“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’”

The concept of human uniqueness may be about as old as man himself.  We have long regarded ourselves as somehow special and different from all of the other animals.  This attitude is clearly reflected in the above creation story: there is man, crafted in the image of God, and then there is the rest, put here to be ruled over and fed upon.

The world and our understanding of it have changed quite a bit since those words were first penned, but the human uniqueness obsession remains.  For one, we now attribute most of our uniquely human attributes to our highly developed neocortex.  Numerous lines of evidence suggest this structure is critical for our cognitive abilities, higher order sensory processing, memory, and personality.  But we are not the only creatures with a neocortex. In fact, all mammals have one.  What then, sets us apart?

The Company of Biologists recently hosted a workshop, titled “Evolution of the Human Neocortex: How Unique Are We?,” in response to flourishing research on human brain evolution.  Exactly what makes us special is hardly a trivial question.  Thirty evolutionary neuroscientists were gathered in West Sussex, UK, cloistered for four days to discuss that which makes us human.  And at the end of it, I believe we are scarcely closer to providing a satisfying answer.

A theme of the workshop was the apparent conflict between “Humans are just like the other animals” and “Humans are self-evidently special.”  As biologists, we are keen to spot similarities between even distantly related animals.  The very use of model organisms to study issues related to human biology depends on this.  Much of our knowledge on neocortex development, for instance, comes from mouse and we extrapolate this to our own brain.  We have a neocortex, but so do all mammals.  Ours is elaborately folded, but so is the sheep’s. Our neocortex is huge, but it’s not a special kind of huge.  As Barbara Finlay pointed out, it’s just as large as one would expect for our body size, given mathematical brain scaling models.  The astonishing neocortex of dolphins and whales reminds us that we are not alone in being big brained.

On the other hand, mice don’t host conferences on brain evolution.  Several speakers emphasized the obvious, and profound, gulf in cognitive abilities between humans and non-humans.  So if humans are not unique in terms of gross morphological organization, we may need to closely examine the more subtle aspects of neocortex biology.  Frank Polleaux brought an interesting perspective to the discussion: perhaps human cognitive abilities are not a result of neuron number or brain size, but rather of fundamental differences in neuronal properties.  His lab’s work on the srGAP proteins illustrates this point nicely.

Gavin Clowry made a similar point with respect to neocortical GABAergic cells.  Humans, so far as we know, are the only species to produce inhibitory interneurons locally in the cerebral cortex.  We don’t know how or why this happens, and it may simply be to provide the expanded excitatory cell population with an appropriate balance of inhibitory cells.  GABA cells in humans, however, may have undergone physiological innovations for coordinating oscillatory behavior across the brain.  One particular class, the chandelier cell, is unusually abundant in our brain.

John Kaas discussed the tremendous proliferation of neocortical areas, a key dimension of neocortex organization, in humans.  While the stem mammal likely had a tiny neocortex with an estimated 20 areas, modern man has about 183 distinct areas or more.  Morphologically or physiologically differentiated areas may translate into a greater diversity of information processing.  More areas may allow us to extract more useful information from finite sensory input, or provide more behavioral flexibility.

The human brain is an impressive piece of work, and while we are justifiably fixated on our uniqueness, we must not forget our place in the world.  The idea that we are the pinnacle of some great chain of being is long dead.  Rather, our body and mind are just as adapted to our particular circumstances as those of any other extant animal, and have been adapting for just as long.  Our neocortex is big and sophisticated, but some of its key cellular components can be found in reptiles and birds and have been around for a very long time.  The story of our evolution is just one of millions of such stories, and through the power of comparative biology we can infer the key details of its plot.

Edit:

There was a lot of great science presented and discussed at this meeting, and regrettably I can’t talk about all of it here.  Katherine Brown posted earlier about the meeting (see comment and link below, thanks Cat!).  A list of speakers and brief description of the meeting can be found here: http://workshops.biologists.com/workshop_sept_2013.html.  Information on the srGAP proteins from the Polleux lab can be found here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286741200462X.

(8 votes)

Loading...

Registration for the 2014 BSCB/BSDB Meeting to be held at the University of Warwick on the 16th-19th of March is now open.

