Now on ScienceBlogs: Conversations With Female Science Administrator

Seed Media Group

Pharyngula

Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal

Search

Profile

pzm_profile_pic.jpg
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
zf_pharyngula.jpg …and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
a longer profile of yours truly
my calendar
Nature Network
RichardDawkins Network
facebook
MySpace
Twitter
Atheist Nexus
the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

• Quick link to the latest endless thread




I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

tbbadge.gif
scarlet_A.png
I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

If wisdom and diamonds grew on the same tree we could soon tell how much men loved wisdom.

[Lemuel K. Washburn, Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other Essays, 1911]

Recent Posts


A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives


Blogroll

Other Information

« Osamu Shimomura: Chemistry of Bioluminescence | Main | Roger Y. Tsien: Building and Breeding Molecules to Spy on Cells, Tumors, and Organisms »

Martin Chalfie: GFP and After

Category: DevelopmentLindauMolecular BiologyNeurobiologyScience
Posted on: July 2, 2009 4:11 AM, by PZ Myers

Chalfie is interested in sensory mechanotransduction—how are mechanical deformations of cells converted into chemical and electrical signals. Examples are touch, hearing, balance, and proprioception, and (hooray!) he references development: sidedness in mammals is defined by mechanical forces in early development. He studies this problem in C. elegans, in which 6 of 302 nerve cells detect touch. It's easy to screen for mutants in touch pathways just by tickling animals and seeing if they move away. They've identified various genes, in particular a protein that's involved in transducing touch into a cellular signal.

They've localized where this gene is expressed. Most of these techniques involved killing, fixing, and staining the animals. He was inspired by work of Shimomura, as described by Paul Brehm that showed that Aequorin + Ca++ + GFP produces light, and got in touch with Douglas Prasher, who was cloning GFP, and got to work making a probe that would allow him to visualize the expression of interesting genes. It was a gamble — no one knew if there were additional proteins required to turn the sequence into a glowing final product…but they discovered that they could get functional product in bacteria within a month.

They published a paper describing GFP as a new marker for gene expression, which Science disliked because of the simple title, and so they had to give it a cumbersome title for the reviewers, which got changed back for publication. They had a beautiful cover photo of a glowing neuron in the living animal.

Advantages of GFP: heritable, relatively non-invasive, small and monomeric, and visible in living tissues. Roger Tsien worked to improve the protein and produce variants that fluroesced at different wavelengths. There are currently at least 30,000 papers published that use fluroescent proteins, in all kinds of organisms, from bunnies to tobacco plants.

He showed some spectacular movies from Silverman-Gavrila of dividing cells with tubulin/GFP, and another of GFP/nuclear localization signal in which nuclei glowed as they condensed after division, and then disappeared during mitosis. Sanes and Lichtman's brainbow work was shown. Also cute: he showed the opening sequence of the Hulk movie, which is illustrated with jellyfish fluorescence (he does not think the Hulk is a legitimate example of a human transgenic.)

Finally, he returned to his mechanoreceptor work and showed the transducing cells in the worm. One of the possibilities this opened up was visual screening for new mutants: either looking for missing or morphologically aberrant cells, or even more subtle things, like tagging expression of synaptic proteins so you can visually scan for changes in synaptic function or organization.

He had a number of questions he could address: how are mechanotransducers generated, how is touch transduced, what is the role of membrane lipids, can they identify other genes important in touch, and what turns off these genes?

They traced the genes involved in turning on the mec-3 gene; the pathway, it turned out, was also expressed in other cells, but they thought they identified other genes involved in selectively regulating touch sensitivity. One curious thing: the mec genes are transcribed in other cells that aren't sensitive, but somehow are not translated.

They are searching for other touch genes. The touch screen misses some relevant genes because they have redundant alternatives, or are pleiotropic so other phenotypes (like lethality) obscure the effect. One technique is RNAi, and they made an interesting observation. Trying about 17000 RNAis, they discovered that 600 had interesting and specific effects, 1100 were lethal, and about 15,000 had no effect at all. The majority of genes are complete mysteries to us. They've developed some techniques to get selective incorporation of RNAis into just neurons of C. elegans, so they're hoping to uncover more specific neural effects. One focus is on the integrin signaling pathway in the nervous system, which they've knocked out and found that it demolishes touch sensitivity — a new target!

They are now using a short-lived form of GFP that shuts down quickly, so they've got a sharper picture of temporal patterns of gene activity.

Chalfie's summary:

  • Scientific progress is cumulative.

  • Students and post-docs are the lab innovators.

  • Basic research is essential. Who would have thought working on jellyfish would lead to such powerful tools?

  • All life should be studied; not just model organisms.

Chalfie is an excellent speaker and combined a lot of data with an engaging presentation.

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/113983

Comments

#1

Posted by: Coturnix Author Profile Page | July 2, 2009 4:51 AM

I am multitasking upstairs (stairs behind the coffee bar) in the press room - watching livestreams of all the talks while blogging and doing other online stuff. Good talks this morning - thanks for liveblogging them.

