute. During the COVID lockdown, I had significantly less lab work to do. I started writing a blog together with a colleague, which was quite fun to do. I also completely revamped my department’s website because it was totally out of date and very boring to look at. I’d like to think I improved it! I’ve also taken part in several outreach activities for children, such as the Big Bang Fair at Birmingham NEC, and the Cambridge Festival last year.
What is your scientific background and what is your current research focus?
I did my undergrad in biomedical sciences in York. I was initially interested in human biology and disease. But it started to change over time as I did my degree. The programme was very open, so I was able to pick a lot of different modules. It was around second or third year when I started to show an interest in developmental biology, which probably had a lot to do with my lecturers. They were very passionate about their subject, and they transferred that passion to me.
In my final year, I did a project with Xenopus embryos, which I really enjoyed. When I finished at York, I thought the one experience that I lacked was with cell culture. I started looking for jobs where I could gain those skills, and ended up joining a core facility at the Sanger Institute where I primarily did stem cell differentiation projects. I learned how to work with iPSCs and differentiate them into neural lineages. But I started to miss working model organisms and I started to realise that I wanted to pursue my own research, which I didn’t have much freedom to do as a research assistant. That was when I decided to take on a PhD at Ben Stevenson’s lab in Cambridge.
Now, I work with very early chick embryos, and I’m interested in the role of Hensen’s Node, the so-called organiser in the chick embryo, during neural development. The node is thought to be responsible for releasing signals that pattern the neural territory. If you cut the node out of the embryo it will completely regenerate itself and the embryo carries on developing. I’m studying this regenerative process and what the triggers for tissue re-specification might be and whether this has knock on effect on the development of the embryo.
An illustration drawn by Alex about her career path.
You mentioned you plan to create illustrated content for the Node. Can you elaborate on your ideas?
I’d like to use my illustration skills to create new kinds of content. For example, I’d like to interview developmental biologists about their career paths and create illustrated timelines of their scientific life. I think this will be really fun to create and I think people will be interested to learn about how other people in the field got to where they are today.
I’m also thinking about doing graphical research summaries about an individual or a lab’s research, similar to a paper’s graphical abstract. I’m not sure who I’m going to interview yet, but I’ll probably start with my own lab and people that I know and then branch out.
Will you also write for the Node as well?
I’d like to gain skills in writing as well. One of the things I want to improve is how to adapt the way I write for different audiences, which I think is a really important skill as a scientist. I’d like to make content that blends both text writing and illustration.
Apart from gaining a bit more writing experience, what else do you hope to gain from being a correspondent?
I’d like to meet other people who have similar interests. I’m thinking about a potential career path into science communication after I finish my PhD. I’d like to get to know people and network and find out more about careers in this area.
Finally, what do you like to do in your spare time?
At the end of my undergraduate degree, I loved cooking and baking so much that I convinced myself that I didn’t want to do science anymore and that I actually wanted to be a recipe developer.I felt very conflicted about this because I just spent four years of my life working towards a career in science. I ended up going to my first job in science anyway at the Sanger Institute. I’m glad I did because it did revive my interest in science.
I still do a lot of baking in my spare time and my lab is more than happy to eat all of my creations. Some of my favourite bakes have been embryo themed. I’ve made some cupcakes for a friend’s viva with the stages of zebrafish development. Another friend is a fellow chick embryologist. When she finished her viva, I made some early chick culture cupcakes that were really realistic. So realistic that maybe they were slightly off putting to some people!
Cupcakes showing different stages of zebrafish development
Cupcakes depicting chick embryos in early chick culture, with the yolk made from passion fruit jelly
We are delighted to bring you a 2-day workshop at the Francis Crick Institute that will gather leading experts in the field to break new ground in cell-type evo-devo. This workshop is free and open to all, but you do need to register (link).
Cells are the fundamental building blocks of living systems. Understanding the differentiation of cell types as well as the origin of novel cell types remains a central problem in developmental and evolutionary biology. Today, advances in molecular techniques have enabled the molecular profiling of individual cells, providing fresh opportunities for new insights into cell type development and evolution. This meeting will be of interest to anyone working with single-cell data.
