I’m reporting from the Drosophila meeting. You can read the post on days 1 and 2 here and on day 3 here.

Day 4 of the fly meeting was by far the most intense. Starting at 8.30 a.m., talks and poster presentations only really finished at 11.15 p.m.! However, the fly community takes their science very seriously, and you would be surprised by the number of people who stayed until the last talk!

The day had several sets of concurrent sessions, so I jumped around from ‘Regulation of Gene Expression’ to ‘Cell Biology & Cytoskeleton’ and ‘Stem Cells’. In the evening I attended the workshop on CRISPR-Cas 9, and a quick show of hands demonstrated how widely the fly community has embranced this technology.  Several speakers talked about how they are using CRISPR. For example, Hugo Bellen (Baylor College of Medicine) talked about how the MiMIC technology is being combined with CRISPR, while David Stern (Janelia Research Campus), is developing  CRISPR in a variety of Drosophila species. Indeed, David exemplified the generosity that the fly community is known for, by bringing with him several vials of fly lines expressing cas9 to give away. The floor then opened for questions, ranging from the specifics of how many kbs could be deleted to whether tissue-specific or mitochondria CRISPR had been attempted. I also attended the developmental mechanics workshop that followed, covering a variety of talks on the mechanical forces at work during development, from those applied by a corset of muscles around the eggs chambers to the system that anchors the wing during development.

Meeting t-shirt 

The last day saw a final plenary session, covering a variety of topics. For example, Christine Rushlow (New York University) talked about Zelda (named after the Nintendo game character), an important regulator of early gene expression following the maternal-to-zygotic transition. She proposed a model by which enhancers in these genes have high nucleosome occupancy, and that Zelda is able to lower this nucleosome barrier. Also in this session, Heinrich Jasper (Buck Institute for Research on Ageing) examined the relationship between proliferation and immune response in the intestinal epithelium. Normally, intestinal stem cells don’t proliferate much, unless they are exposed to damage or stimuli. The ageing epithelium, however, shows over proliferation, dependent on the presence of bacteria. This leads to the question of how stem cell homeostasis is related to immune homeostasis. Matthew Gibson (Stowers Institute) talked about the role of Decapentaplegic (Dpp) in the wing disc, but not before remind us of the contributions of T.H.Morgan, Turing and Wolpert to our understanding of morphogens. Matthew showed that the characteristic Dpp stripe observed in wing discs is required for patterning, but not growth, of this structure. The last talk of the meeting was by Ulrike Heberlein (Janelia Research Campus), who is using the fly as a model to study alcohol dependence. You can watch some videos showing the effects of ethanol vapours on flies here. Her lab is trying to understand how alcohol addiction is dependent on both environmental and genetic influences. For example, a few years ago they showed that male flies that have been rejected by females (because the females had already mated) are ‘courtship depressed’, and show a higher preference for alcohol (read their paper in Science here).

You may also remember how in day one (see post here) Allan Spradling called for fly researchers to play an active role in persuading the public and politicians that fly research is worth supporting. In the last session Andrea Page-McCaw provided a short list of how any of us can do this right now, and many of her suggestions are applicable for any scientist keen on encouraging funding in Biology:

How we can all support Drosophila research: Communications Chair Andrea Page-McCaw http://t.co/yavQI17zor #DROS2015 pic.twitter.com/B3V3krn2tw

— Genetics Soc of Amer (@GeneticsGSA) March 8, 2015

Overall it was a very enjoyable meeting. Great science was presented, and as Drosophila is a great model to study developmental biology on, there were a lot of talks relevant for the Node! In addition, the fly community is very active on social media, so not only could attendees follow talks in other sessions on twitter, but researchers who couldn’t make it to the meeting were also following the talks remotely!

If my posts encouraged you to attend the next Drosophila meeting then you are up for a treat! Next year the fly meeting will be combined with a variety of other model organism meetings in the Allied Genetics Conference! This epic endeavour by the Genetics Society of America will see a variety of model organism meetings taking place concurrently in a single location in Orlando. This means that you will be able to attend the fly meeting AND pop in and out of other model organism meetings next door! You can find out more information about this meeting here.

(2 votes)

Loading...

Here are the highlights from the current issue of Development:

Dmrt1: a common thread in sex determination

Dmrt1 and its related genes play a key role in sex determination in a broad range of metazoan species. However, Dmrt1 has become dispensable for testis determination in mammals, and this function is instead carried out by Sry, which is a newly evolved gene found on the Y chromosome. Now, Peter Koopman and colleagues show that, even though its function is not normally required, Dmrt1 is able to drive female-to-male sex reversal in mice (p. 1083). The researchers show that the transgenic overexpression of Dmrt1 in XX mouse foetal gonads is able to induce testis formation. The resulting gonads exhibit typical testicular size and vascular patterning, and contain Sertoli cells that express the hallmark testis-determining gene Sox9. By contrast, the expression of ovarian markers is repressed and granulosa cells are absent. The researchers further show that this testis phenotype persists into adulthood; male internal and external reproductive organs develop, whereas female structures are absent. Together, these findings suggest that Dmrt1 has retained the ability to act as a sex-determining factor in mammals, highlighting a common thread in the evolution of sex-determination mechanisms in metazoans.

Uncovering feedback in plant stem cell networks

In plants, stem cell proliferation is negatively regulated by the receptor kinase CLAVATA1 (CLV1) and its peptide ligand CLAVATA3 (CLV3). Previous studies have suggested that CLV1 acts redundantly with other receptor kinases, such as BAM1, 2 and 3, but the molecular mechanisms underpinning this redundancy have been unclear. Now, Elliot Meyerowitz and co-workers interrogate the role of CLV1-CLV3 signalling in the Arabidopsis shoot apical meristem (p. 1043). They first show that CLV1 functions exclusively in rib meristem (RM) cells that express the transcription factor WUSCHEL, which is required for stem cell maintenance. The researchers further show that BAM1 and BAM3 expression is absent in these CLV1-expressing cells, suggesting that CLV1 represses BAM1/3 expression. In line with this, they reveal that BAM1 and BAM3 are transcriptional targets of the CLV1-CLV3 signalling pathway. Finally, they report that CLV1 in the RM is necessary and sufficient for the negative regulation of stem cell proliferation, independent of BAM function; the apparent genetic redundancy observed is due to the ectopic expression of BAM genes in the absence of CLV1-CLV3 signalling. Together, these findings clarify the role of CLV1-CLV3 signalling and uncover a novel feedback loop that operates in the plant stem cell niche.

Gata2b: an early regulator of HSC emergence

Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) give rise to all cells of the adult blood system, and understanding how these cells first arise during embryogenesis is important for developing regenerative medicine-based strategies for producing HSCs in vitro. Here, David Traver and colleagues demonstrate that Gata2b acts as an early regulator of zebrafish hematopoietic precursors (p.1050). The zebrafish genome contains two Gata2orthologues – gata2a and gata2b – and the researchers show that gata2b is expressed in a distinct subpopulation of endothelial cells within the dorsal aorta (DA), which gives rise to HSCs; gata2a in contrast is expressed throughout the DA. This expression of gata2b is Notch-dependent and occurs prior to the expression of runx1, which to date has served as an early marker of zebrafish HSCs. Using lineage tracing, the researchers further show that gata2b-expressing cells give rise to adult HSCs. Finally, knockdown studies indicate that gata2b is required for the formation of functional HSCs. In summary, this study reveals that Gata2b functions as an early marker and regulator of HSCs, prompting further studies into the role of Gata2 during HSC emergence.

Magi keeps an eye on AJ remodelling

Adherens junctions (AJs), which are specialised E-cadherin-based cell contacts, are continuously remodelled during tissue morphogenesis, as cells change shape and position. The accumulation of Bazooka (Baz), the Drosophila PAR3 homologue, is thought to specify where new E-cadherin complexes are deposited during AJ remodelling, but what regulates Baz localisation? Here, Alexandre Djiane and colleagues show that the scaffold protein Magi regulates Baz localization and hence AJ remodelling inDrosophila eye epithelial cells (p. 1102). By studyingMagi mutants, the researchers first show that Magi is required for the correct sorting of interommatidial cells during pupal eye development. They further show that Magi directly interacts with the Ras association domain protein RASSF8. This interaction, they report, is mediated by a WW domain-PPxY binding motif and is required for Magi function in the fly eye. They further demonstrate that Magi recruits a RASSF8-ASPP complex to AJs and that this, in turn, is required for the cortical recruitment of Baz to AJs during junctional remodelling. Overall, these findings highlight the importance of this novel Magi-RASSF8-ASPP complex for AJ remodelling and tissue morphogenesis.

