BSCB NewsletterAUTUMN 2010

BRITISH SOCIETY FOR CELL BIOLOGY

News | FeaturesBook reviews

Meetings

I must have sinned in a previous life becausesomehow I have just taken on two new roles: the firstis Faculty Graduate Dean of my Med School and thesecond is Editor of this newsletter. Multi-tasking hasnever been my forte, hence the ever patient GilesNewton, at the Wellcome Trust, who compiles thisNewsletter, received a stack of files from me onlydays before the agreed deadline. Thanks Giles foryour supreme efforts. Still, I think this job for me willbe fun and rewarding and I hope you enjoy readingon.

The Autumn 2010 Newsletter boasts a feature colourcentrefold article about CELLpics, which is aneducational website jointly run by David Archer at theBSCB and Matthew Gratian at the CambridgeInstitute for Medical Research (CIMR) and aimed at‘A’ level students and first year undergraduates. Asecond article highlights the new Sheffield RNAiScreening Facility that was officially opened earlierthis year. On page 6, you can read about what thiscommunal facility offers cell biologists in the UK. Iam sure you will agree that the cover image isstunning; it is the winning entry in the BSCB 2010Image Competition and is the work of Dan Webber

(Edinburgh/Cambridge). Read more about thiscompetition on page 5.

Along with a number of meeting reports from studentsand postdocs, Jay Stone introduces herself as ournew PhD representative. Jay has been a regularcontributor to the BSCB Newsletter and in this issueshe has written an advice piece to all PhD studentssuffering from low lab morale. Finally, in this section,there is a piece by one of our new Bristol PhDstudents on his thoughts after returning from his firstconference – the BSCB Spring meeting in Warwick. Itis not clear why student numbers at this meetinghave been down in recent years – read TomMacVicar’s article and be inspired to attend this keymeeting of the cell biology community in the UK.

Finally, I would like to encourage you to providenominations for committee members, and/orsuggestions for candidates worthy of the Hooke medal2012; or how about suggesting the topic of a futurefeature article or, better still, writing one yourself?

The Editor: Kate Nobes, University of Bristolcatherine.nobes@bristol.ac.uk

AUTUMN 2010

CON

TENTS

BSCB NewsletterNews 2Features 5Book Reviews 7Meeting Reports 9PhD Student Section 20Forthcoming Meetings 22Society Business 24

Editorial

The cover image is the winningentry in the BSCB 2010 ImageCompetition. Dan Webber’s imageshows neural precursor cells which,when exposed to the bonemorphogenetic protein BMP4,rapidly differentiate and produceastrocytes (stained with GFAP inred) from a central sphere. Dan is aresearch associate at the Universityof Edinburgh and is currently visitingscientist in the Anne McLarenLaboratory of Regenerative Medicinein the University of Cambridge. Youcan read more about the imagecompetition on page 5 of this issueof the newsletter.

Newsletter editor: Kate Nobes Production: Giles Newton Website: www.bscb.org Printer: Hobbs

1

News

It is with great pleasure that weannounce Alex Gould of theMRC National Institute forMedical Research as the winnerof the 2011 Hooke Medal. Alexwas a Beit and MRCPostdoctoral Fellow in thelaboratory of Robb Krumlauf atNIMR studying mammalian Hoxgene expression before settingup his own laboratory in 1998,also at NIMR, to work onDrosophila. Alex has madeimportant contributions to thefield of developmentalneurobiology; in particular, heand his group recently

discovered and dissected themolecular mechanisms involvedin regulating the timing of cellcycle exit in the Drosophilacentral nervous system, whichwas published in Cell in 2008.This work demonstrates thatthrough developmental time,progenitor cells transduce burstsof transcription factors intolong-lasting changes in cellproliferation and cell identity.Additionally, Alex’s highlyoriginal work on lipidmetabolism in Drosophila hasled to the demonstration thatDrosophila oenocyte cells

perform some functionsequivalent to those of themammalian liver. This workopens up a new avenue ofresearch on the relationshipbetween food intake and theregulation of lipid metabolismduring tissue growth. In 2005,Alex became a tenured GroupLeader at NIMR and three yearslater was elected to EMBOmembership. Alex will bepresented with his medal anddeliver his medal lecture at the2011 Spring Meeting at theUniversity of Kent, Canterbury.

The 2010 Hooke Medal wasawarded to Karim Labib at theBSCB Spring meeting inEdinburgh.

Karim started his scientificcareer as a PhD student withProfessor Sir Paul Nurse at theUniversity of Oxford. He thenspent a year as an EMBO fellowwith Professor Sergio Moreno atthe University of Salamanca inSpain, before completingperiods of postdoctoral researchwith Dr Stephen Kearsey inOxford and Dr John Diffley inLondon. Since 2001, Karim hasled the Cell Cycle Group at thePaterson Institute for CancerResearch in Manchester.

During his Medal talk, Karimdescribed some of the morerecent work from his laboratory

on the control of eukaryoticcytokinesis and the regulation ofDNA replication forks. Heillustrated the power of usingthe budding yeastSaccharomyces cerevisiae as amodel organism to unpick thegenetics, biochemistry and cellbiology of these processes andthen told us of a functionalgenomics screen to identify newcell cycle proteins. Theaudience was wowed by theelegance and beauty of theexperiments and the clarity withwhich Karim took us throughthese complex systems. It wasa memorable talk anddemonstrated to all that Karimwas a worthy recipient of theHooke Medal.

The BSCB invites nominationsfor the Hooke Medal 2012 from

any society member. If you wishto nominate anyone, please

contact the Secretary with abrief supporting statement.

Hooke Medal 2011 – Alex Gould

Hooke Medal 2010 presentation

NEW

S

2

Half price membership for new members in October 2010

Please encourage your new lab members and colleagues to join theBSCB; this should give them a great incentive to do so!

BSCB ScienceWriting Prize2011This autumn, the BSCB willagain be running its ScienceWriting Competition for BSCBmembers. The BSCB ScienceWriting Prize is open to allBSCB student and postdoctoralmembers – membership is arequirement for entry. Weparticularly will be looking forarticles that cover topics of keyrelevance in biomedical science.Articles need not be limited toresearch areas but you mightlike to try to communicate yourown project in a clear andconcise way to a non-specialistaudience. Other topics shouldbe relevant to cell biology in itsbroadest context; examplescould include the impact of

stem cell technology, a featureon an important diseasecondition, or a wider sciencepolicy issue such as governmentfunding of basic versustranslational science.

Articles should be limited to1000 words but can includeimages where relevant (thesewill be reproduced in black andwhite only in the newsletter).

The winner will receive a prizeof £300 and the winning entrywill be published in the BSCBnewsletter and online. We arevery pleased to announce thatshortlisted entries will be judgedby Tania Hershman, a formerscience journalist, and currentlywriter-in-residence in BristolUniversity’s Science Faculty.Tania's award-winning shortstories have been widelypublished in print and online,and a week of her flash fiction

was broadcast on BBC Radio 4in June 2010. Tania's websiteis www.taniahershman.com.

The deadline for entries is the16th December 2010. Entriesshould be sent to Paul Andrews(p.d.andrews@dundee.ac.uk)as electronic files (preferablyWord format with anyillustrations or images sent

separately as TIFF or JPG).

The winner of the 2010 BSCBScience Writing Prize wasSusan Turrell for her essay“Inducing Apoptosis-Countdown to Self-Destruction”. You can read the2010 winning entry on theBSCB website (www.bscb.org).

BSCB SummerStudentshipsThe BSCB Summer VacationStudentships offer financialsupport for high calibreundergraduate students to gainresearch experience in cellbiology during their summervacation. Our aim is toencourage students to considera post-graduate research careerin cell biology after theirundergraduate studies. Fulldetails will be available in theSpring so check www.bscb.orgfor information on applications.

Details1. Studentships will only beawarded for students who haveyet to complete their firstdegree, usually prior to theirfinal year of studies.

2. Awards comprise a studentstipend of £180 per week forup to 8 weeks plus consumablecosts of up to £500 to the hostlaboratory. The award will bemade via a supervisor andadministered by the hostinstitution.

3. Applications must be madeby the prospective supervisor onbehalf of a named student, and

must include the student's CVtogether with a reference fromtheir personal tutor (orequivalent). Undergraduatestudents are encouraged todevelop a project with the helpof the supervisor.

4. Supervisors must be a BSCBmember before, or on the dateof, the application. Only oneapplication may be submittedper supervisor. There are norestrictions concerning thenationality of the student, nordo they have to be a student ata UK university.

5. The deadline for applicationsfor summer 2011 is 31 April(see website at www.bscb.org).The application should includethe applicant’s name, contactdetails, host institution anddepartment, the student's CV, asupporting statement from thestudent’s academic tutor, andthe project title, with a briefdescription of the proposedresearch project in the contextof the research of the group.The research project must beon a topic in the broad area ofcell biology and must not formpart of the student’s normaldegree work. Projects will beassessed for objective,achievability and opportunity tothe student. Students are

encouraged to undertake aproject at an institution otherthan the one at which they arestudying.

6. Applications will be reviewedby a panel of members from theBSCB committee. Feedback onunsuccessful applications willnot be provided.

7. The successful applicantswill be required to submit ashort article describing theoutcome of the project for theBSCB Newsletter. To besubmitted within two months ofcompletion of the project.

2010 summerstudentshipsThe 2010 summer studentshipswere awarded to Neel Shah towork with Dr Justin Sturge(Imperial College London),Gayle Bishop to work with Prof.David Stephens (Bristol), MalekPetek to work with Dr DanielUngar (York), Anne Iltzsche towork with Prof. Philip Gordon-Weeks (King’s College London),Malgorzata Szajewska-Skuta towork with Dr Stefan Marciniak(University of Cambridge), AmyFergus to work with Prof.Philippa Saunders (MRC

Human Reproductive SciencesUnit, Edinburgh), Julia Oswaldto work with Prof. Andrea Brand(Gurdon Institute, Cambridge),Kiran Bansal to work with DrJuliet Coates (University ofBirmingham) and IoannisSarigiannidis to work with DrJohn Doonan (John InnesCentre, Norwich).

Congratulations to theseawardees; reports from thesestudents will be published inthe Spring 2011 issue of thisnewsletter.

BSCBcommittee Following a call for newmembers earlier this year, weare pleased to announce thatJean-Paul Vincent (MRC-NIMR), Steve Royle (Universityof Liverpool), and CarolineAustin (Newcastle University)will be joining the committeein 2011. The turnover ofmembership of the committeeis such that nominations arealways welcome and should besent to the Secretary, LizSmythe(e.smythe@sheffield.ac.uk).

NEW

S

3

NEW

S

I hope you all agree that thishas been a very good year forthe BSCB. As usual we wereinvolved in two meetings. InSeptember 2009, our sistersociety the British Society forDevelopmental Biology hostedthe 16th International Society ofDevelopmental Biology inEdinburgh. The BSCBsponsored Margaret Fuller asplenary speaker and oursecretary, Elizabeth Smythe, rana very successful session on"Asymmetry in Cells". Ourannual Spring Meeting in 2010was held in Warwick jointlywith the BSDB and had twomain themes "The Cell Biologyof Disease" and "10 Years onfrom Sequencing the HumanGenome". The BSCB organisersPaul Andrews and ElizabethFisher assembled a stellar lineup of international and nationalspeakers and all who attendedagreed that the quality of themeeting was first rate. As isusual, this was also anopportunity to present theHooke Medal and this year’srecipient was Karib Labib fromthe Paterson Institute inManchester. Karim wowed theaudience with his beautiful talkon chromosome replication andthe regulation of cytokinesis.The other award presented atthe meeting was the BSCBScience Writing Prize that wentto Susan Turrell, a PhD studentat the University of Leeds, forher essay "Inducing Apoptosis -Countdown to Self-Destruction".We are extremely grateful to the

journalist and presenterVivienne Parry for judging thecompetition.

In other areas BSCB hasincreased its activities on anumber of fronts. For thesecond year we have beensupporting a SummerStudentship scheme to allowundergraduates to gain valuablework experience in a researchlaboratory. I very pleased toreport that the success of thisscheme means that we will beincreasing the number ofstudentships available in 2010and you can read what thesestudents get up to in the BSCBNewsletter. Another innovationwas the launch of the BSCBImage Competition. Thewinners not only get a prize butalso get to see their beautifulimages on the BSCB newslettercover. Please send us yourfavourite images so that all theBSCB community can admirethem.

Aside from that, the BSCB hasgone political by stronglysupporting the Campaign forLibel Reform. If this is news toyou, please follow the links onour website to read more aboutthis very important issue thatimpacts on all scientists in theUK, and to add your own nameto the national petition. Wehave also been dragged up dodate, thanks to our very activePhD student representativeVeronika Ganeva, and now havea Facebook site.

As is traditional, I would nowlike to express my thanks to anumber of committee memberswho left this year – VeronikaGaneva, our wonderfullyenergetic and enthusiastic PhDrep and to Margarete Heck andVania Braga both of whom wereactive and valued colleagues.Vania's legacy will live on, as itis thanks to her that wemodernised our logo. Veryspecial thanks go to DavidStephens for the terrific job hehas done as newsletter editorfor the past 5 years and forbeing that most important ofthings – an enthusiastic andstaunch supporter of cellbiology in the UK. The goodnews is that a number of newcommittee members have beensigned up and are alreadyworking actively for the society,Jay Stone as the new PhD rep,Kate Nobes has taken over asnewsletter editor, PatrickHussey who, amongst otherthings, provides representationfor the plant cell biologycommunity and Grant Wheelerwho spans the cell anddevelopmental biologycommunities with his work onin vivo cell migration. We arealso very grateful to all theorganisations who generouslysponsor our activities, inparticular the Company ofBiologists, who generouslyunder-write our meetings andtravel awards.

I am optimistic that next yearthe BSCB will continue to

prosper. With the new ventureswe have launched we havetried to engage all ourmembership. But, we are alsoalways looking for new ideas,for your opinions and for yourinput. There are now a myriadof ways that you can do this.Enter a BSCB competition, haveyour say on Facebook, writesomething for the Newsletter,come to a BSCB meeting. Thisis my last report and so I wouldlike to take this opportunity tothank everyone involved in theBSCB during my 5 years asPresident. I know it is corny tosay but this truly has been anhonour and a privilege for me.What I am delighted to tell youis that the next BSCB Presidentis Jordan Raff. Many of you willknow Jordan and share in myconfidence that under hisPresidency the BSCB will gofrom strength to strength.

Clare M Isacke

4

President’s report, 20 June 2010

Schools News

CELLPICS AS CENTREFOLD

Those of us who have worked onCELLpics and softCELL over theyears feel very honoured thatCELLpics is the subject of the firstcolour centrefold of the BSCBNewsletter. We are particularlygrateful to the Committee of theBSCB and the Newsletterimmediate past Editor, DavidStephens, and the current EditorKate Nobes for making thisdecision.

For those new to the BSCB,CELLpics is a joint enterprisebetween the BSCB and theCambridge Institute for MedicalResearch (CIMR). The websitetakes a lot of computer space andtechnical time to create andcurate. Paul Luzio, Director of theCIMR kindly agreed to provide thisfacility and staff assistance. Theconcept and text are supplied bythe BSCB through David Archer,Schools Liaison Officer.

User statistics show that CELLpicsis now used by students in manycountries and we are proud that

CELLpics and softCELL have beenselected for inclusion in severaldiscriminating portal sites. Thesesites range from those for schooluse to those for university levelstudies. Please help publicise thisPublic Engagement aspect of thework of your Society.

DOES ‘A-LEVEL’ A* GRADE =‘THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX’?

As I write this note the first batchof ‘A-level’ results in the UK(except Scotland) with the extra A*grade are awaited with interest.

The A* grade has been introducedpartly in answer to universitiesvoicing concern that there wasvirtually no way that students whocould ‘think outside the box’, couldbe recognised within theexamination structure.

Ahead of the results,commentators are suggesting thatan award of an A* grade at ‘A-level’ will indicate whether thestudent attended a goodindependent school or a stateschool. I make no comment, weshall soon see!

David Archer

5

FEATURES

Cell biology would be nowhere without some photons todrench the otherwise dim and often lifeless specimens

that we so carefully produce. Thanks to some remarkabledevelopments in microscopes and staining tools, we cancapture these photons on the rebound and sit in awe andwonder at the hitherto invisible beauty found in nature. Butits now quite easy to prepare specimens, at least forconventional microscopy, so what makes an image anoutstanding image? Is it the biology underlying? Is it thetechnical prowess of the sample maker? Is it thecomposition or colour choice? Is it all these together? I thinkit is all or at least most of the above. It’s important toconsider the target audience for an image. A reviewer of apaper needs clarity and conventionality (RBG only or else),whereas the cover of a journal gives room for more artisticlicense. The extreme is making science images for the publicart space an experience I find fascinating and rewarding, butothers might run a mile from. What is true in all thesescenarios is that images have impact. It might be toillustrate a key scientific discovery in a paper or presentation,or as a hook to draw the public into a story. Learning whatis appealing or unappealing is as critical, in some sense, asthe ability to write clearly and in a way that suits the targetaudience.

So, why run a competition for images of cell biology? Isuppose we (the BSCB committee) wanted to encouragethe production of high quality images of biologicalscience and reward it, albeit in a modest financial way.We hoped to be able to publicise the good things theBSCB members do, through the images, so the winnerswill be able to see their lovingly formed work on theglossy cover of the newsletter. This is the first year of thecompetition, and after a slow start a good number ofentries popped into the inbox. Next year I hope we getmore. Entries were diverse in subject matter – fromArabidopsis root hairs to human neurons – all good andsome very high quality. I anonymised the entries andsent them for judging to a panel of highly trained crackjudges (a.k.a some willing committee members) whodelivered their verdict.

We are very pleased to announce our first prize winnerthis year is Dan Webber for his image Glial explosion.The image (above left), a favourite with all the judges, isa beautiful composition showing neural precursor cellswhich when exposed to the bone morphogenetic proteinBMP4 rapidly differentiate and produce astrocytes(stained with GFAP in red) from a central sphere. Dan isa research associate at the University of Edinburgh andis currently a visiting scientist in the Anne McLarenLaboratory of Regenerative Medicine in the University ofCambridge.

The second prize winner is Dr Helen Cooper White,from the School of Biosciences at the University ofCardiff, with her very ‘botanical’ image (centre) ofDrosophila spermatids. According to Helen “thespermatids remain connected to their sister cells untillate in differentiation. Actin-rich investment cones(coloured in green but labelled with FITC-phalliodin) startat the nuclei (coloured in magenta) and progress alongthe spermatids, eliminating excess cytoplasm from thespermatids, to result in streamlined individual sperm”.

The third prize winner is an image (right) from DrJuliet Coates from the School of Biosciences at TheUniversity of Birmingham, entitled Arabidopsis roothairs. In Juliet’s words “Root hairs (outlined in red) arelong thin cells that project from the main body of a plantroot (bottom right hand corner) to increase its surfacearea for nutrient- and water-uptake. In this picture, cellnuclei are marked in green using green fluorescentprotein”.

The winning images can be seen on the BSCBwebsite (www.bscb.org). Many thanks to all those thatentered and if you didn’t get selected this time, pleasestart collecting some images for next year.

Paul Andrews, University of Dundee

1st BSCB Image CompetitionWinners

There are two kinds of light – the glow that illuminates, andthe glare that obscures. James Thurber (1894–1961)

FEAT

URE

S

6

To celebrate its opening, the SRSF invited ProfessorScottie Robinson (Cambridge), Dr. Nic Tapon (London),

Dr. Barry Thompson (London), Dr. Stephanie Mohr(Harvard), Dr. Anthony Davies (Dublin) and Mr. ThomasHorn (Heidelberg) to participate in an opening symposium.Talks were also given by Dr. Martin Zeidler and Dr. StephenBrown to introduce the facility. The single day event,sponsored by industrial collaborators, was a success withexcellent vibrant talks, and 100 researchers participatingfrom all over the UK enjoying the grand settings of Firth Hall.During the day participants were offered a tour and ademonstration of how the facility works including the latestin high throughput technologies.

The SRSF is the first Drosophila RNAi genome widescreening facility publicly available for research groups touse in the UK. The facility offers the opportunity forgroups wishing to do RNA interference (RNAi)experiments to come and use the pre-arrayed librariesand the automated equipment, so that pipetting andlabour intensive result acquisition becomes less arduous.The RNAi libraries at the SRSF only work on Drosophilamelanogaster cell lines, but most assays can be scaledacross other model organisms. We currently havemammalian and yeast biologists, as well as Drosophilistsdeveloping screens in Drosophila cells.

How does the screening process work? Groupswanting to do a screen create all the clones used in theirexperiments, grow their cells and develop their assay intheir institute. When they have used our assaydevelopment plates and the assay has passed the test,set by our local management group, the screen is thenplaced in the queue. Advice is given on how to furtherrefine the assay and place the assay into a highthroughput screen. For more information see our webpage, where a more detailed picture of these events isprovided (www.rnai.group.shef.ac.uk).

The SRSF uses the HD2.0 non-off target effect library,which is one of the latest libraries to have beenproduced in order to reduce some of he unspecific geneknock-down effects that can occur during this type ofexperiment. Why do we use Drosophila cells? Drosophilacell culture is an ideal tool to use for genome widescreens, as the genome is smaller, and presents itselfwith less redundancy than its vertebrate counterparts.There is also no need for transfection to get the RNAiprobes into the cells, as the cells readily take up thedsRNAs without the adverse effects observed inmammalian cells. Drosophila RNAi libraries are built asdouble stranded RNA (dsRNA) and therefore the cost ofgenerating the library is much lower than for vertebratesiRNA screens, being able to produce dsRNA in the lab.Pricing and more information regarding the screening atthe SRSF can be found on the SRSF web page.

The SRSF offers the library and equipment so thatresearchers can come and screen using the facility andequipment to identify genes showing a response in the

assay they have developed prior to screening. There arecurrently 3 collections available for screening, includingthe whole genome, the kinases and the phosphatases,but researchers interested in other collections or pre-defined collections are invited to contact us, as wealways welcome customers and new projects. We alsooffer a service for clone selection from our library, andcan make novel dsRNA collections for customers, ie, hitsafter analysis can be selected for secondary screening.

Examples of the type of screen that can be done atour facility include microscope or plate reader basedassays. Using high content microscopy, screens can begrouped into cellular morphological changes, lowresolution and high-speed fluorescent "in cell westerns",and protein translocation assays. Whole genome RNAiscreens can also be developed for plate readers andassays measured with absorbance, fluorescence orluminescence. Plate reader assays are much more rapid,compared to the high content microscopy. Some supportis offered by staff at the facility during screening andonce the results have been acquired we can further helpwith analysis, for example, either using the statisticalpackage HTS2 run in 'R', or by developing algorithms forthe high content microscope using the proprietarysoftware ImageXpress and AcuityXpress.

If you are further interested in high throughput RNAiscreens at the SRSF or some of the technology oranalysis methods we use, please get in touch via e-mailto rnai@sheffield.ac.uk.

Stephen Brown

The Sheffield RNAi ScreeningFacility

The University of Sheffield RNAi Screening Facility (SRSF),funded by the Wellcome Trust, was opened on 17 March2010 by the University of Sheffield's Pro-Vice-Chancellorfor Research & Innovation, Professor Richard Jones (FRS).