#2

Posted by: Mozglubov | July 2, 2009 5:01 AM

That sounds like a very interesting and impressive talk. You have mentioned that several of the earlier talks will be available on the website later... is this one of them? I hope so.

I'm still trying to decide whether somatosensory systems and motor control or the visual system is my favourite area of cognitive function to study...

#3

Posted by: PZ Myers Author Profile Page | July 2, 2009 5:06 AM

They're all supposed to be available eventually. I know they're live-streaming them right now.

#4

Posted by: cdx | July 2, 2009 5:10 AM

I still have that copy of Science somewhere.

I think I was at the talk where Joe Culotti first described this funny new untranslated RNA-encoding gene they had cloned rescuing a recessive genetic mutant, and how the crucial RNA bit anticoded to a repeated sequence in the mRNA it negatively regulated.... Good times. Long ago. :-)

#5

Posted by: Coturnix | July 2, 2009 5:14 AM

All the talks are livestreamed and immediately available at http://lindau-nobel.de/WebHome.AxCMS

#6

Posted by: Mozglubov | July 2, 2009 5:15 AM

Oh, one thing I also forgot to mention, I really liked the summary point, "All life should be studied; not just model organisms." Comparative neurophysiology is one area that I think has a lot of potential to really help us understand the computational strategies of the nervous system. For example, the lack of a neocortex in avians combined with their impressive visual, auditory, and problem solving capabilities is something that I find fascinating. Looking more carefully at the functional neurophysiology of birds might help us narrow down how we do it, or it might give us new ideas for alternative approaches in biologically inspired robotics by displaying other organizational and computational strategies. Within mammals, there are also some rather interesting functional cognitive differences. For example, if you invert rat motor nerves to a forelimb (in other words, if you make the nerve that previously innervated the flexor muscle innervate the extensor and vice versa), they do not learn to compensate and have difficulty walking, whereas primates (at least humans and I believe chimpanzees, although I might be remembering the primate species incorrectly) do learn to compensate and can recover normal function of their forelimb after a period of learning. That is a dramatic ability to recover from an injury that is unlikely to be encountered in a creature's lifetime (how often does an organism have its nerves inverted?). Anyway, I am rambling... I guess this is something that should be discussed on my own blog rather than spewed across PZ's comment section.

#7

Posted by: Mozglubov | July 2, 2009 5:19 AM

Sorry to be spamming the comment section, but PZ and Coturnix, thanks for the response! I'm supposed to be doing my own research right now, but I'll try to watch some of the talks tonight...

#8

Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 2, 2009 12:14 PM

@Mozglubov

Cross reinervations will regulate but you need both time and natural movement to get it. I remember a talk in Canberra at the big Bicentennial conference in '88 on this. They did it in a cat, then let it be an ordinary cat for 6months or so then went back and looked. They found that interneurons in the ventral horn swapped connections giving back normal control of movement. Rats in cages cannot move normally, in experiments where lab rats are released into open outside enclosures after a time they adopt the hopping gait of wild rats, they don't do that in lab cages, hell they rarely get to run.

#9

Posted by: Mozglubov | July 2, 2009 12:33 PM

@Peter Ashby

I was aware they had done it in cats as well (I just left them out of the discussion for the time being), but I don't know of any successful performances of the procedure in rats. Do you know of any? The inability of rats to recover from the transposition of nerves I got from:

Sperry, R. W. 1942. Transplantation of motor nerves and muscles in the forelimb of the rat. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 76:283-321

Granted, it is an old paper, but Sperry seemed to do a fairly careful job of trying to let the rats recover.

#10

Posted by: James | July 2, 2009 1:21 PM

Non-biologist here, but with all of this talk about putting GFP in everything, I was wondering if anyone knows if it is possible for a person to bioluminesce, and how that would work?

#11

Posted by: antistokes | July 2, 2009 1:50 PM

I was wondering if anyone knows if it is possible for a person to bioluminesce

Well, technically, yes. What you do, if you have a molecular bio lab, is you take the GFP DNA sequence, and you insert it into a gene sequence whose DNA codes for a protein in which you are interested. When the DNA transcription machinery comes along and reads the code for that gene, the GFP protein is made right along with your "protein of interest". Those nifty looking green-glowing mice et al. have had the GFP protein "tagged" on to a protein that goes to the surface of the skin. Now, this can indeed be done in human cells, such as the cancer stem cell lines.

...however, the FDA has all these laaaaame (/sarcasm) rules about experimenting on actual live humans.....the government won't let us do anything fun (/kidding) :)

#12

Posted by: antistokes | July 2, 2009 1:56 PM

...crap, just to edit myself there, saying "the GFP protein" is really redundant, and I sincerely apologize.

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





           Sign in or register with TypePad.            Sign up with Movable Type.

Site Meter

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM