Last June, Eva summarised the Node’s alternative careers stories, personal accounts of how scientists made their transitions from research into various alternative career paths. As a friend of Andrea Hutterer, who is now the Fellowships Manager at EMBO, I witnessed her exciting leap from the bench into science management back in 2010, and now asked her to tell her story. I’m sure her experiences will interest the Node’s readers and complement the alternative careers stories already available on the site. Enjoy the interview!

Briefly tell us about your scientific career.

I studied biochemistry in Vienna and then did both my diploma thesis and my PhD in Jürgen Knoblich‘s lab at IMP and IMBA in Vienna. The focus of my thesis was asymmetric cell division in the nervous system of Drosophila. After that I joined Masanori Mishima‘s group at the Gurdon Institute in Cambridge, UK, for a postdoc. In his lab, I studied the process of cytokinesis.

Why did you quit research?

I was simply not sufficiently fascinated by one particular biological problem. My CV was good in scientific terms, so I think I could have gone ahead and started to apply for PI positions. But without being passionate about a question I think it’s hard to be successful, and being quite ambitious I decided it’s not the right career path for me.

What got you interested in research funding and policy? Did you consider other career paths?

Once I had decided to look into alternative careers, I needed to find out which career paths were open to me. I looked into loads of things – management consulting, scientific editing, medical writing, conference organising and science communication. In the end it was clear that science management was the best choice for me, as I would still have direct contact to scientists and thereby get a broad overview of scientific progress and emerging fields. On top of that, one can make a difference in terms of policy, for example by dealing with researchers’ employment conditions or gender issues.

Did you take any additional courses to polish your CV?

At the Gurdon Institute I was lucky enough to be able to take advantage of the fantastic careers service Cambridge University offers. In the beginning, I almost randomly took courses such as microeconomics, web-authoring and programming languages. This helped in a way that I found out quickly that pure economics were not entirely my thing and Perl was not my language. Other courses were more useful, for example when I learned the basics of using HTML to build websites or how to best write a CV for non-scientific jobs.

With regard to “polishing” my CV, it wasn’t so much the courses I listed but more how I organised the CV. I tried to emphasise my soft skills and highlighted extracurricular activities such as supervising younger students and organising retreats and symposia.

How easy was it to get your first job in funding?

It wasn’t easy at all, not even to get interviews. My scientific CV was good, but I had virtually no other relevant experience. Many employers appreciate even the smallest amount of experience more than a fantastic scientific CV, so what you really need when coming out of a PhD or postdoc is to get a foot in the door.

The first interview I got was with Cancer Research UK, but they didn’t offer me the job. I then got offered a job as Science Manager with the Medical Research Council (MRC) in Swindon, UK. I was quite over-qualified for this job since it didn’t even require a PhD, plus it came with a significant pay cut, but I was glad to have been offered it and accepted. In hindsight, it was the perfect stepping stone.

As preparation for the interviews, the Cambridge Careers Service again proved extremely helpful, because they offered mock interviews with the career advisor. It helped immensely to practise – I found out what I might be asked in an interview and I learned to explore different possibilities for answering these questions. I simply got an idea of what to expect during the process.

What does your work consist of?

On an everyday basis, I do some general administration, the details of which depend on the various fellowship application deadlines: I read proposals, find referees, talk to fellows, talk to my team [Andrea has three administrative staff to manage] and attend in-house management meetings. Every now and then I travel to career events to give talks about the programme, or attend workshops somewhere in Europe, which cover different aspects that come with the programme, such as a recent workshop on tracking research careers.

I also write grant proposals to try to get more money for the programme, and organise and attend the EMBO Fellows’ meetings in Heidelberg and the US. So it’s a very diverse job and I’m never even remotely bored!

Is there anything you miss about working in research?

At the MRC, although my colleagues were great I sometimes missed the international environment, which I do have here at EMBO. Sometimes I also miss standing at the bench, running around in the lab, being physically active. But I’m aware that that would have stopped sooner or later even if I had stayed in research and had become a PI.

What advice do you have for PhD students and postdocs wanting to leave academic research?

Find out why exactly you want to leave and what you would rather do. Even if you’re unclear whether research might be the right thing for you or not, start thinking about alternatives and get involved in non-scientific activities early on. There’s actually quite a lot one can do with our education. You just need to be clear about your goals, have a good non-scientific CV ready and work towards the new career profile. It might take a while until you get the job you have in mind, and you possibly need to be prepared to take pay cuts and will maybe feel slightly under-challenged in your first non-research job, but at least for me it was all worth it.

