May 2007 ASCB Newsletter

Home , Alexander Varshavsky

ASCB M A Y 2 0 0 7 NEWSLETTER VOLUME 30, NUMBER 5 Annual Senate Approves Stem Cell Bills Meeting Once again, the United States Senate has ap- The current federal policy limits federally Program proved a bill that would expand the exist- funded research to research using human Page 8 ing federal human embryon- embryonic stem cell lines ic stem cell policy. The bill, derived before August 9, 2001. S.5, the Stem Cell Research “[N]aturally dead Despite U.S. President Bush’s NIH Enhancement Act of 2007, initial claim that as many as Proponents passed the Senate by a vote of is a scientiﬁ cally 78 stem cell lines would be 63–34. Three Senators who meaningless available to researchers, only 21 Rally Support support stem cell research did lines are actually available. idea. To our not vote. Only two of the nine S.5, the pro-research bill, in Congress new Senators —Sens. Bob knowledge, there would expand the current policy Page 13 Corker (R-TN) and Bob Casey is no scientiﬁ cally to allow investigators to receive (D-PA)—opposed the bill. federal funds for research using A Network of The Senate also passed a credible way to human embryonic stem cells bill that would limit federally determine this derived from IVF clinic excess Our Own funded research to research embryos that would otherwise using human embryonic stem [for embryos].” be destroyed. S.5 combines Page 18 cells derived from “naturally the bill that was passed by the dead” embryos. That bill, House and Senate last year S.30, the Hope Offered through Principled and (H.R.810) but vetoed by President Bush, along Inside Ethical Stem Cell Research Act, was approved with the main components of a second bill 70–28. See Stem Cells, page 13 PIC Meeting Report 2

Member Gifts 4 Education Committee Report 4 Look for Your Did You InCytes from MBC 6 ASCB Annual Meeting Know …? Annual Meeting Program 8 ■ The ASCB Job Board is available ASCB Profi le 10 Announcement year-round for employers and Public Policy Briefi ng 13 The ASCB 47th Annual Meeting job seekers to contact each other Announcement/Call for Abstracts directly. ASCB members may Dear Labby 15 was mailed recently. The Meeting post their profi le and CV for six Program Chair Announced 15 Announcement provides details on months—free! Employers may the scientifi c program, lectures, work- post positions for three months ASCB Summer Meeting 16 shops, other events, general infor- at a cost of only $200, and then WICB Column 18 mation, and abstract submission view CVs at no additional cost. guidelines for the upcoming ASCB ■ All interested job seekers and Members in the News 20 Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, employers should go to the December 1–5, 2007. Call for Award Nominations 20 ASCB website—www.ascb. The Annual Meeting information org, and click on “Job Board.” Grants & Opportunities 21 is also available on the ASCB website. To register for the Register for the ASCB Job Board meeting, submit an abstract, or reserve a room, go to Classifi ed Advertising 22 today! www.ascb.org/meetings/. ■ Calendar 24 The American Society for Cell Biology Public Information Committee 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 750 Bethesda, MD 20814-2762 Discussed Sending a Message in Tel: (301) 347-9300 Fax: (301) 347-9310 [email protected], www.ascb.org Stormy Times A hurricane is tearing through the news busi- traditional science journalists covering the Joan R. Goldberg ness today, uprooting daily newspapers, TV meeting, public information officers at Executive Director networks, and other traditional news media. members’ home institutions, and general Officers To be heard above the consumer publications. storm, the ASCB’s Public For this last group, the Bruce M. Alberts President Information Committee ASCB news “hook” Robert D. Goldman President-Elect (PIC) met April 26 at has to be the health Mary C. Beckerle Past President the national office in implications of basic Gary E. Ward Treasurer Jean E. Schwarzbauer Secretary Bethesda to consider new research, according to ways to promote advanc- ASCB Science Writer Council es in basic cell research. John Fleischman. PIC looked at fine-tun- PIC also looked at Kerry S. Bloom ing its current major ef- more radical redirection David R. Burgess fort—a press guide of PIC resources to John S. Condeelis geared to the ASCB expand the reach of Susan K. Dutcher Left to right: PIC Chair Rex Chisholm, ASCB Science Writer John Fleischman, and PIC member Lynne D. Scott Emr Annual Meeting. The ASCB’s message about Maquat Joan R. Goldberg, ex officio Committee also basic research. Caroline M. Kane brainstormed These Sandra K. Masur about how to included a Barbara J. Meyer reach out more reallocation of Timothy J. Mitchison directly to the Fleischman’s Erin K. O'Shea Anne J. Ridley public. The pri- time and Susan R. Wente mary message? the re-use of The impor- materials from ASCB Newsletter tance of basic the PIC press is published twelve times per research to the book and year by The American Society future of hu- other ASCB for Cell Biology. man health. publications Joan R. Goldberg Editor PIC Chair to create John L. Saville Production Manager Rex Chisholm a year- New PIC member Duane Compton Nancy Moulding Production Assistant told the PIC member Lynne Maquat round media Kevin Wilson Public Policy Briefing Committee that presence. Ed Newman Advertising Manager John Fleischman Science Writer the ASCB Council had In attendance Thea Clarke Editorial Manager already underscored its were PIC members commitment to public Simon Atkinson, Deadlines for submission of outreach last December, Duane Compton, articles and advertising by continuing funding Tom Egelhoff, Lynne materials: for a media consultant Maquat, Bob Palazzo, Issue Deadline to promote the Annual Greg Payne, Kip July June 1 Meeting press book Sluder, and Kathy August July 1 to science journalists. Wilson, and ASCB September August 1 Coverage of breaking Executive Director Joan research news at the 2006 Goldberg. The ASCB ASCB Newsletter Left to right: ASCB Executive Director Joan ISSN 1060-8982 San Diego meeting by Goldberg, ASCB Committee Liaison Cheryl Lehr, PIC Council is scheduled Volume 30, Number 5 Science, Nature, Reuters, members Bob Palazzo and Kathy Wilson for its first Strategic May 2007 and other news services Retreat in May, she © 2007 was evidence of the noted. “Council plans The American Society for Cell Biology consultant’s impact last year, Chisholm said. to discuss with staff, Chisholm, and others, Postmaster: Send change of address to For the upcoming meeting, the consultant priorities in public, press, congressional, and ASCB Newsletter will have more time to target three member outreach, among other topics.” ■ The American Society for Cell Biology 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 750 “constituencies” for ASCB science news— —John Fleischman Bethesda, MD 20814-2762

