BSCB NewsletterWINTER 2012

BRITISH SOCIETY FOR CELL BIOLOGY

Hooke Medal 2013 Image competition winnersMeeting reports

Welcome to the Winter 2012 issue of the BSCBnewsletter. Hopefully many of you will have enjoyedthe BSCB/BSDB/JSDB Joint Spring meeting this year,which took place at Warwick University. Next year thejoint BSCB/BSDB Annual Spring meeting will have anew format – the aim of both committees is to providea broader content that is more accessible to the celland developmental biology communities. Please readabout this inside and do register for the meeting andlet the BSCB know what you think of the changes wehave made.

I hope you enjoy reading this issue – as always thereare a selection of meeting reports written by studentsand postdocs awarded Honor Fell/Company ofBiologists travel awards. For those of you who havenot applied for a travel award before, applications areconsidered for any meeting relevant to cell biology butyou need to be presenting a poster or giving a talk toqualify for an award. The application form is on page25 of this issue. The quality of writing of the reports isgenerally excellent and for those folk who weren’t ableto attend the meeting, you might well find the oddsneaky preview of a hot result or two!

This issue also details some important changes to theway the BSCB is collecting subscriptions. Please readabout this in the News section. You should by nowhave been contacted by Portland Customer Services,who are contracted to maintain our membershipdatabase. I already have my shiny new membershipcard with my membership number on it (007), whichis hugely helpful because I could never previously findthat number when asked to sponsor a new BSCBmember.

Could I please encourage students and postdoctoralmembers to enter the BSCB Science WritingCompetition, 2013. I’m sure that many of you have agreat science story in your head, and the prize is£300, so well worth a thousand words, I would say.This year the competition is being judged by JennyRohn, the founder and Chair of Science is Vital andthe editor of LabLit.com. Sooo…get writing and havea great Christmas!

The Editor: Kate NobesUniversity of Bristolcatherine.nobes@bristol.ac.uk

WINTER 2012

CON

TENTS

BSCB NewsletterNews 2Features 5Book Reviews 7Meeting Reports 9Forthcoming meetings 21PhDs section 22Society Business 23

Editorial

The cover image is the winningentry in the BSCB 2012 ImageCompetition. Sheng-Wen Chiu'simage shows staining for the tubulinhomologue Fts Z in the filamentouscells of the bacterium Rhodobactersphaeroides. Sheng-Wen Chiu isfrom the Department ofBiochemistry at the University ofOxford.

Newsletter editor: Kate Nobes Production: Giles Newton Website: www.bscb.org Printer: Hobbs1

Organising the annual SpringMeeting is one of the mostimportant functions of theBSCB and BSDB. Over thelast few years, attendance atthese meetings has beendeclining gradually. Ourinformal research suggestsseveral reasons for this:competition from othermeetings; dwindling resourcesavailable to fund attendance,and the meetings not alwaysbeing directly relevant have allbeen prominent comments.

So, we’re revamping theformat of these meetings. Themost noticeable change willbe that meetings will not be‘themed’ and individualsessions will not be badged asBSCB or BSDB – we will aimto cover the most exciting newdiscoveries in the areas of celland developmental biology.We hope you will always wantto attend the meeting, even ifthe sessions aren’t tightlyfocused on your exactinterests, as there will be nobetter way to stay informed ofthe most important advances.We’ve also made several otherchanges that we hope willmake the meeting moreattractive:

Networking: This is one of themost important aspects of anyscientific meeting. A commoncriticism was that few seniorUK scientists regularlyattended the meeting, thusdenying younger researchersthe chance to interact withthem. We will now be invitingtop UK researchers to chaireach session at the meeting,even though they won’t bepresenting a talk. This willensure that many top UKscientists are at the meetingevery year. For the 2013meeting, Tim Hunt, ClareIsacke, David Owen, RogerPatient, Anne Ridley, Daniel StJohnston, Austin Smith, JimSmith and Steve Wilson haveall kindly agreed to act assession chairs.

Talks: Although anyone canapply to talk at the Springmeeting, in practice mostsession talks go to moresenior scientists. It is vitalthat our next generation ofscientists get experience ofpresenting their work at largeinternational meetings. AGraduate Student Symposium,with a prize for the bestpresentation, will now be aprominent feature of every

meeting. We hope that beingselected to speak at thissession will become a valuedsign of recognition forgraduate students,encouraging students toattend and to apply to presenta talk.

Funding: Getting funding toattend the meetings can bedifficult these days. Both theBSCB and BSDB run schemesfor students and post-docs toapply for funds to attendmeetings both in the UK andabroad (see our websites). Wehave now agreed to makethese schemes more readilyavailable to fund attendanceat the annual spring meeting.We will also be moreproactive and encourage ourmemberships to take fulladvantage of these awards tomaximise attendance at theannual spring meeting.

Location: The Spring meetingwill be held in Warwick untilat least 2015. This willprompt some debate aboutthe pros and cons of keepingthe meeting in one place, andabout Warwick as a venue.Booking this far in advance,however, will help keep costs

down. Warwick may not bethe most stimulatingenvironment, but is relativelyeasy for everyone to get toand, once on site, people tendto stay there, fosteringinteractions in the local cafésand pubs.

We hope you will approve ofthese changes, and we wouldbe delighted to hear yourthoughts. Attending scientificmeetings is one of the bestways of broadening onesknowledge and improvingones own science. Getting themost out of meetings is animportant skill that youngresearchers need to learn. Wehope the BSCB/BSDB Springmeeting will provide anexcellent environment for allthese things, and thatattending will become animportant priority for all UK-based cell and developmentalbiologists – no matter whatstage they are in their careers.

We look forward to seeing youin Warwick!

Elizabeth Robertson (Chair,BSDB)Jordan Raff (Chair, BSCB)

This years Hooke medalwinner is Eric Miska from theGurdon Institute, Cambridge.

The Hooke medal is awardedeach year to an outstandingUK cell biologist who hasbeen working as anindependent research scientistfor less than 10 years.Previous winners haveincluded scientists such asAnn Ridley, Matthew Freeman,Alex Gould and last yearswinner Holger Gerhardt.

Eric Miska has been anindependent researcher since2005. He and his team areinvestigating all aspects ofgene regulation by regulatoryRNA. Dr Miska played animportant role in the initialunderstanding of the role ofmicroRNAs (miRNAs) inCaenorhabditis elegans byknocking out all miRNAs andinvestigating the phenotypesof individual mutants as wellas double and triple mutants.Recently he has increasingly

focussed on the biogenesisand function of another classof small non-coding RNAs theso-called piRNAs, which arebound to the PIWI protein. DrMiska has published anumber of important papersdealing with aspects ofregulatory RNA and his workhas been at the forefront ofthis dynamic area of research.

Eric will be presented with hismedal and will give the Hookemedal lecture at the

BSCB/BSDB Spring meeting inMarch next year.

BSCB/BSDB announce new format for Annual Spring Meetings

British Society for Cell Biology Hooke Medal Winner 2013

News

2

This autumn, the BSCB willagain be running its ScienceWriting Competition for BSCBmembers. The Prize is open toall BSCB student and postdocmembers – membership is arequirement for entry.

We particularly will be lookingfor articles that cover topics ofkey relevance in biomedicalscience. Articles need not belimited to research areas butyou might like to try tocommunicate your own projectin a clear, concise andentertaining way to a non-specialist audience.

Other topics should be relevantto cell biology in its broadestcontext; examples could includethe impact of stem celltechnology, a feature on animportant disease condition, ora wider science policy issuesuch as government funding ofbasic versus translationalscience.

Articles should be limited to1000 words but can include

images where relevant (notethat these will be reproduced inblack and white only in thenewsletter).

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 Jenny Rohn, cell biologist atUCL, founder and Chair ofScience is Vital and the editorof LabLit.com. Jenny will belooking for pieces that captureinterest in an original andstriking way and that bringscience to life for the lay reader.

The deadline for entries is the1st February 2013.

Send entries to Paul Andrews(pdandrews1@mac.com) aselectronic files (preferably Wordformat with any illustrations orimages sent separately as TIFFor JPG).

I have now completed my termas BSCB Treasurer, and wouldlike to take this opportunity tothank everyone for their helpand cooperation, and to drawyour attention to recentchanges with the BSCBfinancial arrangements.

First, we have a new TreasurerProf Caroline Austin. Carolineand I have worked togetherover the last year to ensure asmooth transition, and by thetime you read this, she will bein full control of the Society’sfinances. Please contactCaroline (caroline.austin@newcastle.ac.uk) if you need todiscuss the Society’s finances.

Second, by now you shouldhave been contacted byPortland Customer Services(PCS), who are contracted tomaintain our membershipdatabase and handle

subscriptions. This is a well-established company, spun outfrom the Biochemical Society,and handles the database andsubscriptions for many UKscientific societies. They offer adedicated, professional service,and enhance our ability tocollect and managesubscriptions. For example, wewill now be able to offer creditcard payment and issuemembership cards.

We have now transferred thedatabase, but as this wascomplex, collection of the2012 subscriptions weredelayed until August. From2013 onwards, we will collectthe annual subscription ofmembers at the beginning ofthe year – a notification letterwill be sent before Christmas.New members will berequested to pay as they join,and will pay the annual rate.

However, members joiningafter October of the year, willhave their membershipdeferred to the following year,in order to get full annualbenefits. On-line application isavailable athttp://services.portlandpress.com/bscb/join.htm

Generally, the transition hasgone smoothly, but there arealways a few teethingproblems, I apologise toanyone inconvenienced. PCShave been very helpful solvingany problems. They can becontacted at BSCB@portland-services.com. The mostimportant issue is to stay incontact, so please can ensurethat your contact details areup-date, and notify PCS of any changes in contact details. If we loose contact, we will not be able to maintainyour membership in the

following year.

Finally, I would like to thankyou all for your patience andcooperation during the timethat I have been Treasurer. Imust thank the current andformer members of theexecutive committee, as wellas the whole membership fortheir help and cooperation. Ifeel that during my term ofoffice, we have been able todevelop the Society’s furthersupport of British cellbiologists, such as with theSummer Vacation Studentshipsand greater support for smallmeetings. The Society worksfor the support of its membersand the executive committee isalways open to new ideas andsuggestions.

Adrian J. Harwood

BSCB Science Writing Prize 2013

Important changes for subscriptions

NEW

S

3

Summer and early autumn is atime for harvesting the fruits ofearlier labours. Unlike theharvest of agricultural crops thisyear the number of pupils andstudents taking A-level biologyand chemistry exams inEngland have shown a welcomeincrease.

This is heartening and hopefullyreflects improved teaching andan improved image of science inthe minds of young people. Apessimist might say that theincrease indicates that youngpeople are merely taking out an‘employment insurance’ policyin these times of economicdownturn. Time will tell.

One of the biggest falls in examentrance numbers was for thesubject of Critical Thinking.Commentators suggest a rangeof reasons for this, but theapplication of the concept andskill, both within the sciencesand elsewhere, are very useful.Perhaps we should weave moreCritical Thinking into how wepresent and teach science.

The data in the table to theright have been calculated frominformation from UCAS via theGuardian newspaper.

David Archer

School News

Increases in the number of candidates entered for A-level Biologyand A-level Chemistry Examinations held in 2012 in England.

Biology: Chemistry

2012 Male/female candidates: 27,410 / 35,664 25,974 / 23,260

2011 Male/female candidates: 26,949 / 35,099 25,329 / 22,753

2012 Male/female increase: 461 / 565 645 / 507

Total increase in 2012 1033 1152

5

FEATURES

BSCB Image CompetitionWinners 2012

We are please to announce the winners of thisyear’s BSCB Image Competition.

In first place with a stunning image of writhinginterlaced filamentous bacteria is Sheng-Wen Chuifrom the Department of Biochemistry at the Universityof Oxford. Congratulations go to Sheng-Wen for thissuperb image – both technically accomplished andaesthetically pleasing.

In second place, with a simple but visually strikingimage of a ring of Citron Kinase surrounding themicrotubules of an isolated HeLa midbody is ZuniBassi from the Department of Pathology at theUniversity of Cambridge.