(14 votes)

Loading...

The ability to learn and form memories are cognitive functions associated with the brains ability to produce and co-ordinate new neurons effectively. These cognitive abilities are well known to degenerate with age due to diminishing neurogenesis. This study published in Nature, shows that reduced regenerative ability of the brain is due not only to intrinsic cues from the central nervous system, but also extrinsic blood-borne cues communicating with the neurogenic niche via closely surrounding blood vessels. This investigation aimed to find molecular differences in the systemic environment of ageing mice using a heterochronic parabiosis study to identify a correlation between blood-borne factors and neurogenic decline.

To address this, young mice (3-4 months) were exposed to the systemic environment of old mice (18-20 months). This was achieved by the intravenous injection of plasma obtained from an old mouse into a young mouse. The change in systemic environment produced mice with deficient synapse plasticity and reduced cognitive functions such as learning and memory. Proteomic analysis comparing the plasma of young and old mice revealed a correlation between ageing and a group of chemokines. Of particular interest was the chemokine CCL11 which has not been linked previously with ageing. Administration of CCL11 by intraperitoneal injection caused a reduction in adult mouse neurogenesis and in turn these mice demonstrated impaired learning and memory. Further investigation showed this chemokine to increase in an age dependent manner in human plasma and cerebrospinal fluid indicating similarity in age related systemic content across species.

Could the molecular content of our systemic environment be responsible for the neurogenic signs of ageing? This study gives convincing evidence for a link between certain age related blood-borne factors with diminishing neurogensis and cognitive function associated with ageing. The converse to this study is of course, what pro-neurogenic factors may be present in the systemic milieu. These could have potential in future therapy for age related neurogenic disorders.

The full paper can be found by following this link

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7362/full/nature10357.html

(5 votes)

Loading...

Dear Developmental biology community,

I would like to bring to your attention a potentially valuable resource for your teaching and research endeavors.  I am a neurodevelopmental biologist at Smith College.  I started teaching a course in Developmental Biology back in 2005, and since then have been utilizing web conferencing technology to bring the research behind concepts alive in the classroom.  My students have been interacting with leading scientists in the field of developmental biology holding organized Q&A video conferences focused on current and seminal research articles.  I am posting this to the Node as since I started using this pedagogical approach I have been recording these discussions, and with full consent provided, I have established an online repository of these recordings via my lab website.  I have each conference (40 now and growing) organized by topic for ease of searching, and each individual session is further broken down by specific question to facilitate quick access to your greatest interest.

Because these sessions are based on key research papers they are extremely applicable for any teacher or student to use in their own courses as supplemental resources to what is probably the very same topics being covered.  For instance, I often assign my students select conferences to watch to supplement their readings or coverage of the material.  Moreover, in class I will poise certain questions about a topic to my student and after some discussion, click on say, Dr. Cliff Tabin’s response to the similar question.  It provides a new and real perspective to the information that students truly appreciate and fosters long-term retention of the material.

There are also many other positive outcomes to both conducting and watching these conferences.  Namely students gain a very different and revealing perspective of not only where a particular field of Dev Bio is moving, but more personal understandings of who the scientists are and how they got to where they are today.  Listening to these remarkable scientists articulate their thinking process to address the research question is extremely illuminating to the developing scientist in your classroom.

So I invite and encourage you to check out these discussions as I am disseminating them for your benefit and use.  I hope you find them helpful.  Feel free to let me know what you think and, if you like them, how you might use them in your teaching.

“Bio Web Conferences” http://sophia.smith.edu/~mbarresi/lab/biowebconferences.html

Best regards,

Michael J.F. Barresi

P.S. additional post on stem cell documentaries coming….

(10 votes)

Loading...

A fully differentiated cell took a fascinating journey to become its present self.  For every cell, a precursor cell existed that gave rise to it.  And for every precursor cell, a stem cell existed that gave rise to it.  Understanding precursor cells is an important part in understanding stem cell biology.  Today’s image is from a recent paper in Development that discusses how neuron precursor cell divisions affect development of the cerebral cortex.

