This post highlights the approach and finding of a new research article published by Disease Models and Mechanisms (DMM). This feature is written by Melanie Mew as part of a seminar at The University of Alabama (taught by DMM Editorial Board member, Professor Guy Caldwell) on current topics related to use of animal and cellular model systems in the studies of human disease.

Prions are misfolded proteins that can induce other proteins to fold abnormally and are transmissible from one individual to another. Prion diseases (PrDs) range from sporadic forms of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (“mad cow” disease) to genetically inherited Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (CJD). They are uniformly fatal and untreatable. The key to preventing and treating PrDs may lie in understanding the structure of prions and how they mediate neurodegeneration. A major challenge to studying PrDs is that they occur only in mammals, whose long generation times and high maintenance costs limit the speed and statistical power of research. Smaller models such as Drosophila are a useful alternative because evolutionary conservation of basic cellular processes allows them to recapitulate PrD phenotypes. A remaining mystery in PrD research is the mechanisms through which prions cause disease. In a recent study published in Disease Models and Mechanisms, Myers et al., (2022) use a transgenic Drosophila model expressing human or rodent prion protein (PrP) to elucidate intrinsic and extrinsic mediators of prion toxicity. The researchers identified a new “glassy eyes” phenotype, associated with reduced size and organization of the eyes, in flies expressing toxic forms of PrP.

An initial investigation of human PrP compared to the less toxic rodent PrP found that, while these proteins share many similarities, amino acid changes in the C-terminal 3D (CT3D) may mediate the greater instability and toxicity of human PrP. Expressing hamster PrP in fruit flies permits normal eye development (Fernandez-Funez et al., 2017), whereas random insertion of human PrP into the Drosophila genome is deleterious to eye development (Myers et al., 2022). Specifically, comparison of two naturally occurring human PrP polymorphisms: Met129 and Val129—the latter associated with  associated with a higher probability of developing CJD—induced a glassy-eyed phenotype. In separate experiments, a conditional activator system was used to induce pan-neuronal hamster or human PrP expression in adult flies. These individuals were subjected to a climbing assay, in which the human PrP flies developed locomotor deficits significantly worse than those of hamster PrP-expressing flies. Human PrP expression was also associated with reduced size and structure of Drosophila mushroom bodies, which are non-essential features responsible for learning and memory in flies and other insects. 

To directly compare the toxicity of rodent and human PrP, Myers et al. inserted codon-optimized versions of each gene at a previously validated attP2 locus (Bischof et al., 2007, Moore et al., 2018). They created flies expressing either mouse PrP, human PrP-M129, or human PrP-V129. Flies expressing mouse PrP had eyes comparable to those of controls, whereas flies homozygous for either form of human PrP displayed glassy eyes. Having established a clear pattern of toxicity associated with human PrP, the researchers next investigated genetic and molecular mediators of human PrP toxicity. Specific extrinsic mediators of PrP toxicity may include members of the unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway, associated with ER stress. The UPR is activated by various sensors, including Ire1α and PERK. Ire1α and a protein activated downstream of it, X-box binding protein 1 (XBP1), can protect against human PrP toxicity. Silencing either of these proteins alone has no effect on eye development, but produces a small-eye phenotype when combined with human PrP expression. Conversely, silencing PERK or its downstream affiliate, ATF4, independently or in combination with human PrP expression allows for normal eye development. Therefore, activating the PERK branch of the UPR or inhibiting the Ire1α branch could be valuable treatment strategies for PrDs. Other therapeutic options for PrDs could include modulating the structure of PrP itself. In this vein, Myers and colleagues investigated the protective effects of amino acid substitutions found in dogs, horses, rabbits, and pigs. Asp167Ser, the canine residue mutation, was protective against eye disorganization and mushroom body degeneration in flies.

The research performed by Myers and colleagues suggests that human PrDs may be treatable with drugs that stabilize the CT3D of PrP or modulate the UPR response to PrP. Future research will likely further elucidate the interacting partners of human PrP that mediate neurodegeneration, as well as the roles of specific residues in contributing to intrinsic protein stability. Understanding the evolution of human PrP could also help identify benefits of stability-sacrificing human PrP mutations. Microbial prions, for example, have been shown to sometimes confer evolutionary adaptations such as stress tolerance and memory (Levkovich et al., 2021). For now, this work informs our general understanding of neurodegeneration induced by protein aggregation—a hallmark of other disorders such as Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease (Soto and Pritzkow, 2018)—and is a step toward discovering effective treatments for neurological diseases.