In third place is a scanning electron microscopeimage of a group of DT-40 cells, pseudocoloured toresemble scoops of ice cream!

Once again we are extremely pleased that we havebeen able to select images of such high standard tograce to the cover of the forthcoming newsletters andwould like to thank the winners as well as all theentrants for taking the time and effort to produce theircell biology images. Remember to keep taking greatimages and keep all those beautiful images in ametaphorical shoebox so you can submit them in nextyear’s competition.

Paul Andrews

First Prize (above left): Sheng-Wen Chiu, Departmentof Biochemistry, University of Oxford

In filamentous cells of the bacterium Rhodobactersphaeroides, the tubulin homolog FtsZ (tagged withCFP) forms dot-like and spiral structures in twodistinct populations. The FtsZ cytoskeleton affects thelocalization of the membrane chemosensory proteinclusters (YFP). Cell bodies are shown in magenta.

Second Prize (above centre): Zuni Irma Bassi,Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge

The image shows a midbody purified from HeLa cellssynchronized in cytokinesis that has been fixed andimmuno-stained to detect tubulin and Citron kinase.

Third Prize (above right): Dr Daniel Booth, WellcomeTrust Centre for Cell Biology, University of Edinburgh

A scanning electron micrograph (SEM) of DT-40 cellsadhered to glass and fixed with aldehydes. The cellswere pseudo coloured to make them resemble scoopsof ice-cream.

6

FEAT

URE

S

From Palestine to London

Last summer I had the chance of a lifetime. I had theopportunity to work in the laboratory of Professor Buzz

Baum at the MRC Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology,University College London for three months. This was madepossible with the joint support of an EMBO summer researchfellowship, a Daniel Turnberg travel fellowship, and the BritishSociety of Cell Biology. It was an amazing opportunity for aPalestinian student like me to be part of this scientificinstitute. I grew as a scientist during my time in London, andin just three months learned more than I had in four years ofuniversity.

I met Buzz and his colleagues Karim Labib, NesrinOzoren, Petr Svoboda and Elena Levashina when thisgroup of EMBO young investigators came to Palestine fora student conference in 2011 on “Frontiers of MolecularBiology” sponsored by the EMBO YIP programme andBirzeit University. It was a wonderful event that wasattended by more than 100 Palestinian students andacademics from universities across Palestine. There weretalks by some of the best Palestinian labs, including mysupervisor Dr Stiban, and the EMBO YIPs gave generaloverviews of their research area and research talks. Atthe end of the meeting, I learned that the EMBO YIPprogramme had decided to initiate a fellowship tosupport the travel of 1-2 Palestinian students to join anEMBO YIP lab in Europe for several months in thesummer. For students like me this seemed the chance ofa lifetime – a stepping-stone to a potential PhD inEurope. (It is not possible at the moment to get a PhDfrom a Palestinian University.) I applied and was thrilledto learn that I would be able to join the Baum lab.

This was my first trip to the UK and it was beneficialnot only scientifically, but also socially. In Buzz’s lab atthe MRC-LMCB, I found people working there fromdifferent backgrounds and different cultures; they wereall very welcoming and helpful. The work atmospherewas very friendly, with picnics and boat trips, and twoother summer students, Sophia and Jo, who introducedme to the British culture and gave me tours in London.Through them, I got to know about the education systemin England. I was soon used to living in London, andenjoyed every moment of my daily life there.

The Baum lab studies mitotic cell rounding, with eachlab member looking at a different aspect of this processusing different model systems, such as Drosophilamelanogaster and human cancer cell lines. My projectwas to work on the dynamics of focal adhesions duringmitosis. This previously unexamined facet of cellularrounding had the potential to help us to understand theprocess as a whole. I had to learn how to handle cancercells (HeLa cells) and immortalized cells (RPE-1 cells) inculture, and how to use the confocal microscope, whichbecame a fundamental tool in my research. I usedimmuno-cytochemistry to study focal adhesions duringdifferent stages of mitosis in both cell lines, looking atchanges in levels of a variety of focal adhesioncomponents such as Paxillin and Vinculin; this revealedthat focal adhesions disassemble one by one as cellsenter mitosis. I noticed that the focal adhesion adaptorprotein, Paxillin, disappears first from focal adhesions. Ialso discovered that neighboring focal adhesions are notremoved simultaneously, ruling out regulation by asimple diffusible biochemical signal.

I also studied cells over-expressing activated Rap-1, aGTPase that is usually inactivated upon entry intomitosis. When constitutively active, it has been shown tokeep cells flat during mitosis. In my experiment, I foundthat cells over-expressing activated Rap-1 maintainedtheir focal adhesions throughout mitosis. Although theseadhesions did not disappear they were still remodeled.

I would like to thank everyone at the MRC-LMCB forthis wonderful experience. Special thanks go to Buzz,my day-to-day supervisor Oscar Lancaster, and the labmembers who provided such a friendly and stimulatingwork environment.

I am very grateful to the BSCB, the Daniel Turnbergfoundation and EMBO for my fellowship. I have beenexposed to first-hand experience of research in a world-class lab, which has helped me figure out my orientationin this amazing field of cell biology and persuaded me tocontinue my studies in Paris.

Majdoulin Abughali, Department of Biology andBiochemistry, Birzeit University, Palestine

7

BOO

K REVIEWS

Book ReviewsThe Molecules of Life: Physical andChemical PropertiesKURIYAN, KONFORTI AND WEMMER.

This is an excellent book that does exactly what it says on the front cover.It encompasses the macromolecules found in biological systems fromstructural, biophysical and biochemical standpoints. But it does notextend into the biological systems themselves. The authors state in theirPreface “We have written this textbook with an undergraduate audiencein mind, particularly those who have chosen biology or the healthsciences as their principal area of study”.

The book is indeed written in what is now the standard format of astudent textbook: very clear presentation with good graphics; specialpoints highlighted in shaded boxes; with problems and suggestions forfurther reading at the end of each chapter. Yet I fear the book is pitchedat too high a level for undergraduate courses in the biological sciences, atleast in the UK. The authors approach their subject in a properlyrigorous and disciplined manner but unfortunately this necessitates ahigher level of mathematics and physical chemistry than is possessed bymost UK undergraduates in the biological sciences.

Nevertheless, this book ought to be present in the libraries of alluniversities running courses in any of the biological or health sciences, as

a source of reference for students interestedin furthering their understanding of biologicalmacromolecules and it would make a superbtextbook for an advanced (post graduate)course in biomolecular science. It oughtalso to be present in many researchlaboratories, as a readily accessible source ofbackground information and scientificprinciples.

In general, the text is accurate and correctbut in a volume of 1000 pages is bound tocontain some errors. One of the very few Inoted was that the authors unfortunatelyperpetuate the myth of the oxocarbenium ionintermediate in the catalytic pathway oflysozyme, even though it is now known thatlysoszyme proceeds via a covalentintermediate through a carboxylate in theactive site, the carboxylate that hadpreviously been considered to be involvedsolely in acid/base catalysis.

Professor Steve Halford FRSSchool of Biochemistry, University of Bristol.

The Molecules ofLife: Physical andChemical PropertiesKuriyan, Konforti andWemmer

Garland Science

ISBN: 978-08153-4188-8

Publication July 2012

1032 pages; 900 illustrations

Principles of Cell BiologyGEORGE PLOPPER

When a new text book about cell biology arrives one isimmediately curious. One wonders where the new book willfit in; what new ideas will it bring, will it be friendly inapproach? Will it be appropriately presented and priced andcome with any ‘cool’ extras and above all will it be an assetto the subject?

‘Principles of Cell Biology’ (PoCB) is a single authorvolume written by a teacher who really understands how toconnect with young students at the start of their course ormodule in cell biology. The text is written in a student-friendly style and the art work too presents information in aclear concise way.

At the beginning of the book there is a Brief Table ofContents followed by a more detailed list. Also at thebeginning there is some sound advice to students on howto ‘Study Smart’, including the great idea of adopting aregular ‘self-debriefing strategy’. Each chapter hasnumerous tinted boxes covering pedagogical points. At thebeginning of most chapter sub-sections a tinted box covers‘Key Concepts’ and at the end of each chapter there is aChapter Summary followed by ‘Concept Check Answers’. Anice point about the ‘answers’ is that they ‘discuss’ ananswer rather than just state a specific fact; it is rather likea mini-tutorial. Other tinted boxes are labelled ‘TIP’, ‘FAQ’,‘Analogy’ and occasionally other information. Like manyteachers the author uses analogies quite a lot but I ampleased to see that in one ‘TIP’ box he warns aboutanthropomorphism and analogies. My own experience isthat some students like analogies but some do not; andsome remember the story but not the science!

Most chapter headings and sub-headings are well set outand expressed in what has been termed ‘MassachusettsDeclarative’ style by Sydney Brenner. The first four chaptersdescribe what a cell is and the molecules within it, sugars,proteins, nucleic acids and lipids. Ten chapters make upthe rest of the book with each chapter being devoted to aprinciple which the author then supports.

The review copy I received was from the first printing

and I found that the Principles referred to in the title wererather tucked away in the Big Picture overview at thebeginning of each of the appropriate ten chapters i.e.chapters 5-14. I understand that publishers are reviewingwhether the Principles will be given greater emphasis andstatus in some way in future printings. I like the idea ofPrinciples and although one could debate for hours what aprinciple is, and that ‘ten’ is an arbitrary number, for thepurposes of this text I think those stated by Plopper arefine.

The book is now into a second printing and the one ortwo typographic errors will have been corrected. I waspleased, but surprised, to see the term adrenaline (aspreferred in the UK) used instead of epinephrine which isthe preferred term in the USA. This may be attributable toPlopper’s student friendly approach. After all, students aremuch more familiar with an ‘adrenaline rush’ than and an‘epinephrine rush’.

Much of the artwork is refreshingly different and veryclear. Each graphic has been created or selected for itsteaching and learning potential. I started making a list ofthe graphics I especially liked but the list grew too long forthis review.

Additional items: For students there is a free onlineaccess code to a companion website for 365 days fromfirst registration. For lecturers (instructors) a PowerPointImage bank and PowerPoint Lecture Outline are available.At the end of the book there is no list of references or linksto journal articles or further reading, but there is goodglossary clearly printed in black and one colour, anothergood and novel idea. The glossary is followed by an index.

To conclude, I think the student friendly, ‘teacher at yourside’ style Plopper has adopted, and the excellent artwork,will find favour with students on introductory courses in cellbiology. If the student stops at this stage, he or she willhave a good grounding in the subject. If they continue theirstudies in this field they will easily migrate to moreadvanced texts. This ‘new book on the bench’ is certainlywelcome and will fit in well. I think it has a good futureand is certainly a welcome addition.

David Archer

Principles of CellBiologyGeorge Plopper

Jones and BartlettLearning

ISBN: 978-14496-3751-4

800 pages.

£38-99

For BSCB membersdiscount, please seethe BSCB website

8

Molecular Cell Biology, 7th EdnLODISH H. ET. AL.

This well respected and established text and additionalfacilities has many characteristics of a Toyota car and aMicrosoft computer programme.

Toyota cars are known for their reliability and so isMolecular Cell Biology (Mol Cell Bio) which is bothdependable and authoritative. A strategy of ‘Kaizen’ or‘constant improvement’ is employed by Toyota and thiscertainly appears to be the case with the writers andpublishers of Mol Cell Bio.

Molecular Cell Biology also associates in my mind withMicrosoft programmes. As many readers will know thereare many, many facilities available in Microsoft programmesthat are not apparent at entry level operating. So it is with‘Lodish’, even the 19 pages of the affirmatively writtencomprehensive contents list could provide a pretty goodrevision aid. A quick scan of the text does not reveal all themany ‘added value’ items available and thankfully offeredwithout a time limit on internet availability. To me this truemark of writers and a publisher who wish their product tobecome part of the readers own lifetime library and not justa book for a college course.

In the 6th edition of Mol Cell Bio media connectionssuch as podcasts, videos and three types of ‘Animations’were listed on the front and back end papers of the book. Iliked this and I missed their presence in the 7th edition. Iexpect there is a good reason for the change, but itsabsence provides my only really negative criticism of thisexcellent text book.