The cerebral cortex is the outermost layer or brain tissue, and is commonly referred to as “gray matter.”  During development, the different regions and layers of the cerebral cortex are formed from precursor cells.  These intermediate precursor cells (IPCs) arise from radial glial cells (RGCs), which come from neural stem cells. The different layers of the cortex are formed from radial migration of the postmitotic neurons produced by RGCs and IPCs.  The length of time each RGC or IPC cell resides in the cell cycle regulates the distance its daughter neuron can migrate—cells that exit the cell cycle earlier are able to migrate further, while neurons that are born later cannot migrate as far.  Exploring this connection between the cell cycle and formation of cortex layers, Mairet-Coello and colleagues recently published results showing how two different cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (CKIs) regulate different stages of precursor proliferation and affects development of the different layers.  Specifically, p57^KIP2 regulates the cell cycle length of RGCs and IPCs, which in turn affects neurogenesis of layers 5 and 6.  p27^KIP1, however, regulates the proliferation of IPCs, in turn affecting neurogenesis exclusively in layers 2-5.  In the images above, p57^KIP2(red) is found in actively dividing precursor cells (PCNA, green) in two different proliferative zones in the developing mouse brain, labeled SV and SVZ.  The SV contains proliferating RGCs and IPCs, while the SVZ mostly contains proliferating IPCs.  Arrows point to p57^KIP2-postitive proliferating cells.

For a more general description of this image, see my imaging blog within EuroStemCell, the European stem cell portal.

Mairet-Coello, G., Tury, A., Van Buskirk, E., Robinson, K., Genestine, M., & DiCicco-Bloom, E. (2012). p57KIP2 regulates radial glia and intermediate precursor cell cycle dynamics and lower layer neurogenesis in developing cerebral cortex Development, 139 (3), 475-487 DOI: 10.1242/dev.067314

(1 votes)

Loading...

What do you look like? The website This Is What A Scientist Looks Like wants to know. The site, run by science writer Allie Wilkinson, is collecting photos of scientists to show people what we look like. It’s an attempt to combat the very stereotypical view of scientists many people have. Just do a Google Image search for the word “scientist”, and you’ll find many messy-haired men in white lab coats. While some scientists may indeed look like the stereotype, most others don’t! This Is What A Scientist Looks Like shows that scientists come in all shapes and sizes, have hobbies and families, and look like everyone else:

(If you’d like to submit your own photo to the project, submission info is on the site.)

(3 votes)

Loading...

Here are the highlights from the current issue of Development:

ROCKed to the heart

Noonan syndrome – a common cause of congenital heart disease – is often associated with missense mutations in the protein phosphatase SHP-2. Interestingly, some types of leukaemia are associated with another subset of SHP-2 missense mutations. Here (p. 948), Frank Conlon and colleagues introduce SHP-2 that contains Noonan-associated mutations or juvenile myelomonocytic leukaemia (JMML)-associated mutations into Xenopus embryos to investigate how SHP-2 regulates heart development. Embryos that express SHP-2 containing Noonan-associated mutations have morphologically abnormal hearts, they report, whereas embryos that express SHP-2 containing JMML-associated mutations have normal hearts. The cardiac abnormalities caused by the Noonan-associated mutations are coupled with a delay or arrest in the cardiac cell cycle and with defective incorporation of cardiomyocyte precursors into the developing heart. Notably, these defects, which are caused by disruptions in the polarity of cardiac actin fibres and in F-actin deposition, can be rescued by inhibition of the Rho-associated, coiled-coil-containing protein kinase 1 (ROCK), which indicates that SHP-2 acts via ROCK to regulate the cardiac actin cytoskeleton during heart development.

Breaking symmetry during lateral root formation

Lateral root (LR) formation, which is essential for the construction of plant root systems, is initiated by coordinated asymmetric cell divisions (ACDs) of LR founder cells in existing roots. In Arabidopsis, LR formation is regulated by auxin signalling through the auxin response factors ARF7 and ARF19, which transcriptionally activate the plant-specific transcriptional regulator LBD16/ASL18 and other LBD/ASL genes. Hidehiro Fukaki and colleagues now provide new insights into the biological role of LBD/ASL genes in LR formation (see p. 883). They show that LBD16/ASL18 is expressed in Arabidopsis LR founder cells prior to ACD and that the spatiotemporal expression of LBD16/ASL18 during LR initiation is dependent on a specific auxin signalling module. Moreover, inhibition of LBD16/ASL18 and related LBD/ASL proteins in LR founder cells blocks nuclear migration, ACD and LR initiation. These results indicate that the localised activity of LBD16/ASL18 and related LBD/ASL proteins establishes the asymmetry of LR founder cells that is required for LR initiation, a key step in the construction of the plant root system.