REFERENCES

Bischof J., Maeda R.K., Hediger M., Karch F. and Basler K. (2007) An optimized transgenesis system for Drosophila using germ-line-specific phiC31 integrases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 104, 3312-7.

Fernandez-Funez P., Sanchez-Garcia J. and Rincon-Limas D.E. (2017) Drosophila models of prionopathies: insight into prion protein function, transmission, and neurotoxicity. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 44, 141-148.

Levkovich S.A., Rencus-Lazar S., Gazit E., Laor Bar-Yosef D. (2021) Microbial Prions: Dawn of a New Era. Trends Biochem. Sci. 46, 391-405.

Moore, B. D., Martin, J., de Mena, L., Sanchez, J., Cruz, P. E., Ceballos-Diaz, C., Ladd, T. B., Ran, Y., Levites, Y., Kukar, T. L., Kurian, J. J., McKenna, R., Koo, E. H., Borchelt, D. R., Janus, C., Rincon-Limas, D., Fernandez-Funez, P. and Golde, T. E. (2018). Short Aβ peptides attenuate Aβ42 toxicity in vivo. J. Exp. Med. 215, 283-301.

Myers, R., Sanchez-Garcia, J., Leving, D., Melvin, R. and Fernandez-Funez, P. (2022) New Drosophila models to uncover the intrinsic and extrinsic factors mediating the toxicity of the human prion protein. Dis. Model. Mech.

Soto, C. and Pritzkow, S. (2018) Protein misfolding, aggregation, and conformational strains in neurodegenerative diseases. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 1332–1340.

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

The annual BSDB meeting is always on the ‘must-attend’ list for the team at Development. This year was, of course, extra-special because it was our first in-person meeting for two years. For me, it was particularly exciting as it was meant to be my first in-person meeting in my new role as Community Manager of the Node. I was looking forward to catching up with old friends and introducing new researchers to the Node community. Unfortunately, the in-person part was not meant to be, as COVID caught up with me the day before the meeting started. However, in light of the ongoing discussion surrounding conference accessibility and sustainability, it was an excellent opportunity to check out the virtual experience of the joint meeting with the BSCB.

Of course, the fact I got to ‘attend’ the meeting at all was my first big thumbs up for the hybrid concept. I found that it was possible to feel the excitement of the attendees even without being there (and I was only slightly jealous!). Almost every speaker started their talks with ‘I’m really happy to be here presenting at my first in-person conference for two years,’ and the delight in their voices prevented any feeling of the phrase becoming repetitive. The meeting kicked off with a plenary lecture from John Wallingford, who wisely got the whole audience onside by telling us that we are all developmental biologists before going on to explain that he would be talking entirely about cell biology featuring the ignoreome, which is composed of completely uncharacterised genes.

The next talk was the BSDB Cheryll Tickle medal lecture from Emma Rawlins. Unfortunately, Emma was also stuck at home because of COVID, but we went smoothly over to her live-streamed presentation. Emma gave us a whistle-stop tour of her career before focusing on the latest work from her lab on human lung development. The first evening concluded online with the BSCB Raff medal lecture from Florence Young, who presented her PhD (and ongoing) work on microtubule-based cargo transport in neurons. Although I was disappointed to not be able to follow up these excellent talks with more discussion with colleagues, the main thing that I missed was the laser pointer, which was an ongoing problem throughout the meeting. A few of the speakers did use the computer mouse, but for the talks I attended, only Dolf Weijers had a laser pointer set up to show for the online and in-person audience. Fortunately, however, this issue should be an easy fix for future meetings.

Day two of the joint meeting highlighted another couple of advantages of virtual attendance. Firstly, it was possible to jump between the two parallel sessions without disturbing anyone. Another advantage was that I didn’t need to queue for my comfort break or caffeine and cookie hit. However, Mike Fainzilber pointed out on Twitter that great collaborations can be set up in ‘caffeine-queues’:

This brings me nicely on to social media: I also followed the meeting on Twitter using the meeting hashtag #BSCBDB22, which I did manage to get wrong a couple of times while tweeting about the meeting – I’m blaming ‘COVID-brain’. I would recommend following conferences on Twitter, especially if you are attending virtually. I think that it helped me feel more connected with the in-person attendees. People were tweeting about the talks, posters and the social side of the meeting. On the other hand, the ‘biggie’ that I was sad to be missing on the second day was the poster session. It was great that the posters were available online and it was possible to type in a question for the author, but it is just not the same. At in-person meetings, posters are where discussion happens, ideas for experiments are formed and new connections are made. Sadly, I don’t think that we have found a way to replicate this online.