2 ASCB NEWSLETTER MAY 2007

MEMBER Education Committee Focused on Gifts Integrating Resources Integrating the Society’s education efforts and The ASCB is grateful to the following members who have resources was the primary focus for members of recently given a gift to support the ASCB Education Committee when they met Society activities: in Bethesda in April. At the daylong meeting on Milton Adesnik April 27, Committee members discussed: Irina M. Conboy ■ Further development of the Image & Video Yimeng Dou Library (including adapting content for use Sharyn A. Endow by professors who teach undergraduates) Karen A. Ketchum ■ Resources for Cell-WEB, a soon-to-be- launched portal linking the online scientifi c community ■ The need for continued focus on improving Left to right: Education Committee members Ernie K–12 and undergraduate scientifi c teaching Schiller, Elisa Stone, Triscia Hendrickson, and Elisa ■ How ASCB member volunteers might help Konieczko with Committee projects In addition, attendees fi nalized choices for education-related events at the ASCB 2007 Annual Meeting. These include a workshop, “Clickers—The Greatest Teaching Tool Since Chalk: How to Use and Not Misuse Audience Response Systems,” by William Wood, and a K–12 Science Education Partnership Lunch, entitled “Bringing Biotechnology into the Classroom: Strategies for Teaching and Outreach.” (More information on clickers and their use in undergraduate education can be Left to right: Education Committee members Elisa Konieczko, found in the Spring issue of CBE—Life Sciences Maria Niswonger, Melanie Styers, and Mark Rose Education at www.lifescied.org.) As in past years, Education Initiative Forums will be chosen from among submitted Education abstracts. At this year’s Undergraduate Program, Jennifer Lippincott-Schwartz will speak immediately before the increasingly popular undergraduate poster session. The Subcommittee on Postdoctoral Training (SCOPT) is planning a comprehensive program, entitled “Career Development for Young Scientists.” Breakout sessions will include “Finding the Right Mentor,” “Careers Beyond Academic Research,” “How to Be Your Own Cheerleader,” Left to right: Education Committee Chair Tim Stearns, Robin Wright, and Committee Liaison Thea Clarke and “Concerns for International Trainees.” The April meeting was attended by Committee members Triscia Hendrickson, Elisa Konieczko, Maria Niswonger, Mark Rose, Ernie Schiller, Tim Stearns (chair), Elisa Stone, Each regular, postdoc, and emeritus member has Melanie Styers, Kimberly Tanner, and Robin been sent a link to the ASCB election site. Since Wright, and Executive Director Joan Goldberg spam fi lters may prevent some messages from be- and Education and Editorial Manager Thea ing received, members are encouraged to go to Clarke. The ASCB Council plans to discuss www.ascb.org to vote. Your member number (the same number used to access MBC) will enable science education further at its fi rst retreat, in you to vote, and ensure that each member votes May 2007, with staff, Stearns, CBE-LSE Editor just once. If you did not receive the link, and/or do Bill Wood, and others. ■ not know your member number, contact the ASCB —Thea Clarke at (301) 347-9300 or [email protected]. ■

4 ASCB NEWSLETTER MAY 2007

INCYTES from MBC May, Vol. 18, No. 5

Slug Is Required for Cell Survival during Partial Epithelial–Mesenchymal Transition of HGF-Induced Tubulogenesis Pascale Leroy and Keith M. Mostov

Epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) describes a multistep process by which polarized, epithelial cells lose cell–cell contacts and apical–basal polarity, become motile, and gain mesenchymal markers. EMT occurs during development and is also implicated in cancer metastasis. Slug and Snail are related transcription factors associated with EMT. They are overexpressed in cancer cells, and their forced overexpression in epithelial cells represses E- cadherin expression and induces EMT. In other examples of epithelial plasticity, cell–cell contact is maintained and cells undergo partial-EMT (p-EMT). The 3D MDCK tubulogenesis system used here is a model for p-EMT. MDCK cells grown in a 3D gel of extracellular matrix (ECM) form polarized cysts with apical surfaces disposed lumenally and basal surfaces contacting the ECM. Treatment with hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) triggers the outward migration of chains of cells that must retain cell–cell contacts to eventually form branching tubules. These cells speciﬁcally express Slug in their nuclei but show no repression of E- cadherin. By use of an antisense knock-down approach, the authors demonstrate a novel and perhaps major function of Slug as a survival factor during cell migration in ECM, a function that is probably achieved by directly repressing p53 expression and hence apoptosis.

Revealing Early Steps of α2β1 Integrin–Mediated Adhesion to Collagen Type I Using Single-Cell Force Spectroscopy Anna Taubenberger, David A. Cisneros, Jens Fiedrichs, Pierre-Henri Puech, Daniel J. Muller, and Clemens M. Franz Atomic force microscopy–based single-cell force spectroscopy (SCFS) is used to measure early events in

cell adhesion to collagen fibers mediated by α2β1 integrins, the collagen receptors. For SCFS, a single cell is attached to a sensitive cantilever, placed in contact with collagen fibers, and then retracted slowly to measure the strength of both individual adhesive units, recorded as small step-wise force changes during pulling, and overall cell adhesion, the total force needed to detach the cell from the matrix. Recording these forces after increasing times of contact revealed three phases of adhesion formation: an “initiation” phase, which occurred within 60 s of contact and involved the formation of weak individual integrin–collagen bonds; a “reinforcement” phase, in which the strength of individual adhesion units increased exponentially, reflecting integrin clustering and cooperativity of integrin–collagen interactions; and a “maturation” phase during which adhesion is further consolidated by the assembly of highly organized structures. The latter two phases, corresponding to “activated” adhesion, required reorganization of the actin cytoskeleton mediated by myosin II contractility.

Yeast Formins Bni1 and Bnr1 Utilize Different Modes of Cortical Interaction during the Assembly of Actin Cables Shawnna M. Buttery, Satoshi Yoshida, and David Pellman Actin cables in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae emanate from either the bud cortex or bud neck and guide the polarized movement of secretory vesicles and organelles. Two formin family members, Bni1 and Bnr1, nucleate linear actin filament assembly and are differentially localized early in the cell cycle: Bni1 nucleates actin cables originating in the bud, whereas Bnr1 polymerizes actin cables at the bud neck. Thus it has been suggested that the yeast formins are stably associated with, and anchor, actin cable assembly to the cell cortex. The authors use functional triple-GFP fusions of Bni1 and Bnr1 to visualize formin dynamics in living cells. In contrast to Bnr1, which is relatively static, Bni1 is only transiently associated with the bud tip and neck and displays retrograde-directed movements that are cotemporal with the rate of actin cable extension. Although these data define two distinct modes of cortical interaction, it is unlikely that either formin functions as a static anchor. Actin cables consist of bundles of short filaments. Therefore, the authors argue that actin filaments dissociate from Bnr1 prior to cable assembly, whereas Bni1 can remain associated with filaments after their incorporation into cables.