Untangling the Hairy segmentation clock

During somitogenesis, an oscillating gene network generates a segmental pattern in the presomitic mesoderm. In zebrafish, this segmentation clock centres on cycles of transcription and self-repression of numerous hairy-enhancer of split related (her) genes, which encode proteins that dimerise, bind DNA and repress transcription. On p. 940, Scott Holley and co-workers systematically examine the physical interactions between Her proteins and test the ability of various Her protein dimers to bind to cis regulatory sequences. Dimerisation of Her proteins is specific, they report, with Hes6 serving as the hub of the network. Not all dimers bind to DNA, they note, but those that do so have distinct preferences for different cis regulatory sequences. Finally, Her7 disproportionately influences the availability of Hes6 for heterodimerisation with other Her proteins. The researchers propose, therefore, that Her7 has two functions within the zebrafish segmentation clock – direct repression of transcription through formation of a DNA-binding heterodimer with Hes6 and modulation of the network topology via sequestration of the network hub.

Diet and stem cells TORtuously linked

Nutritional status must be coupled to stem/progenitor cell proliferation and differentiation to ensure the proper growth and homeostasis of tissues, but how does diet regulate stem cell behaviour? On p. 859, E. Jane Albert Hubbard and colleagues show that rsks-1 [the homologue of mammalian p70 ribosomal S6 kinase (S6K), a target of the serine/threonine kinase TOR, which regulates cell growth and proliferation in response to nutritional cues] links cell fate, cell cycle and nutrient response in C. elegans germline stem/progenitor cells. They show that rsks-1 is required germline-autonomously to establish the proper number of germline progenitors, a role that requires a conserved TOR phosphorylation site in RSKS-1. Their analysis also reveals genetic interactions between rsks-1 and Notch, which suggest a prominent role for rsks-1 in cell fate control. Furthermore, dietary restriction causes germline defects similar to those observed in rsks-1 mutants and loss of rsks-1 renders the germline largely insensitive to dietary restriction. The researchers propose, therefore, that TOR-S6K signalling is a key nutrient-responsive regulator of germline progenitors.

Apical ECM and epithelial junction integrity

Polarised epithelial cells form many of the body’s surfaces, including the outer epidermis and the lining of several internal tubular organs. The apical surfaces of these epithelial sheets secrete a specialised extracellular matrix (ECM) that is generally viewed as a passive protective layer against pathogens, but does apical ECM have any other roles? According to Meera Sundaram and colleagues, the apical ECM in C. elegans might help to maintain epithelial junction integrity and, consequently, epithelial tissue integrity (see p. 979). The researchers report that the extracellular leucine-rich repeat only (eLRRon) proteins LET-4 and EGG-6 are expressed on the apical surfaces of epidermal cells and some tubular epithelia, including those of the worm’s excretory system. Mutants lacking one or more of these proteins, they report, have multiple defects in apical ECM organisation and, although epithelial junctions initially form correctly in these mutants, they subsequently rupture. Together, these results suggest that eLRRon-dependent apical ECM organisation might modulate epithelial junction dynamics and integrity.

Bimodal control of HoxD gene transcription

Correct innervation of peripheral muscles by spinal cord motoneurons is required to coordinate body movements in vertebrates. Hox proteins play an important functional role in achieving this innervation by specifying neuronal fates along the anteroposterior axis of the developing spinal cord. However, the mechanisms that generate Hox gene expression patterns are poorly understood. Here (p. 929), Denis Duboule and colleagues use tiling array-based transcriptome analyses and targeted deletions in vivo to investigate the control of HoxD gene transcription in the developing mouse spinal cord. They report that there are two distinct blocks of HoxD transcription that are regulated independently and that define two general expression territories. These territories, they show, are associated with the future nerve plexii at the brachial and lumbar levels. Given these and other results, the researchers propose that the establishment of spatial collinear HoxD domains in the developing mouse spinal cord involves the bimodal control of HoxD gene transcription by two independent ‘enhancer mini-hubs’.