Day two concluded with the announcement of the Wolpert and Waddington medal winners awarded by the BSDB. This year’s Wolpert medal for extraordinary contributions to the teaching and communication of developmental biology was awarded to Andreas Prokop. Instead of giving a medal lecture, the prize comes with funding for a small number of lectures around the country. Andreas has been a big supporter of the Node, contributing numerous articles, as well as allowing us to host the resource page that he curated for the BSBD. You can read more about Andreas’ teaching and science communication work here. The Waddington medal for major contributions to any aspect of developmental biology in the UK, was awarded to Val Wilson. In her medal lecture, Val took us on a tour of her favourite embryos, including ‘the embryo that Rosa liked’, describing some of her most important contributions to the field.

Day three, aka the day of the disco, saw me taking advantage of my virtual attendance to jump between the sessions again. The link ups to the speakers unable to attend the meeting in person continued to work seamlessly. The flash talks were outstanding, and their inclusion meant I could hear a little more about the research that I was missing out on by not being able to physically attend the poster sessions. The science part of day three concluded with the BSCB Hooke medal lecture from Jeremy Carlton. Jeremy presented selected highlights from his research journey, focusing on his work on the many membranes abscission events that are dependent on the ESCRT proteins. Day three concluded with the conference dinner and disco. Always a highlight of these meetings, it was a shame to miss out, but the tweets and videos showed everyone having a good time and the dancing was as good (enthusiastic!) as ever.

The organisers had saved the ‘big guns’ for the final morning (possibly to ensure that everyone had vacated their rooms by 9 am as promised to the conference venue), with plenary lectures from Anne Straube and Jody Rosenblatt, and medal lectures from Laura Greaves (BSCB Women in Science medal), Adam Shellard (BSCB Postdoc medal) and Guillermo Serrano Najera (BSDB Beddington medal for an outstanding PhD thesis). I was meant to be conducting my very first in-person interview with Guillermo, which unfortunately couldn’t happen, but we managed to catch up over Teams and I will be posting the interview on the Node soon. Guillermo has so many different interests and this was a really fun interview. Hopefully this comes across in the final article!

Overall, I really enjoyed attending the BSCB/BSDB joint meeting. Do I think the virtual experience is the same as attending in-person? No. Would I have preferred to attend in person? Yes, but I think hybrid meetings should be an ongoing feature of major conferences. There could be any number of reasons a delegate can’t attend in-person, such as sustainability considerations, financial reasons, family commitments, health reasons, etc. and the virtual experience is a great alternative. Being able to follow the meeting via the conference platform and on Twitter still made it a worthwhile and enjoyable experience. Thanks to the organisers from the BSCB and BSDB!

(1 votes)

Loading...

Read on for our news roundup of the past two weeks, with an emphasis on what has caught our eyes on twitter. We have also include a list of meetings with upcoming deadline and a selection of preLights.

It would be remiss not to mention the biggest twitter news this week; Elon Musk has struck a deal to buy the platform. Researchers are speculating what this means for the future of #SciTwitter

Writing

Academic writing is one of the top topics on our twitter feed. We enjoyed the thread below as their were so many contributors offering their own best practices. We have collated some of the Node writing advice in a blog post that you can find here.

Meeting o’clock

preLights in #devbio

A double feature on crustacean Hox regulation

Aggressive outburst in Kleefstra syndrome model mice

If you are passionate about preprints and would like to gain some additional experience in science communication, then become part of the preLights community. Applications are open until this Friday and you can find out more here.

Just for fun

How many of these have you actually done?

Add a bit of class to your lab with your very own pipette museum

If you would like to write for the Node, check out our recent list of writing ideas. If you would like to contribute to our ‘Developing news’ blog, please get in touch at thenode@biologists.com

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

Owen Sansom, the director of the recently launched MRC National Mouse Genetics Network, describes the objectives of the project and his vision for the future of the network.

A new model for translation of mouse research

Over the last 20 years, the UK has become a leading force in the generation and use of complex mouse models in the precise investigation of human disease. Nevertheless, there remains a great challenge to improve how research in animals is translated to clinical benefits.

Key to this will be developing and expanding connections between basic scientists and clinicians to ensure that animal models accurately compare to human disease. This is the focus of the new MRC National Mouse Genetics Network and, I believe, will make a huge impact on our ability to take advantage of recent advances in mouse genetics.