Conformational Dynamics of the Major Yeast Phosphatidylinositol Transfer Protein Sec14p: Insights into the Mechanisms of Phospholipid Exchange and Diseases of Sec14p-like Protein Deficiencies Margaret M. Ryan, Brend R.S. Temple, Scott E. Phillips, and Vytas A. Bankaitis Sec14p, the major yeast phosphatidylinositol transfer protein (PITP), is required for vesicular trafficking from the trans-Golgi network. PITPs couple conformational changes to a cycle of phospholipid exchange as they eject bound phospholipid upon encountering a membrane surface, and then reload with another phospholipid prior to disengaging. The authors use in silico molecular dynamic (MD) modeling of wild- type and mutant Sec14p to predict areas of conformational flexibility and the intramolecular interactions driving these dynamic fluctuations, and then test and validate these predictions through in vitro and in vivo functional analyses. These

MD simulations identify an α-helical segment (A10 /T4 /A11) that undergoes oscillatory gate-like motions to generate “open” and “closed” conformations. They also identify two novel structural elements, a hinge unit and the Sec14G “gating” module, that together regulate opening and closing of the helical gate. Sec14 family PITPs are conserved and function generally to regulate membrane pools of key phosphatidylinositol signaling lipids. Strikingly, a number of disease-causing mutations lie within the hinge or Sec14G modules in human orthologs, further emphasizing the importance of these elements in regulating ligand exchange functions of Sec14-like proteins. ■

6 ASCB NEWSLETTER MAY 2007

The ASCB 47th Annual Meeting December 1–5, 2007 Washington Convention Center, Washington, DC Bruce M. Alberts, President ■ R. Dyche Mullins, Program Chair ■ John Hammer, Local Arrangements Chair

Keynote Symposium Minisymposia

Saturday, December 1 Apoptosis and Organelles Mechanics of Cytoskeletal Systems New Biologists for the New Biology—6:00 pm Seamus J. Martin, University of Dublin, Trinity College Margaret L. Gardel, The University of Chicago William Bialek, Princeton University Donald Newmeyer, La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Wolfgang Losert, University of Maryland, College Park Shirley Ann Jackson, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Immunology Mechanics of Epigenetic Regulation Assembling Complex Cytoskeletal Structures Gary Felsenfeld, National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Jacek Gaertig, University of Georgia Kidney Diseases/NIH Symposia Dave Kovar, The University of Chicago Cynthia Wolberger, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine/HHMI

Biological Oscillators Mechanisms of Membrane Trafﬁcking Sunday, December 2 Jay C. Dunlap, Dartmouth Medical School Juan Bonifacino, National Institute of Child Health & Human Membrane Dynamics—8:00 am Hideo Iwasaki, Nagoya University Development/NIH Pietro De Camilli, Yale University School of Medicine/ Elizabeth Conibear, University of British Columbia HHMI Cell Biology and Disease Kit Pogliano, University of California, San Diego Lucy A. Godley, The University of Chicago Mitosis and Meiosis Kai Simons, Max Planck Institute, Dresden Timothy J. Mitchison, Harvard Medical School Sue Biggins, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center Dean Dawson, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation Architecture of Signaling Systems—10:30 am Cell Biology of the Synapse Richard M. Losick, Harvard University Edwin R. Chapman, University of Wisconsin–Madison Molecular Motors: Alone and in Groups Tobias Meyer, Stanford University School of Medicine Graeme W. Davis, University of California, San Francisco Gijsje Koenderink, Institute for Atomic and Molecular Physics Pamela A. Silver, Harvard Medical School Daniela Nicastro, Brandeis University Cell Cycle Monday, December 3 Michael Glotzer, The University of Chicago Neuronal Cell Biology Cell Biology of Metazoan Development— Sue L. Jaspersen, Stowers Institute for Medical Research Michael D. Ehlers, Duke University Medical Center/HHMI 8:00 am Franck Polleux, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Kathryn Anderson, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Cell Migration/Motility Center Jeff Hardin, University of Wisconsin–Madison Nuclear Import and Export Marie-Anne Felix, Jacques Monod Institute, CNRS Irina Kaverina, Vanderbilt University Medical Center Charles N. Cole, Dartmouth Medical School Richard Harland, University of California, Berkeley Richard W. Wozniak, University of Alberta Chromatin Architecture and Remodeling Laura Rusche, Duke University Medical Center Nuclear Organization and Dynamics Unconventional Organelles—10:30 am Jerry Workman, Stowers Institute for Medical Research Sui Huang, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Martina Brueckner, Yale University School of Medicine Medicine Stephen Gould, Johns Hopkins University Cytoskeletal Dynamics and Polarity Susan R. Wente, Vanderbilt University Medical Center Yoshinori Ohsumi, National Institute for Basic Biology Ed Munro, Center for Cell Dynamics, University of Washington Prokaryotic Cell Biology Tuesday, December 4 William Saxton, University of California, Santa Cruz Zemer Gitai, Princeton University Geography of Signaling—8:00 am David Z. Rudner, Harvard Medical School Howard Chang, Stanford University Epithelial Morphogenesis Deborah Hogan, Dartmouth Medical School M. Thomas Lecuit, Developmental Biology Institute of Protein Folding Elly Tanaka, Max Planck Institute, Dresden Marseilles-Luminy Elizabeth Craig, University of Wisconsin–Madison Jennifer Zallen, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Suzannah L. Rutherford, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Force and Form in Cell Biology—10:30 am Center Dennis Discher, University of Pennsylvania Evolution of Eukaryotic Endomembrane Systems Michael P. Sheetz, Columbia University John A. Fuerst, University of Queensland Regulatory Roles of Lipid Microdomains Valerie M. Weaver, University of California, San Francisco Trevor Lithgow, University of Melbourne Barbara A. Baird, Cornell University Michael Edidin, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine Extracellular Matrix as a Memory Storage Device Wednesday, December 5 Linda Gay Grifﬁth, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Results of Working Group Discussion Single Molecule Studies—8:00 am Patricia Keely, University of Wisconsin–Madison R. Dyche Mullins, University of California, San Francisco, Steve Kowalczykowski, University of California, Davis Moderator Paul Selvin, University of Illinois High-Tech Cell Biology Michelle Wang, Cornell University Grant Jensen, California Institute of Technology RNA Silencing Mechanisms Kendall Knight, University of Massachusetts Medical School Natasha J. Caplen, National Cancer Institute/NIH Cell Biology in Ten Years—10:30 am Alla Grishok, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Benjamin F. Cravatt, III, The Host–Pathogens Interactions and Innate Scripps Research Immunity Signaling through Cell Adhesion Proteins Institute For more Joanne Engel, University of California, San Francisco David A. Calderwood, Yale University School of Medicine David Haussler, Jean Greenberg, The University of Chicago Masatoshi Takeichi, RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology University of information, California, Santa contact the ASCB: Intermediate Filaments and Nuclear Lamins Stem Cell Niches Cruz Pamela K. Geyer, University of Iowa Leanne Jones, Salk Institute for Biological Studies Stanislas Leibler, (301) 347-9300 Birgit Lane, IMB Singapore and University of Dundee Haifan Lin, Yale University Rockefeller www.ascb.org/ University Making ’omics Useful to Cell Biologists X-ylation and Cell Signaling meetings John D. Aitchison, Institute for Systems Biology Holly A. Ingraham, University of California, San Francisco Nevan J. Krogan, University of California, San Francisco Kim Orth, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