 PLUS…

Skeletal stem cells

Skeletal stem cells (SSCs) reside in the postnatal bone marrow and give rise to cartilage, bone, hematopoiesis-supportive stroma and marrow adipocytes. Here, Paolo Bianco and Pamela Robey discuss the biology of SSCs in the context of the development and postnatal physiology of skeletal lineages, to which their use in medicine must remain anchored. See the Development at a Glance poster article on p. 1023

Mammary gland development

The mammary gland provides an excellent model for studying ‘stem/progenitor’ cells, which – in this context – allow for the repeated expansion and renewal of the gland  during adult life. Here, Mina Bissell and colleagues discuss the various cell types that constitute the mammary gland, highlighting how they arise and differentiate, and how the microenvironment influences their development. See the Review on p. 1028

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

Could we simultaneously make it easier for professional scientists to do research on tight budgets, and improve public understanding of science, by facilitating professional-amateur collaborations? Not that long ago, amateur scientists such as Darwin, Wallace, and Mendel laid the foundations of modern biology. Today, a few button clicks gives access to vast troves of knowledge, and a few dollars buys technologies that even well-funded labs could not get a few decades ago. So, it should be much easier for amateurs and hobbyists to do scientific research now than it was in Darwin’s era. The IGoR wiki aims to pool the talents of professional, amateur, and novice scientists.

But why should professional scientists care? One reason is that doing research often requires far more skills than one person can truly master, and many of those skills are not emphasized in academic training. For example, in my own work I’ve often needed to do a little bit of machining, electronics, photography, and programming. Of course I could have saved a lot of time if I had mastery of those skills, in addition to all the skills that are more central to my research. It would have been very convenient to have an easy way to connect with the many non-scientists and amateurs who have expertise in the skills I needed.

Being able to tap into the wider, non-professional community could allow scientists to do research faster, cheaper, and better, by gaining access to a wider range of skills. One might be able to crowd-source the design and construction of a custom device, or a new image processing algorithm. Perhaps aquarium hobbyists could help one figure out how to culture an interesting non-model organism in lab. For example, I’d love to be able to keep my favorite bryozoans growing year round without running seawater, so I could do a side project that’s been nagging at me but which I can’t devote time to. Perhaps amateur naturalists could also help find collecting sites for interesting organisms. There are endless other possibilities.

Facilitating amateur-professional interactions would also improve public understanding of science. This is especially important in areas that intersect with developmental biology; voters are routinely called upon to make decisions related to stem cells, genetics, or evolution. The premise of every graduate school is that the best way to learn how science works is to do it, yet there are few opportunities for adult non-scientists to experience the creative and intellectual side of research. The success of the citizen science movement shows that many people are interested in participating in science. However, most citizen science projects are designed to get a large number of volunteers to do a defined task, rather than to help non-scientists plan research and interpret results. This leaves a big gulf between non-scientists and professionals.

We could help to solve both problems at once by creating mechanisms to make it easier for experienced scientists to tap into the skills and talents of amateurs and hobbyists, and for novices to tap into the knowledge and advice of experienced researchers. By doing both at once, one could build a broad community representing diverse skills, resources, and experience levels.

Developmental biology is ripe for this. Although a lot of developmental biology depends on expensive reagents and high-tech equipment, plenty of high-value, low-tech research remains to be done. Two of my all-time favorite papers (1, 2) used nothing more than glass needles and intelligence to identify, and partially solve, a paradox of ctenophore development: when an embryo is split in two, each half develops into half an embryo; yet the adults can regenerate an entire half of their body. The authors documented ontogenetic transitions in these phenomena, and then deciphered the roles of specific cell lineages in patterning and regeneration. In my own work, I’ve found that the most useful biomechanical techniques for working with embryos are things like micropipette aspiration, which would be easily accessible to amateur microscopists (it was developed in the 1950’s (3)). There are myriad questions in developmental biology that could be investigated with low-budget techniques.

Are there many interested amateurs and non-scientists who might want to do real research? Yes! There is a growing number of community labs (generally focused on synthetic biology) in bigger cities. There are other online or offline communities of enthusiasts of various organisms. One of my favorite examples is a mushrooming club I joined in Pittsburgh, because there were hobbyists who had an amazing knowledge of mycology. Another of my favorite examples is Slimoco, an online community of slime mold enthusiasts: artists, engineers, hobbyists, etc. Yes, there are plenty of people with kooky ideas; but if the best way to learn how science works is by doing it, then creating mechanisms for participation in the creative and intellectual life of science should help more people become better scientists.

I’m trying to implement one idea for building an online community for research and outreach (IGoR), and I’d greatly appreciate your input on it. Setting it up as a wiki should help people break out of their existing social or professional networks, and it should help one discover unexpected forms of solutions, or problems one hadn’t considered. It is open to experienced scientists who want to tap into the talents of non-scientists and amateurs, but it’s also open to novices who want to try their hand at doing their own research with community feedback. Being equally open to professionals, amateurs, and novices should help build a diverse enough pool of skills, knowledge, and resources to solve many kinds of problems.