The meeting includes plenary talks from Janet Rossant and Kai Simons. Full program and registration is available from,

http://www.bscb-bsdb-meetings.co.uk/default.htm

(1 votes)

Loading...

This interview first appeared in Development.
 

Janet Rossant is a developmental biologist who has worked for many years on the mouse blastocyst, the derivation of stem cell lines and on investigating the mouse genome. In June 2013 she became the president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR). At the 2013 International Society for Developmental Biology (ISDB) meeting, Janet was awarded the Harrison Medal – a prestigious prize given only once every four years.

 
At this ISDB meeting you were awarded the Harrison Medal, a very prestigious prize for developmental biologists. What does it mean to you to be awarded this prize?

It was obviously a great honour. It is really nice when you are recognised by your peers and when the whole international community gives you the prize. Following in the footsteps of other great scientists is both awe inspiring and intimidating.

One of the previous awardees of the Harrison Medal was Sir John Gurdon, who lectured you when you were an undergraduate at Oxford and who you’ve said inspired you to become a developmental biologist. How did he influence you, and have there been other mentors who influenced you at different points in your career?

As an undergraduate studying zoology I did everything from animal behaviour to ecology, evolution, development, cell biology and biochemistry – it was a very broad course. I knew that I was interested in biology, but the question was what aspect? John lectured to us not long after he had done his cloning experiments. They were so important, really illustrating how the genome is the same in all cells. That opened up another question: if the DNA is the same in all cells, how is it that cells become different during development? This is such a simple question, but one that can keep you going for a long time. I was just fascinated. We also had a few lectures by Chris Graham, who had just joined the Zoology Department and was starting to do similar studies in mouse embryos. These made me think: ‘mice are really like us!’, and this seemed a fascinating new direction. So it was a combination of John’s overall developmental biology and hearing from Chris about mice as a model system that got me into the field.

Later on, when I moved to Canada, I had to go out and find people to help me. There were two people there who probably aren’t very well known now. Verne Chapman, a mouse geneticist in Buffalo, was really my support structure when I first came, making sure that I got invited to meetings and so on – creating that initial network; and Tom Wegman, in Alberta, was also a person who introduced me to various people and really helped out. They both died young, which is very sad, but when I look back I realise how important they were for me.

In your career you have worked mainly with the same topic and model organism, which is very rare nowadays. How have you maintained this focus for so long?

I am very unusual in that I mainly stuck with the same question (how to make a blastocyst) and the same species throughout. I have been lucky in that I have been able to diversify by collaborating. Although we have been interested in similar problems for many years, we have always been seeking new technologies – either bringing them in or implementing them ourselves. I think that is how I have been able to stick with the same general question and yet always keep making advances. In particular, I have been very actively involved in a major mouse genome mutagenesis project, which is a different way of thinking about doing science. I work on lots of things, but what do I love? Of course it’s the embryo – I still want to understand the early embryo.

What is the next big scientific challenge that you would like to tackle?

I still think that we can do quite a bit more to understand the blastocyst. I believe that it is a system that needs to be studied at the single-cell level, with the combination of imaging tools, single-cell gene expression analysis and computational modelling. The mouse blastocyst is a system in which we can really gain a core understanding of how cells develop until a point at which their fate is restricted. It only has three cell types, development happens slowly, you can grow it in a defined culture system and watch it all the way through. So I’m still pursuing that same question I started out with: I don’t know if this is good or bad, but it’s true. After all these years, I still haven’t solved it!

There is a lot of discussion at the moment about the relationship between stem cell research and more traditional developmental biology, specifically whether stem cell science is a separate field or a branch of developmental biology. Where do you stand in this discussion?

I have just become the president of the ISSCR and was the president of the Society for Developmental Biology (SDB) in the late nineties. I think there is no question that the basic biology of stem cells sprang out of developmental biology. But stem cell research is more than just the basic science of stem cells these days – it is a more applied branch. Any stem cell meeting is going to have a core of talks on the basic developmental biology of stem cells, but is also going to have talks about bioengineering, ethics and clinical applications. At the same time, a developmental biology meeting is going to have talks on stem cells, as a fundamental aspect of developmental biology, but is also going to have talks on morphogenesis, evo-devo and all sorts of other interesting things. There is an overlap, but I don’t think a merger between the fields makes sense – we just need to take advantage of both. Certainly, as president I am going to make sure that developmental biology remains a part of the ISSCR.