8 ASCB NEWSLETTER MAY 2007

ASCB Profile R. Dyche Mullins, Jr. Dyche Mullins felt very much the outsider when The Central Dilemma he arrived on Cape Cod to take the renowned The problem delighted Mullins, although he Physiology course at the Marine Biological winces now when he recalls his rookie enthusi- Laboratory (MBL) in the summer of 1993. asm at Woods Hole. “I remember coming up to Mullins was from rural Kentucky, an engineer, Tom and saying that I’d been reading a lot and and no cell biologist. He’d never taken a course it seemed to me that one of the important ques- in biochemistry. True, Mullins was finishing his tions was how actin filaments are actually nucle- doctorate at the University of Kentucky (UK) ated. Tom just laughed and said, ‘Tell me about in Lexington in Biomedical Engineering. His it. This has been the main issue in the whole UK mentors—engineer Betty Sisken and her field for the last 30 years.’” cell biologist husband Jesse Sisken—had urged The newest postdoc in Pollard’s lab at Johns Mullins to take the MBL course to see if his Hopkins would play a key role in solving the growing interest in biological control systems ex- question. Mullins arrived in Baltimore soon tended into cell physiology. He’d seen the list of after a key discovery by Laura Machesky, a MBL faculty and speakers—Tom Pollard, Tim graduate student in the Pollard lab. In 1994, Dyche Mullins Mitchison, Ron Vale, and Roger Svoboda—and Machesky identified what became known their impressive institutional affiliations. But as the Arp2/3 complex in Acanthamoeba, a Mullins thought to himself, “I’ll be goddamned microscopic soil-borne protozoa. What role, if if I’m going to be intimidated by these guys.” any, the Arp2/3 complex might play in actin His Physiology instructors had never seen nucleation was unknown. Then in 1997, Tim anyone quite like the biomedical engineer from Mitchison and Matt Welch, working at the Kentucky. “I was immediately struck by how University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), smart Dyche was,” recalls Andrew Murray, identified the human homolog of the Arp2/3 now at Harvard Medical School. Mullins complex. Machesky, now working with her seemed to grasp key concepts instantly and husband Robert Insall at the University of gave no hint at the bench that he wasn’t an Birmingham in the United Kingdom, linked experienced biochemist, according to Murray. the human Arp2/3 complex to a human protein “In the [Physiology] course, someone ends up called WASP already implicated in a genetic there every year for some random reason who is disease, Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome. Suddenly, completely off scale. That year, it was Dyche.” an obscure amoebic protein complex was a Murray remembers, “By the end of the course, player in a known human disorder. Under the innocent- both Tom [Pollard] and I were trying furiously sounding name of to recruit him as a postdoc. Tom won.” A Model of Parsimony Murray consoles himself: “Dyche is one of my Pollard had put Mullins on the Arp2/3 complex cell motility, the closest friends today. He’s a wonderful scientist, soon after he joined his lab in 1995. By 1997, field had been but he’s an even more wonderful person.” they had already published part of their “story,” Back in 1993, Mullins believed that Pollard grappling since demonstrating that the Arp2/3 complex binds stuck out his neck by inviting him to join his to the sides of actin filaments and can cross-link the 1960s with the Johns Hopkins lab as a postdoc. Pollard, now them into networks. They also had unpublished at Yale, remembers it differently: “I’ve always mystery of how the data demonstrating that the Arp2/3 complex felt that Dyche had a clear vision of where to could nucleate new actin filaments. Despite actin cytoskeleton go scientifically. It was my good fortune that he this progress, Mullins recalls that the data didn’t assembled and decided to go in our direction and work on our tie up into a neat package. “This is my favorite problems, but I’m sure he would have been a kind of science,” Mullins notes, “where you disassembled itself great success working on something else.” don’t just look at it [the data] and the answer so that cells could Pollard’s problem was simple. How do cells is immediately obvious. It’s where there are move? Under the innocent-sounding name advance, surround, or paradoxes or when you have lots of little hints, of cell motility, the field had been grappling lots of disparate pieces of data that don’t quite separate themselves. since the 1960s with the mystery of how the fit together. You have to come up with the most actin cytoskeleton assembled and disassembled parsimonious model that could explain all this itself so that cells could advance, surround, or data. That suggests another experiment. You do separate themselves. that, and then you see the actual result.”

10 ASCB NEWSLETTER MAY 2007 Taken together, Mullins’ data suggested that A Diagram to Remember the complex might nucleate new filaments from The resulting Mullins-Heuser-Pollard 1998 the sides of pre-existing filaments. This was PNAS paper became a citation classic. “It’s the “This is my favorite exciting because it would mean that the processes most reproduced piece of information from our of filament nucleation and network formation lab of all time,” Pollard acknowledges. “It was kind of science,” are not just coupled, they are inseparable. The a formative moment in the field.” At the time, Mullins notes, “where biochemical data pointed the way. However, to a lot of people were making predictions about pull all the pieces together, Mullins decided that how filaments would be nucleated by comparing you don’t just look he needed better electron microscopy (EM). He them with microtubules. As Mullins recalls, at it [the data] sent protein samples and preparation protocols “Most people thought that the nucleation sites to John Heuser, a microscopist at Washington had to be fixed at the membrane, and that the and the answer is University in St. Louis. Mullins remembers filaments were nucleated and then released immediately obvious. Heuser’s response to the first EM images. “He from the nucleation sites. In our model, the It’s where there e-mailed us, ‘Oh, my God, these look like nucleation sites are an integral part of the Christmas trees or bottle brushes!’” network and move with it.” are paradoxes or The suddenly visible Arp2/3 complex was To illustrate this point Mullins drew a simple when you have lots more precise than any Christmas tree, although diagram showing their model for the role of it was tree-like enough for Mullins and Pollard the Arp2/3 complex and integrating it with the of little hints, lots to coin the term “dendritic nucleation” to functions of other fundamental actin regulators. of disparate pieces describe it. Mullins moved Heuser’s micrographs That diagram is still in use, says Pollard. “Every into PhotoShop®, printed them out and time you go to a meeting about the Arp2/3 of data that don’t then plotted the angles on paper with an old- complex, someone will show a form of Dyche’s quite fit together.” fashioned protractor. The Arp2/3 complex diagram.” It brought together 30-plus years produced new filaments at an angle of 70 of research at the molecular and cellular level degrees, + 2 degrees. It’s a finding that recalls on how actin contributes to cellular motility, science fiction novelist Douglas Adams and declares Pollard. “Dyche has a real flair for his The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. In summarizing complexity with approachable, that novel, the answer to the meaning of life transparent diagrams,” Pollard continues. “He’s turns out to be the number 42. But the Arp2/3 continued to do that with the new work he complex is strictly nonfiction … and truly publishes from his own lab.” fundamental to cell motility. In eukaryotes, the The Arp2/3 complex papers launched Arp2/3 complex is central to everything, from Mullins into his first faculty position at UCSF. the way that amoebae hunt for and seize prey, to But in Andrew Murray’s opinion, Mullins’ best how the human embryo “wires up” its neurons, science is what he’s doing today: “It [the Arp2/3 to how cancer cells metastasize. complex] was a scientifically important piece of Despite this success at the bench, however, a work, but … the work that Dyche is doing now significant barrier to publication still remained. on how bacterial actins direct DNA segregation If the Arp2/3 complex was making all these is actually going to be much more important. branched filament networks, why had no one This work with his students Ethan Garner and seen them in cells? There were scattered reports Chris Campbell is spectacularly beautiful. It tells in the literature of end-to-side or y-branched us about the potential origins of chromosome filament crosslinks but there was no evidence segregation. In my mind, Dyche’s Arp2/3 for the densely branched network predicted by complex stuff was sort of a warm-up to this.” the Pollard-Mullins model. Then, as if on cue, Gary Borisy and Trina Svitkina at the University The Heartland of Wisconsin developed an improved method Rockcastle County is in eastern Kentucky, al- for preserving and visualizing actin filaments. most due south as Interstate 75 flies from They took a close look at the dense latticework Lexington on its way to Florida. It is in the of actin filaments on the leading edge of fish Appalachian heartland—hilly, largely rural, and keratocytes. In their images, the latticework was the center of Dyche Mullins’s galaxy. “Every built almost exclusively of the rigid y-branch time I go home, I get this weird vibe of being crosslinks suggested by the Pollard-Mullins simultaneously incredibly connected and at ease, model. Mullins recalls reading the Svitkina like nowhere else on earth,” Mullins explains. and Borisy paper. “When I saw their images, “Everyone knows me. Everyone knows my I sat bolt upright. My heart was pounding. I whole family. At the same time,” Mullins con- could barely finish reading the paper, and I ran tinues, “it can feel stifling.” immediately to show Tom that we were right.”