SRSF Local ManagementTeamDr Martin ZeidlerProf Liz SmytheProf David StruttDr Alex Whitworth

SRSF ManagerDr Stephen Brown

7

BOO

K REVIEWS

Book ReviewsFirst there was Gray’s Anatomy, thenLewin’s Genes and Lewin’s Cells, andcoming soon…?LEWIN’S CELLS, SECOND EDITION; EDITORS: LYNNECASSIMERIS, VISHWANATHAN R LINGAPPA, GEORGE PLOPPER

BSCB MEMBERS CAN PURCHASE AT A 15% DISCOUNT PRICE

In the world of classical literature, first editions are much prized. Inscience, old first editions of tertiary level textbooks have little monetaryvalue. However, when a book first appears it is viewed with interest tosee what new approaches, including art-work and ‘add-ons’ are taken topresent knowledge to students eager to learn and hence buy the book.

Authors and publishers of modern science textbooks are particularlygood at ‘adding value’ in the form of study aids and additional material,on the Internet or on DVDs. Some study aids such as ‘Key Concepts’,‘Chapter Summaries’ or ‘Chapter outlines’ are good sign-posting aids,whilst others provide an interest beyond the book. In cell biology,‘translational medicine’ boxes are especially useful in showing studentsthat the applied side of the subject might help alleviate or cure disease.

Lewin’s Cells 2e has an interesting history. Some of its former life is tobe found in Genes VII [published by Oxford University Press] and GenesVIII [published by the Pearson Prentice Hall Group]. After Genes VIII,parts were removed and embodied later in the first edition of ‘Cells’.Genes IX [minus some cell biology] was published by Jones and BartlettPublishers who by this time had taken over Lewin’s titles including hisVirtual Text, Ergito website. Jones and Bartlett then published Cells 1e.The first edition had three other ‘Lead Editors’, in addition to BenjaminLewin and there were many guest authors employed as specialists intheir field to write appropriate sections.

Second editions of science textbooks are especially interesting. Asecond edition means that the first edition sold sufficiently well that thehard-headed publisher considers it is worth producing. And, rather likean up-dated model of car, the second edition will have ensured that thebook has been thoroughly ‘road tested’ by students and lecturers andmodified and updated accordingly.

Cells 2e, like its predecessor, has much to recommend it. There arenow three Lead Editors, Lynne Cassimeris, Vishwanath R Lingappa andGeorge Plopper; and they have made a good book even better. There arefour new chapters covering Bioenergetics and Cellular Metabolism, DNAStructure, Replication and Repair, Transcription, Translation and GeneRegulation, and Protein Structure and Function emphasising theimportance of these topics in current cell biology.

On dipping into various of the Chapters in this new book, I found lots

to make me feel this will be an outstandingteaching aid. For example, it was pleasing tosee ‘quorum sensing’ explained [Chapter 20,Prokaryotic Cell Biology], although it wouldbe even better to have seen it cross-referenced to Chapter 18, Principles of CellSignalling. But that is a minor complaint.New and welcome additions also include‘Medical Applications’ boxes and ‘Conceptand Reasoning Checks’.

A student website is available without theuse of fiddly passwords, although it will beinteresting to see whether it is kept updated.The website items include a good glossarybut looking up a word at the back of thebook seemed quicker! An Instructor’s CD-Rom [not inspected] is available andcontains an Image Bank, Power PointLecture Outlines, and a Test Bank.

Benjamin Lewin has now bowed out as aLead Editor of both Genes and Cells. He hashowever left his well earned name in thetitles ‘Lewin’s Genes’ and ‘Lewin’s Cells’. In‘Cells 2e’, it is good to see he is still co-authoring Chapter 1 [with LeadEditor Vishwanath Lingappa] and Chapter 10 [with Jocelyn E Krebs].

A writing style named ‘Massachusetts Declarative’ by Sydney Brenner,and said to have been developed by Jim Watson, was also used byLewin, the founder of the journal Cell, when he edited it. Lewin alsoused it in the many editions of Genes and happily, it is still evident inGenes X in the ‘Chapter Outlines’ and ‘Key Concept’ sections. In ‘Cells 2e’many of the ‘Key Concept’ sections are ‘Declarative’ but the text of the‘Chapter Outline’ is less so. Some argue that being declarative isdangerous – the body of knowledge may soon change. In my view, whilstscientists can never be 100% certain, prefacing everything with ‘ifs andbuts and maybe’, accepted as it is amongst colleagues, does not sit wellwith students and the general public. They prefer confidence today, evenif the knowledge base changes tomorrow.

There are many reasons why you should buy and recommend thisbook to students and your library, but for BSCB members here are twomore bonus points aside from the special deal price: first, the image usedfor the front cover was produced by BSCB Committee Webmaster, PaulAndrews, and a previous BSCB Secretary, Birgit Lane, wrote the excellentchapter on ‘Intermediate Filaments’ [Chapter 13].

David Archer, BSCB Schools Liaison Officer

Lewin’s Cells, SecondEdition Eds: L Cassimeris, VRLingappa, G PlopperPublisher: Jones andBartlett PublishersSpring 2010.ISBN: 978-0-7637-6664-1. Paperback.1053 PagesPrice: £44.99 BSCB members canpurchase at a 15%discount price, seeDeals for Memberson the BSCB website

The Immortal Life of HenriettaLacksREBECCA SKLOOT

I write this as a former user. I’ve spent hours sweating overthem, scraping them, poking them with a sharp needle,synchronizing them, transfecting them or pulverising them.Only to watch them in greys or green and red, oscillatingand quivering, wrenching and dividing, often dying. I’vepickled a few billion in my time: stained them multi-coloured, scrutinized them, photographed them andmeasured them. They grow fast and incredibly easily. Wecall them weeds, but these are HeLa cells and they haveserved me well. I, like countless others, have learnedmuch from these cancerous critters.

So last September when I read the email from agraduate assistant working for an unknown US academic

by the name of Rebecca Skloot (Google soon revealed heras a blogger too no less), asking for permission to use oneof my HeLa cell images in a forthcoming book, I wasinterested, flattered, intrigued and I agreed. I “donated” it inexchange for a copy of the book, not wanting to takemoney from the author’s personal pocket – that would beexploitation, the significance of which becomes apparentlater. The book was about the life and death of HenriettaLacks and the cancer cells she begat unknowingly to theworld of science over half a century ago, which – in someshape or form – are still growing to this day around theglobe. The book recently appears to have caught theimagination of the public, in a way I would not havepredicted. The author and the book have appeared in themedia around the planet: watch out for Hello! The HeLaEdition! But the story she tells is so far from the AmericanDream: it’s one of poverty, of unmarked graves, of an sickunderclass with no access to health care, a lost, forgottenand exploited population. It’s not clear whether this story

8

BOO

K RE

VIEW

S has a happy ending at all. I’m sure most people now know the basic story.

Henrietta, a vivacious black woman from a tobacco-pickingVirginian family who tried to escape the terrible poverty,married her cousin, moved to Baltimore to have a largefamily, nothing particularly unusual there. It was 1951, andat a mere 31 years old, she died in a “coloured” ward inJohns Hopkins Hospital. People did. She died after aprotracted illness, from an aggressive and unusual cervicalcancer that spread and ultimately consumed her, not beforea biopsy was removed and placed in an experimentalcocktail that the scientists hoped would allow the cells tomultiply. Most similar attempts using other patient’ssamples had failed, but Henrietta cells were different. Theyflourished beyond the wildest expectations of theresearchers. So much so that as soon as you could sayexploitation they were being shipped around the world andprofits made. As the press release from Johns Hopkinsearlier this year confirms, of course these were differenttimes and the consent law surrounding patient material isnow always adhered to.

The book describes the author’s persistent attempts tobreak through the Lackses self-protective barriers,constructed after the family realized, in the 1970s, theextent of HeLa use and then had a futile struggle to getrecognition. It details not only these battles, but also thosethe family have had with illness and poverty in theintervening years – a sorry tale indeed. But it isn’t all doomand gloom: the section where the family meets theenthusiastic and honest Christoph Lengauer, a well-knowncancer researcher, is encouraging and heart-warming.Clearly HeLa cells were a breakthrough with their unusualpropensity for self-reliant growth. They have enabled arange of problems in science to be examined, from theapplied (growing virus for vaccination) to the basic(mechanisms underlying cell division), but maybe theirimpact on cancer research per se is over-estimated. HeLasare weird cells that have no doubt morphed into myriadnew daughters-of-HeLa since it was first plucked frominside poor Henrietta Lacks. So they have their place in

history but can they help us understand the complexity ofreal cancer cell behaviour?

Overall the book is a fascinating and largely entertainingread, despite being something of a crusade to right aperceived great injustice. For me it’s a little too journalisticand, not surprisingly as a British reader, jarringly Americanin phraseology - but once you have “gotten over” thataspect the author does engage you with her doggedenthusiasm and quite a heavy dose of bravery in trying toturn round the opinions of a broken and embitteredextended family. You genuinely feel the passion she has totell the human-interest story and give due credit toHenrietta’s unknowing contribution to biological research.Skloot perhaps gets too close, too intimately attached tothe family – in a worrying way she is infected with theweird and wonderful other-worldly superstitions ofHenrietta’s daughter Deborah – but her interpretations ofthe historical descriptions of Henrietta’s life and ultimatelyher death are at once evocative and quite moving. Like alot of “creative non-fiction” some details are too heavily laidon, and you don’t know to what extent it paints an accuratepicture of the life of the Lackses in the distant past or eventhe present. Skloot herself could be criticized for weavingherself into the tapestry of the story too much, becomingalmost a principal character in the drama, but HeLa andHenrietta’s legacy has been her personal obsession for overa decade, so who can blame her. The nine pages ofindulgent acknowledgements are revealing. Parenthetically,I couldn’t help being a little miffed by the lack of thanks forthe three image contributors – made even worse by arequest by the publisher recently to use my image in thepress releases associated with the major book tour. Butthat, on reflection, is beautiful irony. As a former user, nowin the other ethical hot bed of embryonic stem cellresearch, I wish the Lacks family well. I hope the HenriettaLack Scholarship Fund, which is due to receive a “portion”of the profits from the book, does some good for the peoplewho need it most.

Paul Andrews, Drug Discovery Unit, University of Dundee.

The Immortal Life ofHenrietta LacksBy Rebecca Skloot (Crown/RandomHouse)

Cell BiologyG. KARP

As with previous editions of the popular textbook ‘CellBiology’, this latest version aims to bridge the gap betweenscientific principle and experimentation, whilst appealing tostudents taking an introductory course in cell biology. Theauthor achieves this by exploring and discussing theexperimental approach and techniques used to determinethe relevant biological concepts. Moreover, Karp tries to linkkey biological findings to human disease and treatment; inparticular, the inclusion of information boxes dedicated tohuman perspectives serves to further aid students in thisprocess. Another key feature of the text is the inclusion ofnumerous detailed, clear schematics, further facilitating theexplanation of the biological mechanisms in question.Furthermore, these schematics are often supplemented byimages and tables in the text or by movies that can beviewed online.

The content throughout the text is clearly presented in18 well-structured sections. The first 17 chapters cover keyprinciples of cell biology, from basic cell properties to morecomplex topics, such as cell signaling and immune cellactivity. Additionally, the chapter structure contains reviewsections to continually assess subject understanding, andconcludes with a synopsis containing the key points as wellas a list of useful references of relatively current literaturefor more detailed further study if required. Particularlynoteworthy though is the final chapter, which concentrates

on ‘Methods in Cell Biology’. This chapter not only explainsthe fundamentals of molecular techniques and the use ofspecific pieces of laboratory equipment, but applies thebasic science of previous chapters to explain currentexperimental techniques.

In comparison to the 5th edition, the text has beencompletely updated to include more information on recentadvances, such as RNA silencing and fluorescence imaging.Furthermore, many of the diagrams have been re-worked,updated or completely replaced by new schematics. Ingeneral, these changes have resulted in a text that is clearlywritten, with a logical progression of the themes throughouteach chapter. The author also achieves a good balancebetween text and diagrams; the chapters do not appear tobe overladen with text, but do offer relativelycomprehensive detail on topics of increasing complexity.However, a minority of the schematics, especially in laterchapters, could be considered too complicated for this levelof study.