As ISSCR president, what are your objectives, what challenges do you think you will face, and how does it compare with your past presidency of the SDB?

The ISSCR is a relatively new society, only founded in 2003, although it has grown considerably since then. As a scientific society, the primary objective is to make sure that we have a great annual meeting in the same way that the SDB does. I think that is the number one role of the president, with the help, of course, of the programme committee.

The ISSCR is an international society, and there is no American or British society for stem cell biology. With stem cells so much in the public eye, the ISSCR is in a unique position to be the rational voice for stem cell research worldwide. Over the next year, we plan to develop a communication strategy so that we do more in terms of public education and outreach to patients and families. We aim to do this in partnership with national networks because things are different in different nations. I also want to have a rapid response team for when things come up in the newspapers, such as the Italian stem cell issue [the use of unproven stem cell therapies in Italian hospitals]. We need to have a more proactive set of principles and guidelines that drive our positions on these issues, rather than doing things on an ad hoc basis.

One of my other goals is to make sure that the society is not too US-centric. We have board members from all over the world, but we don’t have formal connections with local groups in Japan, Europe or Canada. We need to develop these relationships, so that we can deal with any issues as they arise. The local networks also have very good public education tools and know what is good for their audiences.

You have been involved in a lot of public discussions on the ethics of stem cell research. What do you think are the responsibilities of scientists in participating in this kind of discussion?

I think is very important for established scientists, who have a strong reputation in the field, to stand up and be counted. We have to make our views known at all levels, from government to the public. Public education is extremely important, and we should get out there and try to educate the public, particularly in the stem cell area. I would say that the debate around the ethics of the use of human embryos has largely moved on. But we are still facing major ethical concerns in the stem cell area, particularly now with stem cell tourism and unproven therapies appearing all over the world. The ISSCR has really taken this on as an issue, but it is a very difficult one because the environment is in constant flux. We have to think again about ways to educate the public, patients and their families by trying to explain to them what it means to have a valid therapy and how to be very careful when they explore therapies offered by clinics that are springing up around the world.

But we have to recognise that patients want hope, and if their doctor tells them that there is none then they will go to a clinic where they think there is hope. We have to provide support and give them hope. For example, even when parents and families know that their child is not going to survive, if they are told that their child can be in a research study and help others then they are usually very willing to be involved. There is a sort of hope for the future, and there is of course the possibility that, maybe, they will be lucky. And that is ok, so long as you put it very clearly to them that there is no guarantee that the trial therapy is going to work. But unregulated clinics that claim to be able to treat incurable or major debilitating diseases are potentially dangerous and certainly unethical in terms of charging people for unproven and risky treatments.

Do you think that PhD students and postdocs should take part in a more local discussion?

Yes, we should take the opportunity to talk about stem cells at all levels. So I would say to early career scientists that they should explain what they do when they play baseball with their local team, to their grandmother, anywhere they go. We send a lot of graduate students into schools to give science talks, and we have stem cell talks organised by graduate students and postdocs where we bring in high school students. For a big professor to go into a school and pontificate is not so good, but high school students are closer to graduate students and can relate. But senior scientists absolutely have a duty to go to governments and regulators to make their positions known.

(5 votes)

Loading...

Salary: £24,049 – £27,047

Location:
Wellcome Trust – Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge, Tennis Court Road, Cambridge, CB2 1QR, UK.

Fixed Term:
The funds for this post are available until 31st May 2017 in the first instance.

The Wellcome Trust – Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute draws together outstanding researchers from 25 stem cell laboratories in Cambridge to form a world-leading centre for stem cell biology and medicine. Scientists in the Institute collaborate to generate new knowledge and understanding of the biology of stem cells and provide the foundation for new medical treatments.

A position of Research Technician is available in the laboratory of Dr. Brian Hendrich. The role is part of the “Transcriptional Control of Stem Cell Fate” research group within the Wellcome Trust – Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute. The role holder will play a crucial part in assisting senior researchers and organising lab reagents and equipment for an established research group, consisting of 8-10 researchers.

Applicants should have A levels or a university degree in life sciences or equivalent, and have experience in molecular biology and biochemical techniques, and a good working knowledge of aspects of chromatin biology, stem cell biology, and transcriptional control. Experience with mammalian cell culture would be a bonus. Applicants should be meticulous in their work and have a passion for biological research.

To apply, please visit our vacancies webpage:

http://www.stemcells.cam.ac.uk/careers-study/vacancies/

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

Applications must be submitted by 17:00 on the closing date of 17^th November 2013.

Interviews will be held on the afternoon of Wednesday 4^th December 2013. If you have not been invited for interview by 27^th November 2013, you have not been successful on this occasion.

Please quote reference PS01905 on your application and in any correspondence about this vacancy.

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

Research in the modern life sciences is moving forward at an enormous pace and is generating massive amounts of data and new insights into the molecular principles of life on Earth. More than ever it is important for science teachers to stay up-to-date and to refresh their knowledge continuously. They are an important professional group, which can directly foster young people’s interest in science, thereby taking the role of a “door opener” for a huge pool of talented future scientists.

Ten years ago – in 2003 – the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) launched the European Learning Laboratory for the Life Sciences (ELLS) to address the demand for continuing professional development of secondary school science teachers. The science education facility has been created to bring secondary school teachers and students into the research lab. Exciting hands-on encounters with state-of-the-art molecular biology techniques help bridge the gap between research and schools.

As an integral part of the EMBL, ELLS is embedded in the scientific environment of one of the world’s most renowned research institutions. The EMBL has an international staff of dynamic scientists, and is in the unique position to connect scientific expertise directly with educational outreach activities. We are therefore aiming to engage teachers with contemporary research and with the scientists pursuing research projects at the forefront of science.

ELLS’ core activities include the organization of multifaceted training opportunities to bring the modern concepts of molecular biology into the classroom. High school science teachers are supported to further develop their hands-on expertise and to refresh their content knowledge during the popular ELLS LearningLABs. These multi-day workshops for international groups of teachers bring the participants in contact with the institute‘s vibrant scientific environment. A blend of practical experiments, presentations by EMBL research scientists and visits to world-class research facilities foster an extensive dialogue between course participants, scientists and stakeholders from related disciplines. Another important aspect of these training courses for teachers is that they provide a platform for EMBL’s staff to communicate science to a wider audience. EMBL pre- and postdoctoral students, research scientists and technical assistants are primed to use these opportunities and to develop their communication and presentation skills. These are skill sets that are becoming increasingly important for scientists who very often have to communicate their findings to non-scientific audiences and to reassure taxpayers that their research money is well invested.

ELLS LearningLABs are tackling all aspects of basic research performed at EMBL’s five sites. The courses are specifically tailored to the needs of teachers as they link to scientific topics that are represented on modern school science curricula. Furthermore, we closely observe newly emerging research topics and are continuously exploring ways to include them in our training courses. An example is the increasing importance of bioinformatics – the computational analysis of large volumes of biological data derived from the life sciences. It has become a core feature of biological research and we have organised a series of ELLS LearningLABs on bioinformatics for secondary-school science teachers from across Europe to support them in the use of bioinformatics resources in inquiry-based learning. Bioinformatics is essential for making sense of data produced by new technologies – such as genome sequencing – and aspects of bioinformatics will also affect wider society, e.g. in terms of healthcare. However, this revolution has not yet filtered down to education. A comparison of the numbers of bioinformatics resource websites and the number of educational websites for bioinformatics further emphasises the lag in seeing practical knowledge of bioinformatics tools and resources reflected in the classroom and curriculum[i].

During our Bioinformatics LearningLABs we provide interactive introductions to the field of bioinformatics. We present opportunities to use basic bioinformatics resources in the classroom and equip the teachers with simple, easily transferable, classroom activities to support their teaching of biology. We have observed that, although teachers are aware of bioinformatics as a concept, they see a clear need for increasing their knowledge of this area and for receiving help with the initial implementation of the concepts. Orientation and practical demonstration of how the resources can be used opens up a world of new possibilities to ultimately connect students to learning about and doing science. We have recently published our experiences on creating and running bioinformatics training courses for European secondary school science teachers. Our article “Bioinformatics Goes to School—New Avenues for Teaching Contemporary Biology”[ii] is freely available on the PLOS Computational Biology website and contains useful information for trainers and institutions who are considering to replicate teacher training courses on bioinformatics.