The National Mouse Genetics Network is a major new £22 million investment initially comprised of 7 challenge-led research clusters with members distributed across the UK. At its centre, the Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell will act as a repository for, and provider of, genetically altered mice, as well as generating and sharing access to data, training, and specialist facilities and resources. Importantly, each cluster will integrate expertise in fundamental biology with clinical findings in order to better address pertinent and important research questions.

Having been involved in previous, smaller-scale, network initiatives, I know that this model can produce results, but I believe that it’s a structure that will work better when done on a larger scale, as the scope for collaboration and the capacity of the system grow.

Cross-cluster synergy

Importantly, the Network won’t just connect up a linear series of technicians, scientists, and clinicians with a shared disease interest. The clusters will be focused on distinctive, but complementary, research themes, with plans for cross-cluster and cross-disease interactions, while working on shared goals.

These shared objectives include areas that can broadly benefit animal research, such as the development or improvement of techniques used to thoroughly characterise mouse models of disease, methods used to generate new kinds of mouse models, opportunities for alternatives to animal usage, as well as specific points of common ground between diseases.

Scientists can often become focused on their particular cell-type or tissue of interest, but many diseases can be very wide-ranging in their effects, creating cross-overs between otherwise very different disorders. Through creation of a wider network of experts across many disease areas, we can ensure that our understanding is as deep and broad as possible.

Capacity creation

A large network not only creates more points of contact to allow these kinds of interactions, but also creates greater capacity for a central organising hub. Indeed, one of the core strengths of the National Mouse Genetics Network will be its central hub, the Mary Lyon Centre.

We are in an age of big data, in which single-cell sequencing and deep molecular phenotyping will support the disease positioning of our mouse models so that they are as relevant as possible to human disorders. As well as acting as the repository for the mouse models themselves, the Mary Lyon Centre, along with a data platform initiative within the Network, will build the infrastructure required for open sharing of these data so that scientists within and outside of the network can better work together to improve our understanding of disease.

Our impact will also be accelerated through the Mary Lyon Centre’s training centre, Advance, as it helps to disseminate our new methods both within and outside of the Network.

A platform for access to mouse genetics

My vision is that the Network will create a broad platform to improve access to mouse genetics for those working in translational medicine. This is aimed beyond our starting membership, as I believe that the Network will create a structure that is better able to engage with industry on the development of new disease therapeutics and to initiate new collaborations across academia.

We’re excited to announce the first set of clusters joining the National Mouse Genetics Network and look forward to seeing how they will work together on a number of fantastic projects to develop the next generation of disease modelling in mice and to improve our ability to detect disease at the earliest stages of life. But I’m equally excited to see how others might join or interact with the network, either by working with our existing clusters or by suggesting new research challenges around which to build future clusters.

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

Wednesday 4 May 2022 – 15:00 BST

Our next Development presents… webinar celebrates the Special Issue on The Immune System in Development and Regeneration. Guest editors, Paul Martin (University of Bristol) and Florent Ginhoux (A*STAR Singapore) have invited three authors from the issue to present their work.

The webinar will be held in Remo, our browser-based conferencing platform. After the talks you’ll have the chance to meet the speakers and other participants at virtual conference tables. If you can’t make it on the day, talks will be available to watch after the event on the Node. You can also sign up to our mailing list for email alerts.

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

“This really is a historical first, because it’s potentially the start of a new era where nobody has to die waiting for an organ transplant”

Dr Rohin Francis, cardiologist

In the latest episode of the Genetics Unzipped podcast, we’re delving into the seemingly science fiction world of xenotransplantation, that is, taking organs from animals and using them as organ transplants for humans. We chat with cardiologist Dr Rohin Francis about the groundbreaking operation this year transplanting a genetically modified pig heart into a human, and we chat with Professor Angelika Schnieke about how we can avoid getting more than we bargained for from pigs.

Genetics Unzipped is the podcast from The Genetics Society. Full transcript, links and references available online at GeneticsUnzipped.com.

Subscribe from Apple podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Head over to GeneticsUnzipped.com to catch up on our extensive back catalogue.

If you enjoy the show, please do rate and review on Apple podcasts and help to spread the word on social media. And you can always send feedback and suggestions for future episodes and guests to podcast@geneticsunzipped.com Follow us on Twitter – @geneticsunzip

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

Only a few days left to register for the EMBO workshop on time in development and evolution.

Barcelona, 29 Jun – 1 Jul 2022.

