ASCB
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
NEWSLETTER
VOLUME
On Publishing and
the Sneetches
Page 3
ASCB/EMBO Joint
Meetings
Page 14
Self-Advocacy: Why
It’s Uncomfortable
Page 36
Inside
President’s Column
3
Cell Biology of Stem Cells 10
ASCB/EMBO Meeting
14
PALM Funding Renewed
15
Collaborating with MALT
15
MAC Co-Chair Announced 17
PIC Chair Announced
17
ASCB Awards
18
Annual Meeting 2016
28
WICB Column
36
Public Policy Briefing 39
COMPASS Points
40
Early Career Meetings
45
Did You Know...?
46
On the ASCB Post
47
Meetings Calendar
47
In the Cell Image Library 48
Highlights from MBoC49
Members in the News
50
Member Gifts
51
Books by Members
52
Dear Labby
54
39,
NUMBER
Ohsumi’s Nobel Is Big Win for
Autophagy, Yeast Genetics,
and ASCB
The 2016 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to
ASCB member Yoshinori Ohsumi of the Tokyo Institute
of Technology is a big win for basic research into a
fundamental mechanism of cellular life, the degradation
of proteins through the process of autophagy. Ohsumi
revolutionized the field in the early 1990s with his
discovery of the genes (ATG) that control protein
degradation in vacuoles in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. It is
also a win for yeast genetics and for a long line of ASCB
members who pioneered research into protein degradation
and recycling.
Ohsumi, continued on p.12
Yoshinori Ohsumi
ASCB Presents Public Service
Award to Richard Durbin, Architect
of American Cures Act
The architect of the American Cures
Act, U.S. Senator Richard J. Durbin
(D-IL), was presented with the ASCB
Public Service Award on September 20
by Connie Lee, Chair of ASCB’s Public
Policy Committee, and Erika Shugart,
the Executive Director of the ASCB, for
his unwavering support for the federal
investment in biomedical research.
Presenting the award in Durbin’s
Capitol Hill office, Lee praised Durbin
for his active leadership in Congress—
leadership that has been crucial in
addressing the decades-long downward Connie Lee (left) and Erika Shugart (right) present the
trend in funding for scientific and
ASCB Public Service Award to Sen. Richard Durbin.
biomedical research. Durbin’s response
to the funding crisis was the American Cures Act The American Cures Act established
a mandatory trust fund dedicated to steady growth in research funding for the National
Durbin, continued on p.39
8
MBoC Special Issue
FORCES on and
within CELLS
More information at ascb.org/mboc-forces
Submissions requested by January 15, 2017, at
www.mbcpapers.org
PRESIDENT’S Column
On Publishing and the Sneetches:
A Wake-up Call?*
by Peter Walter and Dyche Mullins
Two institutions—learned societies and
scientific journals—midwifed a scientific
revolution in the 17th century that still
dominates our professional lives today.
Learned societies like the ASCB remain
relevant because
they provide forums
for sharing results,
discussing the
practice of science,
and projecting our
voices to the public
and the policymakers.
Scientific journals still
disseminate our work,
Peter Walter
but in the Internetconnected world of the 21st century this is
no longer their critical function. Journals
remain relevant today almost entirely because
they provide a playing field for scientific and
professional competition: To claim credit for
a discovery, we publish it in a peer-reviewed
journal; to get a job in academia or money to
run a lab, we present piles of these published
papers to universities and funding agencies.
Publishing is so embedded in the practice of
science that whoever controls the journals
controls access to the entire profession. It is,
therefore, worth examining to whom we have
entrusted the keys to the kingdom of science.
between publisher and scholar. The addition
of the Non Solus inscription reinforces the
message that publishers, like the elm tree, are
needed to provide sturdy support for scholars,
just as surely as scholars, the vine, are needed to
produce fruit. Publishers
and scholars cannot do it
alone....”1
Today, this 400-yearold logo no longer reflects
reality. As scholars, we now
could take over the means
of fruit production—in
fact, we already do most
of it. Like our intellectual
Dyche Mullins
ancestors hundreds of years
ago, we still conceive and execute the research,
and we write our papers. But now with the
advent of electronic word and image processing,
we also create our own graphics, proofread our
own text, and in some cases typeset it. More
significantly, the Internet enables us to easily
(and instantly) disseminate our work around the
world. Publishers still help provide a measure of
quality control by orchestrating the peer review
process, but here again it is scholars who do
the actual work of reviewing papers. It is thus
surprising that despite the diminished (and
arguably dispensable) role of the publishing
industry, our community remains slavishly
committed to century-old traditions that,
A New Relationship between
we will argue, are illogical and in many cases
Scholars and Publishers
exploitative and harmful to our community.
Non Solus (Latin for “not alone”) reads the
Of course Elsevier is only one example of
banner of a woodprint adopted as a logo in
several large for-profit publishers of scholarly
1620 by the House of Elsevier, a family of
journals. Members of the for-profit publishing
Dutch booksellers. The print shows a sturdy
industry subscribe to an ingenious business
elm tree that supports a growing vine, which
plan. In an insightful satirical essay, Scott
wraps around the trunk and entangles the
Aaronson describes a fictitious computer game
branches (Figure 1). The vine bears fruit,
company built on principles similar to those of
which a solemn scholar harvests with ease.
the for-profit publishing industry, exploiting its
In 1880 an unrelated publishing company
patrons to contribute their products and labor
adopted the Elsevier name and its logo, which
for free.2 In Aaronson’s imaginary scenario, game
according to its website: “...represents, in
developers donate their games to the company
classical symbolism, the symbiotic relationship
because they need its “seal of approval” for
their games to be recognized. Experts test and
*This column reflects the opinions of the authors about
debug the games for free when told that it’s
The American Society
for Cell Biology
8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 750
Bethesda, MD 20814-2762, USA
Tel: 301-347-9300
Fax: 301-347-9310
[email protected], www.ascb.org
Erika C. Shugart
Executive Director
Officers
Peter Walter
Pietro De Camilli
Shirley M. Tilghman
Gary J. Gorbsky
Kathleen J. Green President
President-Elect
Past President
Treasurer
Secretary
Council
John K. Haynes
Rebecca Heald
Anthony A. Hyman
Ian G. Macara
Ira Mellman
Tom Misteli
Denise J. Montell
Jodi Nunnari
Samara Reck-Peterson
Anne Spang
Claire E. Walczak
Ora A. Weisz
The ASCB Newsletter
is published eight times per
year by The American Society
for Cell Biology.
W. Mark LeaderEditor
Thea Clarke Director, Communications
and Education
Leeann Kirchner Production Coordinator
John Fleischman Senior Science Writer
Christina Szalinski
Science Writer
Lynn Marquis Director, Coalition for the Life Sciences
Advertising
For advertising information, visit
www.ascb.org or contact
[email protected]
ASCB Newsletter
ISSN 1060-8982
Volume 39, Number 8
November/December 2016
© 2016 The American Society for Cell
Biology. Copyright to the articles is held
by the author or, for staff-written articles,
by the ASCB. The content of the ASCB
Newsletter is available to the public under
an Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike
Unported Creative Commons License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-sa/3.0).
Postmaster: Send change of address to:
ASCB Newsletter
The American Society for Cell Biology
8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 750
Bethesda, MD 20814-2762, USA
commercial academic publishing.
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
3
PRESIDENT’S Column
Publishing is
so embedded
in the practice
of science
that whoever
controls the
journals controls
… the keys to
the kingdom
of science.
Every paper
we submit is a
singular product,
and every
academic library
has an obligation
to provide
access to it.
4
Figure 1. The trademark and logo of Elsevier (AD 1620)
their “professional duty” to do so. So for only
trivial investment in the products, the company
can charge customers high rates for the games
it now owns. Aaronson concludes: “On
reflection, perhaps no game developer would be
gullible enough to fall for my scheme. I need
a community that has a higher tolerance for
the ridiculous—a community that, even after
my operation is unmasked, will study it and
hold meetings, but not ‘rush to judgment’ by
dissociating itself from me. But who on Earth
could possibly be so paralyzed by indecision, so
averse to change, so immune to common sense?
I’ve got it: academics!”.
The situation is amplified by the fact that
publishers have created de facto monopolies. In
this industry, normal market forces that control
pricing through competition are entirely absent.
Every paper we submit is a singular product,
and every academic library has an obligation to
provide access to it. Otherwise, we, the scholars,
cannot perform our jobs properly, and it is
the libraries’ role to support our scholarship.
Because of this built-in mandate, publishers
can increase prices virtually at will (at least,
until library budgets are exhausted), which
is strongly supported by data that show the
increase in subscription cost far outpaces other
market indicators.3 The only control in place
is depressingly reminiscent of a parasite–host
relationship: To ensure its own survival the
parasite must not kill the host. Why having a
monopoly on the product combined with a
captive market for it does not violate antitrust
law is unclear to us.
To further compound the issue, we blithely
accept the fact that most publishers demand
that we sign over the copyright of our work,
allowing them to control access to it and
maximize their profits. If we were to imagine
an updated logo befitting the current business
practices of for-profit publishers, it might
look something like Figure 2. The elm tree
has grown, as the for-profit publishing houses
now have grown into gigantic multinational
conglomerates. The fruit of knowledge now
hangs out of reach, even when we are stretched
on our tippy toes. For access we need to use
the ladder that is gated and festooned with
the banner whose motto has morphed into
Non Gratis (“not for free”). The role of the tree
changed diametrically, from disseminating
knowledge to controlling access. And yet, we
happily keep nourishing the tree. Just as Scott
Aaronson describes, we work for them for
free in producing the work, reviewing it, and
serving on their editorial boards.
What Publishing Really Costs Us
The magnitude of the profits of the major
commercial publishers is astonishing. As a
whole, the industry made more than $10 billion
in 2015, with profits for the largest players,
such as Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis,
and Wiley, exceeding 30%.4 Elsevier alone, a
publicly held company and the world’s largest
academic for-profit publisher, reports in its
2014 annual report revenues of $3.38 billion
for its science/technology/math branches with
an operating profit of $1.13 billion.5 This
calculates to a profit margin of 33%. In other
words, each time we pay an article processing
charge of $3,000, $1,000 goes to Elsevier and
its shareholders.
Putting these numbers into perspective
reveals the magnitude of the problem: Elsevier’s
annual profit of $1.13 billion corresponds to
~1.3-times the entire annual budget of the
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI),
the major philanthropic funding agency for
biomedical research in the United States, which
generously funds some 300 investigators. The
CNRS, the major funding agency in France,
spends €30M/year on journal subscriptions
(~20% of its entire annual budget allocated
for consumables and small equipment).6 This
money is effectively a surcharge, or tax, on
scientific research imposed not by a government
but by a for-profit industry. Imagine for a
moment how much research could be carried
out using these resources if they were channeled
back into our academic enterprise.
Most of us pay publication charges from our
grants, that is, from taxpayers’ money. And then
the libraries, again funded indirectly through
the taxpayers, pay again for access. In openASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
effect meaningful change? There are a number
of reasons that contribute to maintain the
unfortunate status quo.
First and foremost, we as a community
have fallen into the lazy and lamentable habit
of using journal titles as yardsticks to measure
our accomplishments. We pretend that this
is a rational strategy by pointing to metrics
like the journal impact factor, widely viewed
as a false metric tailor-made to be gamed by
high-profile journals8 that unfortunately now
dictates the careers of our young scientists. In
reality, the importance of publishing in highFigure 2. The authors’ satirical view of the Elsevier
profile journals arises entirely from within the
logo: The tree has grown (AD 2016).
scientific community itself. There is no intrinsic
access models of our for-profit publishers, things value to publishing our work in such journals;
are hardly any better. Elsevier’s Cell Reports
there is only the value that we, collectively,
charges $5,000 to publish an article. Thus,
decide to place on it. As long as the “goldwhile foregoing the library subscription income, stars” associated with authoring papers in, for
the shareholders’ profits are well preserved in
example, Cell and Nature, are—or even are just
the aggregate of their portfolio. But at least
perceived to be —significant drivers in hiring,
open access allows us to evaluate the price tag
promotion, and funding decisions, Elsevier,
up front. Scientists can decide on a case-by-case Springer, et al. will remain untouchable forces.
basis whether any particular journal is worth
In his wonderful children’s book The Sneetches,
that much money, and publishers cannot lock
Dr. Seuss powerfully illustrates the impact of
away our papers in their archives, holding them stars (in this case blue) in an imaginary society.
ransom and charging our community for access The Sneetches that inhabit this society come in
over and over again.
two castes: some have blue stars affixed to their
In contrast to for-profit publishers, our
bellies and some do not. The Sneetch society is
university presses and society journals use
stratified by this attribute:
the more modest profits generated from their
When the Star-Belly children went out to play ball
journals to leverage many positive initiatives
Could a Plain Belly get in the game…? Not at all
that enrich our communities, such as the
You only could play if your bellies had stars,
prestigious EMBO Fellowships that would
And the Plain Belly children had none upon thars9
not exist without the revenue brought in by
EMBO journals, the impactful AAAS Science
As the story goes, a lot of money is made by
and Technology Policy Fellowships built on
those who offer to print stars onto the bellies of
leveraging the income generated by Science
those lacking them, which as status symbols are
magazine, and the various activities of our
just as meaningless as a paper in a high–impact
Society enabled by ASCB’s Molecular Biology of factor journal on our CVs as an indicator of
the Cell (MBoC). These enterprises add to the
signature contributions. What desperately needs
larger good of our community values, and they to be done is to eradicate the misleading metric
deserve our support and volunteered labor.
of the journal impact factor, and this movement
is well underway. Alternative, article-based
(i.e., not journal-based) metrics are gaining
Why Do We Resist Change?
hold and acceptance as an improvement,
All of the issues mentioned above have
although even this is not enough.10,11 One of
been raised ad nauseum. They have caused
us (PW) serves on a grant evaluation panel for
flurries of outrage across a range of academic
the European Research Council (introduced
communities, yet the issues persist in the
in the President’s Column in the preceding
face of boycott attempts and editorial board
issue of this Newsletter12). In our panel it is the
resignations (e.g., reference 7). Why do we
stated and adhered to policy that we will not
not only tolerate an antiquated and patently
consider where a paper is published. Rather,
exploitative publishing system, but actively
support and promote it? Why is our community in our evaluations we assess its real impact in
a field. Change of this sort and defiance of the
so resistant to see through these issues and
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
Why do we
continue to uphold
an antiquated
and patently
exploitative
publishing
system?
5
PRESIDENT’S Column
Perhaps
evolutionary
genetics provides
a relevant lesson:
Traits that are
harmful to an
entire population
can persist for
long periods of
time when they
provide individuals
in that population
with a survival
advantage.
6
status quo is badly needed in all committees
and panels that make decisions that impact
the future of our next-generation scientists,
even if it entails a bit more work. Even if the
highest-profile journals may not be the biggest
money-makers for the publishers, their business
practices of bundling subscriptions and creating
ever-expanding suites of high-profile spin-off
journals rely on them as very profitable hooks
for maintaining market share.
Second, we as a community lack the will and
the courage to act together for change, even
change that would improve our lives. We could,
for example, overhaul the publishing system
overnight, by sending our work exclusively to
non-profit venues that provide either immediate
open access or that return their revenues to the
scientific community. Journals like PLOS, eLife,
and MBoC provide arguably better standards
of peer-review than for-profit journals and
unarguably better access—namely free access
either immediately or soon after publication for
anyone with an Internet connection. The only
thing these journals still lack is our highest
stamp of approval. And there’s the rub! As
long as a significant fraction of the research
community remains in awe of vanity for-profit
journals, these journals will retain their hold on
the keys to the kingdom. We are evolutionarily
programmed to nourish and protect our young
and many of us continue to publish in journals
of questionable ethics because: “I/my student/
postdoc need(s) to publish in such a journal to
get a promotion/job/grant.” As a community,
we remain in thrall to these magazines. We
may imagine ourselves to be rational, gutsy,
paradigm-changing experimentalists who go
where no one has gone before, but in reality we
are a conservative community to which change
does not come easily. There is hope for gradual
change and enlightenment, but all of the
rational and well-reasoned cries of outrage have
not led to a revolution.
Third, the beneficiary of the current system
is a multibillion-dollar industry whose influence
is so strong that the institutions funding our
research are unwilling or unable to counter it
decisively. The research community itself may
lack the courage to stop publishing in for-profit
journals, but public funding sources like the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) could make
this change overnight by demanding that all
publicly funded work be made freely available
immediately or shortly after publication. So
could the other major funding agencies around
the world such as the HHMI, the Wellcome
Trust, the CNRS, and the Max-PlanckInstitutes. Instead of removing the industryimposed tax on research, however, our funding
institutions reached compromises that allow
for-profit publishers to retain exclusive rights
to charge for access to publicly funded work
for one year (e.g., see reference 13). With so
many accessible publishing options available is
there really a compelling need to compromise
on this issue? Akin to those politicians who
deploy demagogic talents to convince national
electorates to vote against their own interests,
for-profit publishers bring enormous resources
to bear and “convince” policy makers, funding
agencies, and researchers that their services are
invaluable, and that their practices and profit
margins are fair and justified.
Fourth, the publishing landscape is complex.
It is imperative for us to adhere to our
academic mission of making sure that scientific
contributions are properly reviewed and refined
so that our published work represents reliable,
true advances of knowledge—to the best of our
communal ability to judge. For that, we have
accepted a communal responsibility, reflected in
the many altruistic ways we volunteer our time
and effort. These are powerful traditions that we
deeply value. It is not always easy to see clearly
when these values are being abused. Perhaps it is
this that allows for-profit publishing companies
to continue to flourish with a business model
that exploits and manipulates our community
values for financial gain.