Plus…

Human pre-implantation embryo development

Renee Reijo Pera and colleagues summarize what is currently known about human pre-implantation embryo development and highlight how further studies of human pre-implantation embryos can be used to improve ART and to fully harness the potential of hESCs for therapeutic goals. See the Primer article on p. 829

Retinoic acid signalling during development

Retinoic acid is a vitamin A-derived signaling molecule that acts as ligand for nuclear receptors, converting them from transcriptional repressors to activators. Here, Muriel Rhinn and Pascal Dolle review the main functions of retinoic acid during embryogenesis. See the Primer article on p. 843

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

After commenting on a previous post, I’ve decided to make my own post about freeware I use regularly that other scientists might find useful. All of these are available for Windows, Mac and Linux as far as I’m aware and come with various price plans if you want more storage space/functionality. You’ll need to create an account for some of them, but again that’s free.

Libre Office – I use my own laptop in the lab and as a result of that I don’t have some common software like Photoshop, Illustrator and most annoyingly, Microsoft Office. Rather than paying out of my nose for a productivity suite like Office, I chose to have a go at some open source alternatives. LibreOffice is an open source productivity suite that’s spent around 20 years in development, so it’s pretty stable. It comes with the same kind of programs as Office, a word processor, spreadsheets, presentation maker, drawing tools etc. It’s also compatible with MO as well, so you can open documents you created in program with the other. Migrating from Microsoft to LibreOffice was pretty easy and most of the layout and functionality is the same. I’ve been using this for a year or so now and I think whilst it still lacks the polish of Microsoft Office, it works just as well.

Alternatives – Google Docs, laTEX (this is supposed to be specific for creating manuscripts)

Dropbox – I mentioned this in a comment on a previous post, but I’ll go into a little more detail here. Dropbox is basically a file syncronisation tool that you can download as a client program. Once installed, if you place a file in your Dropbox folder, it syncs it with your account so you can access that file from anywhere with an internet connection. It’s very easy to use and once you set up your Dropbox folder, you can share it with anyone. The syncronisation between folders on different computers is very fast, you can upload a file onto a shared Dropbox folder and within seconds the other person receives the file. This is very useful for collaborations or even just sharing data in a lab.

The servers they use to store files are very secure and you can create multiple sub-folders that you can share with various people. You get 2GB free storage but if you invite other people to share your folders or install it on another computer you get some extra storage.

Alternatives – Sugarsync

Mendeley – Mendeley is a web based reference manager that also has a desktop app you can download to organise PDFs and documents on your computer. The web app lets you build a library with an easy to use web importer that works as a plug-in to your browser. Mendeley also store pdfs on the (up to 500MB) and you can retrieve them from any computer or share them with other users by forming groups.

The Mendeley desktop app organises and indexed your PDFs that are stored on your computer. You can also annotate, highlight and add sticky notes to your files. As I begin to write my thesis, I’m finding this part increasingly useful. There is also a toolbar you can install in Microsoft Word or LibreOffice to cite papers whilst writing.

Unlike Endote, it’s free (although you can pay for more cloud storage) and unlike Papers, it’s a cross-platform tool (available for Windows, Mac and Linux), making it very useful for collaborations. I find the interface really easy to use and within half-hour of downloading it, I had most of my references stored on the desktop app. Also the ability to annotate and make notes on papers is proving to be invaluable.

Alternatives – Zotero

Reflect – This is a useful look-up tool when reading papers online. Basically, it’s a plugin for your browser that highlights proteins/molecules/biological concepts in any text. You can click on the highlighted text to show a pop-up window which displays some basic information such as what the molecule is, it’s role, structure and what it interacts with. The information displayed is community driven so for really obscure proteins and molecules there might not be a lot of information displayed, but the makers are keen on the community using it to edit and add more information.

Doodle – Doodle is a web-based time management tool that you can use to co-ordinate meetings. It does this by creating simple polls where everyone can vote on when they are free. You can use various calender programs like iCal, Microsoft Outlook or Google Calender to track dates and organise meetings with other people. I’ve never used it professionally, only with friends to organise some camping trips and it’s a pretty handy tool that saves on a lot of emails.

Alternatives –  Timebridge

OMERO –  OMERO is an microscopy image management tool created especially for scientists. It’s designed by the Open Microscopy Enviroment team which is based in multiple sites across the globe. Once you have an account set up and downloaded the programs, you can upload your images to a central server and process/analyse images and even make them ready for publication with a nice figure making tool. The Journal of Cell Biology has a data viewer based on OMERO that allows authors to upload images as they were acquired and users can look through z-stacks, time lapses and individual channels in these images.

If you have any tips for other useful freeware let us know in the comments section below.

(14 votes)

Loading...