/www.embl.org/about/info/course-and-conference-office/events/tmd22-01/

Time is inherent to biological processes. It determines the order of events and the speed at which they take place. This is particularly obvious during embryonic development where the sequence and rate of events ensures that structures develop in the right place, at the right time. Modifying the developmental tempo can affect the final size and composition of tissues, as well as their plasticity and function. Comparisons between species reveals that although the order and underlying molecular mechanisms are often indistinguishable, the pace at which they advance can differ substantially. Hence comparison of biological processes between species is likely to provide insight into time-keeping mechanisms and how they change. Despite the centrality of these questions to embryo development, and evolution, it has remained an understudied topic. The workshop will foster dialogue between researchers from different fields to stimulate new ideas and catalyse the study of the genetic, molecular and cellular mechanisms controlling the tempo of embryonic development.

/www.embl.org/about/info/course-and-conference-office/events/tmd22-01/

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

Registration for attendance now extended until the 29^th of April!

The Young Embryologist Network conference 2022 (YEN 22) is the 14^th iteration of the network’s hugely successful yearly developmental biology meeting. This will be a hybrid conference hosted at the Francis Crick Institute and streamed over Zoom on Monday the 16^th of May 2022.

Our meetings provide an opportunity for early-career-stage developmental biologists to share their own research, network and engage with peers and pioneers in the field, with delegates attending from across the globe

We have a varied and exciting programme for YEN 22: Dr. Andrew Gillis (University of Cambridge) and Dr. Kate McDole (MRC LMB) will be delivering talks as two of our invited speakers. Furthermore, we have the pleasure of welcoming Prof. Elly Tanaka (Institute of Molecular Pathology, Vienna) to give the Sammy Lee memorial keynote address. Plus, PhD students and postdocs may submit abstracts for the chance to give a short talk or present a poster.

Moreover, we are immensely proud to be hosting our first “Scientific Perspectives: Working in Science with a Disability” talks at YEN 22. Disability is a tremendous barrier not only to entry, but also to the progression of a scientific career, and researchers with disabilities remain immensely underrepresented at every career stage. Our community could be much better equipped in helping ensure inclusion and equal opportunities for disabled scientists, and so we have invited Dr. Elisabeth Kugler (UCL), Prof. John Hutchinson (RVC) and Dr. Oscar Cazares (UCSF) to share their perspectives and experiences of working in science with a disability. We also have the pleasure of welcoming Dr. Cynthia Andoniadou (King’s College London), who will be delivering the summary address for these sessions.

Abstract submission is now closed but, due to ongoing demand, we have extended the attendance registration deadline to 11:59pm on the 29^th of April. 

You can register for this free event, and learn a little more about our organisation, via the link below:

http://www.youngembryologists.org/yen-2022/ 

You can also follow us on Twitter here:

Thanks again and we hope to see you all there! 

(8 votes)

Loading...

In our latest SciArt profile, we hear from Cirenia Arias Baldrich. Cirenia is a freelance illustrator, who has a background in plant physiology and stem cell bioinformatics.

Where are you originally from and what do you work on now?

I am from La Línea de La Concepción (Cádiz), but I lived in Seville for 16 years, where I studied biology and completed my PhD on Molecular Biology and Genetics. After that I moved on in my scientific career to Portugal and then to the UK, where I was rocking bioinformatics as a postdoctoral researcher in the Stem Cell Biology and Evolution Group (Dr Jordi Solana – Oxford Brookes University). Nowadays, I am based in Cádiz, Spain, working as a full time freelance illustrator, helping organisations and other scientists to communicate their work using the power of images.

Were you always going to be a scientist?

Not really, at least it was not clear in my mind. Though since I learned how to talk, I started asking questions, and replying with ‘but how/why?’ or ‘are you sure of that?’ to every answer. I also loved to decipher how things worked; opening electronic stuff to see its components, making tests, playing with computers – I was pretty curious! I also had other interests like arts, design, informatics, marketing, but I always loved to read the biology notes of my older sister, who is also a biologist. Like her, I decided to study biology. It was amazing to learn about genetics, cell biology, zoology, plant physiology, biochemistry, ecology, to better understand both the world around us and ourselves.

And what about art – have you always enjoyed it? 

Definitely. I can’t even remember when I started drawing, what I know is that I never stopped. Since I was a child, I never had enough colours, watercolours, crayons or markers (I still cannot go into an art supply store without going mad)! I loved trying new materials, trying to draw everything I saw, such as everyday objects, or the room where I was. I was always doodling, even in meetings, (I still do) and, funny fact, that is actually how my adventure as a professional illustrator started, taking graphic notes at scientific talks. I discovered that I could  join my three passions: science, art and communication, using illustration as a science communication service.