Fifth, the editors that work for journals
run by for-profit publishers are not our
enemies. These editors, many of them talented
scientists trained in our own labs, learned
to recognize good science, to identify faulty
logic, and to distinguish significant discoveries
from incremental advances. We value them
as colleagues and, for the most part, they do
their best to handle submissions fairly while
upholding the prestige of their respective
journals. Yet, some have become corrupted by
their masters and act more as powerbrokers
judged by their efforts to maximize the
journals’ impact factors rather than their work
as scientists and mentors practicing the art of
rational, evidence-based decision-making.
This list describes a few of the many
reasons why we put up with unnecessary and
exploitative practices of for-profit scientific
publishers. Perhaps evolutionary genetics
provides a relevant lesson: Traits that are
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
harmful to an entire population can persist
for long periods of time when they provide
individuals in that population with a survival
advantage. So, how do we change the system?
a threatened boycott by Dutch universities
of Elsevier journals was averted with Elsevier
making small concessions that allow a fraction
of papers from Dutch scholars to be published
in an open-access format.17,18
What can we as individuals do to promote
How Can We Effect Change?
change? One obvious action that would help
Obviously, we cannot expect publishers
weaken the grip of the for-profit publishing
themselves to initiate significant change. The
industry on our community would be, whenever
executives of for-profit publishing companies
reasonably possible, to decline to provide our
are obliged to maximize profits, which in
free labor. One of us (PW) for example, with
this case means extracting publicly and
very few exceptions that can be counted with
philanthropically provided resources from the
the fingers on one hand, has not published in
scientific community. They cannot suddenly
and not reviewed for any Elsevier journal for
abandon their fiduciary responsibilities and
the last 13 years. What is most puzzling is a lack
begin plowing profits back into universities
of more widespread anger in our communities
or the research community. The evolution
regarding the degree of exploitation and abuse
from symbiont to parasite is complete and
by for-profit publishing enterprises that we not
irreversible.
only tolerate, but accept and support. Rather,
What is left is for universities, funding
as Scott Aaronson points out later in his article,
agencies, and (most importantly) the research
community to wake up. As with climate change, “[w]e support the enterprise by reviewing
it may require drastic consequences to galvanize and by serving on editorial boards without
compensation, regarding these duties as a moral
us into action. In the United States, state and
obligation.”2
national contributions to public universities
Starting small with individual actions helps
have been declining since the early 1990s,14
with another malady in our profession: the
while the money that universities spend on
subscriptions to academic journals has risen far constant struggle to maintain a good life–work
faster than other market indicators.15 Something balance. Imagine, for example, what you could
do with four hours. You could either review a
has to give. In fact, the wake-up call for the
paper and put money into the pockets of canny
University of California (UC) system came in
investors, or you could spend some quality time
2003, when Elsevier, in an attempt to squeeze
with your family, go for a walk, or perform
higher online subscription rates out of the
some unpaid community service that actually
UC system, cut-off all electronic access to its
makes the world a better place. If you really
journals. We (and our students and postdocs)
want to review that paper, there is another
literally could not read our own papers! After
strategy that could turn the ethical dilemma
the threat of a large-scale boycott (which was
16
into a win–win situation (see Box 1).
covered in a previous ASCB Newsletter ),
One symptom of scholars’ frustration with
Elsevier eventually struck an undisclosed
compromise. Unfortunately, this deal produced restricted access to journals is the emergence
and widespread use of illegal download sites that
no lasting change and likely provided a
provide free access to millions of copyrighted
useful template for dealing with subsequent
18
university revolts. Earlier this year, for example, publications. Just as Napster and Bit Torrent
[W]hat is most
puzzling is the
lack of anger in
our communities
regarding the
degree of
exploitation and
abuse by forprofit publishing
enterprises
that we not
only tolerate,
but accept
and support.
Dear Editor,
Thank you for inviting me to review this work. I will be happy to do so, but
please be advised that I charge $400 per hour [optional: and I read rather slowly].
Please confirm that this arrangement is acceptable to you.
Sincerely yours, …
Box 1. Suggestion for a reply when asked to review for a for-profit journal. Note that the suggested rate for professional
advice is a bargain. It would be very hard to find a lawyer to work for this rate for a for-profit enterprise.
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
7
PRESIDENT’S Column
What is left is
for universities,
funding agencies,
and (most
importantly)
the research
community to
wake up.
servers forced a reorganization of the music
industry—which by contrast to the for-profit
publishing industry can legitimately claim to
defend royalties paid to artists—sites like SciHub and LibGen pose a significant challenge
to the status quo. The original motivation for
creating Sci-Hub and other illegal download
sites was to provide access to scientific literature
for scholars in the developing world. Current
data, however, reveal that the per capita usage of
these sites is comparable in affluent countries,
indicating the magnitude of worldwide demand
for access to the literature.19
The authors of this article are old enough
to remember the end of the Cold War. One
of us (PW) grew up in post-war West Berlin,
embracing the anti-authoritarian culture of the
era; the other (DM) studied for a time at the
University of Leningrad in the days leading
up to Perestroika and the collapse of Soviet
communism. So, with the reader’s indulgence,
we would like to echo the call of a past U.S.
president to declaim:
Murphy K (March 12, 2016). Should all research
articles be free? The New York Times. www.nytimes.
com/2016/03/13/opinion/sunday/should-all-researchpapers-be-free.html.
4
see p. 102 in www.relx.com/investorcentre/reports
2007/Documents/2014/relxgroup_ar_2014.pdf.
5
www.dgdr.cnrs.fr/dcif/chiffres-cles/comptes-2015/pdf/
Rapport-CNRS-CF-2015_CA.pdf.
6
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/
impactofsocialsciences/2015/07/08/dutch-universitiesboycott-elsevier.
7
e.g., www.ascb.org/dora.
8
Geisel T (aka Dr. Seuss) (1961). The Sneetches and
Other Stories. New York: Random House. For an online
copy of the entire prose see http://teacherweb.com/VA/
WarwickHS/Elliot_T/Text-The-Sneetches.pdf.
9
10
www.ascb.org/a-new-and-stunning-metric-from-nihreveals-the-real-nature-of-scientific-impact.
http://f1000.com/prime.
11
12
Hyman T, Desai A, Walter P (2016). On research
funding and the power of youth. ASCB Newsletter
39(7), 3–8. www.ascb.org/october-2016-newsletter-onresearch-funding-and-the-power-of-youth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIH_Public_Access_
13
COLLEAGUES, TEAR DOWN THAT TREE! Policy.
Bourne HR, Vermillion EB (2016). Follow the Money:
Funding Research in a Large Academic Health Center.
University of California Medical Humanities Press.
14
And if we scientists fail to tear it down in
one blow, then let us at least open our eyes and
continue to chop away at it. The end goal seems
obvious: The knowledge that we produce in our
publicly funded works belongs to humankind
and must not be locked up behind pay-walls—
newly submitted papers should be open-access
and older ones open-archive. Our real challenge
is to find the paths that get us there. But
major change can happen, even if it seems
impossible to imagine now. The Berlin Wall no
longer stands, and we are certain that—if we
put our hearts into it, embrace healthy values,
and eradicate bad ones—scientists, learned
societies, and scientific journals can invent new,
powerfully symbiotic relationships.
15
www.arl.org/storage/documents/monograph-serialcosts.pdf.
16
www.ascb.org/files/0501profile.pdf.
17
www.timeshighereducation.com/news/dutchuniversities-and-elsevier-reach-deal-over-open-access.
Bohannon J (Dec. 11, 2015). In unique deal, Elsevier
agrees to make some papers by Dutch authors free.
Science. www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/12/uniquedeal-elsevier-agrees-make-some-papers-dutch-authorsfree.
18
19
Bohannon J (April 28, 2016). Who’s downloading
pirated papers? Everyone. Science. www.sciencemag.
org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-paperseveryone.
References
https://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/articles/what-doesnon-solus-mean-elseviers-logo.
1
Aaronson S (2007). Review of The Access Principle by
John Willinsky. ACM SIGACT News 38, 19–23. For an
online author’s copy of the article that is not behind a
paywall see: www.scottaaronson.com/writings/journal.
html.
Questions and comments are welcome and
should be sent to [email protected].
2
www.arl.org/storage/documents/monograph-serialcosts.pdf.
3
8
“ASCB,” “The American Society for Cell Biology,”
“iBioSeminars,” “DORA,” and “Molecular Biology of
the Cell” are registered trademarks of The American
Society for Cell Biology. “The Cell: An Image Library” is
a common law trademark of The American Society for
Cell Biology.
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
n e t w o r k
promoting active learning & mentoring
The PALM Network Grant
up to $2000 per fellow / $500 mentor stipend
$1000 meeting travel each for fellow and mentor
What Does the PALM Grant Provide?
The Promoting Active Learning & Mentoring (PALM)
Network Grant provides faculty and postdoctoral
fellows with resources that allow them to gain
hands-on experience and long-term mentorship in
bringing evidence-based, effective active learning
strategies into their own classrooms.
PALM fellows will:
l Identify
and secure partnership with experienced mentors who have already reformed
their classrooms
l Submit a complete proposal according to the parameters of the evaluation rubric found at
palmnetwork.org
l Schedule dates to visit their mentor's institution, and complete the identified work within
9 months of receiving the award notification
l Develop an active learning based module for one of their classes with guidance from their
mentors, and implement it
l Submit videos of their teaching before and after their mentoring experience for analysis
l Consider best options and timing for disseminating their materials to others in their institutions
and in the greater scientific community, including publication
l Report on their activities to colleagues at a gathering of the PALM Network,
as well as at a national, regional, or sectional meeting of their respective
scientific societies
l Participate in surveys over several years so the PALM Network can assess the extent and
persistence of change in classroom practice
2017 Application Deadlines: January 15 and July 15, 2017
More information and eligibity requirements available at
palmnetwork.org
PALM is funded by NSF Research Coordination Network in Undergraduate Biology Education grant #1624200.
Cell Biology of the Stem Cell
As a professional society, ASCB helps to
define and support the discipline it represents,
embracing new methodologies, approaches, and
directions, bringing them into the mainstream
of its members’ research. In this way, the ASCB
has evolved over time from its origins as a
society focused on electron microscopy and
organelle characterization. Initially this was
by recognizing the value of more molecular
and mechanistic studies. That was followed by
embracing increasingly detailed biophysical
and biochemical studies and, more recently, by
valuing translational studies linking basic cell
biology concepts and approaches to pathology.
The Value and Limitations of
Transformed Cells
[W]hile
transformed cell
lines have been a
valuable starting
point…they are
not useful for
understanding
cells in most
normal,
developmental,
and pathological
contexts.
10
In addition to the study of model organisms
like yeast, flies, and worms, the use of
vertebrate cell lines is a major thread in cell
biology and a lifeblood for cellular discovery.
Most of the research on the structure and
function of cells has used a variety of aneuploid
or “transformed” cell lines. These studies
have led to discoveries that are central to our
understanding of cell signaling, cell division,
migration, apoptosis, and gene expression,
leading to Nobel Prizes for many cell biologists.
However, the transformed nature of most
of these cell lines, arising from alterations in
their genomes and/or karyotype, produces a
physiology that can be far removed from the
physiology of a normal cell. In addition, the use
of these cells does not address their residence
in tissue, where they interact with and receive
signals from nearby cells. Such cell lines also
reveal little about what distinguishes one cell
type from another—liver cells from pancreatic
cells, for example.
Therefore, while transformed cell lines have
been a valuable starting point for investigating
what cells have in common and for studying
some specific activities, which may be
exaggerated or more accessible in a particular
cell line, they are not useful for understanding
cells in most normal, developmental, and
pathological contexts. This is a critical
limitation as cell biology moves into studies
of tissue and begins to focus increasingly on
medically relevant problems.1
A single slice through a live colony of cells from a
genome-edited αα-tubulin–GFP expressing hiPSC
line created at the Allen Institute for Cell Science.
Membrane and DNA are stained with dyes. Courtesy of
the Allen Institute for Cell Science.
The Power of Stem Cells
A recent ASCB white paper proposed an
alternative to these transformed lines, suggesting
a pivot to human stem cells.2 In the spring of
2012, the ASCB leadership under the presidency
of Ron Vale organized a retreat with several
thought leaders in biomedical research to discuss
key opportunities for cell biology in the future.
One of the themes that emerged was the use of
stem cells, in particular human embryonic stem
cells, and how the ASCB could best support this
new direction in cell biology. This led to the
formation of a task force under the leadership of
Larry Goldstein and produced the white paper
titled “Next Steps in the Stem Cell Revolution:
A Report of the ASCB Stem Cell Task Force,”
published in 2013.2 This white paper outlined
the ways in which centralized production and
characterization of modified stem cells would
greatly contribute to standardizing protocols and
overcoming the barrier to entry for cell biologists
wishing to study and use stem cells in their
research.
This report influenced the planning for the
new Allen Institute for Cell Science, which
launched at the 2014 ASCB Annual Meeting.3
This Institute, supported by Microsoft
co-founder Paul Allen, is using human
induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) to
understand and predict cellular behaviors, in
both undifferentiated and the differentiated
cells derived from them, beginning with
cardiomyocytes. It chose this cell type because
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
it is diploid, is pluripotent, grows well in vitro,
create stem cells from somatic cells using
and exploits the extensive knowledge of the
iPS technology has bypassed many of the
genetics of humans resulting from genome
regulatory problems that arose from using
sequencing and expression analyses. The Allen
embryos. It also allows patient-specific cells
Institute uses live cell imaging to localize
to be created and used as a “disease in a dish”
key cellular structures and activities, taking
human model system.5 Second, gene editing
an integrated, systems approach, measuring
technologies, e.g., CRISPR/Cas9, allow
and quantifying the morphology and relative
the creation of mutations, or the insertion
positioning of the major cellular structures.4
of protein tags, at the endogenous locus—
Using these data, it will develop predictive
bringing the power of human cell genetics
computational models of cell
in line with that of yeast genetics.
types and states (behaviors),
Finally, stem cell biologists are
pathologies, and responses
not only creating more and more
to drugs and changes in the
different cell types in culture;
[T]he ability to
environment. Toward this
they are also creating organoids,
create stem cells
goal, the Institute is preparing
i.e., collections of cells grown
a set of genome-edited hiPSC
in culture dishes that mimic
from somatic
lines with fluorescence (GFPaspects of tissues with increasing
cells using iPS
related) tags in proteins that
fidelity and accuracy.6–8 Although
technology…
localize to and determine the
organoids are still in their infancy,
morphologies of the major
it is clear that application of
allows patientstructures in the cell. These
engineering principles over the
specific cells to be next decade will create organoids
tagged lines will be available
that are closer and closer to the
to the public, along with
created and used
the other reagents, models,
properties of tissues.
as a “disease in
methods, and analysis tools
Taken together, these
generated by the Institute.
developments suggest that stem
a dish” human
Cell identity and plasticity
cells will become essential tools in
model system.
are deeply embedded in
biomedical research. Cell biologists
stem cell research. Cells
can exploit these technological
were originally classified by
developments to study interesting
morphologic observations of
problems in cell biology and cell
their shape or the organization
diversity, setting the stage for
of a key organelle. On this basis, cell biologists
understanding new genes, cellular principles,
assigned labels such as pyramidal cells,
and cell behaviors. The basic cell biology
medium spiny neurons, cuboidal epithelial
of these cells and their derivatives will also
inform their medical uses. This kind of
cells, and cardiomyocytes. Pathologic states
understanding will help mitigate repetition
were similarly identified, most notably for
of the disasters seen in the early uses of gene
cancer progression. However, the expressed
therapy, and it is a place where cell biologists
genes and posttranslational modifications and
must play a key role. In addition, the use
the consequent structural specializations they
of stem cells—diploid cells with relatively
produce, on both the meso- and nano-scales,
stable genomes and karyotypes—addresses
are what really distinguish cell types and their
the reproducibility issues that have challenged
states. This understanding lies in the domain of
translational research using transformed cell
basic cell biology, which studies the transient,
lines.
localized activities that define cellular behaviors.
At this early stage, the barrier to entry for
It also promises new avenues in pathology and
most cell biologists may seem considerable,
personalized medicine, where cell states and
for both technical reasons and cost. However,
types can be inferred microscopically from their
as more people enter the field, the costs
organization.
should come down due to both scale and
A Cell Biology of the Future
better culture methods. Also, several publicly
funded cell banks now have stem cells and
Three recent developments suggest that
mutant lines available for study. The Allen
stem cell biology will drive cell biology for
Institute for Cell Science hopes to lower the
the foreseeable future. First, the ability to
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
11
barrier as well. It is, for example, already
distributing its first tranche of gene-edited cell
lines, with more to come shortly. These lines
are very well characterized and designed to be
useful for cell biologists.
Finally, the “cell biology of the stem cell”
will have a presence at the ASCB Annual
Meeting this year with a Saturday Special
Interest Subgroup presentation on the Cell
Biology of the Stem Cell and, also on Saturday,
an Allen Institute–sponsored Tech Talk on
hiPSC growth and gene editing, both providing
a jump start for anyone interested. n
—Tony Hyman, Max Planck Institute of
Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, and Rick
Horwitz, Allen Institute for Cell Science
References and Footnotes
Hyman AH, Simons K (2011). The new cell biology:
Beyond HeLa cells. Nature 480, 34.
1
www.ascb.org/files/ASCB-Position-Paper-Stem-CellReport.pdf.
2
www.alleninstitute.org.
3
Horwitz R (2016). Integrated, multi-scale, spatialtemporal cell biology—A next step in the post genomic
era. Methods 96, 3–5.
4
Papapetrou EP (2016). Induced pluripotent stem cells,
past and future. Science 353, 991–992.
5
Clevers H (2016). Modeling development and disease
with organoids. Cell 165, 1586–1597.
6
Fatehullah A, Tan SH, Barker N (2016). Organoids as
an in vitro model of human development and disease.
Nat Cell Biol 18, 246–254.
7
Bhatia SN, Ingber DE (2014). Microfluidic organs-onchips. Nat Biotechnol. 32, 760-772.
8
Ohsumi, continued from p.1
Ohsumi, who heads the Cell Biology
Research Unit at the Tokyo Institute of
Technology, won the 2016 Nobel for his
discovery of autophagy mechanisms. He will
receive a prize of roughly $936,000 for his
work. Only 38 of the 106 Nobel Prizes in
Physiology or Medicine have been given to
only one person. Typically the award is shared
between two or three researchers.
Ohsumi’s discoveries came more than a half
century after the discovery of the lysosome by
biochemical studies in 1955 by Rockefeller
researcher and ASCB member Christian de
Duve. Electron microscopy studies confirmed
their existence and led in 1974 to the Nobel in
Physiology or Medicine for de Duve and George
Palade, one of the founders of the ASCB, along
with Albert Claude. It was de Duve, in 1963,
who coined the term “autophagy” as the cellular
process of self-eating, which allows cells to
recycle their contents rather than dispose of
them.
Yet it wasn’t until the early 1990s that the
genes and proteins involved in autophagy were
identified by Ohsumi. Using the model yeast
S. cerevisiae, Ohsumi discovered a method
for identifying the ATG genes. He blocked
vacuolar degradation using yeast mutants, then
induced autogphagy by starving the cells. With
12
the vacuole impaired, the autophagosomes
accumulated in the cell allowing researchers
to easily visualize these compartments, which
are typically small, infrequent, and difficult to
identify. This technique allowed the discovery of
autophagy genes and mechanisms.
Ohsumi earned his PhD from the
University of Tokyo and was a postdoc at
Rockefeller University from 1974–1977 with
Gerald Edelman, ASCB member and 1972
Nobel Prize winner. Ohsumi returned to the
University of Tokyo as a research associate in
1977, where he is now emeritus professor. He
joined the Tokyo Institute of Technology in
2009. Ohsumi won a 2015 Canada Gairdner
Award—often considered a precursor to the
Nobel Prize because 73 of its recipients have
gone on to win Nobel Prizes since its inception
in 1959. Ohsumi gave a Symposium talk at
the 2014 ASCB Annual Meeting, entitled
“Molecular Dissection of Autophagy in Yeast.”
He has signed the San Francisco Declaration on
Research Assessment.
Ohsumi’s prize brings to 32 the number
of Nobels won by ASCB members either in
Physiology or Medicine or in Chemistry. n
—Christina Szalinski and John Fleischman
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
,
On behalf of the ASCB,
the Executive Committee congratulates
Yoshinori Ohsumi
for receiving the
2016 Nobel Prize
in Physiology or Medicine.
TM
ASCB and EMBO Sign Deal for Joint
2017 and 2018 Meetings
Tobias Walther
Laura Machesky
14
In a world of science acronyms, two of the best
known in research biology are coming together.
The American Society for Cell Biology and
the European Molecular Biology Organization
will join forces for a joint 2017 ASCB/EMBO
Meeting, December 2–6 in Philadelphia, PA.
This will be followed in 2018 by the second
ASCB/EMBO Meeting, December 8–12 in San
Diego, CA. The two-year agreement, signed
last month by ASCB Executive Director Erika
Shugart and EMBO Director Maria Leptin,
calls for a careful review each year to gauge the
success of the joint meeting and to determine
next steps in what both sides are regarding as an
experiment.
According to Pietro De Camilli, ASCB’s
incoming 2017 President, the first tangible
step toward the 2017 ASCB/EMBO Meeting
was the appointment of Co-Program Chairs by
the two societies: Tobias Walther of Harvard
Medical School in Boston for ASCB and Laura
Machesky of the Beatson Institute for Cancer
Research in Glasgow, Scotland, for EMBO.
Both De Camilli and Leptin note that while
it wasn’t planned this way, the two embody the
increasingly international nature of cell science.
Walther received his PhD in Germany and
came to the United States for a postdoc at the
University of California, San Francisco, while
Machesky did her doctorate at Johns Hopkins
before her postdoc in the UK at the MRC
Laboratory in Cambridge. Machesky now works
in Scotland, Walther in Massachusetts.
“Science is an international endeavor,” says
De Camilli, who as 2017 ASCB President
will preside at the Philadelphia meeting. “The
ASCB has become a beacon for this, not only
in America but in the world. Many members of
EMBO, one of the strongest European scientific
societies, are already ASCB members. The joint
meeting will acknowledge and consolidate our
partnership.”
The new agreement leaves the bulk of the
organizational and financial management of
the joint meeting to the ASCB, which has
U.S. convention center contracts into the next
decade, De Camilli explains. EMBO, along
with its input on the scientific program, will
present its Gold Medal winner and the Jeantet
Prize awardees at the joint meeting, as well as a
number of talks by EMBO Young Investigators.
EMBO will also organize an additional plenary
session on Open Science. “Some are a little wary
of calling this an experiment but we don’t want
to present this as a fait accompli,”according to
De Camilli, who stresses that both societies will
evaluate the resulting meetings and seek member
input. “But given the international nature of
our science and the size and expense of a big
meeting, this makes sense,” De Camilli says. n
—John Fleischman
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
Five More Years of the Promoting
Active Learning and Mentoring
(PALM) Network!
ASCB, in cooperation with several other
professional societies, has obtained funding
from the National Science Foundation for a
five-year Research Coordination Network in
Undergraduate Biology Education to both
enhance biology education and build the
professional educators workforce. The grant
will fund the Promoting Active Learning
and Mentoring (PALM) network, which is a
continuation of a project that operated this
past year under an incubator grant, funding
six Fellows and their mentors as they worked
to increase the evidence-based active learning
in the Fellows’ classrooms. The target audience
is instructors or postdocs who have heard
about active learning, and perhaps experienced
a workshop or summer institute on it, and
who are seeking a more sustained mentoring
relationship to help them go beyond theory to
put active learning into practice.
Our newest Fellows and their mentors from
the incubator year are as follows:
n Veronica Segarra, High Point University,
mentored by Karen Bernd, Davidson College
Anjali Misra, Florida SouthWestern State
College, mentored by Diane Ebert-May,
Michigan State University
n Jason Chan, Juniata College, mentored by
Leocadia Paliulis, Bucknell University
An important component of the project is
dissemination by the Fellows, who share the
results of their reformed teaching at their home
institutions, within their professional societies,
and via publication, thus spreading the impact
and helping the network to grow. The 2016
ASCB Annual Meeting will include posters
from the first round of PALM Fellows and a
series of table talks (Sunday through Tuesday)
that address both PALM and its progenitor,
the ASCB’s Mentoring in Active Learning and
Teaching program. These table talks will include
general information as well as reports from
mentees on how they incorporated more active
learning, and tips for a successful application.
Please check out the PALM flyer and visit PALM
events this December in San Francisco! n
—Sue Wick, Education Committee Chair
n
Sharing Expertise through
the MALT Program
This fall I am sharing my upper-level cell
biology class and laboratory at Gannon
University, where I am a professor of biology,
with Zach Murphy, a graduate student in the
lab of James Palis at the University of Rochester.
This collaboration is part of the ASCB’s
Mentoring in Active Teaching and Learning
(MALT) program offered by the Education
Committee. Education Committee ex-officio
member Mike Wolyniak, who directs the
MALT program, paired Zach and me using a
regional approach, as Erie, PA, and Rochester,
NY, are about 180 miles apart. Travel between
the two cities is quite easy. The MALT program
pairs established faculty from primarily
undergraduate institutions (PUIs) who use
active learning techniques in their classes with
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
graduate students or postdocs who are interested
in teaching undergraduate students.
Our collaboration began with emails and
phone calls and progressed to in-person visits;
I travelled twice to Rochester, and Zach
travelled once to Erie. In our conversations,
we discussed what life was like for faculty at
a PUI, as well as Zach’s research project. The
Palis lab is a substantial contributor to the field
of hematologic development, specifically with
critical publications exploring embryonic blood
cell development. In addition, this lab is at the
forefront of imaging flow cytometry, largely
under the direction of Kathleen McGrath, a
leader in this field. Zach will spend four days
at Gannon University over the course of a
month, teaching in my Cell Biology lecture
15
and laboratory. While MALT affords Zach
the opportunity to learn about, and actually
engage in, active learning in an undergraduate
classroom, it affords me the opportunity to
become knowledgeable about advancements in
flow cytometry. In addition, Zach will bring his
research to the students in the laboratory course,
affording them the opportunity to participate in
an authentic research experience.
We are funding this collaboration through
internal grants at our respective institutions. I
am using my faculty development grant to cover
Zach’s lodging and meals while he is at Gannon,
not only for the teaching opportunities, but
also for an invited seminar on his research. This
seminar will be open to all students and faculty
in Gannon University’s School of Sciences and
to regional faculty interested in flow cytometry.
In addition, I used internal funds to cover the
cost of my travel to the University of Rochester.
Zach is using funds provided to graduate
students and postdocs through the University of
Rochester’s Broadening Experiences in Scientific
Training program, a program funded by the
National Institutes of Health that focuses on
pedagogical training, to cover his travel expenses
to and from Rochester.
We are also using a teleconferencing program
called Zoom to bring Zach into lectures and
labs. This program not only lets Zach and
my class see each other, it also lets us stream
video and PowerPoint presentations during
the teleconference. This way I can allow my
students to become familiar with Zach before
he arrives on campus. Zach is excited about
putting his pedagogical training into practice,
I am excited about my opportunity to gain
hands-on experience with new flow cytometry
equipment and analytical software, and my
students are thrilled to be participating in
actual research experiments instead of carrying
out tried and true lab procedures. Zach and I
plan on presenting the results of our scientific
and teaching collaborations at the 2017 ASCB
Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, PA, and
disseminating these results in cell biology
journals with my undergraduate students as coauthors. n
—Elisa M. Konieczko, Gannon University
Third Annual MBoC Special Issue
on Quantitative Cell Biology
Now Available at
molbiolcell.org/content/27/22.toc
www.molbiolcell.org
16
Issue Co-Editors: Diane Lidke,
Jennifer Lippincott-Schwartz,
Alex Mogilner, and Valerie Weaver
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
Segarra to Co-Chair Minorities
Affairs Committee
The ASCB Council has appointed Verónica A. Segarra, High Point
University, NC, to be the next Co-Chair of the Minorities Affairs
Committee (MAC). She has been a member of ASCB since 2009 and joined
the MAC early in 2015. She comments, “I have been honored to serve in the
role of MAC Acting Co-Chair since May 2016 and have enjoyed working
with fellow MAC members. I look forward to continuing to contribute to
the success of our programs and shared objectives!”
Segarra’s term will begin on January 1, 2017. She succeeds Andrew
Campbell and will serve alongside MAC Co-Chair Franklin CarreroMartínez. n
—Thea Clarke
Verónica A. Segarra
Ligon to Chair ASCB’s Public
Information Committee
ASCB’s Public Information Committee (PIC) will have a new Chair in 2017.
Lee Ligon, who is in the Department of Biological Sciences at the Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in Troy, NY, will take over PIC from Simon
Atkinson, who has served as Chair since 2011. Ligon has been extremely active
with PIC since 2009 as an associate, a regular member, and most recently ex
officio while on leave from RPI as an American Association for the Advancement
of Science Science and Technology Policy Fellow in Washington, DC, with the
U.S. Agency for International Development.
In her application to become PIC Chair, Ligon wrote, “I feel very strongly
that one of the most important skills we as scientists must develop in ourselves
and in our trainees is the ability to communicate the importance of our work,
Lee Ligon
but also the wonder and beauty of it, to a wide audience.” n
—John Fleischman
Where to Find Research Funding Opportunities
Check out ASCB’s online resource for information and advice about funding sources: http://ascb.org/funding. n
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
17
ASCB Honors and Awards
ASCB Fellows
Inaugural Fellows
Thomas D. Pollard
Ron Vale
Jennifer Lippincott- Schwartz
James A. Spudich
Zena Werb
Susan Lindquist*
Clare M. Waterman
Marc W. Kirschner
Bruce M. Alberts
Randy W. Schekman
Newly Named Fellows
Peter Agre
Mary C. Beckerle
Mina Jahan Bissell
Elizabeth H.
Blackburn
Gunter Blobel Donald D. Brown
Joan S. Brugge
Kevin P. Campbell
Don W. Cleveland
Peter Devreotes
David Gil Drubin
William C. Earnshaw
Elaine V. Fuchs
Joseph G. Gall
Robert D. Goldman
Lawrence S. B. Goldstein
Franz-Ulrich Hartl
Ari Helenius
Richard O. Hynes
Daniel P. Kiehart
Douglas E. Koshland
J. Richard McIntosh
Timothy J. Mitchison
Tom Rapoport
Sandra L. Schmid
Kai Simons
Joan A. Steitz
Julie A. Theriot
Peter Walter
*The ASCB has
learned of the death
of Susan Lindquist on
October 27, 2016, and
extends condolences to
her family and friends.
ASCB Elects 39 to Lifetime
Achievement Fellows Program
The ASCB Council has named its first
ASCB Fellows, members selected for
their lifetime achievements in advancing
cell biology. The ASCB Fellows Program
was launched by a selection of an
initial cohort of 10 Inaugural Fellows
who have a demonstrated career of
exceptional contributions to science and
service to the ASCB.
The Inaugural Fellows were elected
by the ASCB Membership Committee
and then approved by the ASCB
Council in September. The Inaugural
Fellows were tasked with seeding the
program by nominating additional
ASCB Fellows, and their final list
has been approved by Council. In
subsequent years, 10–15 new Fellows
will be appointed.
To be nominated as an ASCB Fellow,
a candidate must have been an ASCB
member in good standing for at least 10
of the last 15 years, have a demonstrated
record of exceptional scientific
contributions to cell biology, and served
in a major leadership role or been named
the winner of a major ASCB award such
as the E.B. Wilson Medal or the Keith
Porter Lecturer.
Once the Fellows Program is
established, an ongoing Fellow Review
Committee made up of five ASCB
Fellows, a Council representative, and a
past ASCB president, will solicit, review,
and recommend new ASCB Fellow
nominations once a year to Council. n
McKinley and Sheltzer to Receive
2016 Bernfield and Gilula Awards
Kara McKinley
Jason Sheltzer
18
Kara McKinley, now a postdoc in Ron
Vale’s lab at the University of California,
San Francisco, will receive the 2016 Merton
Bernfield Memorial Award. The Bernfield
Award honors a postdoctoral fellow or graduate
student who has excelled at research. McKinley
was selected for her graduate research in Iain
Cheeseman’s lab at the Whitehead Institute
on the key processes required for faithful
chromosome segregation. McKinley recently
performed a large-scale analysis using CRISPR
knockouts to analyze the core requirements
for cell division, and revealed critical insights
into the roles of checkpoints for proliferation.
McKinley was also second-place winner of the
2016 Kaluza Prize for Excellence in Graduate
Research.
Jason Sheltzer, a Fellow and Principal
Investigator at Cold Spring Harbor, is the
2016 Norton B. Gilula Award winner. The
Gilula Award, funded by an annual grant
from the Rockefeller University Press, honors
outstanding graduate work. Sheltzer won for
his graduate work in Angelika Amon’s lab at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
where he discovered that aneuploidy induces
a transcriptional stress response that is well
conserved among eukaryotes. He is also working
to understand why women are systematically
underrepresented in the life sciences. Sheltzer was
a finalist for the Kaluza Prize for Excellence in
Graduate Research this year.
The Bernfield and Gilula Awardees will
present Minisymposium talks at the 2016
ASCB Annual Meeting. ASCB congratulates
McKinley and Sheltzer and thanks the Selection
Committee. n
—Christina Szalinski
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
Three Early Career Cell Biologists
Win ASCB-Gibco Emerging
Leader Prizes
Maria Barna
Nicolas Plachta
Three early career cell biology researchers have
won the 2016 ASCB-Gibco Emerging Leader
Prizes. Each will receive $3,000.
Maria Barna, assistant professor at Stanford
University, won for her research on ribosome
heterogeneity. This “ribocode” form of gene
regulation provides a novel means for diversity
of the proteins that can be produced in specific
cells, tissues, and organisms.
Nicolas Plachta, principal investigator at the
Agency for Science, Technology and Research,
Singapore, won for his work on resolving cell
fate, shape, and position during development,
especially for developing new live imaging
technologies to analyze single cells in mouse
embryos.
Antonina Roll-Mecak, investigator at the
National Institute of Neurological Disorders
and Stroke, NIH, won for her key contributions
to deciphering the tubulin code. She established
the first biochemical platform to investigate
tubulin posttranslational modifications and
is using this platform to interrogate how the
tubulin code regulates microtubule effectors.
The prizes honor emerging leaders in
science and are for non-tenured faculty holding
independent positions who are in the early
phase of their career (in the first R01 renewal
space or equivalent).
These prizes are part of a partnership between
ASCB and Gibco to support excellence in
science. Both ASCB and Gibco recognize the
challenging times that up-and-coming leaders
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
Antonina Roll-Mecak
in scientific research face. ASCB and Gibco are
both determined to do everything possible to
raise the visibility of our most promising young
scientists.