If you are interested in the idea, please take a look. Quick and easy things, like posting comments and rating pages on the IGoR site, will help the wiki take life and become a valuable resource for scientists at all experience levels.

1. Henry JQ, Martindale MQ. 2000. Regulation and regeneration in the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi. Developmental biology.227(2):720-33. DOI:10.1006/dbio.2000.9903. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11071786
2. Martindale MQ. 1986. The ontogeny and maintenance of adult symmetry properties in the ctenophore, Mnemiopsis mccradyi. Developmental biology.118(2):556-76. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2878844
3. Mitchison JM, Swann MM. 1954. The Mechanical Properties of the Cell Surface: I. The Cell Elastimeter. J Exp Biol.31(3):443-60. http://jeb.biologists.org

(7 votes)

Loading...

I’m reporting from the Drosophila meeting. You can read the post on days 1 and 2 here.

We woke up to another cold day here in Chicago, and kicked off straight away with concurrent sessions. This meant some tough decisions on which talks to listen to!

Proof that it really is cold- ice in the river by the hotel

I started by attending the session on cell division and cell death. The session covered several systems in which cell death is important. Richa Arya (Harvard) examined how the death of abdominal neuroblasts is spatiotemporally regulated, and showed that Notch is involved in this process. Another process in which apoptosis is important is spermatid individualisation. Eli Arama (Weizmann Institute of Science) showed that a Krebs cycle component and the mitochondria limit the rate of caspase activation during this process. The talk by Caitlin Fogarty (University of Massachusetts) brought together the two aspects of this session, as her project studied apoptosis-induced proliferation. She talked about the role of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) in this process. On the cell cycle side of the session, Norman Zielke (University of Heidelberg) explained how the FUCCI technology, in which fluorescent labels are assigned to different stages of the cell cycle, was adapted to the fly.

After the coffee break I decided to change gears by attending a different session. In the neurophysiology and behaviour session, Zepeng Yao (University of Michigan) talked about circadian clocks. He examined inter-clock coupling and the mechanisms of clock network coordination by varying the speed of the clock in specific subsets of neurons. In the same session, Soh Kohatsu (Tohoku University) was interested in the neuron activities that underlie courtship pursuit in males. The set up for this work made for a great video, which you can watch here. Males were attached to a metal tip, but allowed to otherwise move freely. When presented with a female, or other specific stimuli, the levels of activity could be measured by how much the fixed male moved over a foam ball! Behaviour drosophilists are inventive, but sometimes a simple set-up can provide the answer. Woo J. Kim (University of Ottawa) is interested in how social-sexual experience modulates male mating. By rearing individual males in containers with an upside mirror he could show that simply seeing another male can affect courtship.

During lunch time I attended a discussion about how scientists can influence policy makers to protect funding and raise awareness for science, led by the executive director of GSA, Adam Fagen. This session was opportune, considering the call to action made by Allan Spradling in the opening session, as well as recent comments by senator Rand Paul belittling fly research. Adam made the case for why scientists should be advocates for research with their representatives: the decisions made by politicians directly impact on funding for our work and the laws we must follow; and as scientists we have the credibility and expertise to inform their decisions. So how can we influence policy makers? While Adam’s suggestions were given in the context of the American system, many are of relevance to researchers in any country: meet your representative , ideal when they are in their constituency and hence more available; follow them on social media; participate in town hall meetings and use this opportunity to pose questions; write letters or articles to your local newspaper- your representative will care about the opinions that are expressed in the local community; invite elected officials to your lab/university- explain what you are doing and why it matters; give presentations about research to the local community and make it an issue that they also care about. In short, raise awareness to the topics that you, the voter, feel strongly about. Importantly, Adam encouraged all scientists to sign the petitions that are often emailed by societies or other groups. Such campaigns are all about showing that large numbers of people care about issues, and they often only require a few minutes to complete. How to get the message across though was the focus of the communication workshop that followed.