So what has ‘Kaizen’ done for Lodish 7th edition? Manyof the changes are relatively small but taken togethercontribute to a greatly improved text for students.Improvements have been made through re-positioning ofselected material within sections, simplifying approachesand language, and in some cases by re-writing sections and

chapters and even eliminating some text. Every chapter andevery graphic has been inspected and changed if requiredin order to give the student an improved learning provision.

In chapter 1, the evolutionary process is given moreemphasis and two complex topics, cell signalling and theeukaryotic cell cycle, have been improved and clarified.Chapters 15 (Signal Transduction…) and Chapter 16(Signalling Pathways…) have been rearranged to provide amore straightforward pedagogical approach. Chapter 19 onthe Eukaryotic Cell Cycle has similarly been overhauled andupdated. ‘Culturing, Visualizing and Perturbing Cells’(Chapter 9) has been rewritten to include up-to-datemethods such as FRAP and FRET and Chapter 21 nowincludes some coverage of induced pluripotent stem cells(iPS) cells.

With the amount of biological data rising exponentiallywe are in danger of being suffocated by it. As readers willknow data is not an end in itself and therefore it is pleasingto see that the number of ‘Analyse the Data’ problems inMCB has been increased. The number of ‘New Discoveriesand Methodologies’ has been raised by 48 and the numberof new items of ‘Medical Relevance’ by 16.

As with cars, when a new model arrives some featuresare dropped and others added. In the 7th edition of MolCell Bio the end of section ‘Key Concepts’, ‘Key Term’,‘Reviewing the Concepts’ and ‘Analysing the Data’ headingsand some text now reside in a tinted boxes. Chapter sub-headings also have a tinted background compared with thebold colours of the 6th edition. The subheadings in the endof chapter reference section were printed in colour (6thedition) and now only in black, so there is less contrast.But these are ‘gain some, lose some’ changes and do notdetract from a beautiful, well rounded and well producedexcellent higher education text and reference book. And agood bonus; the free associated media links work in theUK. The two Podcasts I listened to were well done.

David Archer

Molecular Cell Biology7th editionLodish H. et al.

Macmillan HigherEducation

ISBN 12: 978-14641-0981-2.

1154 main Pages.

£59-99.

There is also an e-book edition, StudentSolutions Manual andCompanion websitewith podcasts andquizzes. The lecturers/instructors website.This includesPowerPoint and JPEGcopies of the figuresand tables, and lectureready ‘clickerquestions’

Lewin’s Essential Genes 3rd EdnKREBS, JOCELYN E, GOLDSTEIN ES, KILPATRICK ST

A friend, who is not a biologist, was visiting and saw acopy of ‘Lewin’s Essential Genes’ on my desk. “Oh”, shesaid, “so there are non-essential genes too”. I tried toexplain, or rather bluff my way through, what the book titlereally meant!

After she left I compared ‘Lewin’s Essential Genes’ with‘Lewin’s Genes X’. I concluded that ‘Essential genes’ wasrather more of an updated and student-orientated version of‘Genes X’, more like a Genes 10.5+, than a book about thefundamentals of cell and molecular gene biology. Indeed,on the page in ‘Essential Genes’ carrying the credits, isstated ‘Essential Genes’. Condensed edition of: ‘Genes X’,Benjamin Lewin. C2011.

So what does ‘condensed’ mean? ‘Essential Genes’ has847 pages with 802 pages of text and diagrams and 45pages of glossary, answers to questions and index. ‘GenesX’ has 930 pages with 880 of text and diagrams and 50pages of glossary and index. What else has beencondensed? As far as I can see, most of the text is thesame as it is in ‘Genes X’ but there are some smallchanges. Further condensing has been made by only listingSection Headings in the Chapter Outlines at the beginningof each Chapter. In ‘Genes X’, the Chapter Outline at thestart of the Chapter has both Section Headings AND KeyConcepts, and the Key Concepts are repeated at the start of

each Section. In pedagogical terms I think this ‘signposting’is excellent. The full listing at the beginning of the chapteris a good planning and revision aid. Repeating the relevantKey Concepts at the start of each section gives directionand focus to students’ reading.

In ‘Essential Genes,’ Key Concepts appear only at theend of the Section along with a box headed ‘Concept andReasoning Check’. The later is a good addition, but to mymind having Key Concepts only at the end is like tellingvisitors they can have the Guidebook when they leave thebuilding or event.

Welcome new additions to ‘Essential Genes’ include theprinting of definitions in sidebars alongside the text, withthe definitions also collected into a Glossary at the back ofthe volume. The number of References at the chapter endhas been heavily pruned and is now headed ‘FurtherReading’. Additionally there is a whole list of ‘ChapterQuestions’ [with answers at the end of the book] and a boxlabelled ‘Key Terms’. For students there is also a‘Companion Website’ available, but this is time limited andonly accessible for 365 days from registration. Not too goodfor students in their second and third and possibly fourthyear of a UK degree, or if they have to take a re-sit.

An ‘Instructor’s Media CD’ is available for Lecturers. Thiscontains an Image Bank, Test Bank and Lecture Outlines.

Final recommendation: A good book, especially forstudent’s but with the pedagogical reservations mentioned.

David Archer

Lewin’s EssentialGenes 3rd editionKrebs, Jocelyn E,Goldstein ES.,Kilpatrick ST. ’.

Jones and BartlettLearning

ISBN 13: 978-1-4496-4479-6

802 main pages.

£39-99. (BSCBmembers can buy at adiscount, please seeBSCB website).

BOO

K RE

VIEW

S

9

MEETIN

G REPO

RTS

AACR is an internationally-renowned conference with over 16,000attendees each year. The first annual meeting was held in 1907which was soon after Dr James Ewing discovered Ewing’s Sarcoma.Since then a huge amount of progress has been made in the cancer-research field and AACR has been consistent in bringing together themost pertinent cancer-researchers from basic, translational, andclinical fields.

This year’s AACR annual meeting featured daily plenary sessions,major symposia, minisymposia, forums, educational sessions,methods workshops, and poster sessions.

The plenary sessions included the top researchers in the cancerfield. The topics included tumour heterogeneity, immune therapies,pathway targeted therapeutics, and bringing concepts to the clinic. Ifound these sessions particularly interesting because each speakerpresented their work as an overview from decades ago until now. Asa student, it is sometimes difficult to see how your work fits into abigger picture and it was great to see how much each researcher hasachieved by staying in one field for their entire career.

There were three plenary talks in particular that I enjoyed. Thefirst was by Rakesh Jain (Massachusettes General Hospital andHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA) who presented work onnormalizing the tumour microenvironment to enhance therapeuticoutcome. This was the first time I had encountered this type ofresearch and found it to be controversial yet innovative. Jain’s workhas shown that blood, lymphatic vessels, and the matrix associatedwith the tumour creates an abnormal environment e.g. hypoxia andhigh interstitial pressure. Jain showed that anti-angiogenictherapeutics created a “window of normalization” wherechemotherapeutics were more effective. Equally, his group showedthat cancer cells “co-opt” the stromal cells into producing pro- andanti-angiogenic cytokines and extra-cellular matrix. Jain is nowtargeting these cells as a novel cancer therapy.

James Allison (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York,NY) spoke in the opening plenary session about mobilizing theimmune system to treat cancer. I have always been interested in this

type of research because the therapies have relatively few sideeffects, and it utilises the body’s own immune system. Allison’sgroup focuses on the T cell antigen receptor complex and aim to useantibodies to enhance anti-tumour T cell responses. One suchclinical trial showed a varied response to antibody treatment. Somepatients did not seem to respond to the treatment at all, while othershad few side effects, and they were disease free until the datarecording ended several years later. This highlights the need tounderstand heterogeneity among cancers in order to determinewhether a patient will respond positively to this type of therapy orshould have more traditional treatments. I have great hopes for thisresearch and I will continue to follow this work closely.

Richard Gilbertson (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital,Memphis, TN) focused on the problem of heterogeneity by using aninnovative animal model. Gilbertson’s lab focuses on brain tumoursand why some patients respond well to treatments while others donot respond at all. One of the difficulties with drug design is thatfrom a library of thousands of drugs, only 2 or 3 will ever make itthrough clinical trials. One solution to this is to transplant part of apatient’s tumour into a mouse, and treat it with a single drug.However, this is time consuming and expensive. Therefore,Gilbertson’s lab is developing an innovative animal model for massscreening of chemotherapeutics using zebrafish. Zebrafish arecomparatively cheap and can lay hundreds of eggs. Gilbertsonshowed that it is possible to grow human tumours in these zebrafishand that the tumour biology remains remarkably similar. In fact, evenwhen the transplanted tumours metastasise in zebrafish they exhibitsimilar gene expression patterns as they do when this occurs inhumans. I still have many questions about his work and I’m lookingforward to reading about it when this is published.

Each day there were two poster sessions lasting 4 hours. Sincethere were around 7000 posters I had to select only a few postersand I focused on those close to my project. I enjoy poster sessions ingeneral because it is easy to have an exchange of ideas in a relaxedenvironment. I found several groups working on brain tumours that

American Association for Cancer Research(AACR) Annual Meeting – AcceleratingScience: Concept to Clinic31 March – 4 April 2012. McCormick Place West, Chicago, USA.

Meeting Reports

This year’s AACR annual meeting was organised by Judy E. Garber(Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, AACR President), Benjamin G. Neel(MaRS Centre, Annual Meeting Program Committee Chairperson),and the Annual Meeting Program and Education Committees. Theconference focussed on the biology of cancer formation and howto bring this information forward to the clinic.

{ }

suggested changes to my project and have since been successful.Since there were undergraduate and 1st year PhD studentspresenting posters I was also able to suggest improvements ordiscuss their projects.

I presented my work as a poster during an afternoon session. I hadaround 30 people come to discuss my work ranging from students toexperts. Most of the academics were helpful but some came todisagree with my hypothesis, which was useful for when I have myviva.

Overall, the conference was well organised and a great experience.

The progress that has been made in oncology is striking, and by theend of the conference I felt that the understanding of tumour biologywas being effectively translated into the clinic. However, there is stilla great deal we need to discover about cancer biology and how toeffectively treat it. I hope that the research field continues to focuson patients, and develops treatments with fewer side effects andincreased efficacy.

Chris Tan, University of Nottingham MEE

TIN

G R

EPO

RTS

10

BSCB/BSDB/JSDB Joint Spring Meeting15–18 April 2012, University of Warwick.

At the BSCB/BSDB 2012 Spring Meeting, which was this year heldat the University of Warwick, the societies were joined by theJapanese Society of Developmental Biologists for the first time.The meeting took place over 4 days (15th-18th April) and sessionswere normally split into two, with the BSDB and BSCB sessionsrunning in parallel. Delegates joined together for the plenary andmedal winning lectures and the graduate symposium.

{ }At the beginning of the meeting, Denis Duboule (Federal Institute ofTechnology, Switzerland) gave the BSDB Plenary Lecture on the‘Vertebrate Hox clock’. He described how during development Hoxgenes are activated following a cis time sequence, so that they aretriggered in a particular order, which is crucial for development toprogress. This talk gave a great insight into how development hasevolved, and was easy to understand even for non-developmentalbiologists.

The BSCB Garland Plenary Lecture was given by JR McIntosh(University of Colorado, USA) entitled ‘Microtubule tips as mechano-chemical devices’. His work focused on how microtubules can exertforces in cells, as this has been proven to occur in vitro throughpolarisation or depolarisation, but it is unclear how this processwould occur in vivo. Utilising time lapse microscopy and computermodels, we were shown the protofilament model, which puts forwardthe theory that filaments undergo a ‘forced walk’. The evidence thatthis process is tightly regulated was very convincing and helped usunderstand more about how forces can act in cells.

All of the BSCB lectures were extremely interesting but one of thenotable lectures was the talk ‘A CEP63-CEP152 protein complexpromotes centrosome duplication and determines brain size’ by FanniGergely (Cancer Research UK Cambridge Research Institute,University of Cambridge). She explained how the CEP63-CEP152protein complex maintains normal chromosome number and brainsize. Mutations in this complex are thought to cause conditions suchas primary recessive microcephaly (MCPH).