The seven additional finalists are:
Simon Alberti, Senior Research Group
Leader at the Max Plank Institute of Molecular
Cell Biology and Genetics, won for his research
on how cells adapt to stress. He showed that
stressed cells alter the cytoplasm in a controlled
manner and form membrane-free compartments
by phase separation.
Don Fox, assistant professor at Duke
University, won for his research on genome
duplication. He recently demonstrated that
genomes can be restored without restoring cell
number during hypertrophic injury responses,
and that this genome matching represents an
overlooked yet common stem cell alternative that
accomplishes extensive tissue repair.
Stephanie Gupton, assistant professor at
the University of North Carolina School of
Medicine, won for identifying a nondegradative
role for protein ubiquitination. She identified
a cycle of protein ubiquitination and
deubiquitination that occurs at filopodia tips to
regulate the cytoskeleton during axon guidance.
Ajit Jogelkar, assistant professor at
University of Michigan Medical School, won
for showing how the kinetochore implements
mechanochemical signal transduction, especially
that kinetochore–microtubule attachment
mediates silencing of the spindle assembly
19
ASCB Honors and Awards
checkpoint in budding yeast.
Anthony Leung, assistant professor at
Johns Hopkins University, won for his research
on non-membranous RNA granules and
microRNAs. Since establishing his lab, he
has developed novel proteomics approaches
to identify the sites of ADP-ribosylation—a
posttranslational modification involved in the
regulation of stress granules and microRNA
activity.
Amy Ralston, recently promoted to
associate professor and James K. Billman, Jr.,
M.D., Endowed Professor at Michigan State
University, won for determining how genes
regulate stem cell behavior in the context of
the mammalian embryo. Recently she showed
Simon Alberti
20
Stephanie Gupton
Don Fox
Anthony Leung
that cells previously thought to be trapped in an
intermediate, partially reprogrammed state are
functional stem cells of a distinct lineage.
Pere Roca-Cusachs, assistant professor at
the University of Barcelona and Institute for
Bioengineering of Catalonia, won for his research
uncovering a biophysical molecular mechanism
by which cells sense tissue rigidity and transduce
it into downstream signaling.
The top 10 finalists will be recognized at the
Keynote of the ASCB 2016 Annual Meeting in
San Francisco, CA, December 3. All 10 finalists
will also be invited to a special event with senior
ASCB leaders. n
Amy Ralston
Ajit Jogelkar
Pere Roca-Cusachs
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
ASCB Announces Fourth Annual
Kaluza Prizes for Excellence in
Graduate Student Research
Sudeep Banjade
Kara McKinley
The ASCB, in collaboration with Beckman
Coulter Life Sciences, has announced the
winners of the 2016 Kaluza Prizes for academic
excellence in graduate student research. The
three top finalists will receive cash prizes of
$5,000, $3,000, and $1,000. In addition,
seven other finalists have been named winners
of the ASCB Beckman Coulter Distinguished
Graduate Student Achievement Prize and
will receive travel awards to attend the ASCB
Annual Meeting in San Francisco. All 10
finalists will be recognized before the Keynote
on Saturday, December 3 and will also be
invited to speak at a Minisymposium supported
by Beckman Coulter on Monday, December 5.
The ASCB Kaluza Prizes were launched in
2013 as part of a partnership between ASCB
and Beckman Coulter to support excellence
in science. The competition is open to ASCB
members who are current graduate students or
have graduated within two years at the time of
application.
The three top finalists are:
Sudeep Banjade, now a postdoctoral
associate at Cornell University, won for his
graduate work in Michael Rosen’s lab at the
University of Texas Southwestern Medical
Center where he studied the molecular
mechanisms behind phase-separation of
multivalent signaling proteins. He discovered
that assembly of the adhesion receptor Nephrin
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
Anthony Szempruch
and its cytoplasmic partners Nck and N-WASP
leads to phase-separation in solution and on
model membranes, which can activate this
signaling system in a switch-like fashion.
Kara McKinley, a graduate student at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Iain
Cheeseman’s lab at the Whitehead Institute,
won for her research on the key processes
required for faithful chromosome segregation.
Anthony Szempruch, now a postdoc at
the California Institute of Technology, won
for his graduate work in Stephen Hajduk’s
lab at the University of Georgia on the
protozoan Trypanosoma brucei, which causes
African sleeping sickness. He showed that T.
brucei produce membrane nanotubes, which
vesicularize into free extracellular vesicles and
interact with host membranes, causing anemia.
These extracellular vesicles also interact with
other trypanosomes, transferring resistance to
human innate immunity.
The seven finalists who are winners of
the ASCB Beckman Coulter Distinguished
Graduate Student Achievement Prize are:
Tyler Allen, a graduate student in Ke
Cheng’s lab at North Carolina State University,
won for discovering a novel mechanism that
non-leukocytic cells employ to transmigrate
from blood vessels to surrounding tissue when
injected intravenously.
Daria Bonazzi, a postdoc at the Pasteur
Institute, won for her graduate work in Nicolas
21
ASCB Honors and Awards
Minc’s lab at the Insitut Jacques Monod
where she defined the mechanisms underlying
symmetry breaking in spore germination in
Schizosaccharomyces pombe.
Xin Jin, a graduate student in Cori
Bargmann’s lab at The Rockefeller University,
won for mapping distinct groups of neurons
required for the formation and retrieval of an
imprinted memory and defining genes required
uniquely for imprinting in Caenorhabditis
elegans.
Gaowen Liu, a graduate student in Giulia
Rancati’s lab at the Agency for Science,
Technology and Research in Singapore, won for
showing that the deletion of some “essential”
yeast genes can be overcome by adaptive
evolution and that essentiality is not an inherent
gene property but depends on the cellular
capacity to adaptively evolve.
Jason Sheltzer, now a principal investigator
Tyler Allen
Daria Bonazzi
Jason Sheltzer
22
at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, won for
his graduate research in Angelika Amon’s lab
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
on aneuploidy. He discovered that aneuploidy
induces a transcriptional stress response that is
well-conserved among eukaryotes.
A. Catalina Velez-Ortega, a postdoc at the
University of Kentucky, won for her graduate
research at the University of Kentucky where
she discovered a novel mechanism of cochlear
regulation that protects the organ of Corti after
acoustic trauma.
Anatoly Zaytsev, a postdoc at University of
Pennsylvania, won for his graduate work at the
Russian Academy of Sciences in collaboration
with the University of Pennsylvania where
he identified a novel regulatory mechanism
that ensures accurate control of kinetochoremicrotubule affinity via tuning of the NDC80
complex. n
Xin Jin
A. Catalina Velez-Ortega
Gaowen Liu
Anatoly Zaytsev
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
Mellone, Serio, and Gerbi Receive
2016 WICB Awards
Barbara Mellone
Tricia Serio
The Women in Cell Biology Committee
(WICB) is pleased to announce our award
winners for 2016. Barbara Mellone, University
of Connecticut, received the Junior Award for
her excellence in research on the mechanisms of
centromere specification. Tricia Serio, University
of Arizona, received the Mid-Career Award
for her quality work on the dynamics and
functional consequences of protein misfolding,
with a focus on prion proteins. Susan Gerbi,
Brown University, received the Sandra K.
Masur Senior Leadership Award for her
scientific contributions to our understanding
of eukaryotic ribosome structure, function,
biogenesis, and evolution and aspects of DNA
replication, as well as her achievements and
service in leadership and mentoring. Please
read about the awardees below and join us
in honoring them during the ASCB Annual
Meeting at our WICB Awards and Mentoring
Theater session on Monday, December 6, from
10:45 am–12:00 pm in the Moscone Center,
Room 120.
Barbara Mellone
Barbara Mellone, associate professor in the
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology
at the University of Connecticut, received
the 2016 Junior Award for Excellence in
Research. The Junior Award is given to an
early-career investigator within seven years of
her appointment to an independent position.
Recipients are chosen for their exceptional
scientific contributions to cell biology, for
developing a strong independent research
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
Susan Gerbi
program, and for their promise in continuing
at a high level of scientific endeavor and
leadership.
Mellone received her BS in biological
sciences from the University of Milan, Italy. She
notes that as an undergraduate, the majority
of students, researchers, and professors were
female, which increased her confidence and
inspired her to continue in the biology field. At
the time, she also considered engineering for her
degree, but because students and faculty in the
engineering college were almost entirely male
she questioned whether she belonged there.
From Milan she moved north to receive her
PhD in molecular genetics from the Medical
Research Council in Edinburgh, UK. Her
thesis work under the direction of Robin
Allshire investigated heterochromatin and
centromere function in fission yeast. For her
postdoctoral work with Gary Karpen at the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the
University of California, Berkeley, she used a
genome-wide RNAi screen in Drosophila cells to
identify Cal1, an assembly factor for the histone
variant CENP-A. CENP-A replaces H3 in
nucleosomes specifically at centromeres and by
creating an epigenetic mark contributes to the
fidelity of chromosome segregation during cell
division.
As an independent investigator at the
University of Connecticut, Mellone is
addressing questions she began to study
in her graduate and postdoctoral work on
the function, regulation, and assembly of
centromeric chromatin. Her work has strong
[Mellone’s]
work has strong
relevance to the
development,
progression,
and impact of
chromosome
missegregation
in diseases.
23
ASCB Honors and Awards
relevance to the development, progression,
work on the dynamics and functional
and impact of chromosome missegregation in
consequences of protein misfolding, with a focus
diseases. In addition to resolving structure–
on prion proteins.
function aspects of Cal1 as a chaperone for
Serio received her BS in molecular biology
the recruitment and assembly of CENP-A
from Lehigh University and obtained her PhD at
nucleosomes in Drosophila, she is using
Yale University working with George Miller on
evolutionary cell biology to investigate Cal1/
the regulation of late gene expression in EpsteinCENP-A coevolution and how it influences
Barr virus, during which she was supported by a
centromere incompatibilities among different
predoctoral fellowship from the Howard Hughes
Drosophila species. She is
Medical Institute. As a postdoctoral
also embarking on two
fellow with Susan Lindquist at the
new lines of research, one
University of Chicago, she tackled
focusing on the relationship
Serio has amassed a new research direction on protein
between transcription and
conformations, chaperones, and
an impressive
the epigenetic maintenance
yeast prions, supported by awards
of CENP-A chromatin
from the Damon Runyon–Walter
body of work on
and the other exploring
Winchell Cancer Research Fund
the formation of
how neocentromeres are
and the Leukemia and Lymphoma
assembled. Mellone’s research, amyloid by yeast
Society.
which is currently funded by
Serio says she became aware
prion proteins
National Institutes of Health
of prions when she was doing an
(NIH) and National Science
undergraduate research project
in vivo and
Foundation (NSF) awards,
and a postdoc asked her if she’d
the biological
comprises an impressive
ever heard of infectious proteins.
breadth of work for her career consequences of
After reading one paper, she was
stage.
these transitions…. hooked. As an assistant professor
Mellone is also developing
at Brown University she received
a strong training record and
the Howard Temin Award from
is engaging first-generation
the National Cancer Institute
students from low-income
and a Scholar Award from the
and underrepresented populations in science
Pew Charitable Trusts. After being promoted to
by mentoring outreach through the McNair
associate professor at Brown University, Serio
Scholars Program. As noted by her nominator,
embraced a new opportunity and moved west to
David Knecht, “Dr. Mellone has the hallmarks the University of Arizona.
of carrying a leadership position in her field into
Serio has amassed an impressive body of work
the future and mentoring the next leaders in the on the formation of amyloid by yeast prion
field.”
proteins in vivo and the biological consequences
of these transitions, with insights for treating
Tricia Serio
neurodegenerative disorders associated with
Tricia Serio received the Mid-Career Award
protein misfolding, including mad cow,
for Excellence in Research that is awarded to
Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, and Parkinson’s
an investigator within 7 to 15 years of her
diseases. As conveyed by her nominator,
first independent appointment who has made
Susan Gerbi, Serio’s work has moved the
exceptional scientific contributions to cell
field beyond a prion-centric view of amyloidbiology and who exemplifies a high level of
associated phenotypes to a more system-based
scientific endeavor and leadership. Serio began
understanding of the interplay between the
her independent career in 2002 as an assistant
amyloidogenic propensity of these proteins and
professor in the Department of Molecular
the limitations imposed by the cell in creating
Biology, Cell Biology, and Biochemistry at
novel phenotypes.
Brown University and is currently professor
To achieve this new understanding, Serio
and head of the Department of Molecular and
is using biochemical and imaging approaches
Cellular Biology at the University of Arizona.
to resolve the dynamics of how amyloid is
Her WICB award recognizes her outstanding
initiated, accumulated, and cleared as well
24
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
as different mechanisms whereby amyloid
structure, function, biogenesis, and evolution
is transmitted between cells. Her important
and clarifying important aspects of DNA
contributions include showing that prion
replication, including identifying origins of
conversion is rapid and can involve an already
replication.
native protein, identifying chaperone-regulated
As an undergraduate student at Barnard
events, uncovering an amyloid size threshold
College, Gerbi began working with the lower
for transmission, and revealing a biologically
dipteran fly Sciara, which she continues to use
relevant function of amyloid aggregates in
as a model organism. As a PhD student at Yale
regulating translation termination. Several
University with Joseph Gall, who nominated
of Serio’s support letters
her for the Award and who
highlight her broad, open-ended
received the award in 2006,
perspective that leads to exciting
she used the giant polytene
new discoveries, her enthusiasm
chromosomes of Sciara to help
for taking risks, and her rigorous
develop the new methodology
[Serio] strongly
care and high standards in
of situ hybridization. After a
believes that,
generating data of the highest
mere two years as a postdoctoral
quality. Her current work is
fellow with Wolfgang Hennig
with effective
supported by funds from the
at the Max Planck Institute
follow-through,
NIH.
in Tübingen, Germany, she
Serio is a first-generation
started her independent career
mentorship
college graduate who credits a
at Brown in 1972, where
significantly
series of amazing mentors in
she has remained with stellar
improves student
her success. In turn, she has
success. Notable honors she has
developed a strong record of
received include the State of
success.
mentoring and worked toward
Rhode Island Governor’s Award
diversity in the biomedical
for Scientific Achievement,
workforce, in recognition for
election as a Fellow of the
which she received the first
American Association for the
Brown University Dean’s
Advancement of Science, and
Award for Excellence in Graduate and Postawards at Brown University for excellence in
doctoral Teaching and Mentoring in the
teaching, for advancement of women faculty,
Biological Sciences. She strongly believes that,
and for graduate student and postdoctoral
with effective follow-through, mentorship
mentoring.
significantly improves student success. Serio is
Gerbi’s contributions to the ribosomal RNA
also recognized for her contributions to graduate field include being the first to sequence 28S
training, include designing curricula, organizing rRNA from a multicellular eukaryote (she used
new skill-based courses, and spearheading
Xenopus), demonstrating a core secondary rRNA
training grant applications at both Brown and
structure that is conserved in bacteria through
the University of Arizona.
eukaryotes, discovery of expansion segments
whose sequences in rRNA differ between
Susan Gerbi
organisms, identification of areas within rRNA
Recipients of the Sandra K. Masur Senior
that are conserved between the three domains
Leadership Award are men or women at a later
of life as well as some that are eukaryotic
career stage who have coupled outstanding
specific and for rRNA maturation, showing
scientific achievements with a record of
a role in vivo for U3 small nucleolar RNA.
excellence in leadership and mentoring. Susan
Her additional area of investigation, DNA
Gerbi, this year’s awardee, exemplifies the
replication, has likewise produced many seminal
criteria of the award. As the George Eggleston
findings. Her group developed a method to
Professor of Biochemistry and founding chair
identify at the nucleotide level the start site of
of the Department of Molecular Biology, Cell
DNA synthesis in eukaryotes and subsequently
Biology, and Biochemistry at Brown University,
showed that the replication start site is adjacent
she has developed an impressive body of work in to the Origin Recognition Complex
two areas—understanding eukaryotic ribosome
binding site.
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
25
ASCB Honors and Awards
The consensus of supporting letters for
Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology,
her WICB award is that Gerbi is one of the
and Biochemistry. Additional leadership roles
most eminent investigators of eukaryotic
include years of service to ASCB: She was ASCB
chromosome biology of her generation. She
President (1993) as well as Program Committee
has also made transformative
Chair of an Annual Meeting and
contributions to methods
served on Council, on the Public
development, including in
Policy Committee, and as WICB
situ hybridization, described
chair.
above, injection of antisense
Gerbi’s scientific career has
…Gerbi is one of
oligonucleotides into Xenopus
been greatly influenced by two
the most eminent
oocyte nuclei for functional
role models: her biological
investigators
analyses of small nucleolar
father, Claudio Gerbi, who
RNAs, use of γ-exonuclease
was a physician scientist at
of eukaryotic
to enrich replicating DNA,
Columbia College of Physicians
chromosome
and approaches to identify
and Surgeons, and her scientific
DNA origins of replication,
father, Joe Gall. She followed the
biology of her
including Replication
example set by Gall to use the
generation.
Initiation Point mapping.
best model organism to suit the
Throughout her illustrious
research question at hand, and
career, her research has been
has employed the frog Xenopus,
funded by awards from the
the fly Sciara, and yeast for her
NIH, NSF, the American
experiments. Her lab recently
Cancer Society, and the Department of Defense. completed the toolbox of the genomic sequence
In addition to Gerbi’s outstanding
and a method for transformation to propel
scientific achievements, she has been an
Sciara forward as a model organism in the hope
exceptional mentor and role model to
that it will be adopted by many labs to study its
many—in the classroom, the laboratory,
unique biological features (brown.edu/go/sciaraand the broader scientific community. She
stocks). Overall, Gerbi has made tremendous
has authored publications on graduate
contributions to the scientific community through
education, postdoctoral training, and career
her science, mentorship, and leadership. n
opportunities.1–4 She helped to found the
— Diane L. Barber and Sandra K. Masur
Association of American Medical Colleges
Graduate Research Education and Training
References
(GREAT) group and served as its chair, has
1
Gerbi SA, Garrison HH, Perkins JP (2001). Workforce
organized career development programs, helped alternatives to graduate students? Science 292, 1489–
to initiate the FASEB Postdoc Individual
1490.
Development Plan, and served on the National 2Garrison HH, Gerbi SA, Kincade PW (2003). In an
Academy of Sciences Bridges to Independence
era of scientific opportunity, are there opportunities for
committee that led to the NIH K99 award for
biomedical scientists? FASEB J 17, 2169–2173.
transition from a postdoc to an independent
3
Garrison HH, Stith AL, Gerbi SA (2005). Foreign
career. She is a champion for women in
postdocs: the changing face of biomedical science in the
science and is a founding board member of
U.S. FASEB J 19, 1938–1942.
the Rosalind Franklin Society. At Brown, she
4
Garrison HH, Justement LB, Gerbi SA (2016).
was the PI of a predoctoral training grant for
Biomedical science postdocs: an end to the era of
decades and was the founding chair of the
expansion. FASEB J 30, 41–44.
26
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
Visit booth #422
to learn about our
current and future
work and the
resources we are
producing.
The Allen Institute for Cell Science is
using genome-edited hiPS cells and live
cell imaging to understand and develop
integrative models of cell organization
and activities during the cell cycle and
differentiation.
Our GFP-tagged hiPSC lines are now
available through Coriell, and through a
collaboration with the Broad Institute, 3D
capabilities are being added to CellProfiler.
For information on posters and talks, visit
alleninstitute.org/ascb16
BECOME A FAN OR FOLLOW US!
@allen_institute
alleninstitute
alleninstitute
NEW!
Don’t miss this presentation
See More Than Before
Introducing the Eclipse Ti2, Nikon’s most
advanced inverted microscope yet.
“Advances in fluorescence microscopy:
platforms and probes”
With its unprecedented 25mm field of view, you
Speaker: Nick Dolman, PhD
Date and time: Monday, December 5, 1:00–1:45 p.m.
Location: ASCB Learning Center
with a completely re-designed Z-drive provide
Come explore the cell at
booth #815
can capture twice as much data with a single image.
Fourth generation Perfect Focus System combined
a super-stable imaging platform with high-precision focusing for demanding applications. Built-in
sensors and intelligent Assist Guide eliminate user
error while the internal detector enables you to see
the back-aperture for alignments.
There’s so much more! Visit nikon-ti2.com to see it all.
© 2016 Thermo Fisher Scientifi c Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks are the property of
Thermo Fisher Scientifi c and its subsidiaries unless otherwise specifi ed. COL21562 1116
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
See the Ti2 at the ASCB Meeting, Booth 623
®
27
december 3-7
Symposia
Mechanical Forces in Cell Biology
Photo credit: Cyril Fresillon
Keynote
Jody Rosenblatt
Matthieu Piel
Huntsman Cancer
Institute, University of
Utah
Institut Curie, Paris,
France
Valerie Weaver
University of California,
San Francisco
Organelle Organization
Genes, Genomes and the
Future of Medicine
Richard P. Lifton
The Rockefeller University/HHMI
Tobias Walther
Jodi Nunnari
University of California,
Davis
Harvard/HHMI
Disease Informing Cell Biology
Joseph G. Gleeson
University of San Diego
and The Rockefeller
University/HHMI
Vamsi Mootha
Massachusetts General
Hospital
Quality Control
Join the conversation.
#ASCB16
28
Anne Bertolotti
MRC Laboratory of
Molecular Biology,
Cambridge, UK
Laurie Glimcher
Weill Cornell Medical
College
Ramanujan “Manu”
Hegde
MRC Laboratory of
Molecular Biology,
Cambridge, UK
NEWSLETTER MAY 2016
ASCB NEWSLETTERASCB
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER
Moscone Center, San Francisco, CA
Peter Walter, President
Jonathan Weissman, Program Chair
Photo credit: Michael Sazel
Cellular Communities
Bonnie Bassler
Princeton University/
HHMI
Juergen Knoblich
Institute of Molecular
Biotechnology (IMBA),
Vienna, Austria
November 10 Hotel Reservations
November 17 Meeting Registration Cancellation (to be eligible for a refund)
Dianne K. Newman
California Institute of
Technology/HHMI
Logic of Signaling
Denise Montell
University of California,
Santa Barbara
Deadlines
Aviv Regev
MIT and Broad Institute
of MIT and Harvard/
HHMI
Nuclear Organization
November 17 Room-Share Request
November 22 Hotel Cancellation via onPeak, ASCB’s Official Housing Partner
Minisymposia Topics
Actin Dynamics
Microtubule Dynamics
Autophagy/ESCRT
Multicellular Interactions,
Tissues, and
Development
Cell Biology of the Nucleus
Cell Cycle, Cell Division,
and Cell Death
Susan Gasser
Friedrich Miescher Institute
for Biomedical Research
and University of Basel,
Switzerland
Rob Singer
Albert Einstein College
of Medicine and Janelia
Research Campus/HHMI
Cell Mechanics
Genome Replication and
Gene Regulation
Intermediate Filaments
Find out more
ascb.org/2016meeting
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
Membrane Organization, Dynamics, Traffic, and
Regulation (except
Autophagy/ESCRT)
Organelles and Spatial Organization of the Cell
Post Transcriptional Gene Regulation
Prokaryotic Cell Biology
Signaling and
Differentiation
Synthetic and Systems
Biology
Evidence-Based Education:
Evaluation of Cell Biology
Innovations
29
Three NEW, Exciting, Cutting-Edge Workshops
Imaging the Cell in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities in
Fluorescence Microscopy
Organizers: Hari Shroff, NIBIB/NIH and Justin Taraska, NHLBI/NIH
Sunday, December 4
4:15 pm-6:10 pm
Hari Shroff
NIBIB/NIH
Justin Taraska,
NHLBI/NIH
Learn the answers to key questions about imaging: What sets the spatial
resolution in a super-resolution experiment? How can one image in thick
samples with a quality comparable to that in single thin cells? What are
the prospects for better and brighter probes? Which imaging technology is
right for a biological problem? How can different methods be correlated to
provide information from multiple modes of imaging in the same sample?
Cryo-EM: What It Can Do Now and How You Could Get Started
Organizer: Grant Jensen, California Institute of Technology/HHMI
Monday, December 5
4:15 pm-6:50 pm
Grant Jensen
California Institute of
Technology/HHMI
This workshop will begin with explanations of the fundamental challenges
in biological EM; the key principles of cryo-preservation, electron imaging,
and detector technologies; and the three basic modalities of cryo-EM
(electron crystallography, single particle analysis, and tomography). It will
then provide updates on what each modality can do now, who should be
thinking about trying cryo-EM, and National Institutes of Health plans to
establish regional cryo-EM centers.
Leveraging CRISPR for Precision Biology
Organizers: Jacob Corn, University of California, Berkeley, and Martin
Kampmann, University of California, San Francisco
Tuesday, December 6
4:15 pm-6:50 pm
Martin Kampmann
Jacob Corn
University of
University of
California, San
California, Berkeley
Francisco
This in-depth workshop will cover the use of CRISPR-based approaches
for genome-wide genetic screens, including loss-of-function screens
(CRISPR nuclease, CRISPRi) and gain-of-function screens (CRISPRa). It will
also cover basic and advanced genome editing using CRISPR-based tools
and topics such as guide RNA design, evaluation of off-targets, ways to
improve efficiency, and working in cells and organisms.
Visit ascb.org/2016meeting/workshops for more information
30
www.ascb.org/2016meeting
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
Special Interest Subgroups
Plan to arrive early to attend Special Interest Subgroup Sessions!
This is where ASCB members totally drive the scientific agenda; the focus of Saturday is on a wide range of
topics self-organized by groups of interested scientists. These are among the most popular scientific sessions at
the ASCB meeting, which is why we are now offering two separate sessions on Saturday, starting at 8:30 am!
Saturday Morning Subgroups
8:30 am – 12:30 pm
Subgroup A: Small GTPase Regulation
of Membrane Traffic in Health and
Disease
Organizers: Suzanne Pfeffer, Stanford
University; and Yuxiao Wang, University
of California, San Francisco Subgroup B: Neuronal Cell Biology:
Cytoskeleton and Trafficking
Organizers: Stephanie Gupton,
University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill; and Laura Anne Lowery, Boston
College
Subgroup C: Actomyosin Contractility:
From Reconstituted Networks to
Morphogenesis
Organizers: Ronen Zaidel-Bar,
Mechanobiology Institute Singapore;
Margaret Gardel, University of Chicago;
and James Sellers, NIH/NHLBI
Subgroup D: Emerging Model Systems
Organizers: Bob Goldstein, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and
Nicole King, University of California,
Berkeley/HHMI
Subgroup E: Crosstalk between
Autophagy and Secretion
Organizers: Hesso Farhan, University
of Oslo, Norway; and Mondira Kundu,
St Jude Children’s Research Hospital,
Memphis
College; Sabrice Guerrier, Millsaps
College; Omar A. Quintero, University
of Richmond; and Joshua C. Sandquist,
Grinnell College
Subgroup I: “CRISPR-Trac”: Live
Cell Dynamics of Chromosomes and
Transcripts Interrogated by Cas9sgRNA Labels
Organizers: Thoru Pederson, University
of Massachusetts Medical School;
and Robert H. Singer, Albert Einstein
College of Medicine; Howard Hughes
Medical Institute, Janelia Campus
Subgroup J: Patterning the
Cytoskeleton: PTMs, MAPs and ABPs
Organizers: Kristen Verhey, University
of Michigan Medical School; and
Antonina Roll-Mecak, NINDS/NIH
Saturday Afternoon Subgroups
1:30 pm – 5:30 pm
Subgroup K: Accelerating Science and
Publication in Biology (ASAPbio)
Organizers: Prachee Avasthi, University
of Kansas Medical Center; and Jessica
Polka, Accelerating Science and
Publication in Biology (ASAPbio)
Subgroup L: Using the Human Protein
Atlas - Tips and Tricks
Organizer: Tove Alm, KTH Royal
Institute of Technology
Subgroup F: Bottom-Up Cell Biology
Organizers: Daniel Fletcher, University
of California, Berkeley; and Matthew
Good, University of Pennsylvania
Subgroup G: Evolutionary Cell Biology
Organizer: Holly Goodson, Notre Dame
University
Subgroup H: Science with
Undergraduates: Authentic
Experiences from the Laboratory to the
Classroom (and in Between)
Organizers: Derek A. Applewhite, Reed
Subgroup M: Emerging Roles of
ROS-Related Redox Signaling in
Cell Biology
Organizers: Daniel M. Suter, Purdue
University; Christian Gonzalez-Billault,
Universidad de Chile; and Jonathan
R. Terman, University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center
Subgroup N: The Cell Biology of
Stem Cells
Organizers: Diane Barber, University of
Calfifornia, San Francisco; Rick Horwitz,
Allen Institute for Cell Science, Seattle;
Michael Graham Espey, NCI/NIH
Subgroup O: 4th Biannual Frontiers of
Cytokinesis
Organizers: Amy Maddox, University
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Doug
Robinson, Johns Hopkins University;
Dimitrios Vavylonis, Lehigh University;
Julie Canman, Columbia University;
Ulrike Eggert, King’s College London;
and Jian-Qui Wu, Ohio State University
Subgroup P: Building the Cell 2016
Organizer: Susanne Rafelski, Allen
Institute for Cell Science, Seattle
Subgroup Q: Translational Cell
Therapy for Cancer
Organizer: Lisa Butterfield, University
of Pittsburgh; and Daniel J. Powell,
University of Pennsylvania; and Society
for Immunotherapy of Cancer
Subgroup R: Mechanisms and
Consequences of Cell Size Regulation
Organizers: Fred Chang, University of
California, San Francisco; and Orna
Cohen-Fix, NIDDK/NIH
Subgroup S: Nanotechnology
Approaches for Interrogating Cell
Signaling
Organizers: Young-wook Jun, University
of California, San Francisco; Bianxiao
Cui, Stanford University;
and Shawn Douglas, University of
California, San Francisco
Subgroup T: Cilia, Signaling, and
Human Disease
Organizers: Peter K. Jackson, Stanford
University School of Medicine; and
Jeremy Reiter, University of California,
San Francisco
Wednesday Subgroup
8:30 am – 11:05 am
Subgroup U: Understanding T Cell
Activation, Developing Tools for
Cancer Immunotherapy
Organizer: Xiaolei Su, University of
California, San Francisco
www.ascb.org/2016meeting
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
31
ANNUAL Meeting
Symposium Preview
Near-Death Experiences
Investigating Complex Signals
behind Basic Cell Behavior
Cells are often likened to computers, running
an operating system that receives signals,
processes their input, and responds, according
to programming, with cellular output. Yet
untangling computer-like pathways in cells
is anything but simple, say Denise Montell,
professor at the University of California,
Santa Barbara, and Aviv Regev, a Howard
Hughes Medical Institute investigator at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the
Broad Institute. However, both are eager to try
and will outline their latest efforts at the “Logic
of Signaling” Symposium at the 2016 ASCB
Annual Meeting.
“My lab is understanding how cells maintain
and build normal tissues. We’re studying
cellular behaviors that underlie normal
behavior and tumor metastasis, a great unsolved
question in cancer,” Montell said. Her lab
recently discovered that cells can bounce back
from the brink of apoptotic cell death. “This
wasn’t known before so now we’re looking
at how cells do it, when do they do it, under
what circumstances, and what does it mean,”
Montell said.
To track these near-death experiences in
cells the Montell lab generated a genetically
coded sensor in Drosophila. The researchers
expected the mechanism of near death to be a
stress response, but they found that it occurred
normally during development. “It makes sense
retrospectively,” Montell explained, pointing
to neuronal development as an example. “You
produce way more neurons than you need, and
the neurons compete for trophic factors. If a
group of cells are competing for trophic factors,
then one cell starts to die, but if it gets more
trophic factor, it could bounce back.”
Montell recently moved her lab to University
of California, Santa Barbara, after 25 years
in Baltimore where she rose from postdoc at
the Carnegie Institution to professor at Johns
Hopkins University. From Santa Barbara,
Montell said, “I feel like I’ve gone back to
college, teaching undergrads for the first time,
32
Caspase markers of apoptotic cell death in
the brain of a developing Drosophila. Cells
experiencing current caspase activity are labeled
with RFP, and cells that have experienced past
caspase activity and their progeny with GFP. Nuclei
are blue. Image from eLife 2016;5:e10936.
and being in a basic science department… the
move has been really rejuvenating. And I can’t
complain about the weather and the view out
the window.”
Based in Cambridge, MA, Regev is
investigating how cell circuits transform signals
into cellular responses. “Cells constantly receive
signals and decide how to act. They convey to
other molecules that convey to other molecules,
and so on… you can view it like a computer
circuit,” Regev said. Her lab wants to understand
how these circuits work. Lately they’re doing
“a lot of work to develop computational and
experimental methods for single-cell RNA
profiling to understand the ways in which
cells differ from each other in physiologically
meaningful ways,” she said.
Recently Regev’s lab used single-cell RNA
profiling in T-cells. They wanted to understand
more about T-cell exhaustion, a dysfunctional
T-cell state during cancer or viral infection
when the T-cell can no longer respond when
stimulated with antigen. Her lab found a genetic
program that controls the full-blown exhaustion,
Regev said. This could be useful for targeting
exhausted T-cells in therapies.
Regev says that she didn’t plan to become a
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
biologist. Her undergraduate education was
interdisciplinary although she was originally
drawn to computer science and math. But
when she took a class in genetics. “I thought
it was very fascinating that you could learn
so much about biology without knowing the
molecular details. It was about inference, that’s
how genetics historically worked. It occurred
to me that it was similar to computational
systems,” Regev said.
As for precisely what they’ll be talking about
at the 2016 ASCB Annual Meeting, neither
can say yet, other than they expect to present
the latest from their labs. “I hope some of what
I will talk about we haven’t uncovered yet,”
Montell said. “People will have to come to the
talk. I usually talk about unpublished things,”
Regev noted. n
—Christina Szalinski
Does Your Institution Pay for Your ASCB Membership?
It may be possible to bill ASCB membership dues to direct or indirect costs under a National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant.
NIH guidelines state that subscriptions are allowable as direct costs and memberships as indirect costs (see section 200.454
of the U.S. Federal Government Uniform Guidelines). Your ASCB membership includes an annual subscription to Molecular
Biology of the Cell valued at $626 per year.
Some universities allow membership fees as a direct cost to a project if it reduces the overall cost of attending a
conference by more than the fee. The difference in price between a nonmember and member ASCB Annual Meeting
registration far exceeds the cost of an ASCB membership. Savings range from $50 for undergraduate students, $130 for graduate
students, $210 for postdocs, and $230 for regular members.
Check with your university or granting agency to find out if either of these circumstances applies to you.