In addition to the face-to-face training courses, the ELLS also offers training events via the internet. The recently started ELLS Webinars are online seminars presented in our virtual auditorium. Interested teachers can attend these 1 hour long online events from home, which minimizes the time and the financial investment associated with standard on-site courses. The idea behind these interactive online presentations by EMBL scientists is to share research results in clear and engaging presentations. The participants value the “direct line” to ask questions to the speakers. It presents an exciting opportunity to enter in an open dialogue about contemporary research topics with the presenters. In addition, the ELLS Webinars offer a platform to highlight teaching resources related to the topics discussed and to share personal teaching experiences among the participating teachers.

Information on a wide range of ELLS activities, our teaching resources and the latest news on ground-breaking discoveries by EMBL scientists are freely available online and we cordially invite you to explore them on the brand-new ELLS teachers’ portal EMBLog (www.emblog.embl.de/ells).

(4 votes)

Loading...

Have you ever folded a protein with your hands?

You can do so by visiting our TeachingBASE. We invite you to create your own three-dimensional model of a protein using an A4 paper template.

By following the provided instructions we show you how to fold a triosephosphate isomerase (TIM) barrel. TIM barrels are some of the most common structural motifs found in proteins. In a TIM barrel eight α-helices and eight parallel β-strands form a solenoid that curves around to close on itself in a doughnut shape. Triosephosphate isomerase is a conserved metabolic enzyme that is involved in the production of chemical energy from sugar, a process called glycolysis.

This activity is suitable for use in the classroom as it gives the students an understanding of the structure / function relationships in proteins. Proteins are not only organized in linear chains of amino acids but need to take up a specific fold in order to be able to exert their functions.

A simple analogy: One could compare this to a pullover made of wool. Only when the thread is brought into its final “conformation” (knitted into a pullover) it will be able to warm the person wearing it.

The protein folding template and the instructions can be downloaded from the TeachingBASE on our ELLS teachers’ portal EMBLog: http://emblog.embl.de/ells/teachingbase

You can read more about the  European Learning Laboratory for the Life Sciences (ELLS) at EMBL in this post.
 

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...

Here is our monthly round-up of some of the interesting content that we spotted around the internet:

News & Research:

– The 2013 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was announced, awarded to James E. Rothman, Randy W. Schekman  and Thomas C. Südhof for their work on vesicle trafficking.

– The US government shutdown continues, with consequences for american scientists. Science magazine wrote this piece on the early days of the shutdown, as well as this later article on how it is affecting, for example, fruit fly shipments.

– The last month saw two dates worth of notice: October the 2nd was Stem Cell Day, while the 15th of October celebrated Ada Lovelace day, highlighting the achievements of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

– Developmental Biologist Margaret Buckingham was awarded the CNRS gold medal for her work on heart and muscle development.

– The Science Museum has just launched an exhibition on 3D printing, including its medical applications.

– The Twitter account @realscientists is being curated this week by New Zealand’s developmental biologist Megan Wilson, who also writes for the Node.

Weird & Wonderful

– While the Nobel Prize were on the spotlight, we also spotted this article about Nobel Prize winners that experimented on themselves.

– We saw a photo of these science-themed cupcakes describing how to do an RT-PCR in Arabidopsis.

– We discovered a website collating the best science GIFs around the internet.

Resources

– The Nobel Prize Inspiration Initiative is a great website where Nobel prize winers share their stories and insights.

– Science magazine had a special issue on communication in science, with a variety of interesting articles.

Videos worth watching

– Science Studio, a great website selecting the best science audio and video on the internet was launched. Some great videos to watch!

– We found this great animation explaining the physics of why the world of sperm is different from that of a sperm whale.

– ISSCR president Janet Rossant is the narrator in a movie explaining what embryonic stem cells are.

– and the NY times released an interesting video on Dolly the sheep and cloning then and now.

All the content on this post and more (including coming meetings and registration deadlines) was tweeted from the Node twitter account. If you don’t want to wait for the monthly posts, follow us on Twitter!

Image: Ada Lovelace, wikimedia commons

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

You may remember that last August the charity and non-for-profit publisher of Development and the Node, the Company of Biologists, launched its YouTube channel. The latest movie in the company’s channel is an interview with two Nobel Prize winners- John Gurdon and Tim Hunt, respectively the previous and the current Chair of Directors of the Company of Biologists. John and Tim discuss their time as Chair of Directors, and the current and future projects of the Company of Biologists.
 
 

 
 
Do visit the company’s YouTube channel for more videos on its activities, as well as interesting and beautiful supplementary movies from papers published in the company’s journals such as Development.
 

(1 votes)

Loading...

Here are the highlights from the current issue of Development:

Deconstructing pancreas development in vitro

An effective cellular therapy for diabetes is dependent on the production of sufficient quantities of functional β-cells. Recent studies have enabled the production of pancreatic precursors but efforts to expand these cells and differentiate them into insulin-producing β-cells have proved a challenge. Now, Anne Grapin-Botton and colleagues establish a three-dimensional culture method that enables the efficient expansion of mouse embryonic pancreatic progenitors (p. 4452). They show that, when cultured at low density in Matrigel, dissociated epithelial cells from E10.5 mouse pancreata proliferate and form branched pancreatic organoids. These organoids, they report, consist of polarised epithelial cells lining a lumen, with some cells expressing endocrine markers. The authors further show that organoid formation is dependent on a community effect; a minimum of four pancreatic cells in the initial cluster is required for subsequent organoid development. Using the culture system, the authors also dissect several other aspects of pancreas development, highlighting that this culture method offers huge long-term potential in uncovering important aspects of β-cell development.

See the press release from DanStem here

aPKC sorts out blastocyst formation

The preimplantation mouse embryo consists of three lineages: trophectoderm, primitive endoderm (PrE) and epiblast (Epi), which will become the future foetus. PrE and Epi precursors are initially present in a ‘salt and pepper’ distribution within the blastocyst and subsequently sort into two distinct layers but what controls this segregation? Here, Berenika Plusa and colleagues show that atypical protein kinase C (aPKC) couples cell sorting with cell fate progression in the mouse blastocyst (p. 4311). They first show that aPKC is enriched in PrE precursors prior to cell sorting. This enrichment, they report, is dependent on FGF signalling and the acquisition of PrE fate. Importantly, RNAi knockdown or chemical inhibition of aPKC impairs PrE-Epi segregation. Finally, the authors demonstrate that inhibition of aPKC also compromises the maturation of PrE cells; embryos treated with aPKC inhibitor fail to form a PrE layer and concomitantly fail to develop a polarised apical surface. The authors thus propose that aPKC links cell sorting with the progression of cell differentiation in the blastocyst.

Hoxa2 is all ears

Abnormalities in the external ear, which is composed of the auricle and the external auditory canal (EAC), are frequent in newborns. However, little is known about the molecular mechanisms that govern external ear morphogenesis. Here, Filippo Rijli and colleagues report that Hoxa2 is a key transcriptional regulator that controls auricle morphogenesis in mice (p. 4386). The researchers show that the mouse auricle derives from Hoxa2-expressing neural crest mesenchyme of the second pharyngeal arch, and not from the first and second arches as previously proposed. Furthermore, they report, the lining of the EAC derives from Hoxa2-negative first arch mesenchyme. Their analysis of gene expression patterns in wild-type and Hoxa2 mutant mice suggests that Hoxa2 organises patterns of cell proliferation during ear morphogenesis, acting in part through BMP signalling. Finally, they find that ectopic expression of Hoxa2 in the neural crest of the first arch results in auricle duplication, suggesting that Hoxa2 is able to induce and maintain the molecular programme that underlies auricle formation.