Thus, ‘Cell Biology’ is a good quality textbook, which isideal for students in their earlier years at university whowould benefit from the clear explanation and presentationthat this text provides. The inclusion of some experimentaldata also makes it an excellent base for students to startperusing the scientific literature themselves, and moreoverwould also be beneficial as a starting point for scientistsdelving into new areas of this subject.

Kiri Tan and Philippa Tucker, Department of Biology andBiochemistry, University of Bath

Cell BiologyG. Karp, 6th Ed. InternationalStudent Version.Singapore: John Wileyand Sons.

9

MEETIN

G REPO

RTS

The meeting attracted a plethora of scientists from around the globe,and although the meetings previous incarnations had initiallyattracted a small community of yeast biologists it now has expandedto include other fungal models, as well as catching the attention ofbiologists using higher eukaryotic models. This was demonstratedcomprehensively by the opening speaker, Guido Kroemer (INSERM,France) who is one of the most cited and most accomplishedresearchers working in the field of programmed cell death (PCD) andautophagy. His fascinating talk on the evolution of PCD from lowereukaryotes, through the altered utilisation of stress responsemechanisms in killing individuals, to the benefit of a microbialpopulation, and leading to the already established modes ofapoptosis in higher eukaryotes was educational and entertaining.Moreover, he touched upon the emerging concepts in the PCD field,such as the importance of mitochondria and their role in facilitating acontrolled way in which to destroy individual cells. He also stressedthe importance of model systems such as yeasts in the study ofPCD, that are contributing to both our understanding of themechanisms governing apoptosis in higher organisms, as well asadding insight to the evolutionarily conserved components of PCD.

The first few sessions of the meeting focused on cell deathpathways in various yeast models. Bing Zhou (Tsinghua University,Beijing, China), spoke about his groups work in identifying genesinvolved in copper induced cell death in S. cerevisiae. PatrickRockenfeller (University of Graz, Austria) then presented his work onlipid induced cell death in yeast. This has particular interest aslipotoxicity has a major part in problems generated by obesity in thedeveloped world. Manuela Corte-Real (University of Minho, Braga,Portugal) delivered a fine example of expression of human proteinswithin a yeast system. Her group has expressed Bax and PKC inyeast and she presented data that PKC can modulate both Baxtranslocation to the mitochondria and cell death. Reiko Ikeda (MeijiPharmaceutical University, Tokyo, Japan) presented work thathighlights another reason why cell death pathways are studied inyeast, which was with regards to examining microbial interactionsand outcomes. Reiko presented data on how Staphylococcus aureusattachment on the surface of Cryptococcus neoformans can induce aform of PCD via the mitochondria.

The next cell death pathway sessions focused on various inherent

yeast PCD mechanisms. Paula Ludovico (University of Minho, Braga,Portugal) presented her data on how the S. cerevisiaeGlyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) and aconitaseare degradation targets of the yeast metacaspase Yca1p, which islikely to connect the disruption of metabolic pathways to the overallPCD process. This theme was further expanded by SergioGianattasio (CNR, Bari, Italy), as he spoke about the overallmolecular mechanisms involved in acetic acid induced PCD in S. cerevisiae and how his data suggests that there are two divergentPCD pathways, one Yca1p dependent and one independent.Continuing with the PCD pathways theme, Christina Mazzoni(University of Rome, La Sapienza, Italy) presented her groups dataon regulatory mRNA degradation and how disruption of thedegradation mechanism components can affect the health of cellsand lead to premature ageing and PCD. A notable observation byChristina was that many of the proteins in these pathways areconserved up to humans. Maria Joao Sousa (University of Minho,Braga, Portugal) talked about her work on ammonium induced celldeath in S. cerevisiae, and how this work is important for modelingPCD caused by hyperammonemia, a condition that occurs in varioushuman disorders.

Whilst still focusing on yeast, Ying Ying Cao (Second MilitaryMedical University, Shanghai, China) managed to mix it up a little bypresenting her data on the C. albicans PCD pathway and specificallythe metacaspase homologue CaMCA1p and how it modulates celldeath under conditions of oxidative stress.

In the next few sessions the talks were focused on the relationshipbetween cellular ageing and death, and how this is modeled invarious fungi. Michael Breitenbach (University of Salzburg, Austria)presented his groups work on characterizing a newly identifiedsuperoxide-generating NADPH oxidase. Nox1, as they named it,appears to localize in the ER. Next up, Valter Longo (University ofSouthern California, LA, USA) proceeded to talk about his work onsch9, the yeast homologue of the human Akt and S6K proto-oncogenes, and how it promotes age dependent DNA damage andgenomic instability through superoxide damage. The ratherinteresting properties of spermidine in aging cells were presented byTobias Eisenberg (University of Graz, Austria) who pointed out thatapplication of the aforementioned polyamine to aging cells promotes

7th International Meeting on YeastApoptosis (IMYA) 9–13 September 2009. Graz, Austria

Meeting Reports

Aside from the wonderful city of Graz exceeding all expectations,the series of talks on fungal programmed cell death at the 2009IMYA strongly reaffirmed the field as one with significantpotential. { }

autophagy and suppresses oxidative stress by protecting certaingenes from strong deacetylation and allowing their transcription.Genomic stability was the theme of the next talk as well, as BillBurhans (Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, USA) delved into the effectsof oxidative and replication stress in yeast chronological agingmodels and how they are induced by various cellular growth signalssuch as pH and high glucose. Heinz Osiewacz (J.W.GoetheUniversity, Frankfurt, Germany) showed that the aging models arenot just restricted to yeast by presenting his work on the filamentousfungi Podospora anserina. His research in elucidating the pathwaysinvolved in PCD on this well characterized organism, has establishedthis as a good system in which to study age related PCD. HaraldKlinger (University of Salzburg, Austria) focused his talk on a novelanti-apoptotic protein in yeast, Mmi1p, which is a homologue ofhuman TCTP and has been shown to translocate to mitochondriaunder certain stress conditions.

Following on with the aging and cell death sessions, Alena Pichova(Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic) provided someinteresting insights into the mechanisms behind the spontaneousreversions causing suppression of the oncogenic/aging phenotypeseen in yeast mutants expressing the ras2val19 allele. The role ofgenes skn1 and ipt1 in autophagy and apoptosis, was the point ofdiscussion for Karin Thevissen`s (University of Leuven, Leuven,Belgium) talk, in which she described how the aforementionedgenes, which have a putative role in sphingolipid biosynthesis,modulate autophagy and exhibit increased levels of apoptosis. Thefinal talk in this series of age and cell death themed talks was byZdena Palkova (Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic), whichwas a fascinating and rare insight into yeast colony development,and more specifically how cells within a solid medium colony requiredifferent responses to oxidative stress from cells grown in liquidphase medium.

The next session had as a theme the quirky title of “neuroticyeast”, which mainly included work on yeast that might provide anunderstanding of, and relates to, neurodegenerative diseases. JorisWinderickx (University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium) gave animpressive presentation on the efforts of his group to use yeast inorder to model the early stages in the development of human Tauprotein aggregations, which are important indicators of severalneurodegenerative diseases including Parkinson’s. Very notable wasthe fact that this work has produced a lot of positive results andpromises to generate commercial applications for the early diagnosisof such neurodegenerative diseases. Following this, Ralf Braun(University of Graz, Austria) presented his work on expressing humanTdp-43 protein in aged or stressed yeast. Ralf showed that understress conditions Tdp-43 aggregates leading to growth impairment ofthe yeast. On a similar note, albeit an entirely different platform,Marija Cvijovic (Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg,Sweden) presented the mathematicians approach to modeling proteinaggregation accumulation and the rate of their retention by yeastmother cells. However the theoretical modeling was backed up bysome practical work where she proved that dysfunctional proteins areretained by mother cells so as to benefit the growing daughter cellsand subsequent populations.

The next session, which included my talk, was themed SignalTransduction and was kicked off by my supervisor Campbell Gourlay(Kent Fungal Group, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK) with his talkon actin’s role in regulating the Ras/cAMP/PKA signaling pathwayand cell death. Campbell`s work has revealed that actin mutationscan affect Ras which ultimately affects mitochondrial function,leading to the production of harmful Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS).Sonia Colombo (University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy) alsotouched upon Ras, and presented her work on generating a GreenFluorescent Protein (GFP) probe specific for active Ras, whichcombines the human Raf1-binding domain with GFP. This impressiveprobe is great for observing the localization of active Ras in real time,and in fact I have been lucky enough to use this in my work as well.My presentation (Vassilios Kotiadis, University of Kent) was in this

session too, and for it I presented my data on the effect functionalresidue mutations on the surface of the actin binding protein cofilinhave on mitochondrial function, leading to altered respiration ratesand levels of ROS depending on the mutations.

On the last day of the conference there were still several veryinteresting talks by some very accomplished scientists. This wasevident as the day`s events in the humanizes yeast models sessionwere kicked off by Marie Hardwick (Johns Hopkins University,Baltimore, USA) who delivered a great talk where she presented theresults of an impressive screen her lab has undertaken oncharacterizing the Yeast Knockout collection strains (~5000 strains)with regards to conditions relating to mammalian programmed celldeath. From this she revealed how a large number of mutantsexhibited a similar phenotype, which was eventually put down to asecondary mutation in the nutrient sensing related whi2 gene. Thismight initially sound like trouble for other researchers in similarsituations that may have wrongly characterized phenotypes asderiving from certain genes; however, Marie explained how suchmutations are also common in mammalian cancerous systems andthus indicating that yeast models can be used as models inunderstanding cancer. The next talk was equally impressive, andRichard Zhao (University of Maryland School of Medicine, USA)presented his work on developing a model system of testing HIVprotease inhibitors in S. pombe cells. This rather ingenious and novelmethod for screening anti-retroviral drugs holds the potential toprovide serious advancement in the deployment of medication in thisfield, and combat situations where multidrug resistance of HIV-proteases hampers efforts to alleviate the onset of AIDS. Anotherinteresting example of humanizing yeast models was presented byRenata Santos (Institut Jacques Monod, France), with her workfocusing on studying the mitochondrial protein Frataxin whosedeficiency in yeast cells leads to similar phenotypes as in human cellsystems.

The concluding session of the conference was about inducers ofapoptosis and oxidative stress in yeast. Zhaojie Zhang (University ofWyoming, USA) had some rather interesting findings in his talkabout cell cycle regulation and apoptosis. His groups work hasgenerated data suggesting that certain cell cycle regulating factors inS. cerevisiae, like anaphase promoting complex (APC), can in factlead to the initiation of a programmed cell death cascade when thecell cycle is disrupted. Following up Ida van der Klei (University ofGroningen, The Netherlands) presented work on a different yeastmodel system, Hanensula polymorpha, whose enhanced peroxisomesmake them ideal organisms to study these organelles. Ana Kitanovic(University of Heidelberg, Germany) presented an impressive array ofdata generated by an automated system she has developed forobserving changes in growth rate and maximal biomass yield in yeaststrains grown with varying culture conditions and apoptotic stimuli.What is rather important about such work is the vast amount ofdetailed data that can be generated with minimum effort with theuse of such systems. Last but not least, Fedor Severin (Moscow StateUniversity, Russia) had some interesting observations deriving fromhis work on ROS production and DNA damage. He suggested thatthe ROS release that is observed in yeast cells subsequent toinduced DNA damage is actually initially a signal for DNA repair andcell defense mechanisms.

The meeting was now over, but I didn’t leave the occasion emptyhanded. Apart from the immense deposit of information to myknowledge bank, the organizers were successful in making mine, andI strongly believe the rest of the attendees’ time in their lovely city ofGraz massively entertaining. A prime example of combining theexchange of information between fellow scientists, with the finerpleasures in life.