A couple of weeks ago, around 70 stem cell scientists gathered in the beautiful ski resort of Kranjska Gora, Slovenia, for the sixth meeting organised by the European Stem Cell consortium EuroSyStem. Although the snow wasn’t up to much (as the photo proves – just take a look at the opposite side of the valley!), the lack of fresh powder left more time for the science. And there was a lot of great science to be discussed…

Hans Clevers (Hubrecht Institute) kicked things off in the first of two outstanding plenary talks, with the latest developments on intestinal stem cell homeostasis, including beautiful demonstrations of how two innovative technologies – in vitro organoid culture, and the “Brainbow” cell labelling technique – have provided insights into the life of the Lgr5+ crypt stem cell. The name of Charles Leblond came up often in his talk: neither I nor many in the audience had ever heard of him, but his insights into stem cell self renewal, as well as his development of autoradiography, definitely earn him a place in the stem cell Hall of Fame (see here for a summary of his achievements).

The following day took us on a whistle-stop tour of model organisms, with planaria, flies, zebrafish, salamanders and Arabidopsis all taking their turn in the spotlight. After that, mammals took centre stage, with talks covering the whole spectrum of the stem cell field, from lineage determination and ES cell reprogramming, to aging and cancer. Prize for “Unsettling Animal Photo of the Week” (with apologies to the Guardian newspaper for blatant plagiarism of their feature) goes to Tom Rando (Stanford), whose lab has provided striking insights into systemic effects of aging from heterochronic parabiosis experiments – essentially grafting two mice together. Take home message: if you need a blood transfusion, you really want a young person’s blood! Other highlights included a lively debate on the Immortal Strand hypothesis following talks from Shahragim Tajbakhsh (Institut Pasteur) and Peter Lansdorp (Terry Fox Laboratory), and a detour into the molecular mechanisms regulating autophagy from Paul Coffer (University Medical Centre Utrecht).

Finally, the scientific program ended with an impressive demonstration of what money and technical resources can achieve, when coupled with hard work and – most importantly – a sharp nose for sniffing out an interesting story. The second plenary speaker, Huck Hui Ng (Genome Institute of Singapore), presented a tour-de-force analysis of the transcriptional and post-transcriptional networks underlying reprogramming, self-renewal and differentiation.

But the real talking point of the meeting came on the Wednesday evening, when we were fortunate enough to be joined by Arnd Hoeveler from the European Commission, who came to talk about future funding from the EC for stem cell research. While the direction the EC’s framework program is taking – towards funding mainly translational research – may not have gone down universally well with the audience of mostly basic researchers, we were given a fantastic forum to discuss science funding and politics with someone who clearly cares deeply about advancing science in Europe, and who faces a tough challenge to convince the political elite of the importance of the kind of research that this meeting was all about.

I’ve only had the chance to mention a few of the great talks, but all in all this was a fantastic conference, seamlessly organised by the EuroSyStem team. So thanks to them, the speakers and the rest of the participants for putting on an eye-opening and stimulating meeting. Now, if only they could have arranged for better piste conditions, it would have been just perfect!

(2 votes)

Loading...

As of today, a new face has joined the team of Development editors, and a familiar one is soon to be leaving us. After 6 very successful years at the journal, Ken Zaret has decided to step down: we will miss him, but we’re sure the extra time he’ll have will be put to great use – both for his research and his other activities. Replacing Ken, and complementing particularly his expertise in epigenetics, we are delighted to have recruited Professor Haruhiko Koseki to the Development editorial team. Haruhiko is Group Director at the RIKEN Center for Allergy and Immunology in Yokohama, Japan. His lab is interested in understanding the molecular basis of epigenetic inheritance, and its consequences on haematopoiesis, stem cell identity and various other aspects of development. We’re excited to have Haruhiko on board, and we wish him luck for his first days and weeks in his new job!

(2 votes)

Loading...