An eye for switching cell fate

Cell fate decisions are influenced by extrinsic and intrinsic factors, but understanding how these are integrated is key for determining how cell fate is specified during development. Here, Yannis Mavromatakis and Andrew Tomlinson use developing ommatidia of the Drosophila eye as a model for exploring the logic of cell fate decisions (p. 4353). The ommatidia are constructed in two distinct waves. It is known that the transcription factor Lozenge (Lz) is expressed in second wave cells and that Notch/receptor tyrosine kinase (N/RTK) signalling is involved in specifying each of the cell fates generated in the second wave. In this study, the researchers ectopically express Lz in first wave cells, supply them with appropriate N/RTK codes, and thereby reproduce each of the second wave cell fates. Based on the dissection of this series of experiments, they conclude that Lz provides key intrinsic information to second wave cells. They also infer that N/RTK activities, in concert with Lz, are only required for a short period of time to ‘lock in’ cell fate.

Vascular biomechanics in full flow

Pulsatile blood flow is driven by the heart and is a universal feature of vertebrate blood systems. However, the mechanisms controlling blood flow propagation in the embryo, while heart maturation is ongoing, are poorly understood. Here, Julien Vermot and co-workers examine vascular hydrodynamics and biomechanics in zebrafish embryos (p. 4426). Using high temporal resolution imaging together with an optical tweezer-based approach, the authors characterise the flow within the embryonic vascular network. They show that strong flow rectification occurs between branches of the network, suggesting that an additional force is generated within the network. Based on the observed movement of blood cells within the embryonic artery, the authors postulate that elasticity of the network is essential for mediating this effect. Following this, they develop a mathematical model of flow within the network and propose that the dorsal aorta acts as a capacitor that inflates and deflates in response to heartbeats. They propose that this capacitive mechanism has a major role in setting early flow propagation and reducing embryonic heart effort.

A role for GPCRs in neurogenesis

During development of the mammalian brain, cortical progenitors divide and give rise to neurons and glia. A number of signalling molecules and receptors are known to control neural progenitor fate but now (see p. 4335) Kamon Sanada and co-workers uncover a role for G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signalling during neurogenesis in the developing mouse neocortex. The authors demonstrate that GPRC5B, an orphan GPCR, is expressed in cortical progenitors of the developing mouse brain. Using RNAi-mediated knockdown, they report that GPRC5B is required for neuronal differentiation; GPRC5B-depleted progenitors fail to become neurons and instead adopt an astrocyte fate. The researchers further show that GPRC5B couples with the G12/13 class of heterotrimeric G proteins in cultured cells, and that GPRC5B signalling may converge with β-catenin signalling both in vitro and in vivo. In summary, these studies uncover a novel and important role for GPCR signalling during cortical neurogenesis, a finding that has significant implications for the therapeutic targeting and manipulation of stem cells.

PLUS…

To branch or not to branch: the role of pre-patterning in lateral root formation

The establishment of a pre-pattern or competence to form new organs is a key feature of plant development. Philip Benfey, Tom Beeckman and colleagues review the mechanisms that underlie pre-pattern formation and the earliest stages of lateral root development. See the Review article on p. 4301

An interview with Janet Rossant

Janet Rossant is a developmental biologist who has worked for many years on the mouse blastocyst, the derivation of stem cell lines and on investigating the mouse genome. In June 2013 she became president of the ISSCR, and she was also awarded the Harrison Medal – a prestigious prize given only once every four years. Earlier this year, Cat Vicente interviewed Janet. See the Spotlight article on p. 4299

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

‘‘Either write something worth reading, or do something worth writing.’’

Benjamin Franklin.

I am in Paris. I love Paris. It reeks of the arrogance and certainty still of the ‘City of Light’ title, and the popular French imagination that the events of 1789 were the crown that sat atop the Enlightenment and set the stage for the scientific revolutions of the 19^th century, and the dominance of the world by this cold and dark continent: a dominance at first political, but most meaningfully and enduringly in terms of scientific ideas about the workings of nature. Of course, one or two Americans would have something to say about that, but I rather enjoy this impression of Paris precisely because its arrogance is (slightly) misplaced.

Scientific dominance has always gone, and always will go, hand in hand with education. You cannot have one without the other. This I think is true at all levels, from 7 year-olds rolling balls down ramps in primary schools, to the latest research findings rolling out of the world’s leading universities. There is no shortcut. This though, is not something that is always agreed upon: we are living in a time of comprehensive educational change at all scales ranging from Michael Gove’s ‘free schools’ to the Beijing Genomics Institute’s stance that PhDs no longer hold value: better to have armies of graduates staring at computer screens (and to be fair, writing useful software) trying to decipher the genome of some obscure parasite of the Panda, than have people dreaming up and testing hypotheses and writing theses. That however, is another blog. I want to return to Mr Gove.