Raeka Aiyar (GSA) and Joyce Fernandes (University of Miami) started the communication workshop by discussing effective ways to talk about your research. All communication efforts must be driven and shaped by your specific goal. What are you trying to achieve? Equally important is to consider your audience. This means not only to consider, for example, the type of language, but also to the interests and concerns of the people who you are addressing. Finally, an unlike most scientific writing, it is important to start with the punchline, to make the public interested and keen to hear more. Other advice included the need for short messages, that are both meaningful and memorable to the audience. Andreas Prokop (University of Manchester) then talked about the efforts of the Manchester Fly Facility in reaching the public and explaining the importance of fly research. In the last 5 years they have developed a wide range of projects, from creating a training package for Drosophila genetics that anyone can download, to participating in science festivals and, more recently, working closely with schools to bring flies to the classroom to help in the teaching of concepts required by the national curriculum. Do check their website for more details, and have a look at their video explaining the importance of fly research. Finally, Isabel Palacios talked about DrosAfrica, an interesting project by which theoretical and practical workshops in Uganda and more recently Kenya, are sharing the word on the benefits of Drosophila research in sub-Saharan Africa, and hopefully encouraging and supporting the establishment of new labs in those countries. These presentations were then followed by an interesting discussion, in which the audience shared projects, resources online, and frequently encountered problems and opportunities. It was also generally agreed that the community would benefit of a centralised online location where links to resources and ideas could be collated.

Scene from The Fly Room

The afternoon saw another set of concurrent sessions, and we attended the session on techniques and resources. An emerging theme in this session was the importance of developing computational and mathematical processes to analyse and exploit large datasets, from imaging to genomic data. The day concluded with a special screening of The Fly Room. This feature film tells the story of the relationship between one of T.H.Morgan’s students, Calvin Bridges, and his 10 year old daughter. As the story progresses, there are many opportunities to introduce concepts of classical genetics, as well as some of the practicalities of doing research in flies. However, for the fly pushers out there the most interesting aspect of the film is the insight into the early days of fly genetics. While there are some obvious differences (e.g. researchers dressed rather smartly in those days, and the proportion of women in the labs was very low) many things are still very much the same. In one memorable scene Calvin discovers that one of the fly stocks is contaminated, and the rage and frustration that ensued will be understood by most fly researchers! So if you get the chance to watch The Fly Room, it is definitely recommended!

To finish the day I rewarded myself with what is a quintessential Chicago delicacy- the world famous deep dish pizza! A good way to fuel up for another day of science tomorrow!

You can follow the conference in real time by following the Node on twitter or via the conference hashtag #DROS2015

(2 votes)

Loading...

Read the report from day 3  here, and from days 4 & 5 here.

This week I am at the Annual Drosophila meeting, aka the fly meeting. During my PhD I was a fly pusher, and as I never got the chance to attend the meeting then, I am very excited to finally have a chance to be here!

The meeting is taking place in Chicago, with its rising skyscrapers and the beautiful view of lake Michigan. But at this time of the year the most striking feature is the cold, enhanced by the wind that gives the city its nickname. Even the flies are feeling the cold:

Cold day in Chicago. Great day for Flies! #DROS2015 pic.twitter.com/5A0GWiE4Ok

— Katherine O’Brien (@krobrien5) March 5, 2015

Luckily it is warm inside the Sheraton Hotel where the conference is taking place, and the business of presenting and discussing science has been going strong. Here I highlight some of the talks that grabbed my attention.

The conference started on Wednesday evening with the first plenary session. The Larry Sandler Award for best PhD dissertation in the field was awarded to Zhao Zhang, now based at the Carnegie Institute for Science. Zhao gave a talk about Rhino, a protein that follows the great tradition of interesting fly gene names (eggs of these flies only have one dorsal appendage, instead of the usual two). In his interesting and witty talk he explained how during his PhD he examined the role of Rhino in piRNA production (piRNAs direct PIWI proteins to silence transposons). He admitted: ‘ In the 1st year of my PhD I couldn’t sleep because I got no results. Then I couldn’t sleep because the results were so exciting!’. You can read about the work in detail in his paper in Cell (and if you are interested in this work, Zhao is currently recruiting postdocs for his new lab!).

The keynote address was given by Allan Spradling (HHMI and Carnegie Institution for Science). Allan started his talk by considering why Drosophila has become such a successful and useful model system. He argued that this was not an inevitability. Over 50 years ago the NIH leaders changed the way they funded research, with a strong emphasis on basic research in a wide range of organisms. However, he warned, there are signs that the NIH may be going back to its pre-1950s approach, focusing on human/mammalian research. He made the case for why this is not a good idea, and why non-mammalian systems are important. Using examples from his lab’s own research, he showed evidence that there is a high level of conservation between model systems, and that discoveries in mammalian and non-mammalian systems can be complementary. He also argued that model organisms are excellent systems in which to make the unexpected discoveries that move science forward, and that the availability of new genomic technologies in mammalian models doesn’t invalidate the need for other systems. In a quote that proved popular on Twitter, he stated: ‘Unless you can create a mouse that reproduces in 10 days and for only a couple of dollars, flies will still be needed’. So what should the community do to prevent such funding cuts? The answer is communication, to both the general public and to politicians, to ensure that the work done on model systems is recognised and appreciated. He concluded by arguing that scientists have been quiet for too long, and that the fly community should lead the discussion on the future of biological research. Allan’s talk generated an interesting discussion, and we were later informed that there is a Drosophila communications committee, focusing on public education and advocacy. They are looking for postdoc/PhD student volunteers, so get in touch with them if you are interested!