Vassilios Kotiadis, University of Kent

MEE

TIN

G R

EPO

RTS

10

The Biophysical Society meeting is one of the most importantannual conferences in the biological and medical sciences field.This year, the 54th annual meeting took place in San Francisco andwas hosted at the Moscone Convention Center. { }

The conference included 21 symposia, 3 mini symposia, 62 platformsessions, 5 workshops and 4 poster sessions with more than 3500presentations. It provided a wide range of topics, including:bioenergetics, membrane biophysics, membrane structure andassembly, biological fluorescence, intrinsically disordered proteins,exocytosis & endocytosis and permeation and transport. Because ofthe large number of lectures and platforms, we have focused thisreport only on the talks which were important for our research – thestructural and functional studies of Ion Channels.

On the first day of the meeting, one of the talks which receivedsignificant attention was presented by Dr Daniel Minor (University ofCalifornia, San Francisco). He presented his work on structuralstudies of voltage-gated potassium channels using integratedbiophysical approaches, including new screening methods for probingthe functions of biological molecules and for developing novel agentsto control channel activity. On the second day, Dr Gregory Voth(University of Utah, Salt Lake City) presented a model of protontransport through channels using multi-scale computer simulationmethodology. He developed this model based on the uniqueelectrostatics involved in channel proton transport and its effect onselectivity properties. The development of new techniques to studychannel activity and interactions is a common purpose that interestsdifferent experts in biophysics. A new approach to understanding therole and the behaviour of membrane channels was presented by Dr.Sophie Aimon (Institut Curie, Paris, France) during the MembraneProtein Functions platform. She has developed a method to producegiant uni-lamellar vesicles (GUVs) containing KvAP, a bacterialvoltage-gated potassium channel. Using this model system, theeffects of the physical parameters of the membrane on channelbehaviour can be assessed together with a detailed functionalcharacterization of the ion channel. On the fourth day, substantialattention was paid to the TRP (transient receptor potential) channels,

which are involved in calcium signalling and homeostasis in everycell type. The multimodal gating and the activation mechanisms ofthese channels are poorly understood. In her talk, Dr RachelleGaudet (Harvard University, Cambridge, USA) described the uniquesensitivity of TRPV channels which are the key receptors involved inpain, thermosensation, mechanosensation and calcium homeostasis.Her results show that the N-terminal ankyrin repeat domain ofTRPV1, TRPV2 and TRPV4 binds to nucleotides and calmodulin andmodulates channel sensitivity to heat and capsaicin.

And for an ‘Ion Channels’ group like ours, what could be betterthan listening to the Nobel Prize in Chemistry Dr RoderickMacKinnon (Rockefeller University, New York), and Dr FranciscoBezanilla (University of Chicago, Chicago) presenting theircontrasting ideas on the mechanisms of electromechanical couplingin voltage-gated ion channels? This was the final lecture of theconference and one of the most popular as evident from the over-crowded conference room.

This meeting was the very first conference that we have attendedsince starting our PhDs and it gave us a great opportunity to presentour data and receive interesting feedback from the leaders in ourfield. We both presented posters during the ‘Ryanodine Receptor I’session. We didn’t stop talking through our results to all the comersand we really enjoyed the positive and challenging atmosphere thatsent us back to Bristol University with plenty of new experimentalideas.

These key meetings are crucial; they provide the opportunity tointeract with other scientists, to develop new ideas and to keepabreast of the newest and most exciting research.

Elisa Venturi and Elena GalfreSchool of Physiology and Pharmacology, University of Bristol

The 54th Annual Meeting of the Biophysical Society20–24 February 2010. San Francisco, USA

MEETIN

G REPO

RTS

11

Keystone Symposia on ‘Cilia, Signaling andHuman Disease’21–26 February, 2010. Monterey, California, USA

Eukaryotic cilia are microtubule projections from cells involved inmultiple processes, ranging from motility to sensory perception. Inrecent years many studies have shown a direct link betweenmutations in genes encoding ciliary-proteins and human diseases.Over 300 scientists gathered together for the first KeystoneSymposia on Cilia, Signaling and Human Disease to discuss recentresearch into ciliary development in the light of disease.

{ }Organised by Tim Stearns (Stanford University, USA) and PeterJackson (Genentech Inc., USA) the meeting acted as a forumfocusing on how signalling is organised within cilia including the cellbiology and molecular genetics of diseases caused by defects in cilia(ciliopathies), and the biology of ciliated tissues including morphogenpathways, tissue repair and links to cell cycle or tumour suppressorcontrol.

The meeting was opened with an excellent morning concentratingon the cell biology of cilia and intraflagellar transport, and includedhighlights such as electron-micrographs of intraflagellar transport inChlamydomonas by Joel Rosenbaum (Yale University, USA), thekinesin motors which drive this transport in C. elegans by JonathanScholey (University of California, Davis, USA) and the exciting role ofGEF proteins and the Rab cascade in the primary cilium membrane.George B. Whitman (University of Massachusetts Medical School,USA) described the importance of the ciliopathy linked Bardet-BiedlSyndrome proteins in Chlamydomonas phototaxis, while GregoryPazour (also of University of Massachusetts Medical School, USA)demonstrated ciliary targeting domains and complexes with the keyprotein IFT20.

This morning session was then followed by an extendedopportunity to view the posters to be discussed after the evening’splenary. The evening’s plenary session focused on the group ofciliopathies Bardet-Bield Syndrome, Alstrom Syndrome and ObesitySyndrome, which can share mutations in the same gene networks.This was followed by the first poster session discussion. Theexcellent arrangement of having already viewed the posters allowedeveryone to have longer talks with the authors and encouraged groupdiscussion - which included discussion of more than one posterwhere the research overlapped.

The second day began in a similar manner, with an excellentmorning session focusing on morphogen pathways and cilia. Theafternoon then provided a similar focus to Day 1, with an extendedopportunity to view poster session two. The evening plenary sessionthen featured an insightful talk by Kathryn V. Anderson (MemorialSloan-Kettering Cancer Center, USA), on hedgehog signalling inmouse cilia, and was followed by discussions on the second postersession.

The third day took on the topic of sensory events in cilia and howdefects in cilia affect kidney development, resulting in cysts andcystic diseases. A wide range of disorders and species were covered,from C. elegans by Jeremy F. Reiter (University of California, SanFrancisco, USA) to the complex protein networks ofNephronophthisis-like ciliopathies being elucidated by Peter K.Jackson (Genentech, Inc., USA).

The final day involved a morning plenary session on the cell cycle,tumour suppressors and cancer, while the afternoon allowed forworkshops involving many short talks on wide-ranging subjects. Theevening aptly focused on the evolution of cilia along with an elegantsummary of the proceedings by Nicholas Katsanis (John HopkinsSchool of Medicine, USA).

Overall, the conference was a major success, with excellent qualityof talks, exceptional organisation, and friendly atmosphere conduciveto discussion on current research. I would like to thank the BSCB fortheir generous award of the Honor Fell Travel grant, which allowedme to attend this very useful meeting.

Matthew HodgesDept. Pathology, Plant Sciences, & ZoologyUniversity of Oxford

MEE

TIN

G R

EPO

RTS

12

17

Keystone Symposia: Lymphocyte Activationand Gene Expression27 February – 4 March 2010. Breckenridge, Colorado, USA

At 3km above sea level, the historic town of Breckenridge playedhost to this year’s ‘Lymphocyte Activation and Gene Expression’Keystone Symposium. This meeting brought together over 200scientists to Colorado’s oldest town, which was founded in 1859.{ }

Organised by Leslie Berg (University of Massachusetts MedicalCentre, USA), Lawrence Samelson (NIH, USA) and Facundo Batista(London Research Institute, UK) this meeting covered a diverse rangeof topics within the field while still exploring the basic questions,which continue to be enigmatic. These included how antigenreceptors initiate the activation process, how changes in downstreamsignalling pathways and the cytoskeleton are effected by lymphocyteactivation and how chromatin remodelling and transcriptionalregulation determine gene expression.

The meeting commenced on Saturday evening with the keynoteaddress from Professor MarkDavis (Stanford University, USA)who, along with StephenHedrick, was the first to identifythe cDNA clone encoding the Tcell receptor chain in 1984.This was followed by a socialhour which provided us all witha chance to acclimatise to thehigh altitude of Breckenridge!

The first session the followingday focused on the initiation ofantigen receptor signalling andPhillip Anton van der Merwe(University of Oxford) discussedthe controversial topic of T cellreceptor (TCR) triggering. This isthe mechanism by which theinteraction between the TCR andthe antigen presenting cell (APC)leads to increasedphosphorylation of the CD3subunits of the TCR. Threemodels for TCR triggering existand they either involveaggregation, conformationalchange, or segregation of theTCR. The Van der Merwe lab focuses on the latter, this kineticsegregation model describes a situation where a ‘close-contact zone’is created between the TCR and APC which is a region of stablephosphorylation. This region surrounding the TCR/CD3 is enrichedwith kinases such as Lck, but because of their larger respectiveectodomains, phosphatases such as CD45 are excluded from thisclose contact zone creating an environment which favoursphosphorylation events. The group is now interested in the

mechanism of triggering in natural killer (NK) cells.In the second plenary section which focused on the cell biology of

lymphocyte activation, Gillian Griffiths (Cambridge Institute forMedical Research) focused on a different population of T cells, thecytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs). She described how CTLs releaselytic granules containing perforin and granzymes to destroy targetscells. She described a huge reorganisation of the cytoskeleton andthe secretory machinery which occurs upon the ligation of the CTLreceptor and APC. This leads to the microtubule network becomingpolarized towards the interface between the TCR and APC, the

immunological synapse (IS), causing the lytic granules to migratealong the microtubules towards the centrosome where they dock atthe plasma membrane and release their contents. She describedhow her group monitored IS formation and polarization of thecentrosome and lytic granules in OT-I mice, which are transgenic fora TCR that recognizes the ovalbumin peptide. By substituting theOVA257-264 peptide for the altered peptide ligand G4 which has alower affinity for the OT-I receptor, they monitored target cell death.

MEETIN

G REPO

RTS

Since the first international NGF meeting held in 1986 in Monterey,California, this series has continued nearly every 2-3 years indifferent countries. This year’s conference, in Helsinki, attracted160 scientists from all over the world to present and discuss theirrecent findings.

Lamberto Maffei (Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy) was thekeynote speaker and gave an overview of his research in recovering

adult visual brain functions after monocular deprivation. His groupshowed that environmental enrichment promotes vision recovery ofadult amblyopic animals and that these animals also showincreased expression of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) inthe visual cortex, revealing the fact that BDNF is one of the crucialfactors that underlie environmental enrichment effects on primaryvisual cortex maturation.

The 10th international conference on Nerve Growth Factor (NGF),and related neurotrophic factors, took place at the RantapuistoConference Hotel in a beautiful setting outside of Helsinki.{ }

Overall they found that both strong and weak signals can causepolarisation towards the IS, but a higher threshold of signalling isneeded for the migration of the lytic granules and target cell killing,this Professor Griffiths termed a ‘two-tier system’.

One of many talks which I enjoyed was given by MatthewKrummel (University of California, USA) who demonstrated themovement of single T cells in a short movie. He described twomodes of T cell movement the first he termed ‘walking’ and thesecond ‘sliding’. Krummel explained how the regulation of MyosinIIAin T cells affects the cell/surface contact zone which leads to thesetwo distinct types of movement. The movie demonstrated howmicrochannels were used in vitro to study the 3D motility of T cells,the microchannels differed in size and the degree of constrictioninfluenced the speed in which the T cells migrated down thechannel.