Speakers:
Pawel Burkhardt (University of Bergen): “The deep evolutionary origins of neurons and nervous systems”
Margarida Cardoso-Moreira (Francis Crick Institute): “Origins of cells and organs – the view from the placenta”
Douglas Erwin (Smithsonian Institute): “Alternative models for formation of cells”
Jacob Musser (Yale University): TBA
Joe Parker (Caltech): “The cellular substrate of evolutionary novelty”
Mihaela Pavlicev (University of Vienna): “Cell types as characters”
Arnau Sebé-Pedrós (CRG – Barcelona): “Early animal cell type diversity, evolution, and regulation”
Stefan Semrau (University of Leiden): “How many cell types are there?”
Francesca Spagnoli (Kings College London): “Mapping the emergence of lineage identities in time & space”
Uli Technau (University of Vienna): TBA
Gunter Wagner (Yale University): “How to distinguish cell types from mere similarity clusters? “
There will also be two panel discussions, and there is plenty of time allocated for discussion and mixing within the schedule.
Approximately 1 in 20 babies are born with severe anatomical malformations. Each year this equates to 8 million affected newborns, of which 300,000 die within the first four weeks of life. With advances in sequencing technology, the identification of possible disease-causing changes in the genetic code of these patients has accelerated. However, it is a major challenge to prove which of these genetic changes, also called variants, cause these malformations, as well as to establish the cellular mechanisms by which these changes disrupt normal development. How do we distinguish problematic inherited or spontaneous variants in DNA from the many benign changes, and prove that they disrupt normal development? Can we better understand why some patients are more affected than others even though they carry similar, if not the same, genetic changes? How do important environmental influences, such as maternal health during pregnancy, modify how these genetic changes exhibit themselves in terms of severity and spectrum of patient presentations? Many genes that are implicated in congenital anomalies play multiple roles in different tissues during prenatal and postnatal development; thus, these genes are difficult to study in humans, even in stem cell ‘disease-in-a-dish’ models.
What we plan to do
Working closely with clinicians and researchers who submit variants of uncertain significance (VUS) via our portal, the Congenital Anomalies Cluster will create precisely engineered mouse models of patient variants, which will:
Help clinicians establish genetic diagnoses
Drive increased understanding of the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying congenital anomalies.
Our cluster has broad developmental biology expertise and together with the MRC National Mouse Genetics Network (NMGN) we have built a pipeline to investigate the complex interactions that are disrupted during early life, across multiple organ systems. Through the detection of overlapping phenotypes in F0 embryo screening, we hope to provide clinicians with sufficient evidence to confirm a genetic diagnosis in their families. The generation of clinically relevant mouse lines to study pathogenic mechanisms allows exploration of the consequences of genetic mutations during the critical postnatal period (automated live monitoring), and during disease progression later in life. These models will serve as improved platforms for developing much-needed therapeutic interventions.
Part of the remit of the Congenital Anomalies Cluster is to help clinicians and researchers establish genetic diagnoses by modelling VUS in mice. Our submissions portal is open to clinicians and researchers worldwide.
Submitted VUS will be assessed by our Clinical Advisory Board who will meet at least twice a year.
They will consider and rank the submitted VUS based on the following Congenital Anomalies Cluster priorities (in order of importance): 1) New disease gene. 2) Known disease gene, but new phenotype association or novel allelic disorder. 3) Known disease gene with difficult-to-interpret VUS; e.g., nearby significant variants such as structural variants, or deep intronic single nucleotide variants. 4) Known disease genes where broader investigation of the mouse model could lead to new insights into pathogenic mechanism and/or therapy development.
Considerations:
Contributing teams are ideally clinically led or have strong clinical engagement, to efficiently return diagnostic information and enable further assessment of patient phenotypes. The clinical features of your patient should be present at birth and should overlap with the specialities of our developmental biology team: craniofacial, skeletal, heart, neural tube, kidney, and ciliopathies. More weight will be given to syndromic conditions to enable the simultaneous study of multiple systems in the mouse.
Please follow this link to the submission portal and feel free to download and share the flyer above.
(1 votes)
Loading...
(No Ratings Yet)