Thursday also started with awards, but this time for the best images. The 2015 still image prize was awarded to Gerit Linneweber, for this nice image of a fly trachea:

Drosophila Image Award 2015 – Nutritional regulation of trachea @GeneticsGSA #DROS2015 http://t.co/7pmIesqtfE pic.twitter.com/MAfU7ONtCW — Gerit Linneweber (@GeritLinneweber) March 5, 2015

The best video prize was awarded to Salil Bidaye, for a great movie of moonwalking flies. Check out the paper in Science.

The second day continued with another plenary session. Yohanns Bellaiche (Institut Curie) argued that cellular processes should be viewed in the context of the tissue in which they occur. They are in reality multicellular processes, in which neighbouring cells contribute. He illustrated his point by focusing on cytokinesis. Also in this session, Angela Stathopoulos (Caltech) talked about coordinated migration of mesoderm cells, and how FGF is involved in this process, and showed some great 2 photon imaging. Stanislav Shvartsman (Princeton University)  focused on the kinetics of ERK signalling in the neural ectoderm. For this project his lab developed a technique by which a microfluidic device can easily orient fly embryos. This allowed the examination of hundreds of fixed embryos, and they could work out the dynamics of the process based on these snapshots. Jürgen Knoblich concluded the session with a talk on neuroblasts, neural stem cells that divide asymmetrically in the larval brain. The number of neuroblasts reduces dramatically during pupal stages, and this is preceded by a reduction in the size of these cells. He presented recently published work examining what regulates this process, and the implications of this work for our understanding of tumorigenesis.

The afternoon saw the poster session (with over 900 posters on display!) as well as concurrent sessions. As you may imagine, it is impossible to cover all this science in a single post, so it suffices to say that a lot of exciting science was presented. I leave you with a photo of some of the artistic Drosophila postcards that I picked up along the way!

You can follow the conference in real time by following the Node on twitter or via the conference hashtag #DROS2015

(5 votes)

Loading...

Department/Location: Wellcome Trust – Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge

Salary: £28,695-£37,394

Reference: PS05553

Closing date: 05 April 2015

Fixed-term: The funds for this post are available for 3 years in the first instance.

The Wellcome Trust-Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute (SCI) comprises 200 researchers spanning fundamental science through to clinical applications (http://www.stemcells.cam.ac.uk/). Our goal is to advance disease modelling, drug discovery and regenerative medicine through understanding the mechanisms that control stem cell fate.

We are seeking an enthusiastic and highly motivated person to join the SCI to be co-supervised by Dr. Kevin Chalut and Prof. Robin Franklin. This project, which is also a collaboration with Dr. Ulrich Keyser in the Department of Physics, will investigate the role of the mechanical and material properties of the cell nucleus in regulating cell fate decisions. This BBSRC-funded project, continues our recently published work (Pagliara, et al., Nature Materials, 2014), which outlined the role of force-induced changes in nuclear shape and volume during stem cell differentiation.

We are seeking motivated researcher with a proven track record of successful research. The candidate must have a PhD in Physics or Biology or at the interface. It is essential that the candidate is driven to use principles of physics to better biological questions. The successful applicant should have experience in molecular biology techniques, cell culture and advanced microscopy. It would be beneficial for the candidate to have experience in biophysical techniques such as microfabrication and/or atomic force microscopy. In this collaborative project the candidate will need to show their ability to work within a highly interdisciplinary team.

To apply online for this vacancy and to view further information about the role, please visit: http://www.jobs.cam.ac.uk/job/6405. This will take you to the role on the University’s Job Opportunities pages. There you will need to click on the ‘Apply online’ button and register an account with the University’s Web Recruitment System (if you have not already) and log in before completing the online application form.

The closing date for all applications is the Sunday 5th April 2015.

Please upload your Curriculum Vitae (CV) and a covering letter in the Upload section of the online application to supplement your application. If you upload any additional documents which have not been requested, we will not be able to consider these as part of your application.

Informal enquiries are also welcome via email: cscrjobs@cscr.cam.ac.uk.

Interviews will be held on Thursday 16th April 2015. If you have not been invited for interview by 13th April 2015, you have not been successful on this occasion.

Please quote reference PS05553 on your application and in any correspondence about this vacancy.

The University values diversity and is committed to equality of opportunity.