This conference highlighted the continued development of thelymphocyte signalling field through the application of novel imagingtechniques; one such technique mentioned by many was totalinternal reflection fluorescence (TIRF) microscopy. TIRF microscopyis ideally suited for studying protein dynamics on or in closeproximity to the plasma membrane because only fluorophores withinapproximately 100nm of the specimen/interface are excited. FacundoBatista (London Research Institute) visualised single components ofthe B cell receptor (BCR) by using dual-view TIRF microscopy. Hislab tracked single particles of the BCR together with components ofthe cytoskeleton in B cells and showed that BCR diffusion isrestricted in actin rich regions and that the membrane-cytoskeletonlinker protein ezrin regulated BCR diffusion. Dr Batista thendescribed how disrupting the cytoskeleton by targeting actin withcytochalasin B was sufficient to induce BCR signalling as if the BCRitself was stimulated. Together the data presented implicates theactin cytoskeleton in regulating BCR dynamics.

With three sessions at this meeting dedicated to the downstream

pathways of antigen receptor signalling, there was an emphasis onthe importance of understanding the basic signalling in immunecells. To untangle these pathways many researchers described theiruse of mouse models, but Arthur Weiss (University of California,USA) described a novel ‘chemical-genetic’ approach to elucidateaspects of signalling. ZAP-70 is a tyrosine kinase and a key playerin initiating signalling from the TCR following engagement to an APC.Unsurprisingly ZAP-70 deficiency has been linked to many diseaseswhich affect the immune system and is therefore a therapeutictarget. But so far successful pharmological inhibitors thatspecifically target ZAP-70 have yet to be designed, which led ArthurWeiss and his group to develop a ZAP-70 inhibitor system. Hedescribed how most kinase inhibitors, such as PP1 target ATPbinding, so they took advantage of this by mutating the bulky ‘gate-keeper’ residue which lies in the ATP binding pocket of ZAP-70 to asmaller residue. Therefore by using a larger analog of an inhibitorsuch as PP1, they created an analog-sensitive mutant, ZAP-70AS,which has a binding pocket large enough to accommodate thisinhibitor. Downstream signalling was effected in cells expressing theZAP-70AS when the PP1 inhibitor was added allowing the temporalrequirements for the kinase activity of Zap-70 to be monitored.

I hope this provides a flavour of all the high quality talks that Iwas lucky enough to hear and I have not even touched upon themany posters I saw which gave graduate students such as myself anopportunity to discuss our research with the ‘Gods’ of our field.Some great science combined with some great snow made thisconference truly memorable. I am grateful to the University ofNottingham’s Graduate School and to the BSCB for the Honor FellTravel Award which enabled me to attend this conference.

Fiona HeyInstitute of Genetics, University of Nottingham

NGF 2010, ‘Neurotrophic factors in healthand disease’27 February – 4 March 2010. Breckenridge, Colorado, USA

MEE

TIN

G R

EPO

RTS

18

Enrico Tongiorgi (University ofTrieste, Italy) gave an interestingtalk about the complex situationof BDNF transcript traffickinginto dendrites. BDNF is encodedby multiple transcripts, whichare produced by alternativesplicing of nine different 5’UTRexons and two different 3’UTRexons. He showed data whichpropose a new model in whichthe dendritic trafficking of thetranscript is mediated by threedifferent kinds of signal: first,the 5’UTR exons contain theinformation for the transcriptselectivity, with transcriptspossessing exon 2 or 3 gettingtransported upon stimulation,while transcripts with exon 1 or4 stay in the soma; second, thecoding sequence contains aconstitutively active dendritictargeting signal that issuppressed in transcriptscontaining the 5’UTR exons 1 or4; and third, the two different3’UTR exons contain inducibletargeting signals with the short3’UTR transcript transported todendrites after Neurotrophin 3stimulation, while dendritictargeting of the long 3’UTRtranscript is induced by BDNF.

The second day of the conference started with a talk from mysupervisor Antonella Riccio (MRC Laboratory for Molecular CellBiology, London) who presented work from our lab regardingepigenetic mechanisms during neuronal development. BDNF triggersS-nitrosylation of histone deacetylase 2 (HDAC2) in neurons, whichpromotes the release of HDAC2 from chromatin and therewithincreases histone acetylation of neurotrophin-dependent genepromoters and activates transcription of genes associated withneuronal development. New findings in the lab suggest that HDAC2is associated with the nucleosome remodeling and histonedeacetylase complex (NuRD) in neurons and that there is adevelopmental switch of the complexes’ subunits, allowing adifferential transcriptional regulation during neuronal development.

In the following session, Liliana Minichiello (University ofEdinburgh) addressed the role of NGF and its receptor TrkA in thelate onset of Alzheimer’s disease. Brains of AD patients show adecreased TrkA expression and a deregulated NGF expression. Bygenerating and comparing a TrkA knockout and NGF knockoutmouse model, Liliana showed that they both have a 40% loss incholinergic neurons, but only the TrkA knockout mouse shows ADsigns, such as impaired visual object recognition, increased β-Secretase expression and Aβ fragmentation within 20 months ofage. She concludes that this difference is probably due to effects ofpro-NGF and p75 in these mouse models.

On the third day, Freda Miller (The Hospital for Sick Children,Toronto, Canada) presented data showing that axon degeneration ofadult axons occurs through a p75 neurotrophin receptor (p75NTR)-and myelin-dependent mechanism. Myelin contains several growth-inhibitory molecules including Nogo. To mediate the inhibitorygrowth signaling, the Nogo receptor needs p75NTR as a co-receptor. Freda Miller showed that the downstream signaling ofmyelin and p75NTR involves the c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK),

resulting in caspase-3 activation in cell bodies and caspase-6activation in axons and therewith introducing axonal degeneration.

The last talk I would like to mention was by Marco Canossa(University of Bologna, Italy) about a role of p75NTR in axon anddendrite specification. His data showed that p75NTR isasymmetrically expressed in one neurite in the first 72 hours afterplating of hippocampal neurons and that this correlates with theneurites’ axonal identity. He further showed that BDNF promotesthe expression of p75NTR in one specific neurite and that there is adirect association between p75NTR and the Par3 complex uponBDNF stimulation.

I presented a poster on the post-transcriptional regulation ofmRNA targeting and stability in sympathetic neuron axons. At thebeginning of my PhD project, I conducted a genome-wide analysisof transcripts localized to axons versus cell bodies in neurotrophin-stimulated neurons. The analysis has revealed that there arehundreds of transcripts specifically targeted to axons and thatNeurotrophin 3- stimulated axons contain more RNA than axonsstimulated with NGF. We propose that the different neurotrophinstimulations could result in different untranslated region (UTRs)expression, containing different signals and therefore enablingdistinct regulation of transcript targeting and stability followingneurotrophin stimulation. I had interesting feedback and discussionsduring the poster session and overall enjoyed the meeting with itsgreat talks a lot.

I would like to thank the BSCB for the Honor Fell Travel Awardthat enabled me to attend this important meeting.

Carola ZimmermannMRC Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology

MEETIN

G REPO

RTS

19

20

Now don’t get me wrong, I lovescience and I am enjoying myproject, but over an average weekin the lab I estimate I spend 30%of my time worrying I’ve done myexperiments wrong, 15% thinkingthey were fine but somehow Ihave analysed the resultsincorrectly, 25% consumed withthe idea that I’m not workinghard enough, 20% stipulatingwhat I could have done betterand 10% hungry because I havemissed lunch yet again. In fact,all too often I am woken by theunwelcome tones of my morningalarm and wish I could stay in adream world where all scientificdilemmas and futile experimentsare a million miles away!

If you find yourself sharingthese characteristics, don’t worry,you and I are not alone, in factfar from it! After speaking to myfellow PhD students, surroundingpost docs and many lab heads, Ihave come to realise thateveryone suffers from the perils of

the transient ups and downs ofacademic research. So what canwe do to help ourselves and eachother get through these dips inlab morale? How can we work toturn those frowns upside down?

Different approaches appear towork for different people so I amgoing to attempt to list a few triedand tested methods that havebeen recommended either to mepersonally, or I have been toldabout during my research, intomaterial for this article. I hopethat a few or at least one of thesesuggestions will help you.

(1) Talk things throughSometimes the ‘old fashioned’

methods really are the best. Ifsomething about your work isgetting you down, or somethingabout a personal situation isaffecting your work find someoneto talk to about it. You might findjust venting it all helps immenselyor even that your confidant hassome useful protocol, technical or

life changing suggestions.Obviously it is important in thisscenerio that you don’t simplydump all of your emotionalbaggage onto your lab mate andthen toddle off as light as afeather leaving them feelingdeflated and emotionallydowntrodden, but the ‘talkingthings through’ concept can workboth ways - so you have to beprepared to lend a compassionateear in return for your fuming time!

(2) Improve your workingenvironment

Are those curtains looking a bitdrab? Is the floor so sticky youmight lose a shoe? Is that shadeof prison grey paint getting youdown? It may sound simple, butwhere you work can haveimplications for how you feelwhile working. Now I’m notsuggesting everyone should runout to Homebase and buy somewallpaper and begin your ownversion of Changing Rooms but

maybe try brightening up theplace with some posters, funnyphotos of everyone in the lab oreven some pot plants?

I have a cartoon drawing that afriend and I had done in NewYork last year. It hangs on thewall in the office so when I amfeeling miserable it serves as anice reminder that my infectedcell culture lines are not the endof the world!

(3) Work as a teamIn my opinion, being part of a

lab group should be much likebeing part of a sports team. Youare all working towards the samegoal of answering questions andpublishing papers so you shouldall feel each others’ highs andlows. If someone is doing welland has their paper published,why not go out as a lab for a biteto eat or drinks to celebrate? Inmy lab, whenever someonepublishes we have champagneand then label the bottle with the

Some of you may be aware thatVeronika Ganeva has nowstepped down as the BSCBstudent representative. She did afantastic job and I would like tothank her for her help in makingme feel comfortable taking on theposition myself.

So let me introduce myself: myname is Jay. I am a second yearPhD student at the UCL Instituteof Ophthalmology, working onretinal vascular remodelling andangiogenesis. I have becomesomewhat of a regular contributorto the BSCB newsletter, writingarticles that cover student relatedissues since Autumn 2008.

I have a keen interest inscience communication and

believe that as scientists it is vitalfor us to be able to explain ourwork to everyone no matter whattheir level of subject knowledge.

I will be taking on the duties oforganising student workshops,symposia and social evenings atthe BSCB conferences. I will alsobe attending the agenda meetingswith the BSCB committee.

I feel that my job as yourstudent representative is to behere to listen to you and to helpyou if I can. Over a third of BSCBmembers are students / earlycareer researchers so if you haveany issues you think should beraised in a committee meeting orideas for how the BSCB shoulddeal with student memberships

then let me know. Similarly, ifyou’re keen to help organise astudent evening/event at a BSCBconference then drop me a line. Ifyou are passionate aboutsomething and want to write,blog or find some other way toexpress your views upon it thenget in touch and I will try to helpyou directly or at least give youresources to find someone elsewho can. I really think being apart of such a large society likethe BSCB could open up so manydoors and present endlessopportunites if you are willing tothrow yourself into it so let meknow if you are!

I would also like to invite youall to join the BSCB Facebook

group where you can post yourideas, comments and discussiontopics for everyone to see and getin on. Currently we have 129members, lets see if we canreach 500 by the end of the year!

Hello from your BSCB PhD representative!Jay Stone

Getting that Red Bull EffectJay Stone

PHD

STU

DEN

T SE

CTIO

N

21

PHD

STUD

ENT SECTIO

N

persons name, the journal andthe date to keep as a reminder oftheir hard work paying off.Alternatively if someone is nothaving a great time and has hadtheir paper scooped or problemswith getting a protocol to work,why not do something fun as alab to take their mind off it all.Building a team-like feeling withinthe group should mean everyonefeels better supported. When theyexperience the inevitable lowsthey know someone has theirback and understands.

One lab in my building hasmade some game cards of eachother giving a geek rating andkiller protocol skills; some of youmay think ‘no way’ but it seemsfun to me!

(4) Ask for feedbackI think almost everyone has a

tendancy to measure themselvesby their latest successes orfailures; we could produce somefantastic work one week andthink we are flying high but thenrun into problems the followingweek and sink into thinking weare rubbish at our job. With suchdelicate self-esteem maybe we

should make sure we get positivereinforcement when things arenot going to plan?