The BSDB talks also attracted a huge interest. One of the bestpresentations was Anna Philpott`s (University of Cambridge) talkabout how neuronal progenitors decide between maintaining celldivision or going through differentiation. She proposed thatNeurogenin2 plays a key role in sensing cdk levels through

phosphorylation which is transcribed into changes in the expressionof genes important for regulating progenitor maintenance andneuronal differentiation.

Throughout the four days 185 posters were on display fromUniversities across the globe. Poster sessions took place over twosessions, late evening on Monday and Tuesday lunch. We allpresented a poster, which showed data from our PhDs so far. It wasan excellent opportunity to explain our work, discuss it with somevery intelligent and thought provoking scientists and to do somevaluable networking. These sessions also further demonstrated thewide variety of exciting and high quality research undertaken byconference attendees.

Graduates were also given the chance to present their work at theGraduate Symposium, chaired by Denis Duboule. Three talks weregiven and covered both cell and developmental biology.

There were two lunchtime sessions that were very interesting andwell attended. The Monday lunch saw a panel of 7 respectedscientists giving their Do’s and Don’ts of a career in science. Thesession certainly got people talking and provided some food forthought for the future. Tuesday’s session was a little more technicalwith a talk on ‘Improving image resolution’ from one of our sponsorsHuygens Software.

However, the conference was not all work as the annual quiz tookplace during the student and post-doc social on the Sunday eveningand the conference dinner was late on Tuesday evening. Theseturned out to be interesting social events, with some wonderful foodand yet another opportunity to meet new people and discuss science.The conference meal was also a prime opportunity to award thewinners of the BSCB and BSDB poster awards. Congratulations toall the following winners:

At the end of the second day, we were presented by the receiver of

MEETIN

G REPO

RTS

11

Keystone Symposia: The Role ofInflammation during Carcinogenesis20–25 May 2012, Dublin, Ireland

Keystone meetings often draw up visions of beautiful mountainretreats where delegates spend their spare time discussing sciencewhilst testing their abilities on the slopes. So you can imagine thatI was initially disappointed to learn that this would be KeystoneSymposias’ inaugural meeting in Dublin, Ireland, just a shortbudget flight away from Bristol. However, I was wrong to bedisappointed.

{ }The meeting was not only fantastic scientifically, but the organisers,Jeffrey Pollard (Albert Einstein College of Medicine, USA) andLawrence Egan (National University of Ireland, Ireland), also

managed to secure us unbelievable hot and sunny weather. Whoneeds skiing when you’ve got the sun?!

The meeting was held at the Royal Dublin Society conference

this year`s Hooke Medal: Holger Gerhardt (London Research Institute– Cancer Research UK). The Hooke Medal is awarded every year toan outstanding cell biologist who is in the early stage of his/hercareer as a group leader. Holger Gerhardt is currently looking at therole of VEGF/VEGFR and DII4/Notch signalling in the process ofangiogenic branching. He presented exciting videos of how dynamicthe endothelial cell movements are during zebrafish development andhow the capillary branching is directed by this process.

On the third day, two medals were awarded. The first was theBeddington Medal, one of the highest honours for a young researcherand is awarded for the best PhD thesis in developmental biology. Therecipient, Boyan Bonev (University of Manchester) well deserved thisaward for his doctoral studies which dissected the role of brainspecific non-coding RNA in the determination of the cell-fate decisionof neuronal progenitors.

The second award was the Waddington medal. This honour isgranted to a person who has dedicated his/her life to developmentalbiology and has an outstanding contribution to the presentknowledge. The receiver was kept secret until the last minute andthen was slowly revealed by photos from his childhood to adulthood.The recipient, Alfonso Martinez Arias (University of Cambridge)presented his exciting life/research started with growing up in andthen breaking out from Spain. He moved to Chicago and then settleddown in Cambridge. One of his greatest achievements was to revealhow Wnt and Notch signalling cooperate during Drosophiladevelopment.

We all enjoyed the conference very much and would like to thankthe organisers Kim Dale and Malcolm Logan from BSDB, TomoyukiTanaka and Helfrid Hochegger from BSCB and Naoto Ueno andAtsuko Sehara-Fujisawa from JSDB.

Kate Brown (University of East Anglia), Louise Brown (University ofNorthumbria) and Petra Popovics (University of St. Andrews)

BSCB/BSDB/JSDB Joint Spring MeetingPrizewinners

BSCB 1st Prize: BSCB Young cell Biologist of the Year L. Cheeseman, University of LiverpoolRapid, induced removal of TACC3/ch-TOG/clathrin from metaphasespindles defines the roles for microtubule crosslinkers in spindleassembly and function. He wins a cash prize of £350 and an all expenses paid trip to theAmerican Society for Cell Biology annual meeting, which will be heldin San Francisco in December. His report on the meeting will bepublished in the BSCB Newsletter.

BSCB 2nd Prize: £350 cash and a biochemical goodie bagK. Tuladhar, University of Oxford. LIM-only domain (LMO) proteins in developmental haematopoiesis.

BSCB 3rd Prizes: £115 cashD. McIntosh, University of Dundee. Replication factory in normaland cancer cells. N. Al-Jomah, University of Leicester. Pds5 is required for cohesionremoval from chromosomes at mitosis.J. Beira, National Institute for Medical Research. Characterisation ofapoptosis pathways responsible for the maintenance of tissuehomeostasis.

BSDB 1st Prize S J Fleenor, University of Oxford. Characterising the role of a regulator of G protein signalling incranial sensory ganglia formation.

BSDB 2nd PrizeR Laranjeiro, University College London. A new link between the zebrafish circadian clock and cell cycletiming.

BSDB 3rd PrizeT Pettini, University of Manchester. Transvection of a novel long non-coding RNA mediates Hox genetranscription in Drosophila.

centre. The grand Concert Hall was used for talks and a large hallacross the courtyard for the evening drinks, poster sessions andentertainment. Ruslan Medzhitov (Yale University School ofMedicine, USA) kicked off proceedings with an excellent Keynoteaddress, with probably my favourite talk title over the whole meeting:‘New Adventures of an Old Flame’. His overview of the fielddescribed how inflammation is the hosts’ physiological response tostress, either from tissue damage, infections or tissue stress (loss ofhomeostasis), which can have pathological consequences if notadequately resolved. During inflammation, many accessory cells areactivated and recruited to the site of injury, where they are known torelease complex mediators that act as profound modulators of thehost microenvironment. We now know that every cancer ischronically inflamed, but rather than mount an effective responseagainst tumours, this inflammation is actually much more likely tocontribute to tumour growth and progression. In fact, 25% of allcancers are believed to have developed because of long-terminflammation suggesting that inflammation can also trigger tumourinitiation. It is clear that remodelling of the tumour microenvironmentoften precedes tumour growth, both at primary sites and inmetastatic lesions.

The majority of the meeting focussed on the very large repertoireof accessory cells in the tumour microenvironment: frommacrophages to fibroblasts, T-cells to neutrophils, the extracellularmatrix to myeloid-derived suppressor cells, all of which seem topromote carcinogenesis in their own way. The talks suggested thatwhile each individual cell type has their own functions, crosstalkbetween these numerous cell types can change the overall effect andwe must be cautious when concluding that only one cell type isresponsible for an outcome. Another theme was the huge array ofphenotypes within individual cell types. For example, Jeffrey Pollardspoke of microarray studies on macrophages that suggested discretepopulations of macrophages occurring during each stage oftumourigenesis and at different locations within the tumour. Heargued against the M1/M2 activation state of macrophages andinstead hypothesized that there could be no clear distinction betweenmacrophages; rather they exist with a broad range of phenotypeswith subtly different functions throughout tumourigenesis.

A significant part of the meeting was spent discussing the role ofthe microbiome on tumourigenesis, and it not being a subject I knewmuch about, I really learnt a lot. There are 10 times more microbesthat inhabit your body than the number of cells in your body, and50-60% of stool dry matter is actually microbal! Lita Proctor(National Human Genome Research Institute, USA) gave afascinating talk detailing the progress of the Human Microbiomeproject, an ambitious scheme hoping to detail and sequence thethousands of dynamic microbial communities involved in human

health and disease. Other talks focussed in more detail on the role ofthe microbiome in controlling intestinal homeostasis andtumourigenesis. It is clear that inflammation of the colon (colitis) canchange the luminal microbial community composition, which canlead to carcinogenesis, and later talks suggested that the risk ofcolitis might even be transmittable via intestinal microbes. All ofwhich really put into context the importance of washing your handsregularly!

Another premise that came up several times, was the importanceof thinking about which model organisms we use and why. Manyresearchers in the field use xenograft models whereby human cancercells are injected into the tail vein of mice and experimentsconducted on the resulting tumour. However, it was clear that whilstusing cultured human cells has its advantages, the methodology isnot always perfect. This was illustrated when Lisa Coussens (OregonHealth and Sciences University, USA) gave an engaging talk aboutthe role of the adaptive immune system in xenograft mouse models,but was followed immediately by an impressive PhD student fromthe Netherlands Cancer Institute, Metamia Ciampricotti, who foundabsolutely no effect of the adaptive immune system in spontaneousmurine tumours, which are perhaps more likely to model humancancers more closely. Cancer is a disease of the aged, but almost allresearchers do their experiments on young, often female mice. It isclear however, that the immune system changes as organisms’ age,and different immunological responses can be observed in olderanimals. There were also reports of sex dependent affects of T-regulatory cells on tumour progression.

Luke O’Neill (Trinity College Dublin, Ireland) closed the meetingwith an excellent and entertaining talk that included a quote fromDavid Baltimore (the Nobel laureate who discovered NF-kB) “Cancer,atherosclerosis, metabolic disease and autoimmunity are allsecondary to chronic inflammation. This places inflammation at thecentre of modern medicine”. It was lines like these that really hithome and reminded the audience just how important and clinicallyrelevant this field of research is.

I was also given the opportunity to present my own work in one ofthe Guinness fuelled poster sessions. My poster, which describedrecent studies of how the immune system impacts on cancer surgeryusing a Zebrafish model was clearly unusual in a field dominated bymouse models. However, I received plenty of attention and I gotsome very helpful feedback from passers by. I not only made manynew friends at this meeting but also secured a promising clinicalcollaboration, which is extremely exciting for me. I am exceptionallygrateful to the BSCB for the Honor Fell travel award that enabled meto attend this meeting.

Nicole Antonio, University of Bristol

MEE

TIN

G R

EPO

RTS

12

The second meeting in the EMBO conference series onMicrotubules attracted scientists from all over the world and frommultiple disciplines to discuss recent advances in the field oftubulin. { }

The conference was held in the architecturally stunning AdvancedTraining Centre (ATC) of the EMBL Heidelberg. The organisers RenataBasto (Institut Curie, France), Rebecca Heald (University ofCalifornia, USA), Carsten Janke (Institute Curie, France), Michel O.Steinmetz (Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland) and Thomas Surrey(CRUK London Research Institute) did a brilliant job in selectingexcellent speakers with a broad variety of topics.

Arriving at the EMBL in bright sunshine, we first had the chanceto acknowledge the beauty of the venue with its two intertwininghelices and the magnificent views over Heidelberg. The four-dayconference, comprising eleven talk sessions and two poster sessions,started with a buffet lunch and the first opportunity to mingle withother participants. Each session had been filled with fantastic talks,out of which I will only be able to describe a few. My PhD projectfocuses on a protein complex that is required for the correctpositioning and orientation of the mitotic spindle. Therefore,especially the sessions “Microtubules in cell division” and“Microtubule organisation in the mitotic spindle” were of greatinterest to me. However, I was particularly intrigued by talks abouttopics that were unfamiliar territory to me, like microtubule innerproteins, the bacterial cytoskeleton or a new alternative to themicrotubule stabilising drug Taxol®.

Daniela Nicastro (Brandeis University, USA) and Aditi Maheshwari(ETH Zurich, Switzerland) presented their recent findings on so-called microtubule inner proteins (MIPs). Cryo-electrotomography orcryo-single particle imaging, respectively, have been used to obtainthree-dimensional density maps of intact microtubule doublets,which showed the presence of proteins within these tubulesappearing with precise periodicities. Not much is known regardingthe identity of these MIPs. It was suggested they might beacetyltransferases, since K40-acetylations are acquired afterassembly and are found on the inside of the tubule.