If you have questions, contact Membership Manager Marta Chacon at 301-347-9324 or [email protected]. n
ASCB Member Benefit:
One-on-One CV Review
Need some help with a cover letter, CV, resume, statement of teaching
philosophy, or other document for the next step in your career? Members
of the ASCB are willing to help. Just fill out a short form (www.ascb.org/
cvreview), and we’ll put you in touch with a reviewer. Then the two of you
can decide which digital collaboration tool to use (email, Google Docs,
Skype, Wikispaces, etc.). You must be a current ASCB member to take
advantage of this service. n
—Thea Clarke
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
33
ANNUAL Meeting
The ASCB thanks the following organizations for supporting
the 2016 ASCB Annual Meeting.*
American Association of Anatomists and
The Anatomical Record
Scientific Symposium
Atlas Antibodies AB
Enhanced Company Listing on Mobile App
Baker
Enhanced Company Listing on Mobile App
Poster Supply Counter
BD Biosciences
Enhanced Company Listing on Mobile App
Beckman Coulter Life Sciences
Kaluza Prizes
Getson & Schatz, P.C.
Travel Awards
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Foundational Cell Biology Workshop
Human Protein Atlas
Enhanced Company Listing on Mobile App
International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB)
Travel Awards
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Collateral Listing on Mobile App
Biochemistry
Opening Night Reception
National Cancer Institute, NIH
Emerging Topic Symposium
BioMed Central
Minisymposium
National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH
MAC Annual Meeting Programs and Travel Awards
Biotium, Inc.
Collateral Listing on Mobile App
National Science Foundation
MAC Annual Meeting Programs and Travel Awards
Bruker Corporation
Enhanced Company Listing on Mobile App
Nikon Instruments, Inc.
Lanyards
Burroughs Wellcome Fund
MAC Poster Competition and Awards
Ceremony Luncheon
WICB Career Discussion and Mentoring Roundtables
and Network Reception
Cellecta
Enhanced Company Listing on Mobile App
NuAire
Collateral Listing on Mobile App
OriGene
Meeting Bags
Public Library of Science (PLOS)
Celldance
Chroma Technology Corporation
Travel Awards
QImaging
Hanging Banner Aisle Sign
The Company of Biologists
Travel Awards
Simons Foundation
Film Premiere
CoolLed Ltd.
Enhanced Company Listing on Mobile App
Springer Nature Publishing Group
Childcare Awards
Dharmacon, part of GE Healthcare
Scientific Workshop
Thermo Fisher Scientific
ASCB-Gibco Emerging Leader Prizes
Genentech, a member of the Roche Group
Annual Meeting Support
Worthington Biochemical Corporation
Travel Awards
*As of October 28, 2016
34
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
Augmented Microscopy™
capture
analyze
Cellular compartments are automatically segmented and analyzed.
Annotation tools are available.
annotate
video
Includes temperature, gas, humidity
control and a movie maker for live
cell time-lapse imaging.
Lionheart™ FX Automated Live Cell Imager enables superior digital microscopy with high
resolution images up to 100x. From simple fixed cell assays and slide scanning to advanced,
environmentally controlled time-lapse movies and 3D
spheroid formation imaging, Lionheart FX and Gen5 3.0
Software provide qualitative and quantitative data in a
compact automated microscopy system.
Visit www.lionheartfx.com
www.biotek.com
Plan to Attend
Our ASCB 2016
Tech Talks
Normalization of Functional
Cellular Metabolic Data using
Cell Counting
Sunday 12/4 9:30-10:30 AM
Automated Dynamic Cell Culture
and Real-Time Analysis with
Single Cell Resolution
Tuesday 12/6 2:00-2:45 PM
WOMEN in Cell Biology
Self-Advocacy: Why It’s
Uncomfortable, Especially for
Women, and What to Do About It
C a r e e r A d vi ce f o r
Wo m e n a n d Me n
[T]he expectation
already exists
that men will
self-advocate
and women will
be modest.
Self-advocacy—speaking or acting on our own
behalf—is an increasingly important skill (for
a primer on how to do it, see reference 1) and
one that makes many of us cringe. Just look at
the new National Institutes
of Health biosketch: Instead
of modestly providing a list
of publications, we need
to clearly and cogently
champion our multiple
accomplishments. (The
biosketch is also very useful to
people who write nomination
or recommendation letters for
you.)
I’m not speaking about
braggadocio; I mean acting on
Vivian Siegel
our own behalf with the same
persuasive power we use on
behalf of others. And that is hard, especially for
women, to do.
Gender Stereotypes in
Negotiations
professors were offered the same starting salary.
The woman accepted, but the man negotiated
and consequently was paid more.”
The high-level administrator was satisfied
by this explanation and the
discrepancy in salaries remained.
The man was rewarded for his
ability to self-advocate. Whether
this is “fair” depends on whether
the difficulty and potential
risks of self-advocacy are equal
across gender, and psychological
research suggests that the
playing field is perniciously
uneven.
First, “gender stereotypes”
impel different societal
expectations for behavior. As
reviewed by Janoff-Bulman and
Wade, men “are expected to be ambitious,…
assertive, self-confident, direct, and
instrumentally competent,” while women “are
expected to be unselfish, caring,…emotionally
expressive, and interpersonally sensitive.”2 In
other words, the expectation already exists
that men will self-advocate and women will be
modest.
One classic example of a situation in which
women have a harder time with self-advocacy
than men do is the job
negotiation. Janoff-Bulman
Just Act Differently?
and Wade tell the following
Well, you say, so what? All women need
true story about two
to do is act differently and they will get
assistant professors hired at
[A]sk your peers
a different reaction—right?
the same time, one a man
2
to
help
you
craft
Unfortunately, no. Psychological
and the other a woman.
research
shows costs associated with
They “have equivalent
an effective case.
resisting
gender stereotypes. First,
research records, letters
What
would
they
perceptions of “out of role” behavior
of recommendation, and
are exaggerated. In other words, a selfteaching experience; in
say about you?
advocating argument made by a woman
fact, they are essentially
will be seen as more self-promoting,
indistinguishable on paper.
even aggrandizing, than the same
Yet, the man’s starting
argument made by a man (reviewed in
salary is considerably
reference 2). Second, the social cost of
higher than the woman’s. A
resisting gender stereotypes is being liked less
male administrator further up the bureaucratic
by both men and women. As documented by
hierarchy notices this discrepancy and discusses
Powers and Zuroff, self-promoting women tend
the cases with the relevant department chairs
to be evaluated higher in performance yet lower
and dean. He learns that the new assistant
36
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
in likeability than those who are not selfpromoting.3
This matters even from a professional
perspective because being liked is a powerful
tool of persuasion: People want to say yes to
those they like.4 So, as a woman, what can
you do? In a culture that insists on selfadvocacy and then slams you for it, it’s like
there’s no way to win.
Self-Advocacy and
Other-Advocacy
There is a way forward, a collective way:
Women are amazing advocates for others. As
Smith and Huntoon relate, when they were
putting together a magazine featuring the
achievements of women faculty on campus,
they put out a “call for women to share their
successes.”5 No replies. Except they received
“many replies from people telling us about
other women we should feature and the good
work that these other women on campus
were doing.” This fits well with our gendered
modesty norm and research showing women
are more comfortable promoting others.6
Further, not only are women evaluated
more harshly for promoting themselves
than they are for promoting others, they
actually tend to be less motivated in
promoting themselves compared with
promoting others;5 self-promotion goes
against our gender stereotype and causes
discomfort, termed “situational arousal.”7
Other studies of situational arousal suggest
that if individuals (mistakenly) assign
their discomfort to an external source (a
misattribution), then they will no longer
change their behavior in response to the
discomfort. So what then would happen if,
during the self-promotion task, researchers
offered participants an opportunity to
misattribute their discomfort?
In this experiment, participants were
told that the department was investigating
the effect of extraneous distraction on task
performance. One group was introduced
to a “black box subliminal noise generator”
and told it caused side effects such as
‘‘increased heart rate, nervousness, and
arousal,’’ thereby providing participants
with an alternate, external source to which
they could attribute any discomfort actually
caused by their self-promotion. The black
box didn’t do anything; it was simply
something to “blame” if participants began
to feel uncomfortable. The other group
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
was told nothing about the black box (which
was in the room for both groups). Strikingly,
the participants who could blame the black
box did as well at self-promotion as at peerpromotion. They also reported that they were
more interested in the task and more motivated
to do it.
To summarize where we are:
1. Women are expected to be more modest than men and not self-advocate.
2. Women who do self-advocate are less likely
to be liked, and their self-advocacy will be
seen as excessive compared with the same
self-advocacy by men.
3. Women are great at advocating for others
and are expected to do so.
4. Women feel uncomfortable, uninterested,
and unmotivated in tasks that require selfadvocacy and don’t perform as well as a
result.
5. Creating an opportunity to misattribute
their discomfort is sufficient to increase
interest, motivation, and performance.
Instead of asking
candidates
to promote
themselves,
we could rely
more heavily
on advocacy
by others….
Self-Advocacy IS Other-Advocacy
How might we use this information to advance
our careers? Here are a few suggestions:
1. Don’t go it alone: Turn self-advocacy into
other-advocacy whenever possible. Ask
others to advocate for you (including
nominating you for awards) in situations
where it is appropriate. WICB members
have worked tirelessly to promote women
as keynote speakers at national meetings, as
award recipients, and as leaders.
2. In cases when you do need to advocate
for yourself, think about whether you can
make it also a case for something larger, for
example for your research group. When it
is solely about you (as it will be from time
to time), ask your peers to help you craft an
effective case. What would they say about
you? Use their words, and resist the urge to
tone them down.
3. Know that your discomfort at self-advocacy
is caused by the gender stereotype itself. It
is indeed something outside yourself and
is shared by members of our community,
including you. In other cases of stereotype
threat, this kind of knowledge aids
performance (for example, by girls on
math tests).
4. Get a black box! More seriously, the
misattribution experiment tells us that it is
not the discomfort itself that leads to low
interest, motivation, and performance, but
37
rather the story we tell ourselves about the
discomfort. Learn to tell a different story
about “situational arousal,” or no story
at all. Mindfulness practices teach you
to name sensations as a way of “taming”
them.8
5. Administrators need to think carefully
about tasks designed to require selfadvocacy. Instead of asking candidates to
promote themselves, we could rely more
heavily on advocacy by others, including
reaching out to people to nominate their
peers for recognition of various kinds.
Consider going gender-blind whenever
possible. Furthermore, administrators
should work with young investigators to
help them build their negotiation styles
and strategies. And they must make it
incumbent on themselves to fix disparities
that exist as a result of the gendered
differences in both behavior and perception
of behavior.
None of these suggestions is trivial, but
they are worth the effort. What you do for
yourself as a self-advocate, and for each other as
other-advocates, will impact not just your own
career but the careers of others as well, and for
generations to come. Advocating for yourself—
worthwhile in itself—is still advocating for
others. n
—Vivian Siegel, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
References
Office of Intramural Training and Education, National
Institutes of Health. Putting your best foot forward:
Self-advocacy for scientists. http://bit.ly/2dJGtEU.
1
Janoff-Bulman R, Wade B (1996). The dilemma of
self-advocacy for women: another case of blaming the
victim? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 15,
143–152.
2
Powers TA, Zuroff DC (1988). Interpersonal
consequences of overt self-criticism: A comparison with
neutral and self-enhancing presentations of self. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 1054–1062.
3
Cialdini RB (2008). Influence: Science and Practice (5th
edition). Columbus, OH: Allyn and Bacon.
4
Smith JL, Huntoon M (2014). Women’s bragging
rights: Overcoming modesty norms to facilitate women’s
self-promotion. Psychology of Women Quarterly 38,
447–459.
5
Moss-Racusin C, Rudman LA (2010). Disruptions in
women’s self-promotion: The backlash avoidance model.
Psychology of Women Quarterly 34, 186–202.
6
Zanna MP, Cooper J (1974). Dissonance and the
pill: An attribution approach to studying the arousal
properties of dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 29, 703–709.
7
Kabat-Zinn J (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions
in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice 10, 144–156.
8
Find a Job,
Post a Job
on the ASCB Job Board at
cellbiologyjobs.org
ASCB Members receive
50% off
when posting jobs
38
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
PUBLIC POLICY Briefing
Durbin, continued from p.1
Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for
Disease Control, the Defense Health Project,
and the Medical and Prosthetics Research
Program of the Department of Veterans
Affairs. Lee said that Durbin has been a leader
in promoting organ and tissue donation and
had successfully fought to increase the share of
federal funding to combat AIDS worldwide.
He was also behind the American Innovation
Act, which increased funding for scientific
technology research by five federal agencies.
Lee declared, “Because you challenged your
colleagues, for the first time in a decade the
NIH saw a substantial increase in its annual
appropriations and more young investigators
are seeing opportunities where no clear path
existed for them during the past 10 years.”
Lee credited Durbin’s leadership in creating
more opportunities for scientists studying
the underpinnings of life itself. “Researchers
are better equipped to take advantage of
unprecedented scientific opportunities that may
lead to new treatments and cures for our nation’s
most devastating illnesses,” Lee concluded.
According to Shugart, Senator Durbin is the
third U.S. Senator to receive the ASCB’s Public
Service Award, following Tom Harkin (D-IA) in
1994 and the late Arlen Specter (R-PA) in 2005.
Other ASCB Public Service Award recipients
include Nobel laureates J. Michael Bishop in
1998, Harold Varmus in 1999, Paul Berg in
2003, and Elizabeth Blackburn in 2004 as well as
actor and activist Christopher Reeve in 2001.
Thanking the ASCB, Durbin said it was
an honor to be included in the same lineage
as Senators Harkin and Specter. Durbin told
Shugart and Lee that the award reflected a major
decision in his life. Uncertain whether or not to
run for reelection in 2014, Durbin told himself
that he would run only if he had specific goals.
Reviving federal support for biomedical research
was the top goal on his list, and the ASCB award
meant that he’d chosen well.
Durbin has been in the U.S. Senate
since 1997 and sits on the Senate Judiciary,
Appropriations, and Rules Committees. He has
served as the Assistant Democratic Leader since
2005.
Lee reminded Durbin of his remark following
President Obama’s State of the Union address
that it was music to his ears to hear the President
talk about medical research and the difference it
can make in the United States and in the world.
“Well, it is music to our ears every time you
stand in support of medical research,” Lee told
the Senator. n
—Tommy Mattocks, Public Policy Coordinator
Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus
Louis Staudt, Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute, gave a presentation at the Congressional Biomedical
Research Caucus. His talk was entitled “Cancer Genome Project Offers New Hope for Aggressive Lymphoma.” Arturo Vegas, Boston University, gave a presentation entitled “Are We Close to a Cure for Type I Diabetes?" n
Louis Staudt
Congressman Steven Cohen (D-TN),
Arturo Vegas took questions from
one of four bipartisan co-chairs of the
the audience.
Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
39
COMPASS Points
Tips to Combat Research Blues
Reprinted from the
COMPASS blog, which
is moderated by the
ASCB Committee for
Postdocs and Students.
To view more blog
content or contact
COMPASS, visit http://
ascb.org/ascbpost.
40
Picture it: You’re in the throes of multiple
lab or had those resources. Or curse the good
experiments. Your lunch and dinner are often
luck of the authors. Or imagine that the first
out of a paper sack and most likely eaten in less
author just lucked into an amazing publication
than 15 minutes. When you leave your house in
by joining the lab at the right time.
the morning, it’s dark. When
How did you end up in
you go home at night, it’s dark.
this state? Well, in my humble
For bench
In fact, you know the janitor
experience and that of many
prefers two sugars and a splash
colleagues, as we advance in our
researchers,
of milk in his coffee. Maybe
scientific career, it can begin to
sometimes the
you’ve taken to naming your
feel, to put it bluntly, less about
mice or plates of cells because
the science. In trying to keep up
distance to the
keeping up with friends—
with the “ideal” of a successful
drug or the patient scientist many of us lose touch with
fuggedaboutit. Maybe you
notice yourself acting a little,
the curiosity that brought us into
that can use it is
you know, (in hushed tones)
research in the first place. Our focus
too big and it’s
crazy, even for a scientist.
begins to shift. Gradually, more
Learn from my mistake;
importance is placed on the speed
easy to forget
pipettes will not channel
of the work, getting money, selling
how absolutely
magical powers no matter how
our science, politics, job promotion,
loud you shout Wingardium
impact factor, publication quantity,
important and
Leviosa. Now couple that with
and, for some, fame. I would argue
necessary these
departmental requirements,
that pre-graduate school life did
fellowship deadlines, classes,
not prepare me for the amount of
early mechanistic
and your boss’s expectations
mental stamina I would need to
(known to you or not). Perhaps findings are.
conduct research while struggling to
many of you didn’t need to
maintain my identity, my curiosity,
picture it because you are living
my sense of accomplishment, my
it! It’s enough to make any sane
self-worth, my determination, my
person have a Jessie Spano moment and shout,
morale, and/or my feeling of camaraderie in
“No time! There’s never any time!”
light of the success of others.
Losing Sight of the Science
Research can sometimes make you feel as
though you live in a pressure cooker—a very
lonely, isolating pressure cooker. And while you
are using all your strength to hold everything
together, it happens: the latest edition(s) of your
most respected journal(s) hits the Internet.
When you sit down and read, ahem, skim
the articles…fine, the abstracts, when you skim
the abstracts, I mean who has time to sit down
and read a whole article anyway?...sure your
initial thought may be, “Wow this is so cool!”
or “How did they even think of that method?”
But I think for a lot of us that sense of awe can
quickly turn into other feelings such as jealousy,
despair, frustration, helplessness, and anger and
we may even begin to feel that life is unfair. (I’m
going to go out on a limb here and say I believe
a majority of people in research can be just a
touch competitive.) Maybe you imagine how
much you would accomplish if you were in that
Staying True to the Beauty of
Research
In this fast-paced, high-pressure career path,
which provides ample breeding grounds for
bitter discontent, how do we stay motivated?
Honest? Quality-driven? Purposeful? Curious?
Or maintain any other fill-in-the-blank that
drove you into this career path?
The short answer is I don’t know. I don’t
know a sure-fire solution. I have tried a variety
of techniques with some success and like any
good experimenter, I have also learned from
what didn’t work. These are things I have
learned through my own blood, sweat, and tears
or anecdotally from my equally antagonized
colleagues. No, these aren’t completely novel,
highly complex, or fool-proof. (Side note: That
is not something you ever want to write when
you are applying for funding!) Everybody is
different, so what may not work for some may
be the golden ticket for others. But I think
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
these tips can be useful for any career path,
project was actually initiated or the number of
research and non-research alike, because
antibodies they tested before a band could be
at some point the majority of us will find
seen on a Western blot. That’s because it’s ugly!
ourselves in a uncharted mental territory:
That doesn’t make for a nice story! Of course no
Do remember why you started this
one is going to reveal all the skeletons in their
career path. It is so easy to become
research closet. At the end of the day, we are
disillusioned as you go along. The negative
all creating an image we want to put out to the
factors, the failures, the rejections, loss of
world.
time, lack of instruction or the opposite of
Do set an ethical standard for yourself. I’m
micro-managing, etc., can really start to take
going to say what we don’t like to say in science,
their toll. For bench researchers, sometimes
which is sometimes not everyone does things
the distance to the drug or the patient that
by the rules or with ethical methods. Worse yet
can use it is too big and it’s easy to forget
is not everybody is honest about the liberties
how absolutely important and necessary
they have taken. I mean are controls really
these early mechanistic findings are. So if
necessary if your experimental group shows what
it takes you creating your own mantra to
you want? (The answer is Yes! Always Yes!) It’s
be repeated on a daily basis or writing your
important to know your limits, what you are
reasons on a list that you hang somewhere
and are not willing to do if, for example, your
highly visible, go for it.
mentor is breathing down your neck about some
Don’t put these reasons in stone. Sound
preliminary fluorescent staining to go into a
contradictory? Not at all. Your interests will
grant in two days. Should you help yourself out
probably change over time, for any number
by playing with the imaging software settings
of reasons—moving, family obligations, etc.
to make the negatives more negative and the
The longer you do something the more your
positives more positive. I mean this is only
focus begins to hone on what you want to do preliminary grant data, right? It’s not like this
and how you prefer to spend your time.
is getting published. Don’t do it! Yes, you’ll
Don’t be an emotional actor. That
make your mentor happy (for the time being)
means don’t make changes
and have data in time for the
to your career because you
grant deadline, buuuuut you
are angry or highly stressed.
will now face the beast that is
I’ve also never
These two emotions can
reproducibility and potentially
seen anybody
be positively channeled
following up a false lead. And
into excellent motivators to
heaven help the colleague who
publish the
research other career paths if
borrows your protocol.
date of when
you feel that is the best option
Don’t stay in a negative
for you, but set them aside
zone.
Unfortunately often those
a project was
when it comes to making the
responsible for imprisoning you
actually initiated
actual commitment to a new
there are your work colleagues,
direction. After all, you won’t
who in most cases double as
or the number of
always feel this way.
friends. It’s great to like who
antibodies they
Don’t take publications
you are working with and even
and other people’s successes
to hang out on that elusive
tested before
at face value. It is so easy
weekend off, but really consider
a band could
when you read an article,
your conversational topics and
especially a well-written one,
the feeling you have afterwards.
be seen on a
to see the “Facebook effect.”
Are you going in circles talking
Western blot.
You know the one—where
about the same old work stuff?
everyone appears happy all
Don’t get me wrong, a good ole’
the time and other people
complaining sesh can do wonders
are always going on vacation.
but just make sure to limit it
Remember you are seeing the highly polished and then move on. Another option is to make
product of many highly intelligent and
an effort to hang out with non-work friends.
skilled people who have most likely been
These people can be excellent sources of outside
at it a lot longer than you. I’ve also never
perspective as well as, potentially, providing a
seen anybody publish the date of when a
more positive atmosphere.
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
When you are
working a lot and
feeling stressed
it’s easy for
your personal
milestones to
dissolve in favor
of the shortterm, pressuredriven goals of
your mentor.
41
COMPASS Points
Do set individual goals and expectations
for your thesis work or postdoctoral
fellowship. This helps keep your head clear on
how you want you to progress. When you are
working a lot and feeling stressed it’s easy for
your personal milestones to dissolve in favor of
the short-term, pressure-driven goals of your
mentor. It’s easy to override what’s best for you
to make him or her happy. It’s your boss, after
all. If you have a boss you trust then openly
share your goals with him or her. A good boss
has your best interest in mind in the long term.
For those less fortunate in the boss department,
it’s hard but be your own advocate. You are
the one who will have to answer for what you
accomplished when it’s all said and done.
Let me close with this. Neil deGrasse
Tyson said, “When students cheat on exams
it’s because our school system values grades
more than students value learning.” In essence,
when we put value on superficial measures
or appearances we lose the true nature and
fulfillment behind why we do what we do. So
buck the system! Stay true to yourself and the
beauty that is research. Be confident in the work
you are doing and strive to be an asset to your
chosen field.
Have any tips you’d like to share? n
—Emma Lindcourt
Note
Emma Lindcourt completed her PhD in the
United States and then moved to Europe for a
postdoctoral fellowship. Lindcourt is currently
working on completing her Medical Writing
Certification because she believes those who can
write about science have the real power. Her future ambitions include joining the blogosphere
as a creative writer and engineering a master
plan to rework the current grant funding system
so that those that deserve money get it and those
that have money use it in the most efficient and
responsible way possible.
ASCB #ONLINE
NEWSLETTER
Read, learn, and share what’s new—now online at ASCB
at ascb.org/newsletter
Access the Newsletter anytime...
and on any device
All the content you love, including
Dear Labby and career advice
Share valuable content through
social media or email
/ascbiology
@ascbiology
www.ascb.org
42
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
Download the
ascb mobile app
for your complete guide to the annual meeting.
Search for “ascb” in the App Store or
on Google Play.
With the mobile
app, you can...
Come explore the cell
with us at booth #815
• View your own personalized
schedule on your mobile device
ascb annual meeting
• Search sessions by day, tracks, or threads
Stop by our booth to:
• See maps of the convention center with pin drop room locators
• Experience our virtual reality platform
• See inside our new Premiere V2 Supply Center
• Search exhibitors by product index and find them with our booth
locator pin
• Take a #cellfie and share with your friends
• Get an invitation to our Science Hero Awards
• Take session notes and email them back to your lab
• Comment on sessions via Twitter and Facebook directly from the app
© 2016 Thermo Fisher Scientifi c Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks are the property of
Thermo Fisher Scientifi c and its subsidiaries unless otherwise specifi ed. COL21564 1116
LSe
G1560-PJT2085-COL21564-ASCB2016-NewsletterPrintAd2-BoothSeminar-Americas.indd 1
10/31/16 11:52 AM
PUBLISHED BY
The AMERICAN SOCiety FOR CELL
BIOLOGY
EDITORIAL PARTNER
THE GENETICS SOCIETY OF America
A Peer-Reviewed Journal of Biology Education Research and Evidence-Based Biology Teaching
For educators
at all levels
and across all
life science
disciplines.
Online and
completely
FREE. No
subscription
required.
No author
page or color
charges.
LSE emphasizes teaching innovations and evidence of their effectiveness. It publishes original
research articles, essays, and features that help you apply education research to your own teaching.
www.lifescied.org
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
43
Do
Graduate Students and
you wantPostdocs
to
Organize
Organizing a One-Day
Local Meeting?
Apply for an
Early Career
Meeting Grant
Supported by ASCB
Accelerate Your Career
ASCB helps to fund and organize your local meeting.
Such meetings will typically involve two or more local
research institutions or colleges (within or outside of
the USA). Topics may range from basic science to
career development, with a clear relevance to the
broadly defined field of cell biology.
For more information go to
ascb.org/earlycareermeetinggrants
or email [email protected].
Deadline for Applications:
January 17, 2017
#ascblocal
44
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
EARLY CAREER Meetings
sponsored by ASCB
Recent Early Career Meetings
Participants at the Triangle Cytoskeleton Meeting
The Triangle Cytoskeleton Meeting
Saxapahaw, NC. September 12, 2016
The 2016 edition of the Triangle Cytoskeleton
Meeting brought over 200 scientists to the
beautiful and tranquil town of Saxapahaw,
NC, for a retreat-like day of cell biology.
With attendees from diverse research and
academic backgrounds, the meeting proved to
be an ideal venue to share exciting and often
unpublished work with peers, mentors, old
friends, and potential collaborators. To conclude
the meeting, two outstanding attendees were
awarded travel awards based on scientific merit
and financial need to attend the ASCB’s Annual
Meeting in San Francisco this December.
The organizers thank the ASCB for helping
graduate students and postdocs provide new and
exciting venues to discuss research and support
their local communities.
The Triangle Cytoskeleton Meeting included poster presentations.
Northeast Nuclear Envelope
Regional Meeting
New Haven, CT. September 16, 2016
The inaugural Northeast Nuclear Envelope
regional meeting was held on September 16 at
Yale University. This meeting brought together
local New England researchers focused on unique
aspects of the nuclear periphery—across diverse
model organisms with unique experimental
approaches—to promote the exchange of new
ideas. Scientists from six different states attended
the meeting, representing a range of institutions
from Yale and Harvard to Clark University and
the National Institutes of Health. After hearing
presentations on a range of topics, from nuclear
integrity in Caenorhabditis elegans to the protein composition of the Xenopus nucleus, and a
lively poster session, the meeting concluded with
a keynote address from Thomas Schwartz of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Are You Getting ASCB Pathways?
You should be regularly receiving our monthly email update, ASCB Pathways—alerting you to the latest ASCB
happenings and Annual Meeting updates. If you aren’t seeing the e-newsletter in your inbox, please check your spam
filter, and/or contact your system administrator to whitelist *ascb.org. n
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
45
Upcoming Early Career Meeting
Frontiers in Medical Sciences: Stem Cells & Diabetes
Istanbul, Turkey
November 18, 2016
ASCB is pleased to provide Early Career Meeting Grants to graduate students and postdocs to organize one-day meetings. Such meetings
usually involve two or more institutions (within the United States or international), and topics can range from basic science to career
development as long as there is clear relevance to the broadly defined field of cell biology.
The next deadline to apply for funds is January 17, 2017. Applicants must be or become members of the ASCB.
For more information visit www.ascb.org and click on “Meetings.” n
Did You Know…?
You Can Renew Your Membership for Multiple
Years and Save
The 2017 ASCB membership renewal reminder was sent out recently. If you think the email may have been blocked or
are not sure if you have renewed for 2017, please contact Marta Chacon, Membership Manager, at [email protected].
n
n
n
n
46
Regular and Educator members can pay for two or three years at special discounted rates!
Postdoc members can pay for two years at a special discounted rate as well.
Renew now to ensure you don’t miss an issue of the ASCB Newsletter or Molecular Biology of the Cell.
You can also renew your subscriptions to the following journals at discounted rates when you renew your membership:
n The latest volumes of Annual Reviews of Cell & Developmental Biology
n Development
n Journal of Cell Science
n Journal of Experimental Biology
Use the MyASCB portal to sign up for AutoPay and never forget to renew your membership again. n
n
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
WHAT WE’VE BEEN READING on the ASCB Post
Visit ascb.org/ascbpost for more.
Image by Strutz et al (2014)
dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04147
Image from Galko MJ, Krasnow
MA doi:10.1371/journal.
pbio.0020239
Cell News—Nervous Wreck Coordinates Remodeling, at Least in Neurons
One of the joys of fly genetics is the whimsical gene names created by Drosophila researchers
who have come up with such gems as Nervous Wreck (Nwk), the protein produced by the
nwk gene, which regulates synaptic growth. In new research, ASCB member Avital Rodal
and colleagues at Brandeis University and Tatiana Stamishneva-Konovalova at Moscow State
University reveal that Nwk is part of a dual autoinhibitory mechanism in fruit fly neurons that
controls membrane remodeling with its F-BAR domain as well as actin cytoskeleton assembly
with its SH3 (SRC homology 3) domains.
Cell News—How the Formidable Formins Close the Gap on Wounds
The formins are a bustling family of cellular proteins involved in all sorts of basic biology from
development to tissue maintenance to wound healing because they regulate actin polymerization. In cell–cell adhesion, F-actin polymerization is central to cadherin stability, but how or
even which formins might be involved wasn’t clear. Now ASCB members Megha Vaman Rao
and Ronen Zaidel-Bara in the Mechanobiology Institute at the National University of Singapore have identified two formins, mDia1 and Fmnl3, as major players in binding up epithelial
junctions during cell–cell adhesion.
Cell News—Super-Resolution Microscopy Technique Sees Nuclear Proteins Flip
A number of rare diseases, including Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, are linked to
the disruption of nuclear envelope transmembrane (NET) proteins. But the location and
translocation rates of NETs in the outer and inner nuclear membranes have been difficult to
establish. Now ASCB member Krishna Mudumbi and colleagues at Temple University and
at the University of Edinburgh have used a single-point, single-molecule FRAP microscopy
technique to determine the localization and translocation rate of NETs in living cells. n
mage from Scaffidi P, Gordon L,
Misteli T. doi:10.1371/journal.
pbio.0030395
MEETINGS Calendar
ASCB Annual Meetings
A complete list of upcoming meetings can be found at www.
ascb.org/global-meetings. No meetings have been added since
the last issue of the Newsletter.
December 3–7, 2016. San Francisco
December 2–6, 2017. Philadelphia
December 8–12, 2018. San Diego
Got Questions?
Labby has answers. ASCB’s popular columnist will select career-related questions for publication and thoughtful response in the
ASCB Newsletter. Confidentiality guaranteed if requested. Write us at [email protected]. n
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
47
Seen in THE CELL IMAGE LIBRARY
Be Part of The Cell
Community • Pin your favorite cell images on
Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/
davidnorloff/the-cell-an-imagelibrary-ccdb.
• Sign up for a free account at the Cell
Image Library so you can save images
in folders for future reference: www.
cellimagelibrary.org/accounts/login_
prompt.
• Use the buttons on the detailed image
pages to share images on Facebook,
LinkedIn, StumbleUpon, and other
social networks.
• Join the Cell Image Library on
Facebook (www.cellimagelibrary.
org/accounts/login_prompt) or
LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com/
groups?about=&gid=3733425).
• Consider donating a tweet a day to
the Cell Image Library at http://
justcoz.org/cellimagelibrar.
• If you have used the Cell Image
Library in interesting ways or in an
article or are interested in submitting
images or collaborating with the Cell
Image Library, please contact David
Orloff at [email protected].
• Donate to the Cell Image Library to
help it continue to grow. You can use
the Donate button on the homepage.
Imaging an HIV-infected dendritic cell reveals numerous viral particles at the tips of filopodia. Actinbased membrane extensions from the dendritic cell are phallodin stained (red). HIV particles (white)
decorate the filopodial terminal ends. To label viral particles, a construct containing eGFP at the
C-terminus of the HIV matrix was expressed. The nucleus of the cell is stained with DAPI and is
represented in cyan. This image (www.cellimagelibrary.org/images/45553) was prepared by Stuart
Turville and is in the public domain.
Looking for new ways to stay up to date with the Cell Image Library? Check us out on
Instagram at cell_image_library.
Whether you are looking for that one perfect example for a lecture or a big data set
to analyze, we can help. Use our Advanced Search to help pinpoint exactly what you are
looking for or check out the Data Sets tab at the Cell Image Library to find our large
data sets, including the Human U2OS cells—compound cell-painting experiment,
which contains over five million images.
Don’t forget to download the free Cell Image Library mobile app for iPhone and
iPad. Just visit the App Store and search for “Cell Library.”
The Cell Image Library (www.cellimagelibrary.org) is a freely accessible, easy-tosearch, public repository of reviewed and annotated images, videos, and animations
of cells. Portions of the Cell Image Library were developed by ASCB under a Grand
Opportunities grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and are
now managed by the National Center for Microscopy and Imaging Research under a
perpetual license from ASCB. n
—David Orloff
Apple, the Apple logo, iPad, and iPhone are
trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S.
and other countries. App Store is a service mark
of Apple Inc.
48
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
HIGHLIGHTS from MBoC
The Editorial Board of Molecular Biology of the Cell has highlighted the following articles from the
October 2016 issues. From among the many fine articles in the journal, the Board selects for these
Highlights articles that are of broad interest and significantly advance knowledge or provide new
concepts or approaches that extend our understanding.
Shown are parts of an ovariole, including stages 5–9
of follicle development (top, scale bar = 50 microns),
from a wild-type Drosophila melanogaster specimen and
enlarged images of stages 5, 6, and 7/8 (bottom, scale
bars = 10 microns). Nuclear actin was labeled with antiactin C4 (green) and the nuclear envelope was labeled
with wheat germ agglutinin (magenta). The images show
that during stages 5–9 of follicle development the nurse
cells accumulate varying levels of structured nuclear
actin and high levels of nuclear actin are observed in the
oocyte nucleus. Somatic follicle cells also exhibit nuclear
actin during stages 5–6. The stage-specific accumulation
of nuclear actin suggests that it plays a role during this
period of oogenesis. See the article by Kelpsch et al.
(Mol. Biol. Cell 27, 2965–2979). (Image: Tina Tootle,
Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of
Iowa Carver College of Medicine)
Role of BMP receptor traffic in synaptic growth defects in an ALS model
Mugdha Deshpande, Zachary Feiger, Amanda K. Shilton, Christina C. Luo, Ethan Silverman, and
Avital A. Rodal
In a Drosophila model of ALS, neuronal defects are associated with altered endosomal traffic of
growth factor receptors and loss of growth-promoting signals. Manipulation of an endosomal
recycling pathway suppresses these neuronal defects. The findings suggest that rerouting membrane
traffic could be therapeutic in ALS.