I have friends who work in ITcompanies and retail stores: theytell me they have regular reviewmeetings with their managerswhere they set goals, are toldwhat they are doing right andwhat they could improve on. Thissounds like a useful tool to ensureeveryone knows where they standall the time, whatever theircurrent work situation. Try askingyour supervisor or post-doc forregular reviews so you can knowwhere the goalposts are and canfeel assurred that they are happywith your progression.

(5) Have a lifeWorking in research is anything

but a 9-5 job; sometimes puttingin those extra hours is neededand weekends are useful for spillover experiments. However, try tokeep some time for yourself – it isso easy to become immersed inyour work and then realise youhave not actually seen any of theoutside world except the treesand bushes along the bus routebetween your house and the lab.

Some people can work this way,but most of the people I havespoken to said if they were feelingdown about their work, buryingthemselves in it seems to makethings a thousand times worse.Instead, take a step back, have abreather, do something funwhatever that might be for youand then come back to your workwith renewed energy andenthusiasm to address theproblems.

(6) Let off steamHave your westerns suddenly

stopped working? Is yourimmunostaining showing adifferent localisation? Are yournegative control PCR reactionsshowing a product band? Theseare all little problems but if theyall happen in the same week itcan leave you feeling incrediblyfrustrated can’t it? Well thatneeds to be dealt with because ifit isn’t you might find youapproach your other experimentshalf heartedly as you’ll assumethey wont work either and this isjust a waste of time. Whenasking people how they let offthis accumulative work stress I

received a whole range ofsuggestions. Some I expected like‘I go to the gym and do a kickboxing glass’ or ‘I bash the hellout of my drum kit’ others not soexpected such as ‘I tenderisechicken’ or ‘I like to rearrange myfurniture’ andothers…well…whatever works foryou I guess! ‘I like to dress up’and ‘I find alphabetising my DVDcollection is good for me’.

These suggestions are commonsense but maybe it is good to bereminded that there is no need tothink you have to hide yourfrustration and plod along in thefutile hope that things will sortthemselves out.

To me science is not just a job,it’s not just a career, it seems tobe more of a personal vocation.We care about our work and arepassionate in pursuing newknowledge. After you havecompleted your PhD you will stillhave the rest of your scientificcareer ahead of you. Make sureyou know what techniques workfor you so you can continue tolove research and not end upburning yourself out.

Somewhat naively, I had alwayspictured myself jetting off toscientific conferences on distanttropical islands with golden sandsand fast-flowing cocktails.However, the flip-flops andsurfboard stayed at home as wemade the short journey to theUniversity of Warwick for theBSCB/BSDB Joint SpringMeeting. Whilst there may havebeen some mutterings about thecold from international guests, forthe most part the rain stayedaway and the only blight on anotherwise enjoyable stay wasdown to a volcano in Iceland…

Having just embarked on myPhD with no presentation orposter to boot, it was easy toblend into the background of theevent. Nevertheless, over the fourdays it became clear whyattending these meetings is

invaluable for those of us withour feet on the first step of theladder. Perhaps most valuable forstudents like myself were theseveral poster sessions thatallowed discussion on peerresearch in a relaxed, informalenvironment. With well over ahundred posters on show, youcouldn’t help but get a good ideafor what makes a decent posterand how it should be presented.Plus, unsurprisingly the modernphenomenon of networkingbecomes a lot easier with a beerin both hands. Of course, inaddition to the poster sessions,the main focus of the conferencewas the talks presented in themain theatre and cinema of theWarwick Arts Centre. The benefitsof listening to internationallyrenowned scientists sharing theirlatest research are obvious but I

was particularly impressed by thehigh standard of presentationsgiven by post-grads and medicalstudents who presented andreceived questions with acontagious enthusiasm. Also,from a purely selfish point ofview, it was pleasantly surprisingto find that even the mostapparently irrelevant of talks withrespect to my own research couldoften offer various insightfulexperimental ideas.

Another pleasant surprise wasjust how fun it all was. We werewell fed (often stuffed) frombreakfast to dinner and a dailysupply of tea, coffee and cakes,dished out timely kicks up thebackside. Come the evenings, acouple of pints in the Dirty Duckput paid to any fatigue and onthe last night we were treated tothe conference dinner which was

to be the scene of numerouscrimes against dancing. Thatsaid, there were many flashes offlair (and knickers) in thetraditional Ceilidh dance beforeinevitably the night descendedinto congas and knee-creakinglimbos. There were even reportsabout a well stocked, highaltitude après party…

Heading home with bags full offreebies and sore heads all-round,there was no doubt that a lot hadbeen gained from attending theconference. Its good to feel partof a community with commongoals. Taking part instils a senseof optimism, enthusiasm and thattiny bit of healthycompetitiveness. I’m nowthoroughly looking forward to mynext conference where, fingerscrossed, I’ll be presenting mydata on the beach!

My First ConferenceTom MacVicar

22

FORT

HCO

MIN

G M

EETI

NG

S BSCB / BSDB Joint Spring MeetingUniversity of Kent, 27–30 April 2011.

The Joint Spring Meeting of the BSCB and BSDB is to take place inCanterbury between the 27th and 30th April 2011. The meetingpromises to be an exciting blend of cell and developmental biologywith a bit of something to tempt everyone.

The main theme running through the meeting is Understanding CellBiology and Behaviour at the Cellular and Organismal Level.

The scientific organisers for the BSCB are Richard Grose (QMUL)and Martin Lowe (Manchester), and the organisers for the BSDB areChristopher Thompson (Manchester) and Juan Couso (Sussex).

The opening plenary lecture will be given by Professor GrahamWarren (Vienna). As always, at this flagship meeting, the speakerline up is excellent and the sessions include: Forms and functions ofcilia and flagella; Pathogens and membrane traffic; Cell signalling;Cell adhesion and migration; Inflammatory cell biology; Mechanismsof Gene Regulation; The Genome and Disease; Interactions ofSignalling Pathways and Macromolecular Complexes, Organelles andTrafficking.

There will be a call for abstracts to present short talks that will beinterspersed between invited speakers and, of course, plenty ofposter slots to fill. Following the success of the lunchtime workshopsin previous years, these will be repeated - expect updates on thecontent of these closer to the time. Our Postgrad and Postdoc repswill undoubtedly be organising some social activities.

It promises to be a fantastic meeting, less than an hour from LondonSt Pancras on the High Speed 1 rail link and on the newly renovatedUKC campus overlooking the historic city of Canterbury. We lookforward to welcoming all of you there in April.

Details on speakers, venue, bookings and so on can be found byvisiting the website (www.bscb.org).

Richard Grose, Scientific Co-organiser

2011 BSCB Programme Outline

27th Wednesday

Evening Plenary Lecture: Graham Warren (Vienna)

28th Thursday

AM: Cell adhesion & migrationMartin Humphries (Manchester)Frank Gertler (Boston)Johanna Ivaska (Turku)Gareth Jones (London) Plus 2-3 short talks selected from abstracts

PM: Form and functions of cilia and flagella:Philippe Bastin (Paris)Joseph Gleeson (San Diego)Lotte B Pedersen (Copenhagen)Gregory Pazour (Worcester, MA)Plus 2-3 short talks selected from abstracts

29th Friday

AM: Inflammatory cell biologyWendy Havran (San Diego)Paul Martin (Bristol)Karin de Visser (Amsterdam) Fran Balkwill (London)Plus 2-3 short talks selected from abstracts

PM: Pathogens and membrane trafficMark Marsh (London)Tom Wileman (Norwich)Gisou van der Goot (Lausanne)Craig Roy (New Haven)Plus 2-3 short talks selected from abstracts

30th Saturday

AM: Cell signalling Sabine Werner (Zurich)Owen Sansom (Manchester)Bart van Haesebroeck (London)Gian-Paulo Dotto (Lausanne)Plus 2-3 short talks selected from abstracts

FORTH

COM

ING

MEETIN

GS

23

BSCB Calendar of Meetings

BSCB Meetings 2011

Joint BSCB / BSDB SpringMeeting 27-30 April 2011University of Kent, CanterburyOrganizing committee for BSCB:Martin Lowe, Richard Grose,Juan Pablo Couso, ChrisThompson

Current planned sessions:

BSCB: Cilia and flagella,Pathogens and traffic,Inflammation, Celladhesion & migration, Cellsignalling

BSDB: Robustness in signallingand development,Developmentalplasticity and evolution,Integrative approaches todevelopment, Celldynamics and morphogenesis,Understanding humandevelopment and disease

BSCB Autumn meeting2011Cell Biology of ProteinDegradation Pathways’11-13 September 2011Greenbank Conference Park,LiverpoolOrganising committee: MichaelClague, Sharon Tooze, SylvieUrbé

Check www.bscb.org for fulldetails

Related Meetings

2010

11-12 November mTOR signalling in health anddiseaseLondon, UKwww.biochemistry.org

15-18 NovemberEMBO Workshop: RNA controlof Cell DynamicsKibbutz Ein Gedi, Israelwww.embo.org

21-26 November ESF-EMBO Symposium:Molecular perspectives onprotein-protein interactionsSant Feliu de Guixols, Spainwww.embo.org

3 DecemberActin 2010Bristol, UKwww.bristol.ac.uk/biochemistry/actin2010/

11-15 DecemberASCB 50th Annual MeetingPhiladelphia, USAwww.ascb.org/

2011

5-7 JanuaryBiochemical Society AnnualSymposium: Recent advances inmembrane biochemistryCambridge, UKwww.biochemistry.org

14-17 FebruaryTherapeutic Approaches toNeurodegeneration - AgeModifiers, Proteostasis, andStem CellsBahamaswww.abcam.com

17-20 MarchEMBO/EMBL Symposia: Seeingis Believing – Imaging theProcesses of LifeHeidelberg, Germanywww.embo.org

30 March-1 AprilCellular Cytoskeletal MotorProteinsHinxton, Cambridge, UKwww.biochemistry.org/conferences

14 April 2011Non-coding RNA, EpigeneticMemory, and the EnvironmentLondon, UKwww.abcam.com

7-11 May EMBO Workshop: Cell biologyof the neuronHeraklion, Greecewww.embo.org

31 May-1 JuneNew Frontiers in Persistent PainParis, Francewww.abcam.com

13-15 OctoberEMBO/EMBL Symposia:Structure and Dynamics ofProtein NetworksHeidelberg, Germanywww.embo.org

Committee Members 2010

PresidentProfessor Clare IsackeBreakthrough Breast CancerResearch CentreInstitute of Cancer Research237 Fulham RoadLondon SW3 6JBTel: +44 (0) 20 7153 5510Fax: +44 (0) 20 7153 5340Email: clare.isacke@icr.ac.uk

SecretaryProfessor Elizabeth SmytheDepartment of BiomedicalSciences,University of Sheffield,Western Bank,Sheffield S10 2TNTel: 0114 2224635Email: e.smythe@sheffield.ac.uk

TreasurerProfessor Adrian HarwoodCardiff School of Biosciences Biomedical BuildingMuseum AvenueCardiff CF10 3USTel: +44 (0)29 879358Fax: +44 (0)29 20 8 Email: HarwoodAJ@cf.ac.uk

Meetings SecretaryDr Andrew McAinshCentre for Mechanochemical CellBiologyWarwick Medical SchoolThe University of WarwickCoventry, CV4 7ALTel: +44(0) 2476 151167Email:andrew@mechanochemistry.org

Membership SecretaryProfessor Dan CutlerMRC Laboratory for MolecularCell BiologyUniversity College LondonGower StreetLondonWC1E 6BTTel: 020 7679 7806Email: d.cutler@ucl.ac.uk

Newsletter editorDr Kate NobesSchool of Biochemistry,Medical Sciences Building, University Walk,Bristol BS8 1TD Tel: 0117 331 2229Email:Catherine.nobes@bristol.ac.uk(to whom material should be

sent – see guidelines forcontributors)