The University has a responsibility to ensure that all employees are eligible to live and work in the UK.

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

How do you build a fruit fly circus? First, you’ll need a glass tank. Its size will obviously depend on how many fruit flies you want to perform – or on what tank is hanging around in the department. You’ll also need a small circus tent, circus benches made from fresh apple slices, a sand arena, and a set of tiny circus figures, frozen in an entertaining performance. Span a tight rope across the arena and paint it with sugar water. Lastly,  install battery-operated LED lights to create the right atmosphere. Voilà! Release the fruit flies, and put a lid on it.

The Fly Circus was the first attraction in our Disgustovision Show, an activity we ran as part of Oxford Brookes University’s Science Bazaar during the Oxfordshire Science Festival. We, the Brookes Cell Biology group, turned our whole floor into a microscopy adventure land. Our helpers wore black-white striped T-shirts and small plastic top hats to go with our circus theme. Starting with the Fly Circus, which could be closely examined with small plastic magnifying glasses or a  magnifying sheet, we took visitors from one magnification station to the next.

The Disgustomometer 

“Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls….Welcome to the most spectacular show on Earth!!!! Before you enter the Disgustovision show please take a sticker and place a vote on the first wall chart. Which of these things turns your tummy the most?? At the end of your journey into the world of the microscopic, has your opinion changed? Please take another sticker and vote again on the ‘After the show’ chart. Now please step forward, and enjoy the show!”

At the beginning of the corridor, we had put up a ‘Disgustomometer’ poster, and we encouraged children to put a small sticker on the thing they thought was most disgusting. On the way out, we asked them to repeat this on an ‘exit’ copy of the poster. This demonstrated a clear shift in their perception, thus evaluating our activity at the same time, and also helped us to estimate visitor number.

The magnification stations

The next step after the fly circus were our light microscopes, and a handful of food samples (blue cheese, broccoli florets, kiwi and orange slices). All of us microscopists, maybe not so much the visitors, agreed that blue cheese looked amazing – a miniature world of mouldy caves. “Doesn’t the broccoli look pretty, just like little flowers!” parents cooed, trying to convince their sceptic children to change their minds about the green vegetable. The kiwi and orange slices looked beautiful too, decorated with their juicy droplets. We displayed all food in sealed Petri dishes and kept spare ones in the office fridge, because the samples started to look pretty bad after a few hours in the heat. We also had a big jar with pond water, a drop of it mounted on a slide, and a poster with the history of microscopy and Leeuwenhoek’s  observations put up on the wall. There was a steady crowd crammed around the dissecting microscope, with children taking a close look at their dirty fingernails (cue parents recoiling in horror) and the oil drops on their fingertips.

Going one step further in magnification, we had set up Drosophila samples labelled with fluorescent stains and GFP-expressing plant cells on our confocal laser scanning microscopes. Some children however were most impressed by the swivel chairs and the double computer screens with the computer mouse moving seamlessly between them.

The last station was the scanning electron microscope, where visitors looked closely at a fly, a head louse, and other gruesome samples. Our Disgustomometer showed that after having finished their visit, people now thought that blue cheese was the most disgusting, and the fly the most beautiful thing. Mission accomplished!

 The certificate

We wanted to give our little visitors something to take away at the end. So I designed a special certificate in Corel Draw, using the font ‘Our Little Darlings‘ for the fly cartoons, and asked my boss to sign them. We had certificates in previous years, and the first time we made him sign 100 certificates by hand. :-) After that, we used his electronic signature. Most children gasped in awe when we told them (in the right tone) that Professor Chris Hawes had signed them. We printed the certificates in A5 on our colour printer on nice paper, two on one A4 page, and cut them in half with a paper guillotine. Nowadays, I would ask our Media Workshop to design them, especially since we now have stricter corporate design guidelines, and our internal print unit to print and cut them.

 Microexplorers and microcosmonauts

Designing our themed outreach zones was great fun. The following year we had micro-cosmonaut certificates (exploring the microcosmos – get it?), and children could collect three star stickers on them, one for every microscope station. We even thought about turning our microscopes into planets, decorated with LEGO space ships and astronauts, but due to budget constraints we decided against that in the end. What ideas do you have to turn your research into an interactive outreach circuit? Tell us in the comments!

Also read Anne’s outreach post on her double role as both a research and a science communication fellow here.

This post is part of a series on science outreach. You can read the introduction to the series here and read other posts in this series here.

(2 votes)

Loading...

And the winner of the latest round of images from the Woods Hole embryology course is… the skate embryo!