Mol. Biol. Cell 27 (19), 2898–2910
C9orf72 binds SMCR8, localizes to lysosomes, and regulates mTORC1 signaling
Joseph Amick, Agnes Roczniak-Ferguson, and Shawn M. Ferguson
C9orf72 interacts strongly with SMCR8 and depends on this interaction for its stability. Lysosomes
are major sites of C9orf72 subcellular localization, and abnormal lysosome morphology is seen
in its absence. Defects are found in the regulation of the lysosome-localized mTORC1 signaling
pathway in C9orf72 KO cells.
Mol. Biol. Cell 27 (20), 3040–3051 n
The spatial and temporal control of microtubule
dynamics is fundamentally important for proper
spindle assembly and chromosome segregation.
This is achieved, in part, by the multitude of
proteins that bind to and regulate spindle
microtubules, including kinesin superfamily
members. Kif18B is a member of the kinesin-8
family that is enriched on the plus-ends of astral
microtubules. In this image showing a PtK2 cell in
which Kif18B was knocked down, the long astral
microtubules (green) appear rigid and extend
across the cell where they appear to interact
with the actin cytoskeleton (red). Knockdown of
Kif18B also causes defects in chromosome (blue)
alignment. See the article by Walczak et al. (Mol.
Biol. Cell 27, 3021–3030). (Image: Sachin Jain,
Indiana University)
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
49
ASCB Members
MEMBERS in the News
Fourteen ASCB members were among the 84 early-career scientists selected by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Simons
Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to be Faculty Scholars, in recognition of their great potential to make unique
contributions to their field.
Clifford Brangwynne of
Princeton University, ASCB
member since 1999 and a
2015 ASCB-Gibco Award
winner
Elizabeth Chen of
the University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center,
ASCB member since 2007
Adam Frost of the University
of California, San Francisco,
ASCB member since 2016
Amy Gladfelter of
Dartmouth College, ASCB
member since 1999
Valentina Greco of Yale
Coleen Murphy of Princeton
University School of Medicine, University, ASCB member since
ASCB member since 2000
1996
Celeste Nelson of Princeton
University, ASCB member
since 2000
Jennifer Nemhauser of the
University of Washington,
ASCB member since 2015
Clodagh O’Shea of the Salk Samara Reck-Peterson of the
Institute for Biological Studies, University of California, San
ASCB member since 2014
Diego, ASCB member since
1996
Jody Rosenblatt of the
University of Utah, ASCB
member since 2001
Meng Wang of the University
of California, Berkeley, ASCB
member since 2015 and a 2015
ASCB-Gibco Award winner
Alex Dunn of Stanford
University, ASCB member
since 2008
Photo Credit: Salk Institute
Xin Chen of SUNY Upstate
Medical University, ASCB
member since 2009
50
Ira Mellman of Genentech, ASCB
member since 1981, is the recipient of the Wilbur Cross Medal,
Yale University’s highest honor.
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
ASCB Member Gifts
The ASCB is grateful to the following donors whose contributions between October 1, 2015, and
September 30, 2016, support Society activities.
Gold ($1,000 and up)
Bruce Alberts
Mina Bissell
David Drubin
Joseph Gall
Gary Gorbsky
Brigid Hogan
Tomas Kirchhausen
Ji-Long Liu
Robert Newton
Carmela Pasternak
Bronze ($250 to $499)
Silver ($500 to $999)
Henry Brown
Kenneth Downing
Susan Dutcher
Christine Field
Renato Iozzo
Morris Karnovsky
Daniel Lew
Sandra Masur
Sandra Schmid
Huntington Sheldon
Mary Ann Stepp
Beverly Wendland
Kenneth Yamada
Diane Barber
Richard Blanton
Keith Burridge
Laura Cisar
Ronald Field
Eric Folker
Susan Gerbi
Kathleen Green
Gregg Gundersen
Richard Hynes
Geri Kreitzer
Laura Lowery
W. James Nelson
Lou Novick
Evelyn Ralston
Tim Schedl
Henry Tomasiewicz
Ora Weisz
Sustainer (up to $249)
Stephan Abramson
Alexandra Ainsztein
Stefano Alema
Lizabeth Allison
Simon Atkinson
Paul August
Robert Bacallao
Debra Baluch
Andrew Bankston
Valarie Barr
Lance Barton
Jared Bergman
Daphne Blumberg
Gina Bonacci
Rebecca Boston
Paul Bridgman
Shyretha Brown
Kerry Bruns
Roberto Bruzzone
Boyd Butler
Betsaida Cabrera Garcia
Rosaleen Calvert
Lucinda Carnell
Merri Casem
J. David Castle
Nirupa Chaudhari
Tamuka Chidyausiku
Mary Clutter
Charles Cole
Douglas Cole
Karen Colley
Gladys Cortes
Stephen Coscia
Dorothy Croall
Alison Crowe
Mary Dasso
Catherine Degnin
Erik Dent
Erin Dolan
Noelle Dwyer
Benjamin Eaton
Elizabeth Eldon
Jeanne Elia
Eskil Eskilsson
Kathy Foltz
Dong Fu
Suzanne Gaudet
J. Peter Gergen
Penney Gilbert
Michael Glotzer
Mary Goldring
Bob Goldstein
Thirupugal
Govindarajan
Todd Green
Guido Guidotti
Dunia Haddad
Rebecca Heald
Maryanne Herzig
Henry Higgs
Walter Hittelman
Mary Horne
Mallen Huang
Jean Hugon
Daryl Hurd
Matthew Justice
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
Susan Kasper
Kaoru Katoh
Yasunobu Kawata
Katsuhiro Kita
James Konopka
Kimberley Laband
Maria Fe Lanfranco
Gallofre
Rosalyn Lang
Stephan Lange
Lynne Lapierre
Gordon Laurie
William Leach
Gerardo Lederkremer
James Lee
Aster Legesse-Miller
Sophie Lelievre
Stephanie Levi
Faith Liebl
Arthur Lustig
Harvard Lyman
John Lynch
Laura Machesky
Robert Majeska
Mark Majesky
Bhaswati Manish
Guendalina Marini
Michael Marks
Laura Martinez
Frederick Maxfield
Richard McCann
Thomas McDonald
Philip McQueen
Wilfredo Mellado
Victoria Mgbemena
Yuko Mimori-Kiyosue
Avani Mody
Jenifer Monks
Paola Moreno-Roman
Mary Munson
Diane Nathaniel
Heber Nielsen
Francis Odusina
Adaugo Ohandjo
Pyong Woo Park
Linda Parysek
Sally Pasion
John Pringle
Lynne Quarmby
Elizabeth Raff
Jessica Ricketts
Jody Rosenblatt
Jennifer Ross
Kirsten Sadler Edepli
Edward Salmon
David Samols
Joseph Sanger
K. Schmeidler-Sapiro
Ruth Schmitter
Victor Schuster
Lourdes Segura-Valdez
W. Sue Shafer
Caroline Shamu
Sandra Sharp
Miho Shimizu
Takashi Shimoike
Nandini Shukla
Charles Shuster
Carolyn Silflow
Ahna Skop
Alyson Smith
Anne Spang
Clifford Steer
Donna Stolz
Brian Storrie
Brian Stoveken
Alexandra Surcel
Kelly Tatchell
Barbara Taylor
Chandra Theesfeld
Shirley Tilghman
Vickery TrinkausRandall
Meng-Fu Tsou
Katharine Ullman
Lydia Villa-Komaroff
Angela Wandinger-Ness
Jean Wang
David Weisblat
Susan Wick
Craig Wilkinson
Katherine Wilson
Robin Wright
Lillianne Wright
Michael Yaffe
Pinfen Yang
MariaElena Zavala
Zhiqiang Zhu
Cecilia Zurita-Lopez
51
ASCB Members
BOOKS by Members
ASCB Member
Benefit: Publicize
Your Book
Are you publishing a book? If so, let ASCB know! Send the
title, publisher, ISBN information, and a thumbnail (300
dpi) of the cover. We’ll include it in the ASCB Newsletter.
This publicity is available only to ASCB members. Please
send submissions to Thea Clarke at [email protected]. n
Cell Biology, 3rd Edition, Thomas D. Pollard & William C.
Earnshaw & Jennifer Lippincott-Schwartz & Graham Johnson
(2016), Elsevier, ISBN: 9780323341264 n
ASCB Member Comments
We welcome your comments and suggestions at
[email protected] n
Managing Your Membership
Keep Your Profile up to Date.
Update your profile online to get information that is relevant to you.
Or, if you move, update your email or phone number. Visit ascb.org/myprofile.
Need to recover login info? Visit ascb.org/recover
Add ASCB to Your Safe Sender List
Receive the ASCB resources, news, and information important to you.
Ask your systems administrator to whitelist our domain “@ASCB.org”
Let us Know About Your Achievements
Did you get a postdoc? Win an award? Did you publish? Were you promoted? Are
you now at another organization? Your colleagues at ASCB want to know… send
news on your achievements to [email protected]
We welcome your comments and suggestions at [email protected]
Other ways to stay in touch
52
ASCBiology
@ASCBiology
ASCB
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
MAXIMIZE YOUR REACH TO SCIENTISTS IN
BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH & CELL BIOLOGY
BY ADVERTISING WITH ASCB
ASCB members are in every stratum of the cell biology
community, from well-funded senior investigators to
the students and postdocs who will be tomorrow’s star
scientists and Nobel Prize winners. Reach your customers
by advertising in the widely read ASCB Newsletter or in our
highly acclaimed journals, MBoC and LSE.
Print and digital ads available—ask for our RATE CARD.
Contact [email protected] or call 301-518-5990.
Your Donation to ASCB
Goes a Long Way
In 2015 your generous, tax-deductible donations helped provide the
following awards:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Postdoctoral Travel Awards
Graduate Student Travel Awards
Junior Faculty Travel Awards
Minority Travel Awards
International Travel Awards
Childcare Awards
In addition, your contributions provided support to the Early Career Scientist
Award, the Bernfield Memorial Award, the WICB Awards presentation, the
Keith Porter Lecture, the Undergraduate Program, the High School Program,
international outreach, ASCB’s public policy and public information efforts, and
the LSE Fund.
On behalf of the many beneficiaries of your 2015 donation, thank you.
Your 2016 donation will directly support the advancement of cell biology in
many ways.
To donate visit www.ascb.org and click “Donate.”
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
53
DEAR Labby
Constraints on Teaching
Dear Labby,
I am a postdoc and I recently signed up to teach an undergraduate seminar course in my department. The
course is organized by a senior professor (who is a very prominent scientist). While preparing my course
materials, I was dismayed to learn that the professor requires all syllabi for the course to follow a very specific
format. Notably, each weekly class session must have papers already selected, and the papers must be
accompanied by a paragraph summarizing the relevant background.
I find this offensive for two reasons: First, while teaching as a visiting assistant professor before my postdoc,
I had complete autonomy over my syllabus and course design; being constrained to a particular syllabus
format feels like a blatant violation of my academic freedom. I simply want the flexibility to choose each week’s
papers as the semester progresses, so I can tailor the course to the students’ needs and interests. Second,
writing a paragraph describing each session’s topic feels like unproductive busywork. The professor claims this
requirement is so that he can give course-related feedback, but I think it is merely a test of my work ethic. If
I must prove myself, I’d rather do something that will have a more direct impact on the quality of my teaching
(e.g., write an essay describing how my learning objectives align with my lesson plans and assessments). The professor has made it clear that I cannot teach the class if I do not write my syllabus according to his
requirements. I am ready to quit out of principle. (I don’t “need” the teaching experience; I signed up because I
love to teach.) Is my indignation justified, or is my advisor right—that I am but a mere postdoc, so I should just
suck it up and jump through the professor’s hoops?
—The Principled Postdoc
Dear Hopeful,
Labby commends your interest and commitment to teaching at this stage of your career. This will surely serve
you well as you take the next steps in your professional life.
It sounds as though the course in question is organized into separate sections, each with an instructor like
yourself, and the senior professor is responsible for coordinating and directing the course overall. This is a very
common arrangement at both the undergraduate and graduate level, but it often involves some tension and
compromise between the individual instructors and the course director. You are clearly invested in giving your
students the best possible experience, and you have the laudable goal of being responsive to the interests and
needs of the students in your section. You also want the flexibility to choose papers on the fly as the semester
progresses.
The course director, on the other hand, while sharing your concern for student success, has other priorities
to bear in mind. Students—particularly undergraduates—expect different sections of the same course to
be reasonably consistent, especially with regard to the workload, the difficulty of the assignments, and the
assessment of the work on which their grade is based. A “B” in each section should represent about the
same level of mastery of the material and about the same amount of work as in another section, so that the
grades are meaningful. Although this consistency can be achieved with different instructors taking different
approaches, it’s easier to achieve when the general approach in each section is similar. Students will be more
likely to recognize the assignments and the overall organization of the course as fair if the basic structure is the
same in all the sections. This is, no doubt, what prompted the course director to ask you to follow a particular
framework. There may have been occasions in the past when a more laissez-faire approach led to problems.
Identifying the papers ahead of time and providing the students with background material may be helpful in
reducing the students’ anxiety about getting “into” the primary literature, and you might find that this approach
allows a broader cross-section of students to succeed.
Labby has found that differences of opinion such as this can often be resolved by focusing on the outcome
that both parties want—in this case successful and engaged students. What do you and the course director
want the students to get out of the course? Is it mastery of a particular area of biology? Is it an insight into how
science happens (perhaps a window into how they themselves might make science happen)? Finding common
ground on the learning objectives might prompt the course director to allow you more flexibility and might
prompt you to think about the course in a different way. Labby’s advice is to be open minded and try out the
course director’s model this semester, then take some time to provide feedback on how well it works in practice.
Finally, Labby notes that you raise concerns about academic freedom and feels obliged to comment on your
use of this term. Labby has long been a staunch defender of academic freedom but thinks it’s worth asking
ourselves what are the essential academic freedoms? In Labby’s opinion they are the freedom to advance ideas,
to question received wisdom, to work on difficult and controversial topics, and to draw unpopular conclusions.
These freedoms need all the protection we can muster, and it does harm to conflate these with the idea that
because we work in an academic setting we are free to do as we please. Labby hopes that you focus your
energy on fighting for the core values that all of us need to champion. n
—Labby
54
ASCB NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
Join us for this presentation
“Verification of antibody performance by protein
immunoprecipitation and mass spectrometry
enriches antibody targets and interacting proteins”
Speaker: Gregory Potts, PhD
Date and time: Tuesday, December 6, 1:00–1:45 p.m.
Location: ASCB Learning Center
Come explore the cell at
booth #815
Super-resolution doesn’t
need to be complicated…
© 2016 Thermo Fisher Scientifi c Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks are the property of
Thermo Fisher Scientifi c and its subsidiaries unless otherwise specifi ed. COL21568 1116
The DeltaVision OMX™ SR compact microscope system
incorporates the power of SIM technology into a practical
and stable platform.
Super-resolution doesn’t
need to be complicated…
PG1560-PJT2085-COL21568-ASCB
2016-NewsletterPrintAd3-PottsSeminar-Americas.indd
1
Visit us at www.gelifesciences.com/deltavision,
to find
out how to achieve technically sound, physiologically relevant,
super-resolution results.
10/31/16 11:54 AM
See more today, know more tomorrow.
Amersham I ÄKTA I Cytell I Biacore I Whatman I Xuri*
The DeltaVision OMX™ SR compact microscope
system incorporates the power of SIM technology
into a practical and stable platform.
Visit us at www.gelifesciences.com/deltavision
to find out how to achieve technically sound,
physiologically relevant, super-resolution results.
See more today, know more tomorrow.
Come see us at ASCB 2016
in Booth 1023!
www.gelifesciences.com
© 2016 General Electric Company. First published Oct. 2016
GE and the GE Monogram are trademarks of General Electric Company.
GE Healthcare UK Ltd, Amersham Place, Little Chalfont, Buckinghamshire, HP7 9NA, UK
29222863AA
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 ASCB NEWSLETTER
55
Non-profit
Organization
US Postage
8120 Woodmont Avenue
Suite 750
Bethesda, MD 20814-2762
USA
PAID
York, PA
Permit No. 356
Visit us
@ASCB 2016
Booth #608
Harness the Power of Lentivirus
Benefits of the reagent include:
• High Titers – Provide up to eight-fold higher functional titers
• Simple Protocol – No media change required; single harvest
• Animal Origin Free – Regulatory friendly
Functional Titer (TU/ml)
NEW!TransIT -Lenti Transfection Reagent is designed to enhance delivery
of packaging and transfer vectors to adherent 293T cell types to increase
lentivirus production within your existing workflow.
®
1.4E + 08
1.2E + 08
1.0E + 08
8.0E + 07
6.0E + 07
4.0E + 07
2.0E + 07
0
TransIT®-Lenti Lipofectamine Lipofectamine
3000®
2000®
25kDa PEI
CaPO4 ppt
TransIT®-Lenti Transfection Reagent outperforms leading reagents.
Visit www.mirusbio.com/transit-lenti to request a FREE sample of TransIT®- Lenti Transfection Reagent.
Delivery by
www.mirusbio.com
©2016 All rights reserved Mirus Bio LLC. TransIT is a registered trademark of Mirus Bio LLC. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Mirus-bio_ASCB2016-X2-Ad (No ASCB Booth Number.indd 6
10/24/2016 4:27:08 PM