These acetylations are thought to stabilise microtubules and areinvolved in many biological processes like cell migration or ciliumassembly. Maxence Nachury (Stanford University, USA) described hisresults on a knock-out mouse for TAT, the tubulin acetyltransferaserequired for K40-acetylations. To the wide surprise of the audience,this mouse appears perfectly normal and no developmental or otherdefects have been observed. However, acetylations might play acrucial role in blood platelet function as a talk by Karin Sadoul (CRInserm, France) elucidated. She observed that activated plateletsundergo severe shape changes (disc to sphere), which areconcomitant with rapid deactylation of microtubules by HDAC6followed by an extensive reacetylation. HDAC6 deficient plateletshave hyperacetylated microtubules and spread faster. Moreover,Sadoul and colleagues were able to show that the disc-to-sphere

transition is mediated by a motor-driven coiling of the marginalmicrotubule band.

In a very interesting presentation on the topic of microtubules indifferentiated cells, Frank Bradke (DZNE Bonn, Germany)summarised his findings on axonal growth and regeneration. Neuronspossess one axon and several dendrites. The microtubule stabilitywithin the axons is increased as indicated by acetylated tubulin.Bradke and colleagues aim to understand the neuronal polarityprogram in order to induce axon regeneration. They observed thatnanomolar doses of the microtubule stabilising agent paclitaxel(Taxol®) induce the formation of more than one axon in the cell.Intriguingly, rats that suffered from an injury to the spinal cord wereable to regenerate their central nervous system after being treatedwith low doses of paclitaxel.

An appealing alternative to paclitaxel, a drug that is used byalmost everyone working on microtubules, was presented in a shorttalk by Jessica Field (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand).The compound Zampanolide is gained from bacteria living on marinesponges and is therefore easier to synthesize than paclitaxel. Itstabilises microtubules but unlike paclitaxel, Zampanolide forms acovalent bond within its binding site. Thus, Zampanolide is anirreversible drug effective at nanomolar concentrations.

A fascinating fact that was revealed to me at the conference is,that also bacteria have an internal cytoskeleton. Martin Pilhofer(Caltech and HHMI, USA) has presented his electron cryo-microscopy data showing that the tubulin homologues bTubA andbTubB from microtubules comprising 5 protofilaments in bacteria.

Additionally, I was very impressed by all the talks includingwonderful TIRF microscopy movies that supplemented various invitro studies. Out of them, I was particularly amazed by thepresentation of Sabine Petry (UCSF/HHMI, USA). Petry andcolleagues have used TIRF microscopy to visualise microtubulenucleation at single molecule level in X. laevis egg extract, whichdemonstrated that microtubules are nucleated off existingmicrotubules. These “daughter” microtubules have the same polarityas the parental microtubules and branch off at very shallow anglesup to 30°. Depletion of Augmin or TPX2 from the egg extractsabolished microtubule branching. On the other hand, addition ofRanGTP to the Xenopus extract activated the microtubule-dependentmicrotubule nucleation, which was even enhanced bysupplementation of TPX2. The astonishing movies with mCherry-Tubulin and EB1-GFP showing a rapid tree-like branching ofmicrotubules kept the audience in fascinated silence.

The posters were displayed on the helices of the ATC building,which allowed each of the more than 200 posters to be presented ina unique way. The two 3.5-hour long poster sessions provided plenty

Microtubules: Structure, Regulation andFunctions23–26 May 2012. EMBL, Heidelberg, Germany

MEETIN

G REPO

RTS

13

The conference covered a wide range of microtubule research,including complex microtubule assemblies, microtubule-basedtransport, microtubule dynamics and regulation, microtubules in celldivision, microtubule interactors, microtubules in differentiated cells,microtubules in disease mechanisms and microtubule organization inmitotic spindle. The conference lasted for 4 days, with 47 talks and253 posters in total.

The first day of the conference started with registration and lunchin the foyer, giving chance for the attendees to interact with eachother. The first scientific session started with a few talks focusing onmicrotubule assemblies. I especially enjoyed Daniela Nicastro’s(Brandeis University, USA) talk on microtubule inner proteins (MIPs)in Chlamydomonas. By using cryo-electron tomography (cryo-ET),which provides excellent structure preservation and high resolution ofsample imaging, her works showed that B-tubule of doubletmicrotubules contain 10protofilaments (PFs). Thisresolves the long-standingquestion on total number ofPFs present in B-tubule.Besides, microtubule innerproteins (MIPs) were observedin the lumen of microtubule. Itwas fascinating to realise forthe first time that themicrotubule is not a “hollow”structure.

The first evening wasscheduled for a lecture from thekeynote speaker, Eva Nogales(HHMI/University of Californiaat Berkeley, USA).Unfortunately, she was unableto attend the meeting due toproblems with her flight. This isa big loss to me since I am verykeen to hear about her work oninteraction of microtubule andkinetochore complexes.However, I did enjoy theevening with a longer dinnerwith some German beers, of

course. Also, I had another good opportunity to interact with otherparticipants in that evening.

In the second day, a series of talks on ‘microtubule dynamics andregulation’ were given. Maxence Nachury (Stanford University SoM,USA) presented his work on using permeabilised cells system tostudy transport into primary cilia. He presented a number ofbeautiful experiments showing that transport into primary cilia issize-dependent. David Sharp (Albert Einstein College of Medicine,USA) discussed roles of Fidgetin, Fidgetin-like 2 and Kif19 incontrolling human cell migration rates. By using total internalreflection fluorescence (TIRF) assay, Melissa Gardner (University ofMinnesota, USA) showed that microtubule catastrophe is a multi-step process that requires accumulation of a few defects. Thecatastrophe frequency is dependent on microtubule age, regardless oftubulin concentration used.

This conference aimed to gather researchers from all over theworld who study microtubules using different scientificapproaches. { }

MEE

TIN

G R

EPO

RTS

14

of time for discussions and a look at most posters. I got very goodfeedback on my poster as well as useful advice, and I was able toestablish important contacts. Moreover, the Wine and Beer Sessionon Wednesday evening as well as the BBQ followed by a party onthe last evening gave sufficient time for extended discussions andnetworking opportunities.

Altogether, the EMBO conference was very well organised and avery successful meeting. I was particularly impressed by therepresentation of young speakers and the quality of all talks. The

amazing location and the wonderful sunny weather throughoutcompleted this perfect experience.

I would like to thank the BSCB for my Honor Fell Travel award andthe opportunity to attend this brilliant conference and to networkwith excellent scientists from all around the work.

Anja DunschDepartment of BiochemistryUniversity of Oxford

15

MEETIN

G REPO

RTS

To celebrate its 10th Anniversary, the ISSCR Annual meeting washeld in Japan for the first time at the Pacifico Yokohama inYokohama city. The ISSCR's annual meeting has become theworld's premier stem cell research event serving as a forum forstem cell and regenerative medicine professionals from aroundthe world.

{ }This was my first taste of an international scientific conference, and Icertainly couldn’t have asked for a more rewarding experience,particularly at this early stage in my career. Set amongst theimpressive backdrop of Tokyo bay in the Pacifico Yokohamaconference centre, the conference began with a warm welcome byISSCR president Fred Gage.

Having arrived the previous morning with three of my fellowcolleagues, we had just about recovered from the time differenceready for the first plenary session ‘Early Life Decision’. Of greatinterest to my work involving Embryonic Stem (ES) Cells was the talk

given by Austin Smith from Welcome Trust centre for Stem Cellresearch on ‘The Core of ES Cell Pluripotency’. Recent work in hisgroup has focused on the naïve ‘ground state’ of pluripotency, andhow changes in the signalling environment can influence theexpression of important transcription factors, which, while not coreregulators of pluripotency, are part of an ES cell ground state circuitwhich is designed for ordered collapse to allow lineage specification.This work is greatly contributing to our understanding of expandingtranscription factor network that governs ES cell pluripotency andSmith hopes this knowledge can be translated into efficient methods

The ISSCR 10th Annual meeting 13–16 June, 2012. Yokohama, Japan

After a short coffee break, we received a special ‘Landmarks inmicrotubule research’ lecture from Susan Horwitz (Albert EinsteinCollege of Medicine, USA). She discussed how Taxol was discoveredand isolated from the bark of Taxus tree by Monroe Wall andMansukh Wani and how she started to study the potentialtherapeutic effects of Taxol. Today, Taxol is well known as amicrotubule stabiliser and is widely used as a drug for ovarian,breast and lung cancer patients. Her lab is now focusing onevaluating new drug combinations with Taxol, aiming to deliver animproved efficacy to treat cancer.

In the third day, Anthony Hyman (Max Planck Institute ofMolecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Germany) gave a veryinteresting talk on importance of XMAP215 and its homologues tobind tubulin dimers. Xenopus’s XMAP215 protein contains 5 TOGdomains. By mutating two residues in each TOG domain to alanine,he showed that the XMAP215-TOG(AA) mutant does not bindtubulin nor promote microtubule growth. Besides, he demonstratedthat an engineered “bonsai” TOG protein, which contains only twoTOG domains with a basic region, has almost full polymeraseactivity.

My favourite oral presentation was from Richard McIntosh(University of Colorado, USA), who gave a lecture in the second‘Landmarks in microtubule research’ in the last day. He summarisedrecent findings from different groups that provide a betterunderstanding on how microtubule dynamics generate force to movecargo. Also, he mentioned some works in his lab showing that duringmicrotubule depolymerisation, the microtubule shortens and flaresoutward. This provides the force to move cargo towards the spindlepoles during anaphase.

Something not to be missed out is the ‘hot topic session’ in thelast day. This started with a talk on microtubule studies in bacteriaby Martin Pilhofer (Caltech and HHMI, USA). Then, AditiMaheshwari (ETH Zurich, Switzerland) gave a talk on 3D structure ofaxonemal microtubule doublet. This was followed by Sabine Petry(UCSF/HHMI, USA), who talked about roles of augmin inmicrotubule-dependent microtubule polymerisation. The last talk inthis session was given by Luke Rice (UT Southwestern MedicalCentre, USA) on structural studies of TOG:tubulin complex.

We had two poster sessions in the conference, one in the secondafternoon and another in the third afternoon. I presented a posterdescribing my work on how interaction between the Ndc80 andmicrotubule-associated proteins is critical for stable kinetochore-microtubule attachment. During the poster session, I identified someof the works presented that are closely related to my project. Theposter sessions were very useful as I had sufficient time to discussmy project with other scientists in details. Overall, I received valuablefeedback on my project by presenting my work in this conference.

The conference was a big success and I would like to congratulatethe organisers for a fantastic conference. Definitely, I wouldrecommend this conference to scientists working on microtubules, asyou will gain unique experience and first-hand discussion from themeeting. Also, I would like to thank BSCB for the generous fundingto allow me to attend an international scientific conference for thefirst time in my life.

Ngang Heok Tang, Cancer Research UK, London Research Institute

of iPS cell generation in adultcell types.

Since the discovery of iPScell technology in 2007, it ishas transformed the way wethink about regenerativemedicine and stem cell biology.This has been reflected in thehuge investment andcommitment into iPS celltechnology in recent years andindeed the first time location ofthis year’s meeting, where theywere first produced by ShinyaYamanaka and his group atKyoto University. It was hisformer student however,Kazutoshi Takahashi of theCentre for iPS Cell Researchand Application, Japan, whogave a talk on the first day.Having very modestly stated ofhis role in generating iPS cells‘I just did transfections’, he focused on his work performing large-scale comparison of the performance of ES and iPS cell lines indifferentiation assays and using gene markers to identify goodperforming lines based on their epigenetic status.

After the Presidential Symposium the exhibition hall was open forviewing for the first poster session and exhibitor booths. As I waspresenting in the second session I was able to enjoy browsing theroom and engaged a number of people about their work, withparticular interest in the different experimental techniques applied bydifferent groups to give me useful ideas about my own project. I wasalso able to chat to a market development rep from the Lonza booth,Scott, who gave me some useful advice regarding some difficultiesI’d been having recently with their Nucleofector Kits. He also showedme the new 4D-Nucelofector system, a much more efficient platformthan we currently use and since my return he has put me contactwith the local Lonza rep about arranging a trial to improve mytransfection experiments.

The end of day one brought us the chance to explore Yokohama,Japan’s second largest city and we made our way to its worldfamous China town for dinner. The food in Japan was something Iwas hugely looking forward to on this trip and our first proper meal,though Chinese in origin did not disappoint! Having settled into thefirst day of the conference it really started to sink in where we’dtravelled to and I was looking forward to making the most of the nextfew days.

From Thursday onwards each day followed a similar pattern, witha set of plenary talks in the morning followed by different concurrentsessions in the afternoon. Sandwiched between these each days wasa series of innovation showcases, allowing life science companies topromote their research tools. Most often these were accompanied bylunch in the form of ‘Bento boxes’, which was no small incentive. Atraditional bento contained a mix of Japanese cuisine with rice, fishor meat, and one or more pickled or cooked vegetables, though Iwasn’t always sure exactly what I was eating! Over the course of themeeting I attended several different showcases relevant to my projectincluding a method of cell surface marker screening to identifyuniquely expressed markers between stem cells and their derivatives(BD Biosciences). Another interesting presentation was on the use of

extracellular Laminin proteins as modulators of human (h)ES cell selfrenewal in vitro (Biolamina), in particular Laminin-521 whichsupports hES cell derivation in defined feeder-free medium andimproves their survival in a single-cell state.

I tried to attend to a wide range of different talks related to mywork and areas of research I was particularly interested in. One ofmy favourite concurrent sessions occurred on the Saturday entitled‘Self-Renewal Mechanisms’, which included a talk by Ian Chambers,University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh about the co-ordination betweenNanog and Oct4 transcription factors in regulating pluripotency anddifferentiation. Another session entitled ‘Epigenetics of Stem Cells’contained a talk by Naoko Hattori, National Cancer Center ResearchInstitute, Tokyo, presenting a novel technique for visualizing co-localization of different histone modifications at a single cell levelusing a technique called in situ proximity ligation which may haveimportant applications in the detection of different cell types in aheterogeneous population such as cancer or tissue specific stemcells.

On the Friday of the conference I presented my poster on ‘TheRole of E-cadherin in Mouse ES cell pluripotency’. During the coupleof hours I spent by my poster I received a fair bit of interest andsome useful observations that has given me plenty to think about forfuture work I may do. Finally after a few days of quite intenseseminars and poster sessions it was nice to relax a bit with a few(too many!) Saki’s at the junior investigator social event put on bythe ISSCR.

In all I found the experience to be extremely rewarding. I gainedvaluable insight into the way research is communicated betweenscientists, made some great contacts and visited an amazing country.On a special note we were honored with a visit from the Emperorand Emperess of Japan to celebrate the 10th anniversary of theISSCR, which is something I won’t forget. I would like to thank theISSCR for putting on such a successful and well-structuredconference, and also the BSCB for very generously awarding me anHonor Fell Travel Award.

Joe Segal, University of Manchester

MEE

TIN

G R

EPO

RTS

16

MEETIN

G REPO

RTS

Organised in alternate years to the larger international wormmeeting, the smaller topic meetings provide an opportunity forfocus on a particular aspect of C. elegans biology. This enables avibrant discussion of new discoveries, new technologies and newreagents as well as providing a setting where PhD students andpost-doctoral researchers can present their research at a majormeeting.

{ }This year it was the turn of neurobiology and scientists from all overthe world gathered to discuss everything from development of thenervous system to behaviour, signalling and new technology.

The scientific program organized by William Schafer (MRCLaboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge), Jean-Louis Bessereau(École normale supérieure Paris, France) and Gert Jansen (ErasmusMC, The Netherlands) was structured so that each session had aninvited keynote speaker followed by shorter presentations that wereselected from abstracts. On the first night, the conference kicked offwith new technology and Andrew Gottschalk (University of Frankfurt,Germany) talking about a clever way of looking at synaptictransmission by using optogenetics. Of particular interest to meduring this session were the talks on the advancement ofmicrofluidics in orientating and keeping worms still during imaging(Hang Lu, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA and Sudip Mondal,Mechanical Engineering Department, USA). This technology issomething that I am now thinking about using during my PhD.

Day two covered development of the nervous system andbehaviour. As I am particularly interested in worm locomotion, thetalk by Lin Xie, (Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Toronto,Canada) on a new fainter mutant nlf-1 was especially interesting aswe work on one of the other fainter mutants. After dinner, JoshKaplan (Massachusetts General Hospital, USA) was the keynotespeaker and gave an interesting overview of his recent work. Beforehe presented however, Stephen Nurrish (my supervisor) introducedhis old supervisor and some entertaining photos from his time in theKaplan lab were presented much to everyone's amusement.

The evening featured a poster session that gave people the chanceto network, greatly aided by the ample supply of beer. As I was notpresenting during this session I wandered around looking at whatother people in the field had been working on recently which led toplenty of informative discussion on new techniques and reagents.

The third day's focus was on the synapse and sensory responses.Since the synapse is the topic on which my PhD is based I reallyenjoyed all of the talks. The keynote speaker was my supervisor(Stephen Nurrish, MRC Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology) andClara Essmann, a post-doc in my group also gave a talk. It was really

useful to hear feedback about our research from the wormcommunity. The sensory response session brought interesting debateabout whether worms sleep, something that I had never reallythought about before. Neuropeptides also featured heavily in daythree, seemingly being the hot topic of the moment. Of particularinterest was the talk by the keynote speaker Lindy Holden-Dye(University of Southampton).

In the evening there was another poster session and this time itwas my turn to present. I found this to be a very valuable experienceas unlike other conferences that I have presented at, everyone worksin the same field so many people were familiar with my research andlots of people had really useful ideas about new directions to take myresearch in. I really appreciated the level of feedback about my workthat I got especially as I am just about to enter my final year.

After the poster session there was a lively BBQ although after agloriously hot and sunny day it decided to rain. This didn't dampenour spirits though and a brilliant band playing everything from recentsongs to 80s cheese had us dancing inside until the small hours.

The final day's theme was signalling. Of note was a particularlyinteresting talk given by Binjgie Han (Yale University, USA) on GABAneurons switching from excitatory to inhibitory during development.After the session there was an award ceremony where winners of theposter prizes for each topic were announced. I was delighted todiscover that I had won the prize for best poster in my area for myposter titled "DAT-1 modulates neuronal RHO-1 signalling". It was awonderful way to finish off a thoroughly enjoyable conference.

After we had picked up our packed lunches there was just enoughtime for a whistle stop tour of Heidelberg before we headed to theairport.

I found the whole experience really rewarding and I am extremelygrateful for the BSCB for providing me with this fantastic opportunityto make new contacts and learn so much in the beautiful city ofHeidelberg.

Kimberley Bryon-DoddMRC Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology, UCL.

EMBO Conference Series: C. elegansNeurobiology. 14–17 June 2012. EMBL Heidelberg, Germany.

17

18

The meeting consisted of 8 sessions on aspects of glial biologyranging from development of glia and glial function at synapses tothe roles of glia in CNS injury and disease. Each session wasdivided into a number of smaller talks given primarily by postdocs orstudents with two longer talks by more senior invited speakers. Thisformat was particularly useful as it gave us an opportunity us to hearabout work in progress and allowed junior scientists to present theirwork to other researchers in the field. In this report I will not attemptto cover all the talks or sessions, but will focus on a few talks that Ifound especially interesting.

The meeting began with an evening session on glial development.The first speaker, Anne-Laure Cattin from the Lloyd lab (UCL)presented her work examining the signals that regulate the migratoryresponse of Schwann cells following nerve transection. She presentedevidence that Schwann cells move along newly formed blood vesselsto cross a bridge of tissue into the damaged area. The new bloodvessels are generated in response to angiogenic signals produced bymacrophages in the bridge as a result of increased levels of hypoxiacaused by the initial injury. Another talk by Andrea Brand (TheGurdon Institute) usedDrosophila to address theregulation of quiescence inneural stem cells (neuroblasts)in vivo. Insulin/IGF-like peptideproduced by a subset of glialcells in response to increasednutrition was shown to benecessary to stimulateneuroblasts to exit quiescenceduring development, acting viathe PI3K/AKT pathway in theneuroblast. However iftrafficking was blocked in theglial cells then the neuroblastsfailed to reactivate leadingthem to investigate the role ofglial gap junctions in thereactivation of the neuroblasts.

The next morning sessionfocused on myelinating cellsand the talk by Dave Lyons(University of Edinburgh) wasparticularly striking. Using

zebrafish to image oligodendrocyte myelination in real time in vivo heshowed that oligodendrocytes initially ensheath a large number ofaxons and that these initial ensheathments are dynamic, but overtime the number of ensheathed axons decrease and stabilise asmyelination occurs. Ben Emery (University of Melbourne, Australia)presented work examining the role of myelin gene regulatory factor(MRF) in the maintenance of myelin. Using a conditional knock outof MRF in myelinated nerves he observed a rapid loss in myelin geneexpression followed by a slower CNS demyelination. Thus MRF isimportant for both oligodendrocyte developmental myelination andmyelin maintenance.

Ethan Hughes from the Bergles lab (John Hopkins UniversitySchool of Medicine) used in vivo two-photon confocal imaging tofollow EGFP labelled NG2+ oligodendrocyte precursor cells in themouse cortex. Over a period of up to 3 months the cells were seen toproliferate, migrate and differentiate, but the overall cell populationand distribution remained stable. Following a CNS laser lesion theNG2+ cells migrated towards the lesion and were involved in glialscar formation. Magdalena Götz (Helmholtz Zentrum München,

This biennial meeting aims to bring together leading scientistswith their more junior colleagues to promote the exchange ofideas and techniques relevant to glial biology. The meeting wasorganised by William Talbot (Stanford University, USA) and DwightBergles (John Hopkins University, USA). { }

Glia in Health and Disease, 19–23 July 2012, Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory, USA.

MEE

TIN

G R

EPO

RTS

19

MEETIN

G REPO

RTS

Germany) also used in vivo imaging to follow genetically labelledastrocytes in the mouse brain following a cerebral cortex stab injury.They observed that the vast majority of astrocytes proliferating inresponse to the injury were perivascular despite this populationforming a relatively small proportion of the whole astrocyte pool.Interestingly no astrocyte migration towards the lesion was observed.

Microglia had an entire session devoted to them. There were twotalks from Beth Steven’s lab (Children’s Hospital Boston, HarvardMedical School, USA) using the retinogeniculate system to examinethe role of microglia in synaptic pruning in the developing brain. Shepresented evidence that this process is regulated by neuronal activityand is complement dependent. Alison Rosen from Beth Steven’s lab(same affiliation) examined the role of TGF in the induction of thecomplement cascade in this system and presented data suggestingthat TGF signalling is both necessary and sufficient for this process.Richard Ransohoff’s talk (Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute,USA) focused on the problem of distinguishing microglia in the brainfrom infiltrating monocytes during inflammation. He used CCR2-RFP/CX3CR1-GFP mice, which label the two populations of cellsseparately to show that the two cell types had different roles duringdisease progression in a mouse model of MS. Monocytes wereinvolved in attacking the myelin and then microglia cleaned up theresulting myelin debris.

The keynote lecture was given by Klaus-Armin Nave (Max-PlanckInstitute of Experimental Medicine, Germany). After a generalintroduction to glial cells and myelin the talk focused on a recentlypublished study examining the role of oligodendrocytes in providingmetabolic support for axons. He then moved onto another piece ofpublished work on the use of a high cholesterol diet to treatPelizaeus- Merzbacher disease (PMD) in a mouse model of thedisease which has extras copies of the proteolipid protein gene 1(PLP). This strategy was able to successfully prevent furtherdeterioration in mice with existing defects and when administered tomice at a younger age, during the peak of normal myelination, thistreatment prevented oligodendrocyte loss and allowed themaintenance of motor function. This work has important implicationsfor the treatment of PMD patients with duplication of PLP.