Though I hate to say it, I am a broad supporter of his fundamental premise: that educational standards in the UK have dropped, and that school-leaving qualifications are not now at the level that they have previously been, or fit for their primary purpose: distinguishing between students. Anyone who argues otherwise I think has the not inconsiderable task of explaining why entry standards for the best universities are ever on the rise, to the extent that we have introduced the grade ‘A*’ – I can think of no more damning indictment. While I have been teaching undergraduates for 5 years or so, and therefore am in no position to comment on a long-term trend, I suspect that it is not correlated with an increase in the academic quality of 1^st year undergraduates.

It is incredibly unpopular likewise to admit to being fundamentally of similar instinct to Mr Gove when it comes to the form that education should take. Nevertheless, I am, at least in inclination (I suspect we would both call ourselves traditionalists). I was once told by somebody who I consider to have been amongst the brightest people I have ever come across that no-one has improved upon the best way to teach anything in 2500 years: by young people sitting around discussing ideas in the presence of an intelligent teacher in very small groups. The idea that telling 35 students (or indeed 95 – ‘scientific’ educational approaches ironically seem to have invaded even university science education) what their learning outcomes are is going to make the remotest difference to their future performance as adults in writing things worth reading, or doing things worth reading about, is ridiculous. So are the vast majority of the ‘scientific, evidence-based’ educational reforms that accompanied the rise of the flawed genius who originally coined the title of this blog*. As such, it is here that I (thankfully) depart from the opinions of the Rt Hon Member for Surrey Heath.

The way to improve state secondary education is not to diversify the kinds of institution through which the state delivers education. It is precisely the opposite. Having free schools, academies, comprehensives, grammar schools, and private schools available to every parent is not the key to educating the future writers and doers of our country; the key is to teach them with intelligent people in small groups. That is it. The Secretary of State for Education does not need to argue that the education system requires reform to make it into more of a marketplace. He does not need to obtain votes of no confidence from teaching unions (with nakedly obvious relish in enhancing his own standing within his party in anticipation of a future battle for the leadership with a charismatic Mayor) by telling teachers that their pay needs to be ‘performance-related’. He simply needs to do two things: fight the chancellor for more money at budget time, and spend that money on decreasing class sizes. That is (predominantly) it.

As I said, I share many instincts with Mr Gove, not least his admiration for the way that education is structured within private schools. While the state system was busy systematically making state schools compete with one another in league tables and ironically removing the notion of such competition from a generation (my generation) of British youngsters by inflating their grades, removing competitive sport and finally literally selling them a plethora of poor higher education qualifications**, private schools were doing what they had done for generations: educating students in very traditional subjects, in very small groups, and developing their intellect to the point where they would contribute extensively to the future of the country (by serving as cabinet ministers, perhaps?).

Private schools do a lot of things incredibly well. They encourage a range of educational opportunities by hugely promoting theatre, music and sport, and any other extra-curricular activity it is possible to think of. (In fact, I am not sure the phrase ‘extra-curricular’ has much meaning in the private schools that I have come across). They encourage a culture of work by demanding of students an awful lot of sheer commitment, effort and quality. This is not confined simply to intellectual effort (indeed, in my limited experience – I am state educated – intellectual effort is not prominently required), but rather those qualities of personality that are independent of intellectual ability and present in good people, people who go on to write and do.

What they are not good at is fairness. We should not make our education system more like a market, because you shouldn’t be able to buy an education*** – it is too important for that; we should make it fairer. The single best way to do that is with intelligent teachers teaching small classes.

*One Anthony Blair, who incidentally was much better at speaking to teaching unions than Mr Gove.

** This point is very contentious. I shall not impart my own opinion on it any further in this piece, other than to mention in passing that in the year that I went through the UCAS system, one of my options was to apply to read David Beckham Studies at the University of Staffordshire.

***Actually, I am of the opinion that it is not possible to do that, but this may be a semantic argument and I shall leave it for another day.

This post was also published in the author’s own blog.

(1 votes)

Loading...