MAY 2007 ASCB NEWSLETTER 11 Mullins is descended on both sides from At UK, Betty Sisken had never met a student pioneer families who came into the Kentucky quite like Dyche Mullins. “This character territory in the 1780s. His mother’s people came appeared out of nowhere,” Betty Sisken with Daniel Boone. His father’s people came remembers. A faculty member told her about in less distinguished company, says Mullins, an American engineering grad student who was but they brought the family name Dyche with carrying around Russian literature books, which Andrew Murray them. It’s pronounced “dike.” According to The he was apparently reading. “That was Dyche,” believes that “the Oxford English Dictionary, it comes from the Sisken laughs. “He’s incredible.” Old English word for an earthwork or ditch. “It Under the guidance of Betty and Jesse Arp2/3 complex means that I’m named after a long line of ditch Siskens, Mullins developed a thesis proposal. was a scientifically diggers,” Mullins deadpans. It featured an engineering approach with Betty Sisken and a study of intracellular calcium important piece of Leaving the County homeostasis with Jesse Sisken. Says Betty Sisken, work, but the work That long line is still rooted in Rockcastle “Dyche was the best student we’ve ever had here. We get lots of good students, especially that Dyche is doing County. Mullins’ father was a school principal who helped found, and then ran, the regional from these small towns in Kentucky, students now on how bacterial community mental health agency. His mom who have good preparation or are extremely self- actins direct DNA taught high school English. One of his sisters motivated. Most of them go into medicine, but became a pediatrician, the other, a lawyer and Dyche has always been exceptional.” segregation is writer. Both moved back to Rockcastle County actually going to to practice their professions and live on farms. Cytoskeleton in the Prokaryotic “I’m the black sheep professor who moved Closet? be much more away,” Mullins says. “Still, when I was growing Today, the Mullins lab at UCSF presses ahead important … In up, I never imagined leaving the county for on three fronts. One section still explores how my mind, Dyche’s good.” the Arp2/3 complex collaborates with other For college, Mullins never imagined going cytoskeletal proteins to drive cell motility. The Arp2/3 complex anywhere but UK in Lexington. Cell biology second focuses on a Drosophila protein called stuff was sort of a was the farthest subject from his mind as an Spire that seems to be crucial in establishing undergraduate. Mullins was torn between the very earliest cytoskeletal landmarks in warm-up to this.” mathematics and Russian. He studied both and embryos. The third is looking for the roots spent a semester at what was then the University of the eukaryotic actin cytoskeleton in actin- of Leningrad before returning to UK. “I was like filaments that prokaryotes use for DNA being advised by practical-minded people who segregation. said that with my interests I should become an engineer.” He listened and graduated in A Multitude of Interests 1988 with separate degrees in Mathematics and This year, Mullins has also served as Program Electrical Engineering. Chair for the 2007 ASCB Annual Meeting. The Committee’s work went much more smooth- From Farmer to Biomedical ly than he imagined, Mullins reports. “Still, you Engineer don’t want to do too good a job at this sort of Then Mullins promptly moved back to thing or people will never stopping asking you Rockcastle County, where he purchased a 250- to do it again.” acre farm and tried to raise cattle. Influenced As ever, Mullins continues to pursue an by the Kentucky writer and environmental amazing variety of interests, from Russian philosopher Wendell Berry, Mullins went home poetry to building a “city” bike. He also shoots to pursue the ethical rural life. Reality convinced photographic portraits of the leading lights in him otherwise. “I did not make much of a cytoskeleton research. farmer,” Mullins confesses. After a year and a Still another Mullins interest is restoring half, he bolted back to Lexington and enrolled antique microscopes. Mullins says that the old as a graduate student in electrical engineering. microscopes have opened yet another career That summer, Mullins was hired by a UK track—wading through Bay Area marshes biologist to construct some electrical apparatus. in search of unknown cyanobacteria. “I’m Gradually Mullins became intrigued at what becoming an amateur naturalist,” Mullins was going on around him in the lab: “I started proudly announces. ■ to realize that biology was less purely descriptive —John Fleischman and more quantifiable than I’d imagined.” In the fall, he switched from electrical to biomedical engineering. That’s when he met the Siskens.

12 ASCB NEWSLETTER MAY 2007 PUBLIC POLICY Brieﬁng

NIH Proponents Rally Support in Congress As Congress begins its work on the 2008 federal April and was signed by 181 other members of budget, congressional supporters of the National the House. That letter asked the Committee to Institutes of Health (NIH) are gath- provide the NIH with a 6.7% ering support for increased funding increase for the next three years. for the NIH. The letter says, “Unfortunately, In the House of since the doubling ended in Representatives, Reps. Jim Cooper 2003, funding for the NIH (D-TN) and Edward Markey has failed to keep pace with (D-MA) have written letters biomedical inﬂation and as a to the House Appropriations result, the NIH has lost more Committee asking for more than 13% of its purchasing funding for the NIH. In March, power.” six Representatives cosigned the Similar efforts are being letter by Rep. Cooper asking the organized in the Senate. While Appropriations Committee to Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) these shows of support do provide the NIH with a 6.7% not guarantee increases in increase this year. funding, they send signals to the The letter, organized by Rep. Markey, was Appropriations Committee about the extent of sent to the Appropriations Committee in late support for the NIH on the Hill. ■ —Kevin M. Wilson