What or who are your most important artistic influences?

This is probably one of the toughest questions to answer, since I try to consume as much art/design as I can. From literally everywhere. I’m inspired by movie posters, records covers (I love vinyls), restaurant menus, street signs, street art, graphic novels, etc. However, there are some creators that had made a big impact on the way I see the profession of an illustrator. I really admire the work of many diverse artists like Cristopher Niemann, Malika Favre, Rachel Ignotofsky, Adolfo Arranz, the Etherington Brothers, Andy Riley, Agustina Guerrero, Andry Rasoahaingo (Dedouze), Tom Gauld, Raquel Córcoles (ModernaDePueblo) and many others (I could go on with a never-ending list).

How do you make your art?

Digital tools help me to deliver the work efficiently. It makes the reviewing process easier, and the final artwork can be directly shared in social media, websites, or used for printing or publication. Also, I love the infinite possibilities digital tools provide and learning new resources. Despite all this, I start every project sketching in paper. For my ideas to run wild, I like the feeling of a notebook and a pen, and once I have a plan, I move on to digital fun using both a digital tablet and the computer (depending on the project), hand-drawing apps, vector graphics software, or animation programmes.

Does your art influence your science at all, or are they separate worlds?

Art has always influenced my science: the way I communicate with my colleagues, planning lab strategies, preparing presentations, posters, figures, giving a chalk-talk, or even thinking about a project. I think creativity and science are completely inseparable. Nowadays, being a freelance illustrator,  science is my everyday ingredient in my art, since my job is helping to communicate science efficiently, to both expert and non-expert audiences, and my scientific background plays a key role in allowing me to do so. I also feel very motivated and enthusiastic about having an influence on the way other scientists approach the creation of visuals in their work. In this sense, I really enjoy training other researchers, and give them tips and tools so that they can make better illustrations and have fun instead of struggling!

What are you thinking of working on next?

One of the things I love the most of my job is how exciting it is to work on so many different things, thanks to the diversity of collaborators. In the next few months, I will be working on very cool projects ranging from awareness about vulture conservation, rare diseases,  digital gender gap, palaeoecology editorial illustration and producing several infographics, covering topics such as microbiology or climate change, among others. I would like to take advantage of this awesome spot to thank all the amazing people trusting me to help showcase their amazing work. Last but not least, big thanks to The Node for creating the SciArt profile series, it’s great to get to know other colleagues and I am very honoured to be part of it.

You can find Cirenia Arias Baldrich (aka CireniaSketches) on: Twitter @CireniaSketches Instagram @CireniaSketches Linkedin Cirenia Arias Baldrich

Thanks to Cirenia and all the other SciArtists we have featured so far. You can find the full list here. We’re always on the lookout for new people to feature in this series – whatever kind of art you do, from sculpture to embroidery to music to drawing, if you want to share it with the community just email thenode@biologists.com (nominations are also welcome!)

(8 votes)

Loading...

Read on for our news roundup of the past two weeks, with an emphasis on what has caught our eyes on twitter. We have also include a list of meetings with upcoming deadline, a selection of preLights and finish with our favourite April fools jokes .

Doing better as a community

There have been a few tweets in the last fortnight discussing some of the negative aspects of our research culture with a call to do better in the future. Lets make that happen!

Reviewing papers

Behaviour at meetings

Support for early-career researchers

Funding news

The impact of Brexit on British science continues with notification from the ERC that awardees will need to move to the EU to take up their grants. The UK government is guaranteeing the grants in the UK but details remain sketchy.

Upcoming registration and meeting deadline

It’s been exciting to see the return of in-person meetings including the joint BSCB and BSDB meeting in the UK (we’ll post our meeting report soon) and #Dros22 in the US. Check out the list below for meetings with upcoming deadline and check our events page for our full listing.

preLights in #devbio

In the spotlight: How human neural progenitors were caught red-handed

Will you be pun-ished for a funny title?

Quantifying the absolute RNA content of single cells is possible for existing data sets and biologically relevant.

If you are interested in science communication, would like to improve your writing skills and become part of the preLights community, don’t miss the open call for new preLighters.

Just for fun – our favourite April fools

If you would like to write for the Node, check out our recent list of writing ideas. If you would like to contribute to our ‘Developing news’ blog, please get in touch at thenode@biologists.com

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...