There were a number of occasions for us to mingle and discuss

work. The first of two afternoon poster sessions was followed by acheese and wine party. The conference lobster dinner on the lastnight was great fun as most of my table had to be talked throughcracking open the lobster. We also took part in the traditional Glialcell conference Calcium wave, organised by Beth Stevens. Before thedancing started some of us went to the beach in the dark to look forbioluminescent algae in the water, although none of us wereadventurous enough to go in and sadly we couldn’t see anythingfrom the shore.

Overall, the conference was very enjoyable and intellectuallystimulating and I would like to thank the BSCB for their travel grantwhich allowed me to attend this meeting.

Marie Harrisingh, MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh

North of England Cell Biology Forum 201214 September, 2012. The Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester.

This NECB forum is held annually, and consistently attracts morethan 100 delegates. This year, there were 108 attendees, whocame from across the north of England, as well as a few thattravelled up from the Midlands. As in previous years, a largeproportion of the delegates were post-graduate students andpost-doctoral fellows, and all of the presentations were given bystudents and post-docs.

The standard of the talks (12 in total) and posters (32 intotal) was impressive, and is a testament to the abilities of juniorscientists performing cell biology in the north of England.

Prizes were awarded for the best 3 talks and best 3 posters.Yvonne Nyathi from Martin Pool’s lab at the University ofManchester won first prize for her talk on “Role of the ribosomalprotein RPL17 in co-translational translocation”, while LiamCheeseman from the lab of Steve Royle at the University of

Liverpool won the poster first prize for his presentation onproteins that cross-link the mitotic spindle.

By common consensus, the meeting was a success, with highquality science and lively discussion at both the talks and postersessions. The unique networking opportunity offered by thismeeting should lead to increased interaction and collaborationbetween researchers at all levels working at the variousUniversities in the north of England. It should also help inspirethe more junior students to pursue a career in scientific research.

We are extremely grateful to the British Society for Cell Biologyfor their generous sponsorship of the event, which was essentialfor its success.

Martin Lowe

MEE

TIN

G R

EPO

RTS

20

Among the first two days’ plenary lectures, I particularly enjoyedChristine Guthrie’s talk on spliceosome, the RNA-protein complexthat removes introns from pre-mRNAs. Her group at USCF usedsingle molecule FRET to study the ATP-dependent conformationalrearrangement of spliceosome. This led to the revelation thatspliceosomes are highly dynamic nanomachines that operate close tothermodynamic equilibrium. She was awarded this year’s ASBMB-Merck award for her contribution to the RNA splicing field.

There were many interesting talks in the Lipid DropletsSymposium on Sunday afternoon. Lipid droplets, the energy storageorganelles in most cells, have attracted attention due to theirimportance in lipid-based diseases, such as obesity, diabetes andatherosclerosis, and in biofuel production. Tobias Walther from YaleUniversity has used mass spectrometry based proteomics to identifythousands of proteins associated with lipid droplets. He talked abouttwo fundamental questions his group has addressed: how lipiddroplets grow, and how the need for surface phospholipids is sensedand balanced during lipid droplet growth. David Silver (DukeNational University of Singapore) discovered two new lipid dropletproteins FIT1 and FIT2; the active research in his lab focuses ondelineating the roles of FIT proteins in triacylglycerol synthesis. Thefollowing day’s lipid droplet workshop has also sparkled interestamong researchers from both academia and industry.

The Monday morning’s plenary lecture was delivered by Prof.XiaoDong Wang, who has identified many key players in theapoptotic signalling pathway. Having recently moved back to China,Prof Wang moved on to dissect the cellular necrosis pathways in hisnew lab at the National Institute of Biological Science, Beijing. Hisgroup accidentally discovered that in response to a Smac-mimeticligand and the tumour necrosis factor TNF-α, a number of cancercell lines die through necrosis, rather than apoptosis. Subsequentstudy by his group revealed RIP1 and RIP3 as two crucial signallingproteins in necrosis pathway. Interestingly, a kinase dead kinasecalled MLKL seems to act as a substrate of RIP3 and eventuallyleads to mitochondria fragmentation.

It was a great pleasure for me to present my poster ‘A novelcheckpoint inhibitory role of Rif1 at damaged yeast telomeres’ at thetelomere biology session. I have received wonderful feedback andencouraging words from experts in the DNA damage field. In thesame session, Cristina Bartocci, a postdoc researcher from ErosLazzerini Denchi’s lab presented a poster on a novel method to pulldown telomere-associated protein complex and then the identificationof each protein component by mass spectrometry. This technique, inessence, is an equivalent of a ‘reverse ChIP’, therefore is amusinglynamed PICh (proteomics of isolated chromatin segments).

In the minisymposium on Nutrition and Inflammation, Ruth

Grossmann from Emory University presented her interesting posteron the impact of high-dose vitamin D on decreasing plasma TNF-αand IL-6 concentration in cystic fibrosis patients. Her poster went onto win the best poster awards for the American Society for Nutrition.

On the last day of the conference, Kim Orth, this year’s ‘YoungInvestigator’, gave an inspiring talk ‘Black spot, black death, blackpearl: the tales of bacterial effectors.’ Her group has discovered newmechanisms by which pathogenic bacteria hijack the host cells’signalling pathway. For example, they found that Vibrioparaheomolyticus, the bacteria living in oysters that causes seafoodpoisoning, induces cell death by taking advantage of the host cells’defense mechanism, autophagy. After entering the cells, thesebacteria modulate host cells’ actin cytoskeleton and ultimately leadto cell lysis. Kim’s lab also discovered that pathogenic bacteria thatcontain conserved Fic domains uses a novel process calledAMPylation to modify their protein substrates.

In the Chromatin and Transcription session, Karen Adelman talkedabout ‘Probing the dynamics of promoter-proximally paused Pol II’.Using genome wide Chip-seq technique, her group found that RNAPol II ‘pauses’ at many promoter regions, resulting in the synthesis ofshort (25-60nt) mRNA transcripts. The release of Pol II is crucial forthe transcription of genes for DNA damage response andinflammation. Interestingly, David Levin from Boston University alsodescribed a similar phenomenon in yeast cells called transcriptionattenuation. His current research focuses on finding new transcriptionattenuation release factors; these factors are likely to be crucial forthe activation of stress-induced genes.

The overall standard of the research at this conference wasoutstanding. As a newly graduated PhD student, I have benefittedimmensely from attending the conference. It has opened up my eyesto the wonderful research carried out by people outside of myimmediate discipline; and this has helped me to choose a field that Iwant to pursue in my post-doc research. During the conference, Ialso talked with several lab leaders who I then I had interview with,and I’ve taken a post-doc position with one of them. For thesereasons, I think EB conference is excellent for the late stage PhDstudents who want to find a favorite lab, or are in search for anexciting field to pursue after graduation.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the BritishSociety for Cell Biology for providing me with a generous travel fund.I also want to thank Professor Dong Wang for encouraging me toattend this wonderful event.

Yuan Xue, PhDCrucible Lab, Institute for Ageing and VitalityNewcastle University, UK

This year’s Experimental Biology Conference was held in the SanDiego Convention Centre, overlooking the beautiful San Diego bay.Thousands of scientists from various biological disciplinesattended the conference. Conference sponsors included theAmerican societies for anatomy, physiology, biochemistry andmolecular biology, pathology, nutrition, and pharmacology. Theconference spanned five days, featuring plenary award lectures,oral and poster presentations, and on-site career services.

{ }

Experimental Biology Conference 201221–25 April, San Diego, California

21

FORTH

COM

ING

MEETIN

G S

BSCB / BSDB Joint Spring Meeting 2013University of Warwick, 17–20 March 2013.

The Joint Spring Meeting of the BSCB and BSDB is an exciting blend ofcell and developmental biology; however, we have also significantlyrevamped the format for this year. The aim is to make it a ‘must attend’event for all cell and developmental biologists in the UK. The overlapbetween cell and developmental biology means that many of thesessions will be of interest to all delegates and the lines between BSCBand BSDB programmes at the meeting have been blurred.

The BSCB programme will be kicked off by the plenary lecture byProfessor David Drubin (University of California, Berkeley), aninternationally-renowned cell biologist who has made significantcontributions to understanding membrane trafficking and thecytoskeleton. As always, at this flagship meeting, the speaker line up isexcellent and the sessions include: Epithelia and Mechanosensing, CellCycle and Death, Motors and Morphogenesis, Cancer Models,Trafficking, Stem Cells and Regeneration, Gene Regulation, Neuronsand Nervous Syetms.

The final day sees a joint BSCB/BSDB session with some fantasticspeakers to encourage full participation in the meeting. Thechairpersons for all sessions also constitute a constellation of world-class scientists. The BSCB Hooke Medal winner of this year will alsogive a talk in this meeting. There will be a call for abstracts to presentshort talks that will be interspersed between invited speakers and, ofcourse, plenty of poster slots to fill.

University of Warwick accommodates a fantastic conference facilityand several social events will be arranged to facilitate informalcommunication between meeting participants. Details on speakers,venue, bookings and so on can be found by visiting the website(www.bscb.org). We look forward to welcoming you in March.

Scientific organizersJean-Paul Vincent, Steve Royle, Andrew McAinsh (BSCB)Fiona Wardle, Keith Brennan, James Briscoe (BSDB)

Programme Outline

17th SundayEveningBSCB Plenary Lecture: David Drubin (University of California)BSDB Plenary Lecture: Olivier Pourquie (IGBMC, Strasbourg)

18th MondayMorning: CELL CYCLE and DEATHJody Rosenblatt (Huntsman Cancer Institute, Utah)Tarun Kapoor (Rockefeller, New York)Andreas Bergmann (M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Texas)Duojia Pan (HHMI, Johns Hopkins)Julie Welburn (Wellcome Trust Centre for Cell Biology, Edinburgh)Plus 2 short talks from abstracts

Alternative session: Epithelia and Mechanosensing

Afternoon: CANCER MODELSMaria Dominguez (Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante)Liz Patton (MRC Human Genetics Unit, Edinburgh)Freek van Eeden (Biomedical Sciences, Sheffield)Dave Adams (Sanger Institute, Cambridge)Tariq Enver (UCL Cancer Institute)Plus 2 short talks from abstracts

Alternative session: Motors and Morphogenesis

Evening: BSCB Hooke Medal Talk; BSDB Waddington Medal Talk

19th TuesdayMorning: TRAFFICKINGLudger Johannes (Institut Curie)Graca Raposo (Institut Curie)

Gerd Jürgens (University of Tuebingen)Liz Smythe (Biomedical Sciences, Sheffield)Tao Uttamapinant (MIT)Plus 2 short talks from abstractsAlternative session: Gene Regulation

Afternoon: NEURONS and NERVOUS SYSTEMSJuan Burrone (King’s College London)Marysia Placzek (Biomedical Sciences, Sheffield)Mario de Bono (MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge)Claudio Stern (UCL)Christine Holt (University of Cambridge)Plus 2 short talks from abstractsAlternative session: Stem Cells and Regeneration

Evening: Conference Dinner

20th WednesdayMorning: JOINT BSCB/BSDB SESSIONGero Miesenbock (University of Oxford)Gaudenz Danuser (Harvard Medical School)Charles Streuli (University of Manchester)Kathryn Anderson (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center)Robb Krumlauf (University of Kansas)Plus BSDB Beddington Medal Talk

Chairpersons:Jim Smith (NIMR/Crick Institute London)Austin Smith (Wellcome Trust Centre for Stem Cell Research,Cambridge)Steve Wilson (University College London)Roger Patient (Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, Oxford)David Owen (Cambridge Institute for Medical Research)Anne Ridey (King's College London)Clare Isacke (ICR, London)Daniel St. Johnston (Gurdon Institute, Cambridge)Tim Hunt (Cancer Research UK, London Research Institute, ClareHall)

The observant amongst you willhave noticed the recent changeof surname. I have committedthe unspeakable act of gettingmarried during my PhD,balancing the planning ofexperiments with planning thebiggest day of my life.

Oddly enough, I am the thirdconsecutive PhD student to getmarried whilst a student in theNurrish lab. It seems thatgetting married during your PhDis fairly common, at least in myinstitute. So for those of youthinking of taking the plunge Iwould like to offer the wisdomthat I have learned.