Stem Cells, continued from page 1 naturally and irreversibly lost the capacity for integrated cellular division, growth, and (S.2754), also passed by the Senate last year. differentiation that is characteristic of an S.2754 would allow the National Institutes organism, even if some cells of the former of Health (NIH) to conduct research into the organism may be alive in a disorganized state.” development of alternatives to embryonic stem In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry cells from sources other than human embryos. Reid (D-NV), ASCB President Bruce Alberts Even though the NIH does not need additional and Public Policy Committee Chair Larry legislation to explore these alternative areas of Goldstein wrote, “S.30 relies on the false premise Senate sponsors research, Senate sponsors of S.5 felt that it was that scientists can determine whether a human important to “expand the scope” of their bill to embryo is naturally dead. However, naturally of S.5 felt that it attract additional votes and, possibly, support dead is a scientifically meaningless idea. To our was important to from the President. knowledge, there is no scientifically credible “expand the scope” Shortly after the Senate passed S.5, the way to determine this. In fact, we think that to President announced his intention to veto establish sufficiently precise scientific or clinical of their bill to attract the bill. In announcing his plan to veto, standards about the quality of embryos at the additional votes and, the President said, “I believe this [S.5] will very early stages of development would require encourage taxpayer money to be spent on the experiments that the bill itself would not permit.” possibly, support destruction or endangerment of living human To see how your Senator voted on S.5, go to from the President. embryos—raising serious moral concerns for http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/ millions of Americans.” roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1& S.30, offered by opponents of S.5, would vote=00127. permit research on human pluripotent stem To see how your Senator voted on S.30, go to cells as long as (1) embryos are not created for http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/ research purposes, and (2) the stem cells are roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1& derived from “naturally dead” embryos. The vote=00128. ■ bill defines naturally dead as embryos “having —Kevin M. Wilson

MAY 2007 ASCB NEWSLETTER 13 The ASCB JSC Congressional Biomedical Public Policy Committee Research Caucus Needs You!

See www.ascb.org/public policy/project50/index.cfm or email [email protected] for more information.

Clockwise, left to right: JSC Education Liaison Peter Kyros and April 25 Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus speaker V. Craig Jordan of the Fox Chase Cancer Center; Jordan with Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA); Jordan spoke to Caucus attendees on Hormones and Breast Cancer: Cause, Prevention, Therapy.

Congress Upcoming Events Approves Joint Steering Committee Protections for Public Policy Against Genetic June 6 Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus ■ Budding Scientists: Students from the Intel Science Talent Search Discrimination Emcee: Dudley Herschbach, Nobel Laureate, Harvard University Prohibiting employers and insurance companies June 20 from collecting and using genetic information Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus when making employment decisions, providing ■ Vaccination to Prevent Cervical Cancer Speaker: Doug Lowy, National Cancer Institute/NIH insurance, or setting premiums is closer to reality. The House of Representatives passed legisla- September 5 tion to this effect by a vote of 420–3. Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus Republicans in the House were successful ■ A Therapy for Marfan’s Disease Speaker: Harry Dietz, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine/HHMI in adding protections against discrimination against fetuses and embryos. September 19 The Senate is waiting to debate its version of Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus the legislation. At press time, Sen. Tom Coburn ■ Development of Systems of Care for Heart Attack Patients Speaker: Alice Jacobs, Boston University School of Medicine (R-OK) had blocked further action on the bill in an effort to resolve objections he has with the bill. The White House indicated that President www.jscpp.org Bush would sign the bill into law. ■ —Kevin M. Wilson

14 ASCB NEWSLETTER MAY 2007 DEAR Labby

Dear Labby, I am writing about commercial publishers of scientific journals and the thorny issue of restricted access. I bumped into this quite inadvertently. Let me explain. I was recently asked to write a short review on one specific aspect of my overall field (for an open access journal). I am a human geneticist-cell biologist working on disorders caused by defects in lipid biosynthesis and metabolism. My review was published, and I felt good about it based on some comments from people when it came out. Then I went to a major meeting and encountered an angry scientist who lit into me for not citing his work. As it turns out, I knew about his work and when writing my review I had searched his publications. But they were all in a non-frontline journal to which I didn’t have access. I had actually contemplated citing one of his papers that seemed possibly relevant, but was wary of doing so without seeing more than the title and abstract. I then checked with my institution’s library, but found that it doesn’t subscribe. Those excuses didn’t satisfy this investigator, whose voice rose to a level where people started looking at us. When I got home from the meeting, I asked some senior colleagues about this and got mostly supportive reactions. But one colleague went further, saying that we should never publish in a journal that is not open access, nor should we even review papers for such journals. That caught me a bit off guard, and I realized that maybe I’m not up with the times. Can you bring me up-to-date? —Wanting to Be Open

Dear Wanting to Be Open, First, Labby commends you for not citing a publication you hadn’t seen. That’s always right. Second, with regard to the angry scientist you encountered, you had no obligation to go out and buy a subscription to the journal in which he publishes. You might have contacted him for copies, but it sounds like you didn’t feel mention of his work was that critical for the scholarly content of your review. But your main question is how we scientists should handle the issue of open access. Labby knows some scientists who refuse to publish in, or review for, journals that limit access. Some of them include in their policy even journals where there is a short period of restricted access to those who do not have a subscription or whose institution does not. Each individual can make his or her choice, and there are certainly enough open-access journals to allow all of us to publish excellent work for all to see. The closed access journals include a huge number that publish work of such little importance as to be ignored, as well as a few “fashion” journals where access is available to almost all investigators in the developed parts of the world by virtue of institutional library Spector subscriptions. Left out are scientists who cannot afford personal subscriptions and whose libraries cannot either. This is the most injurious aspect of the overall issue in Labby’s opinion. Appointed 2008 Meanwhile, many scientists are ethically offended by the fact that the publication of any science is the domain of for- Program Chair

profit publishers. For these individuals, the fact that commercial © Constance Brukin, 2007 publishers typically limit access is salt in the moral wound. Labby ASCB President-Elect feels that this is a good war to wage, and there can be no doubt Robert Goldman that gigantic syndicates like Elsevier potentially limit scientific announced the knowledge and progress by limiting access. appointment of The electronic era has changed the battle lines, and the David Spector of demand for not only open, but instantaneous, access may soon become a market demand that is so powerful that it will Cold Spring Harbor eliminate for-profit scientific publishing altogether. Meanwhile, Laboratory to serve many scientists throughout the world see our publications in David L. Spector as Chair of the ASCB Table of Contents formats to which they have access. They can Program Committee. then request a copy of the publication from the author(s). But Spector will head many others never see the title in the first place. They are thus the Committee charged with planning denied true partnership in our profession. You handled your specific case well. As to the broader issue, the scientific program for the 48th ASCB you now know the controversy. The times are a changin’, and Annual Meeting, to be held in San you will have to decide if you feel strongly enough to go “out on Francisco, CA, from December13–17, the barricades.” ■ 2008. He will assemble a committee that —Labby will recommend topics and programs for the Annual Meeting. Direct your questions to [email protected]. Authors of questions Scientific program suggestions are chosen for publication may indicate whether or not they wish to welcome at [email protected]. ■ be identified. Submissions may be edited for space and style.