The International course on Developmental Biology was a great experience, both instructive and mind-opening. All the students were shuttled to the remote and very small fishing village of Quintay, where the CIMARQ, the investigation centre where the course took place, is located. Originally a whaling station, this centre is dedicated to the instruction of professionals in the area of marine resources and has various branches of research mainly based in repopulation strategies of different species ranging from Sea Urchins to the delicious Conger eel or Sole fish. Their main objective is to provide small scale fish-farming to the general community. In fact, on the day of our arrival, after a Lecture on the history of and the main, original questions in Development by Dr. Roberto Mayor, we were given a short practical on Sea Urchin gamete harvesting and fertilization. This was followed by a very instructive tour of CIMARQ and its various projects, from seaweed culture (which is the main source of food for Sea Urchins) to the Conger and Cole fish tanks (see below). This course was unique in that it covered a wide range of developmental models instead of focusing on one or two: Throughout the twelve days of the course we had two days of each: Zebrafish, Xenopus, Planarian, Drosophila and Chick (plus a symposium and a first day tour). While including such a variety of different models may seem too optimistic (especially for just two days of each!), the truth is that the course was a huge success as proved by the fact that most of the experiments were successful. Our day schedule started with lectures and lab work in the morning. Then lunch, after which we spent most of the time in the lab and, after dinner, everyone attended presentations, by students, about their research. This part (the presentations) was a very good innovation this year and, given its success, it will probably continue in future courses. The discussions were very productive, and, from a student’s point of view, it was great having peak scientists listening, criticizing and suggesting experiments for my research. It was also good to share our areas of research between students since it was very different from the casual exchange of area of research in informal gossip. So, on to the course.

Zebrafish module

Zebrafish was coordinated by Dr. Kate Whitlock. The first Lecture was on Zebrafish basics (rearing and genetics) and embryo morphology. We then proceeded to the lab in which work consisted of cataloging the effects of different concentrations of alcohol in zebrafish development by observation under dissecting microscope of live embryo general morphology and craniofacial development. Afterwards, we carried out an immunohistochemistry protocol for the detection of neuron and neural crest markers so as to further characterize the effects of ethanol in early development. To sum up the results, I would say that the message ¨Vertebrate development and alcohol don’t mix¨ was extremely clear: The deleterious effects on general and craniofacial development were patent even without the need for immunohistochemistry. The second lecture by Kate focused on neural crest development and how neural crest cells migrate and interact with the neural tube and placodes to give origin to the olfactory system At the lab, we studied gene expression of three main neuron and neural-crest marker genes (shh, sox10 and six4b) using in-situ hybridization. Finally, we observed fluorescent-tagged transgenic lines and we compared the results with those of immunohistochemistry and hybridization.

Xenopus module

Xenopus was the next chapter in this course and, again, experiments were very successful (albeit with a lot of effort). We began with a lecture from Dr. John Gurdon on the history of Xenopus as a Development model and classic experiments followed by a focus on the regulation of induction by molecule gradients. In the lab, we tried some of those same experiments ourselves: After a brief introduction by Roberto Mayor on egg collection and fertilization, we injected GFP mRNA into two, four and eight cell embryos. The next step was to create Nieuwkoop recombinants by separating vegetable and animal poles from different embryos and then setting them one against the other so that the vegetable pole would induce growth and mesoderm tissue in the animal pole. The following task was to graft neural crest tissue from GFP labeled neurulas into normal ones. Although it took some practice, after a few hours we successfully observed neural crest cells migrating under the ectoderm. On the second day, Roberto took the stand for a lecture on the post-fertilization phenomena of the Xenopus embryo and on the development and function of the neural crest. The final (and most challenging) experiment was to perform a Spemann organizer graft. After about five or ten minutes of dissection, John Gurdon displayed, with a proud smile, a clean and very neat graft. Although John definitely made it look easy, I had like four or five embryos which attest to the contrary. This was the price of success however as, although most of us agreed that it was harder than it looked, we managed to come up with several grafts which, at least, looked quite tidy. Due to a power shortage (and consequent rise in temperature of the incubator) we were unable to photograph many of those embryos, but the truth is that we were all very satisfied with our achievements.

Planarian module

Planarian was an interesting module in that it is a relatively new model and that we didn’t focus on embryogenesis but on regeneration instead (although we did have a very interesting lecture on planarian embryogenesis, which involves very rare and interesting processes). Planarians have unparalleled regeneration capacities and can regenerate a whole organism from a very small portion of the parent planarian. Dr. Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado was the scientist who established planarians as research models and it was great having him! Alejandro’s lecture on the establishment of planarians as regeneration research models and the similarities and differences between regeneration and embryogenesis was astounding. In the lab, we started out by cutting up worms in as many ways as we could think of. Over the following days, we got to see strange or downright weird forms of planarians as they regenerated the parts we had cut off. A second experimental part of this module consisted of dissociating cells, staining with Hoechst and observing  the cellular morphology of neoblasts (stem cells) among other cell types. In the third part we observed the differences in target proteins and tissue-specific markers between worms under normal conditions and worms either treated with RNAi or cut in half. I particularly enjoyed taking photos of these last worms showing the progressive regeneration of these systems and comparing the velocity and sequence of events that lead to the new worms. This was one of my favorite modules since I didn’t practically know anything about planarians past what I studied in an early zoology course (which seemed boring at the time) and, now, I can’t read enough about them!

Drosophila module

This module was taught by Drs Trudi Schüpbach, Eric Wieschaus and John Ewer. The first lecture, by Eric Wieschaus, was an interactive talk about fly genetics and fly crossing. We discussed the screen with which he identified genes that regulated embryogenesis. This was incredible and very instructive, because most of the time, we read about results without taking into account the real work that had to be done to obtain them. In the lab, we carried out several observational experiments: We were given embryos from unknown crosses and had to hypothesize what the parents´ phenotypes were by peeling embryos or bleaching them, followed by immersion in halocarbon oil or fixing in hoyers mountant. Another part of the practical consisted of analyzing mRNA expression (or localization) and observing embryo morphology and movement using transgenic lines. With the help of Trudi Schüpbach, we  also dissected ovaries and looked at oogenesis in transgenic lines with either GFP-tagged histones or a membrane-bound GFP. The second day, lead mainly by John Ewer, we focused on later stages of development. John gave a lecture about larval growth, physiology and metamorphosis concentrating on the reorganizing of the neural system during the pupal stage. In the lab we learned how to locate and remove imaginal discs from 3^rd instar larvae and we watched the retraction and regrowth of sensory neuron axonal arbors and dendrites during the pupal stage Worthy of mention was Eric’s incredible enthusiasm with experiments and his loud cheering when the results were revealed (captured in photo). For me, all of the faculty of the course were extremely good professors: Their lectures were very clear and they were all very open to questions or doubts and were very watchful and helpful in the lab. Eric, however, was something else. I can’t actually explain how or why, but, as an example, he took it upon himself to single handedly sharpen most of our pincers to ease embryo peeling and larval dissection!

Chick module

The chick embryo was the last model and one of the most challenging, not only because of the complexity of dissection and grafting, but also because of how tired we were. After learning how to set up New cultures, we performed two experiments: Node grafts and cutting embryos in half. The first experiment, which is analogous to the one done in Xenopus, was intended to demonstrate how Hensen’s Node induces other tissues. In the second experiment we separated posterior and anterior halves of the embryo and observed their development, since the cells of each half reorganized and redefined the embryo axis. As professor Claudia Linker pointed out, in both of these experiments we had an impressive success rate (>90%), something most of us were very proud of! Additionally, we learned two other very useful techniques which were applied on embryos that were not removed from the egg: Embryo injection with either DNA or a fluorescent label and electroporation of the DNA-injected embryos. Although the success rate was lower, we did get to see some embryos with pretty neat dye labels and even a few good electroporations. Claudio Stern gave two more lectures on the molecular regulation and timing of neural specification and induction and a very interesting and comprehensive one integrating molecular and cellular processes that control, occur during and give rise to gastrulation.

Summing up…

As a student, I was extremely grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in this course. All the faculty were extremely helpful, friendly and sympathetic. In my experience, the closest I can get to scientists of the stature as the faculty of this course is by asking questions at lectures (if I’m extremely lucky). Sharing at least two days with them was very productive and actually giving them) a short presentation was incredible! I was given very good advice on how to guide my research and I also had some very interesting questions (the sort of that great minds usually ask)! Apart from the advantages/tricks/advice I learned for the model I currently work with, this course was very mind-opening: I learned about models that I practically had never heard of before and I feel comfortable about working, for example, with Zebrafish , Xenopus or Chick, three models I never though I would do experiments with! I’m currently thinking about how I can relate my research to one of these models and, hopefully, get my hands dirty working a few months in a lab which uses such models. I would strongly recommend this course for anyone with a strong curiosity and willing to take a look ¨outside the box¨. Please contact me at gersabio@gmail.com if you have any particular doubts about the course or this article and this is the course website: http://biodesarrollo.unab.cl/I wanted to shout out a special thanks for the three organizers: Alfredo Molina, Ariel Reyes and Roberto Mayor, without whom this course would not have occurred, for their dedication and very good will.

Germán Sabio

(10 votes)

Loading...