1) Don’t get marriedduring your final year.

Now I don’t want to discourageyou from getting married whilstdoing your thesis, as although itwas difficult I am very glad thatI did it.

I am even more glad thoughthat I did it in my second andnot my final year. My husbandwas in the process of writing upand he found the whole processincredibly stressful. Writing yourthesis is a painful enoughexperience without adding thestress of planning your wedding.

Unless of course you are thekind of person who is happy tolet other people plan your bigday for you, or thrives underpressure, it is probably not thebest idea.

2) Try and stay focussed

It is very easy to get caught upin planning a wedding. There arelots of other people besides youand your fiancé (e) who will bereally excited and want to haveinput on everything from venuesto presents. Planning willconsume as much time as youlet it.

It is important to make surethat you are on top of things inthe lab as your PhD is your timeto shine. I found it useful towrite weekly and monthly targetsof what I wanted to achieve inthe lab to make sure that I wasstill working as hard and notgetting too distracted.

In the final few weeks this allflew out the window as ourvenue co-ordinator, the floristand the vicar (not to mention allour relatives) were constantlyringing me as all manner ofproblems arose. I wasdesperately trying to finishexperiments and make a posterfor the conference I was goingon straight after my honeymoonand having to deal with all thosecalls was a big distraction.

If you can, delegate tasks toother people to help lighten yourload.

3) Allow yourself enoughtime to plan yourwedding

We had a fairly long engagement(just over a year), as I wanted to

try and do things gradually. Thishelped me space most thingsout so that I wasn’t trying to doeverything at once and meantthat I could plan experimentsaround appointments. I know anumber of other people whohave planned a wedding in threemonths and they found thatevery waking second of theirtime was consumed by weddingplanning. I am not saying myway was the best way, but Icertainly found it less stressfulthan they did.

Finally, remember to enjoyyourself. Doing your PhD shouldbe an enjoyable process but attimes it will be reallychallenging. Your weddingshould be a memorable day anda chance to relax and have somefun. If done correctly there is noreason why planning a weddingand doing your PhD can’t bothbe a pleasurable experience.

BSCB PhDs

Getting married during your PhD: a survival guideKimberley Byron-Dodd

PHD

S

22

SOCIETY BU

SINESS

23

2012 has been an exciting year for the BSCB, and there have beensome important changes that will affect all our members.

Perhaps the most important changes have been to the format of theBSCB Spring Meeting and our formal agreement with the BSDB tomake this a joint meeting until at least 2015. Historically, we haveoften held this meeting jointly with the BSDB, as the two Societiesshare many areas of common interest. Attendance at the SpringMeeting, however, has been gradually declining in recent years, and sowe talked to many attendees at last years meeting, as well as to non-attendees, to better understand what they liked and didn’t like aboutthe meeting. As a result, we have made some alterations to the waythese meetings are structured; Liz Robertson (chair of the BSDB) and Iexplain the rationale for these changes on page 2. Please read thepiece, register for the meeting, and let us know what you think.

The programme for 2013 Spring Meeting looks outstanding.Whether you are a first-timer or a seasoned veteran (who perhapshasn’t attended for a few years now), I urge you to attend. You willhave a chance to demolish Liz and me in the infamous annualstudent’s pub quiz. Our team, while admittedly not students in thestrictest sense of the word, has now won this competition for two yearsin a row – last time, in a nail-biting tie-breaker about how fast asquirrel’s heart beats. Surely, there must be some of you students (oroldies like us) out there who know more about this sort of thing thanLiz or I do?

There was no official BSCB Autumn Meeting in 2012, as every fiveyears we support the Royal Microscopical Society’s microscopy-themedAbercrombie Meeting. This years meeting was held in Oxford and, byall accounts, was a great success. The 2012 Spring Meeting inWarwick was held jointly with both the BSDB and the JapaneseSociety of Developmental Biology, and it too was a great success (did Imention that we won the pub quiz?). We owe a big thank you to ourBSCB organisers, Tomo Tanaka and Helfrid Hochegger, and the BSDBequivalents, Kim Dale and Malcolm Logan, who put together aspectacular scientific programme.

Another important change, which I hope many of you will havenoticed, is that we are finally modernising our membership database.In the past, our Membership Secretary (currently Dan Cutler) andMargaret Clements maintained this database. Those steeped in BSCBfolklore will know that Margaret is something of a mythical figure. Sheis not a cell biologist, but she worked for the Company of Biologists,the main financial backer of the BSCB. Somehow, in the dim anddistant past, Margaret volunteered to help maintain the BSCBmembership list, and she has worked tirelessly on this task, withoutreward, for many years. On behalf of all of us, I thank her for herinvaluable help.

Even with Margaret and Dan’s hard work, it has proved very difficultto keep the database up to date, and the collection of membership feeshas become something of an annual marathon for our Treasurer, AdrianHarwood. We have now outsourced the handling of the membershipdatabase to Portland Customer Services (PCS, a spin-off from theBiochemical Society). This transition has required a Herculean effort byAdrian and Dan, and you can read more about it on page 3. Hopefully,we will reap the benefits of their hard work over the coming years. Bynow, you all should have heard from PCS about the various ways youcan pay your membership fees. These are hard times, but I hope youwill agree that the fees (£35 for regular members and £15 forstudents) are exceptional value. Membership has many benefits,

including support for cell biology in the UK. When registering for theSpring meeting, why not check that your membership details are up todate as well? It would be a good chance to remind yourself about allthe good things the BSCB does and why being a member is soworthwhile.

The BSCB committee are generally a hard working group, but AdrianHarwood deserves special mention. Not only has he managed ouraccounts and the membership database overhaul, but he was also thedriving force behind the establishment of our Summer VacationStudentship Programme. This Programme provides undergraduatestudents with a stipend and some laboratory costs to work in a cellbiology lab in the UK during the summer holiday. It has been runningsince 2008, and it goes from strength to strength, with more than 40students supported so far. Sadly, it is now time for Adrian to retire asTreasurer. We will miss him sorely, and I want to thank him for all thathe has done for the Society. I am delighted and very grateful thatCaroline Austin has agreed to take on this responsibility.

Finally, our Post-Doc Representative, Iman van den Bout, has retiredthis year. I thank him for his valuable work on the committee and wishhim luck in his new career – as a bicycle entrepreneur. I am delightedto welcome on board Alexis Barr from the Institute of Cancer Researchin London as our new Post-Doc Rep. Thanks to the many of you whoapplied for this position; we were truly amazed by the large number ofexcellent applications we received. In these tough times, it is upliftingto see so many young scientists keen to get involved. The future maybe bright after all.

Jordan RaffNovember 2012

BSCB President’s report

24

The British Society for Cell BiologyStatement of Financial Activities for the year to 31 December 2010

2010 2009Unrestricted Restricted Total Total

£ £ £ £Incoming ResourcesIncoming resources from generating funds:

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

Meetings 35,021 – 35,021 2,264Subscriptions 31,918 – 31,918 31,443

Investment income:Bank interest 437 – 437 782

Other incoming resources 22 – 22 8,535Total incoming resources 97,398 27,500 124,898 100,524

Resources ExpendedCharitable Activities:Grants payable:

CoB/Honor Fell travel awards – 26,773 26,773 27,016Other grants 611 500 1,325 611

Studentship 16,399 – 16,399 9,709Costs of meetings 61,119 – 61,119 39,876Newsletter costs 5,883 – 5,883 5,139Website expenses 2,373 – 2,373 7,295Governance costs 5,223 – 5,223 6,808Bad DebtTotal resources expended 91,824 27,273 119,097 96,454

Net movement in funds for the year 5,574 227 5,801 4,070

Reconciliation of funds

Funds brought forward at 1 January 220,324 8,842 229,166 225,096

Funds carried forward at 31 December 225,898 9,069 234,967 229,166

2010 2009£ £ £ £

Current AssetsDebtors:

Prepayments and accrued income 478 433Cash at bank and in hand:

National Savings Investment Account 71,850 71,635HSBC Bank Accounts 165,871 159,951

238,199 232,019Less: Creditors falling due within one year

Creditors and accruals 3,232 2,8533,232 2,853

Net Assets 234,967 229,166

FundsRestricted 9,069 484Unrestricted 225,898 228,682

234,967 229,166

SOCI

ETY

BUSI

NES

S

25

BSCB

CO

MM

ITTE

E

26

Committee Members 2012–13

PresidentProfessor Jordan RaffSir William Dunn School ofPathologyUniversity of OxfordSouth Parks RoadOxford OX1 3RETel: +44 (0) 1865 275533Email: jordan.raff@path.ox.ac.uk

SecretaryDr Grant WheelerSchool of Biological SciencesThe University of East AngliaNorwich NR4 7TJTel: +44 (0) 1603 593988Email: grant.wheeler@uea.ac.uk

TreasurerProfessor Caroline AustinInstitute for Cell and MolecularBiosciencesThe Medical SchoolUniversity of Newcastle uponTyneFramlington PlaceNewcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HHEmail:Caroline.Austin@ncl.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: +44 (0) 20 7679 7806Email: d.cutler@ucl.ac.uk

Newsletter editorProfessor Kate NobesSchool of BiochemistryUniversity of Bristol,Medical Sciences BuildingUniversity Walk,Bristol BS8 1TD Tel: +44 (0) 117 331 2229Email:catherine.nobes@bristol.ac.uk(to whom material should be

sent– see guidelines for contributors)

Website CoordinatorDr Paul. D. Andrews Cellartis AB 1Wurzburg CourtDundee DD2 1FBTel: +44 (0) 1382 569987Email: pdandrews1@mac.com

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 SheffieldFirth Court, Western BankSheffield S10 2TNTel: +44 (0)114 222 273Email:e.hettema@sheffield.ac.uk

Committee membersProfessor 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 Adrian HarwoodCardiff School of Biosciences Biomedical BuildingMuseum AvenueCardiff CF10 3AXTel: +44 (0) 29 879358Email: harwoodaj@cardiff.ac.uk

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

Dr Jean-Paul VincentMRC National Institute forMedical ResearchThe Ridgeway, Mill Hill, London NW7 1AAEmail: jvincen@nimr.mrc.ac.uk

Dr Steve RoyleThe Physiological Laboratory, School of Biomedical Sciences, Crown Street,University of Liverpool,Liverpool L69 3BXEmail: s.j.royle@liv.ac.uk

Non-elected (co-opted)members

PhD student repKimberley Bryon-DoddMRC Laboratory of MolecularCell BiologyUniversity College LondonEmail:kimberley.bryon.09@ucl.ac.uk

Postdoc repDr Alexis BarrThe Institute of Cancer ResearchChester Beatty Laboratories237 Fulham RoadLondon SW3 6JB

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

BSCB Ambassadors

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, Colin Ockleford amf5@leicester.ac.uk, c.ockleford@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.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 Jo Parish jlp10@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, Andrew McAinsh A.Straube@warwick.ac.uk, A.McAinsh@mcri.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.

27

BSCB AMBASSAD

ORS

28

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

Professor Kate NobesSchool of Biochemistry,Medical Sciences Building, University of BristolUniversity 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 can pay by credit/debit card using our secure site(http://services.portlandpress.com/bscb/renewal.htm) or can contactbscb@portland-services.com

New members should complete an online application form athttp://services.portlandpress.com/bscb/join.htm

Postmaster and General InquiriesDr Grant Wheeler (BSCB Secretary)School of Biological SciencesThe University of East AngliaNorwich NR4 7TJTel: +44 (0) 1603 593988Email: grant.wheeler@uea.ac.uk

Professor Dan Cutler (Membership Secretary)MRC Laboratory for Molecular Cell BiologyUniversity College LondonGower StreetLondonWC1E 6BTTel: +44 (0) 20 7679 7806Email: d.cutler@ucl.ac.uk

InvoicesSend to:

Professor Caroline AustinInstitute for Cell and Molecular BiosciencesThe Medical SchoolUniversity of Newcastle upon TyneFramlington PlaceNewcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HHEmail: Caroline.Austin@ncl.ac.uk

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

30