MAY 2007 ASCB NEWSLETTER 15 16 ASCB NEWSLETTER MAY 2007 MAY 2007 ASCB NEWSLETTER 17 WOMEN in Cell Biology A Network of Our Own

Many WICB columns have addressed the im- as dealing with a difficult boss or employee) portance of mentoring relationships between ju- and broader perspective on our lives. Group nior and senior scientists. What’s missing is the helps counter the all-too-common experience view from our peers who face challenges simi- of professional life as a combat zone in which lar to our own in both time and place. Peer net- nobody seems to be on your side …. Anyone who works not only contribute mutual support but feels isolated in a professional or competitive also group intelligence, and are particularly im- setting or who wants honest feedback can benefit portant for scientists who may be isolated or set from a group, a safe testing ground where apart from their colleagues (for example, by be- everyone is on your side.” 4 ing the only woman in a department, or the Group has regular, structured meetings. Each only single father). member asks for a certain amount of time to This column describes two strategies: one, discuss an issue. The members use code-words: a a formal network described pig is a negative self-perception; by Ellen Daniell in her recent a contract is a concise book, Every Other Thursday,1 description of goals; a stroke is and the second, an informal … networks provide an encouraging compliment network called the X-Gals, to another member. Members authors of a continuing a safe place for are discouraged from rescues, series of columns in The their members or taking responsibility for 2 Chronicle of Higher Education. and maintain another’s problems. Although very different in Daniell’s book is not a structure, these two networks confidentiality … how-to manual in setting up share several features. First, are noncompetitive a formal network, although they are safe places for their it provides that information.3 members and maintain … problem-solving Reading the book provides confidentiality. Second, they are groups … a virtual network itself, with noncompetitive: The members Daniell explaining strategies aren’t trying to establish rank for common problems and “Anyone who within the network. Third, describing “pigs” that many feels isolated in they are problem-solving groups, with a focus of us harbor. As these high-achieving women on professional issues. Finally, they are friends, describe the challenges they have faced, the a professional or encouraging the members to enjoy the good as reader may feel a jolt of familiarity. The book competitive setting well as confront the bad. also describes setbacks in professional careers and real lives, as when Daniell describes her or who wants A Structured Group tenure denial, or another member describes honest feedback “Group,” the network in Daniell’s book, was the loss of her beloved partner. Thus, it’s a fascinating biography of a cohort of women can benefit from founded by several University of California, San Francisco, faculty over 30 years ago. It scientists and what it took for them to survive a group …” was inspired by a psychology movement that and thrive. promoted a collective approach to problem- solving. Originally including men and women An Ad Hoc Network who were working toward tenure, Group In contrast to the formality and history of eventually evolved into a group of eight women Group, the X-Gals are young women beginning scientists from different Bay Area institutions. their independent careers who have a long-dis- Many of them have now spent over 25 years tance, ad hoc network. They are: together. Some readers may recall a presentation “nine female biologists who began meeting weekly from Group members at a WICB event during over a few beers in 2000, as several of us wrote 3 the 1994 ASCB Annual Meeting. Daniell writes: up our dissertations…. As we graduated and took “The objective of Group … is cooperation in the far-flung jobs and postdocs … we have continued competitive world. Group members seek both the dialogue through an e-mail discussion list…. practical solutions for specific problems (such What began as a survival mechanism for a

18 ASCB NEWSLETTER MAY 2007 few female graduate students has become an As Daniell reminds us, “intimacy and incredible motivational force and a sounding reliance on others for encouragement and board vital to our lives and careers.” 2 advice is a source of empowerment, not a sign In their series of columns in The Chronicle of weakness.”7 Both Group and the X-Gals of Higher Education, they take turns discussing encourage their members to achieve their goals, issues of mutual concern. Strikingly, most of even though their strategies are different. Their their members are not on the “traditional” experiences make it clear that all scientists, from academic path, and they ask “are women junior students to senior professors, can benefit ‘choosing ourselves’ out of an academic career, from a peer community. No one needs to do it or is the traditional path of the academic alone. ■ profession so hostile to women that we feel —Susan L. Forsburg for the we do not have a choice?”5 The series of X- Women in Cell Biology Committee Gals columns6 reflects on these and other issues, informed by the views of the network. References The Chronicle columns do not reflect the 1Daniell, E. (2006). Every Other Thursday. New Haven: support function of the network per se, but Yale University Press. evolve into broader reflections about careers in 2Louis, L. “The X-Gals Alliance,” The Chronicle of biological science that come from their network Higher Education (6 October 2006). http://chronicle. com/weekly/v53/i07/07c00101.htm. experiences. 3 Peer Mentoring @ UC Berkeley, “Beyond Survival: “We all have searched locally for mentors but The Evolution of a Women’s Professional Problem Solving found few. Perhaps that is one reason our e-mail Group.” Workshop, The American Society for Cell group is so important to us: We help one another Biology Annual Meeting, 1994. http://ga.berkeley.edu/ negotiate the competing demands of our roles, in academics/peer_hist.html. 4 Daniell, p. xii. no particular order, as scientists, partners, and 5 2 Murray, M. “Too Few Choices,” The Chronicle of mothers….” Higher Education (2 February 2007). http://chronicle. The X-Gals network was begun in proximity com/weekly/v53/i22/22c00101.htm. but continues, thanks to email, over long 6 Women in Biology Internet Launch Pages (2007). distances. Thus, a network need not be formal http://www.womenbio.net/. or local to be functional. 7 Daniell, p. xii.

MAY 2007 ASCB NEWSLETTER 19 MEMBERS in the News

Mina Bissell of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Helen Blau of Stanford University, an ASCB member an ASCB member since 1973, and President from since 1978, will receive a 2007 Fulbright Senior 1996–1997, is the recipient of the 2007 Pezcoller Specialist Award. Foundation-AACR International Award for Cancer Research.

Janet Butel of Baylor College of Medicine, an ASCB Carl Frieden of Washington University in St. Louis, member since 1982, was honored with the 10th an ASCB member since 1984, will receive the 2007 Annual AACR-Women in Cancer Research-Charlotte Christian B. Anfinsen Award from the Protein Society. Friend Memorial Lectureship. She presented her lecture Frieden will present his award lecture at the Protein at the American Association for Cancer Research Society Annual Meeting. Annual Meeting.

Susan Lindquist of the Massachusetts Institute Liquin Luo of Stanford University/HHMI, an ASCB of Technology/Whitehead Institute for Biomedical member since 2000, received the 2007 H.W. Mossman Research/HHMI, an ASCB member since 1983, was Developmental Biologist Award from the American named one of the “2006 Scientific American 50” by Association of Anatomists at its joint meeting with Scientific American. Experimental Biology. Photo by Paul Fetters Gerald Rubin of Janelia Farm Research Campus/HHMI, an ASCB member since 1990, was named R&D The ASCB 2007 Call for Magazine’s 2006 Scientist of the Year for his genomic work on Drosophila, and for redirecting the focus on Award Nominations basic research through helping to create Janelia Farm. Norton B. Gilula Memorial Award © Constance Brukin, 2007 Who is Eligible: An outstanding graduate or undergraduate student who has ex- David L. Spector of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, celled in research an ASCB member since 1980, has been appointed How to Apply: The student or advisor should submit a one-page research state- Director of Research at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. ment, a list of publications, if any, the abstract submitted to the current year’s Annual Meeting, and the advisor’s letter of recommendation. Duplicate applications from graduate students may be submitted for the Gilula and Bernﬁeld Memorial Awards. Awards: The winner is presented a plaque. Expenses to attend the Annual Meeting Lydia Villa-Komaroff of Cytonome, Inc., an ASCB are paid. member since 1976, has been appointed Chief Deadline: August 1 Executive Officer.