Website CoordinatorDr. Paul. D. Andrews Stem Cell TechnologiesProgramme Drug Discovery UnitDivision of Biological Chemistryand Drug DiscoveryJames Black Centre College of Life SciencesUniversity of DundeeDundee DD1 5EHTel: +44 (0)1382 386 453 Email:paul@lifesci.dundee.ac.uk

Sponsorship secretary Dr Richard GroseCentre for Tumour BiologyInstitute of Cancer and the CR-UK Clinical CentreBarts and The London School ofMedicine and DentistryGround Floor, John Vane ScienceCentreCharterhouse SquareLondon EC1M 6BQTel +44 (0)207 014 0415Email: r.p.grose@qmul.ac.uk

Honor Fell/COB Travel AwardSecretary Dr Ewald HettemaDept of Molecular Biology andBiotechnologyUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldTel: +44 ( 0)114 222 273Email:e.hettema@sheffield.ac.uk

Committee members

Dr Buzz BaumMRC Laboratory of MolecularCell BiologyUniversity College LondonTel: +44 (0)20 7679 3040Email: b.baum@ucl.ac.uk

Professor Iain HaganDepartment of Biochemistry andApplied Molecular Biology University of Manchester, andCell Division Group Paterson Institute for CancerResearchChristie HospitalWilmslow RoadWithingtonManchester, M20 4BXEmail: ihagan@picr.man.ac.uk

Professor Patrick HusseySchool of Biological andBiomedical SciencesDurham UniversityEmail: p.j.hussey@durham.ac.uk

Dr Sean MunroMRC Laboratory of MolecularBiologyHills RoadCambridge CB2 2QHTelephone: (01223) 402236E-mail: sean@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk

Dr Sylvie Urbé,Department of Physiology,University of Liverpool,LiverpoolTel: 0151 794 5432Email: urbe@liv.ac.uk

Dr Grant WheelerSchool of Biological SciencesThe University of East AngliaNorwichNR4 7TJEmail: grant.wheeler@uea.ac.uk

Non-elected (co-opted)members

PhD student repJay StoneUCL Institute of Ophthalmology11-43 Bath StreetLondonEmail: j.stone@ucl.ac.uk

Postdoc repVacant position

BSCB assistant Margaret ClementsBSCB Assistant The Company of Biologists Ltd.140 Cowley RoadCambridge CB4 0DLEmail bscb@biologists.com

Schools Liaison OfficerDavid Archer43 Lindsay Gardens,St.Andrews, Fife, KY16 8XD Email: d.archer@talktalk.net

BSCB COM

MITTEE

25

The British Society for Cell BiologyStatement of Financial Activities for the year to 31 December 2008

2008 2007Unrestricted Restricted Total Total

£ £ £ £Incoming ResourcesIncoming resources from generating funds:

Voluntary income 30,000 27,500 57,500 50,000Incoming resources from charitable activities:

Meetings 48,023 – 48,023 9,235Subscriptions 20,084 – 20,084 28,679

Investment income:Bank interest 6,547 – 6,547 10,765

Other incoming resources 2,461 – 2,461 900Total incoming resources 107,115 27,500 134,615 99,579

Resources ExpendedCharitable Activities:Grants payable:

Honor Fell travel awards 5,907 27,869 33,776 27,899Studentship 11,590 – 11,590 –Costs of meetings 66,556 – 66,556 21,079Newsletter costs 5,450 – 5,450 5,794Website expenses 2,180 – 2,180 5,943Governance costs 57,462 – 7,462 4,950Bad Debt 900 – 900 –Total resources expended 100,045 27,869 127,914 65,665

Net movement in funds for the year 7,070 (369) 6,701 33,914

Reconciliation of funds

Funds brought forward at 1 January 218,026 369 218,395 184,481

Funds carried forward at 31 December 225,096 – 225,096 218,395

BSCB

FIN

ANCI

AL A

CTIV

ITIE

S

26

BSCB Ambassadors 2010

City/ Institute Ambassador Contact

Aberdeen Anne Donaldson a.d.donaldson@abdn.ac.ukAston University Eustace Johnson w.e.johnson@aston.ac.ukBath Paul Whitley bssprw@bath.ac.ukBelfast James Murray j.t.murray@qub.ac.ukBirmingham John Heath, Feydor Berditchevski J.K.HEATH@bham.ac.uk, f.berditchevski@bham.ac.ukBradford Jason Gill j.gill1@Bradford.ac.ukBrighton John Armstrong j.armstrong@sussex.ac.ukBristol Harry Mellor H.Mellor@bristol.ac.ukBrunel Joanna Bridger Joanna.Bridger@brunel.ac.ukCambridge Jon Pines, Scottie Robinson jp103@cam.ac.uk, msr12@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk

Simon Cook, Gillian Griffiths simon.cook@bbsrc.ac.uk, gg305@cam.ac.ukCanterbury Martin Carden, Dan Mulvihill m.j.carden@ukc.ac.uk, d.p.mulvihill@kent.ac.ukCardiff Morris Hallet, Adrian Harwood hallettmb@cf.ac.uk, HarwoodAJ@cf.ac.ukClare Hall Simon Boulton simon.boulton@cancer.org.ukDundee Angus Lamond, Inke Nathke a.i.lamond@dundee.ac.uk, i.s.nathke@dundee.ac.ukDurham Roy Quinlan r.a.quinlan@durham.ac.ukEdinburgh Bill Earnshaw, Ian Chambers Bill.Earnshaw@ed.ac.uk, ichambers@ed.ac.uk

Margarete Heck, Wendy Bickmore margarete.heck@ed.ac.uk, W.Bickmore@hgu.mrc.ac.ukGlasgow Nia Bryant, Karen Vousden n.bryant@bio.gla.ac.uk, k.vousden@beatson.gla.ac.ukHull Klaus Ersfeld k.ersfeld@hull.ac.ukICR Clare Isacke clare.isacke@icr.ac.ukImperial Vania Braga, Mandy Fisher v.braga@ic.ac.uk, amanda.fisher@csc.mrc.ac.ukKings/Guys Simon Hughes s.hughes@kcl.ac.ukLeeds Michelle Peckham m.peckham@leeds.ac.ukLeicester Andrew Fry amf5@leicester.ac.ukLIF Giampietro Schiavo giampietro.schiavo@cancer.org.ukLiverpool Daimark Bennett, Sylvie Urbe daimark.bennett@liv.ac.uk, urbe@liv.ac.ukLudwig Anne Ridley anne.ridley@kcl.ac.ukManchester Charles Streuli, Iain Hagan charles.streuli@man.ac.uk, IHagan@PICR.man.ac.uk

Viki Allan Viki.Allan@manchester.ac.ukMarie Curie Andrew McAinsh A.McAinsh@mcri.ac.ukNewcastle Michael Whittaker michael.whitaker@newcastle.ac.ukNIMR Peter Rosenthal, Jean-Paul Vincent prosent@nimr.mrc.ac.uk, jp.vincent@nimr.mrc.ac.ukNorwich Grant Wheeler, Tom Wileman grant.wheeler@uea.ac.uk, T.Wileman@uea.ac.ukNottingham John Mayer John.Mayer@nottingham.ac.ukOxford Chris Hawes, James Wakefield chawes@brookes.ac.uk, james.wakefield@zoo.ox.ac.uk

Jordan Raff jordan.raff@path.ox.ac.ukQueen Mary Mark Turner m.d.turner@qmul.ac.ukReading Jonathan Gibbins j.m.gibbins@reading.ac.ukSheffield Liz Smythe, Andy Grierson e.smythe@sheffield.ac.uk, a.j.grierson@sheffield.ac.ukSouthampton Malcolm East, Paul Townsend j.m.east@soton.ac.uk, P.A.Townsend@soton.ac.uk

Jane Collins jec3@soton.ac.ukSt Andrews Frank Gunn-Moore fjg1@st-andrews.ac.ukSt Georges David Winterbourne sghk100@sghms.ac.ukUCL John Carroll, Patricia Salinas j.carroll@ucl.ac.uk, p.salinas@ucl.ac.ukVet College Nigel Goode ngoode@rvc.ac.ukWarwick Anne Straube A.Straube@warwick.ac.ukYork Dawn Coverly dc17@york.ac.uk

The BSCB Ambassadors are the people to ask about sponsoring youfor membership.

Anyone who wishes to volunteer to become a BSCB ambassador atany Institutes not represented in the list below please contact theBSCB.

BSCB AMBASSAD

ORS

27

The BSCB newsletter is published twice a year.

SubmissionIf you have an idea for an article please e-mail the editor a brief outlinefirst.

It is preferable to send all articles, reports and images by e-mail (thoughalternatives can be arranged after contacting the editor).

Attachments for text can be in txt, rtf or doc format. Please send images as300dpi JPEG, TIFF or PSD files.

Submission of articles and images should be made to

Dr Kate NobesSchool of Biochemistry,Medical Sciences Building, University Walk,Bristol BS8 1TD Tel: 0117 331 2229Email: Catherine.nobes@bristol.ac.uk

Advertising InformationSingle advertisement:

Back cover Black and White £275; Colour £425Inside front cover Black and White £275Full inside page, black and white only £2201/2 Inside page, black and white only £1101/4 Inside page, black and white only £55

Four advertisements, to cover two years: Costs are reduced by 30%.

Advertisements can by supplied on CD or by email. Please send as JPG,TIF or PSD at 300dpi, or as PDF (with fonts embedded). Page size A4: 210x297mm.

There is no charge to advertise a scientific or educational meeting. Pleasecontact the editor with details of any meeting you wish to advertise.

For further information on commercial advertising contact: Dr Richard Grose,Centre for Tumour Biology,Institute of Cancer and the CR-UK Clinical Centre,Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry,Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQEmail: r.p.grose@qmul.ac.uk

BSCB Subscription informationPaying by direct debit:

Regular member £35Student, school teacher, retired member £15

If you are still paying by standing order, please cancel it and set-up directdebit. Those members who do not wish to pay by direct debit or do nothave a UK bank account should contact Margaret Clementsbscb@biologists.com for advice.

New members should complete an online application form atwww.bscb.org.

Postmaster and General InquiriesSend changes of address, amendments and general queries to:

Margaret ClementsThe Company of Biologists Ltd.140 Cowley RoadCambridgeCB4 0DLTel: 01223 425525E-mail: bscb@biologists.com

InvoicesSend to:

Dr Adrian HarwoodCardiff School of Biosciences Biomedical BuildingMuseum AvenueCardiff CF10 3US

JournalsBSCB members are entitled to a range of discounts from journal and bookpublishers. These are correct at the time of going to press but membersshould check www.bscb.org for the latest information.

Offers include a 25% discount from the individual subscription rate to alljournals published by the Company of Biologists, and other discounts fromother publishers. To take advantage of this offer, quote your BSCBmembership number when ordering your subscription.

Company of Biologists discounted prices: Journal of Cell Science: paper only £172/$295; online only £45/$77;paper and online £215/$365Journal of Experimental Biology: paper only £158/$270; online only£44/$75; paper and online £200/$340.Development: paper only £187/$325; online only £46/£80; paper andonline £232/$400

The following journals from John Wiley & Sons have discounts of 25–65%(https://secure.interscience.wiley.com/order_forms/bscb.html)

Journal BSCB rate Standard rateThe Anatomical Record $150 *BioEssays $99 $160Cell Motility and the Cytoskeleton $150 $425Developmental Dynamics $125 $165Genesis $60 $99Journal of Cellular Biochemistry $350 *Journal of Morphology $175 *Microscopy Research and Technique $295 $595

* No standard individual rate available; only available to institutionsNB: The price for the Journal of Morphology is now $175. If there areany members who have ordered the journal at the $150 rate, thoseorders will be honored.

Traffic discounted prices:Print and online: $155 / EUR144 Online only: $147 / EUR137

28