Here are the full results:

– SEM of butterfly scale: 93 votes

– Drosophila embryos: 37 votes

– Skate embryo: 241 votes

– Swallowtail wing: 79 votes

Many congratulations to Mary Colasanto (University of Utah, USA) and Emily Mis (Yale University, USA) who took this image at the 2013 course. It shows a living embryo of the little skate (Leucoraja erinacea), sitting atop its yolk at approximately ten weeks of development.  Imaged on a Zeiss Discovery.V20. This image will feature in the cover of a coming issue of Development.

The other great images in this round were taken by Lara Linden (butterfly scale), Wiebke Wessels (Drosophila embryos), and Emily Mis and Misty Riddle (swallowtail wing).

(1 votes)

Loading...

Our jobs page was again very busy this month, so make sure to check it out! Here are some of the other highlights:

Research:

– Manuel wrote about his Development paper, where he examines how the eyes of the cavefish P. andruzii develop, and what that tells us about the evolution of eye loss in different cavefish species.

– and Bryony posted about a Nature Communications paper by the Patient Lab showing that FGF signalling restricts HSC specification.

A day in the life:

February saw two new additions to our ongoing series about the daily routine of doing developmental biology using different model systems:

– A day in the life of a maize lab– by China (Hake lab, USA).

– A day in the life of an axolotl lab– by Annie (Cruz-Ramírez lab, Mexico).

Also on the Node:

– Cat wrote about how her recent press release was covered by the media, and considered how science stories reach the press.

– George described his Summer project in the Hope lab, modelling developmental disorders in C. elegans.

– And this month you had the chance to choose which of these beautiful images from the Woods Hole embryology course you would like to see on the cover of Development.

Happy reading!

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

The Node is almost 5 years old, and it is now time to revise its design and functionalities. To help us with this, during the last month we asked you to fill in a survey and give us your feedback. In total 169 people completed the survey, and many of you left comments and suggestions. Thank you all for taking the time to help us make the Node better!

Many congratulations as well to Paolo Panza (PhD student at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Tübingen, Germany), who is the lucky winner of our prize draw! Your bag of goodies from the Node and Development is on its way!

So what were the main conclusions of the survey?

1- Most of you first found out about the Node via Development or by word of mouth

2- Most of you keep up with new Node content by visiting the Node homepage

The Node box on the Development website and facebook are also popular. Interestingly, very few of you thought the Node needed to be present in additional social media sites (only 2 people suggested LinkedIn, and there was only 1 mention of Google+).

3- Laptops and desktop computers are the devices most often used to access the Node

This question was important so that we know how much effort to invest on the mobile versions of the site. However, if you access the Node mostly via your mobile or tablet please rest assured that we will continue to have a mobile version of the Node!

4- Most of the features that we listed are considered useful

The most popular feature listed were the highlighted posts on the top bar. Several of you also used this opportunity to point out that many functions on the site are not working properly, such as the like/dislike buttons, or the search box. We have made a record of all the problems you spotted and we are already in the process of fixing some of them!

5- Most of the content that we listed is considered useful, particularly the job posts and events calendar

Many of you didn’t know about the help page and the writing tips for Node bloggers though.

6- Most of the actions listed are easy to perform

But many of the people who completed the survey haven’t tried them yet.

7 – The majority of you quite like the visual design of the Node

However, many people pointed out that the current look is cluttered and old fashioned. So although you don’t want the look of the Node to change completely, a sleeker, more modern look would be welcome!

8- Most of you find the Node to be both valuable and enjoyable

Several of you left very positive comments, encouraging us to keep going and to continue providing a service to the community. Thank you for your encouragement!

9- The Node is read by an equal proportion of PhD students, postdocs and group leaders (at least among survey responders).

Other suggestions:

Many of you used the comment boxes to leave more specific feedback and make suggestions. Some of the most common ones were:

– Have more discussion posts that generate debate

– We should find a better way to organise the information of the Node, such as creating collections or categories for different model organisms or fields

– There were also specific suggestions for new content, such as protocols and technical tips, funding, historical anecdotes on major discoveries in the field, short biographies of eminent biologists, career advice, and even a Node podcast!

We will consider all your suggestions, big or small, and they are invaluable in helping us make the Node a better community site. Many of these changes can’t only come from us though. As you know, anyone in the community can write for the Node. You only need to create an account and you can post without needing to ask us for permission. So you can help us improve the content of the Node by contributing! Write about what you find interesting, start a discussion or leave a comment. The Node is here for you and together we can make it better and more relevant!

Finally, please keep giving us your feedback. You can get in touch us via this contact form and we are always keen to hear your thoughts and suggestions!

(6 votes)

Loading...