Merton Bernfield Memorial Award Who is Eligible: An outstanding graduate student or postdoctoral fellow who has excelled in research How to Apply: The student or postdoc or his or her advisor should submit a one- Alexander Varshavsky of the California Institute of page research statement, a list of publications, a copy of the abstract submitted to Technology, an ASCB member since 1991, received the current year’s Annual Meeting, and the advisor’s letter of recommendation. the third annual AACR-Irving Weinstein Foundation Postdocs may also submit the recommendation of their graduate student advisor. Distinguished Lectureship during the American Duplicate applications from graduate students may be submitted for the Gilula and Bernfield Memorial Awards. Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting. Awards: The winner is presented a plaque and will speak in a Minisymposium at the Annual Meeting and receives financial support to attend the Annual Meeting. Deadline: August 1

All applications and nominations should be submitted to:

The American Society for Cell Biology 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 750 Bethesda, MD 20814-2762 [email protected]

For names of prior awardees or more information, visit www.ascb.org, or contact the ASCB at (301) 347-9300, or [email protected].

20 ASCB NEWSLETTER MAY 2007 GRANTS & OPPORTUNITIES

NIAID Biodefense Fellowships. Applications being solicited from biodefense training and development researchers of prevention, detection, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases caused by potential bioterrorism agents. Grants, fellowships, and career development awards. Multiple deadlines. www.niaid.nih.gov/biodefense/research/funding.htm. NIGMS Grants. The NIH National Institute of General Medical Sciences is accepting applications for funding research in which several interdependent projects offers signiﬁcant advantages over support of these same projects as individual research. Standard NIH application dates apply. See http://grants.nih.gov/grants/ guide/pa-ﬁles/PA-07-030.html.

NIH Director’s Bridge Awards. NIH has announced a new program to provide certain investigators with continued, but limited, funding to allow them additional time to strengthen their revised R01 competing renewal applications. NIH components will nominate investigators to receive this support. More information is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-ﬁles/NOT-OD-07-056.html.

NIH Grants ● Large-Scale Collaborative Project Awards. Deadline: June 21, 2007. http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-ﬁles/PAR-04-128.html. ● Predoctoral Research Training in Biostatistics. Deadline: October 12, 2007. http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-ﬁles/PAR-04-132.html.

NIH Re-entry Program. The NIH and Ofﬁce of Research on Women’s Health announce a continuing program for faculty who have taken time out for family re- sponsibilities. Deadline: July 9, 2007. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-ﬁles/PA-04-126.html.

NIH Study Sections. Center for Scientiﬁc Review has cell biology study sections available for grant applicants. The two study sections will hold their ﬁrst meetings in June 2007 for applications received in February and March. http://cms.csr.nih.gov/PeerReviewMeetings/CSRIRGDescription/CBIRG/.

NRSA Awards. The NIH Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality is accepting applications for the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards. The predoctoral fellowships promote diversity in health-related research. Application deadlines are May 1 and November 15 through 2009. http://grants1.nih.gov/ grants/guide/pa-ﬁles/PA-06-481.html#SectionI. SCORE Awards. The NIH NIGMS is accepting applications for its Support of Competitive Research (SCORE) developmental awards designed to increase faculty research competitiveness at minority-serving institutions. The program announcement, as well as three other program announcements (PAR-06-491, PAR-06- 492, PAR-06-493), can be found at http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-ﬁles/PAR-06-490.html#PartI.

NRSA Research Training Grant. NIGMS will award MARC U-STAR National Research Service Act grants to minority-serving institutions that support undergraduate biomedical and behavioral research. Application deadlines: May 25, 2007, 2008, 2009. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-ﬁles/PAR-07-337.html. ■

MAY 2007 ASCB NEWSLETTER 21 22 ASCB NEWSLETTER MAY 2007

Tenure-track Faculty Positions in Systems Biology and Translational Medicine The Department of Systems Biology & Translational Medicine in the Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine embraces the convergence of human biology and the quantitative sciences, including engineering, mathematics, physics and computer science. Tenure-track positions at the Assistant and Associate Professor levels are available in ﬁve areas: 1) Systems biology, analysis of gene and signaling networks, bioinformatics and computational biology, genomics, proteomics. 2) Regenerative medicine, developmental biology, tissue engineering, organogenesis. 3) Imaging at molecular, cellular and organismal levels. 4) Targeted delivery of oligonucleotides, proteins or pharmaceutical agents to speciﬁc cells, nanotechnology. 5) Molecular basis of ion channel function, patch clamping, optical recording of ion channel activity, mutant channel proteins. New faculty will instruct medical and/or graduate students and will be active in predoctoral and postdoctoral training. Competitive salary and generous start-up packages available. Salary supported by state funds. Send CV, a statement of research goals and names of three references to [email protected] or Harris J. Granger, Ph.D., Department of Systems Biology & Translational Medicine, TAMHSC College of Medicine, 702 SW HK Dodgen Loop, Temple, TX 76504-7105

MAY 2007 ASCB NEWSLETTER 23 MEETINGS Calendar

May 23–25. Charlottesville, VA July 15–20. Cairns, Queensland, Australia Morphogenesis and Regenerative Medicine Symposium GLYCO-19—XIX International Symposium on at the University of Virginia. Glycoconjugates. www.glyco19.org. www.morphogenesis.virginia.edu/index.htm. August 5–8. Boston, MA June. Cancun, Mexico Engineering Cell Biology II. www.engconﬁntl.org/7ak.html. ASCB 2007 Pan-American Society of Developmental Biologists Annual Meetings Congress—A joint meeting between the Latin American August 23–26. Vienna, Austria Society for Developmental Biology and the International EMBO Workshop in Molecular Medicine, Drug Action and Society for Cell Biology. Chemical Biology in the Post-genomic Era. www.niob.knaw.nl/isdb/meetings.htm. http://cwp.embo.org/w07-27/. 2007 Washington, DC June 16–20. Naantali, Finland September 1–4. Dresden, Germany The 7th International Workshop for Chromosome European Life Scientist Organization Annual Meeting. December 1–5 Segregation and Aneuploidy. www.elso.org. www.congress.utu.ﬁ/chromo2007/index.php. 2008 September 17–20. Chicago, IL San Francisco June 27–30. Dijon, France 47th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents ASCB-European Cytoskeleton Forum Summer Meeting. and Chemotherapy. (202) 942-9348, www.icaac.org. December 13–17 Dynamic Interplay between Cytoskeletal and Membrane Systems. www.ascb.org. September 20. Paris, France 2009 LVMH Recherche Symposium. Stems Cells and Skin: July 1–6. New London, NH Present and Future. Contact: [email protected]. San Diego Colby Sawyer College. Gordon Research Conference December 5–9 (GRC) entitled “Cell-Cell Fusion.” January 5–9, 2008. San Diego, CA www.grc.uri.edu/programs/2007/cellcell.htm. Genetics Society of America meeting. Analysis: Model Organisms to Human Biology. Abstract deadline: July 8–12. Glasgow, UK November 14, 2007. www.gsa-modelorganisms.org/. ■ Life Sciences 2007, incorporating BioScience2007, the British Pharmacological Society, the Physiological Society at the SECC, Glasgow. www.lifesciences2007.org.

8120 Woodmont Avenue Non-proﬁt Suite 750 Organization Bethesda, MD 20814-2762 US Postage PAID Bethesda, MD Permit No. 356