Soapboxing Science in the Sun

Posted on 23 June, 2017 by Kevin

On a bright, sunny day in Newcastle, Soapbox Science took place on 17th June for the third time in Newcastle’s Monument, supported by the Newcastle University Faculty of Medical Sciences Engagement Team, and by the organising team from the Institute for Cell and Molecular Biosciences.

During the event, Grey Street was converted into an area for lively discussion of scientific subjects between researchers and the general public. Inspired by Hyde Park Corner‘s political debates, our scientists stood on soapboxes wearing lab coats and communicated their work to the passing crowds. There were no microphones, PowerPoint presentations, or posters, only materials from everyday life to support the scientific talks.

Two researchers from the Institute for Cell and Molecular Biosciences, Professor Janet Quinn and postgraduate student Clare Willis, had been selected for a speaker’s role in the event, along with a number of other researchers in diverse scientific fields. Prof. Janet Quinn and her topic “Killer Fungus” grabbed the attention of many younger onlookers by creating Candida, Schizosaccharomyces and other representatives of the fungal Kingdom from colourful Play-Doh in Petri dishes. Clare Willis demonstrated the possibility for survival of a living organism for thousands of years as part of her topic: “Spores: the ultimate survivors”. An air balloon represented the bacterial cell as a target for antibiotics, easily destroyed by a pin, with an unbreakable bacterial spore shown as a much more resilient tennis ball.

A number of volunteers from the Institute for Cell and Molecular Biosciences actively participated in the event. Here, we’ve compiled comments from a few of those who contributed to making the day a success.

Yana performing her duties as part of the evaluation team, gathering data from Soapbox visitors

Yana Wade, researcher in the Centre for Bacterial Cell Biology and Soapbox Science volunteer:

“During my stay at Newcastle University, the secondment host for my Marie Curie Individual Fellowship, I had the fantastic opportunity to be involved in the Soapbox Science festival both as a public engagement volunteer and as part of the evaluation team. As an active researcher I understand the importance of communicating with the public to highlight exactly what scientists do behind the doors of the laboratory, and how they tackle issues that are having a major impact in our daily lives.

The challenges given to the speaker’s at this event were: as an outstanding scientist performing cutting edge research, would it be possible to explain the complex scientific topics to a non-expert audience?Would it be realistic to grab the attention of the general public out shopping on a busy central street who are normally put-off by the often challenging ideas presented by science? Could the scientists explain their research that could capture the imagination of primary school children?

Nevertheless, the presenters at Soapbox Science successfully achieved these goals. Instead of a purely academic presentation of their work, they shared their passion about science by demonstrating how exciting, interesting and important science is in solving immediate and longer term problems faced by society. The event also provided an opportunity for the public to interact directly with scientists in an informal and friendly setting.

The other fascinating aspect of the event was the aim to promote women in science. The female speakers, comprising different academic levels from student to professor, demonstrated their accomplishments in state-of-the-art research, and represented an example of a successful career path for budding scientists in academia. These brilliant girls are addressing the gender-related stereotypes in science.

Our Soapbox speakers were delighted with the public response

By participating in this event as a volunteer, it gave me the means to contribute to bringing science to society in an open and understandable way. I was able to question people who took part in the event and gather feedback that will help evaluate the impact and perception of the topics covered and how they think the subjects could help in shaping society, but also, more generally, to improve the event in the future.

Given my experience, I would like to encourage people to support the Soapbox Science by actively participating in the future.”

Rashmi Bhardwaj-Gosling, PhD student in the Institute for Health & Society, and Soapbox speaker:

Rashmi speaks from her Soapbox

“I had a great afternoon speaking at the event. Speaking to the general public was such a novel and refreshing approach for me in comparison to speaking to my usual audience! Soapbox Science is such a great idea where instead of waiting for the public to come to us, we got out there and took our science to the streets. The audience was very engaging and genuinely interested in finding out about my research work on urinary catheters and what can be done to avoid the catheter related infections. It was brilliantly organised event and weather certainly helped to captivate the crowd. So well done to everyone who took part and in organising the event.”

Clare Willis, researcher in CBCB and Soapbox speaker:

“Soapbox Science was a fantastic event. As a speaker I really enjoyed the challenge of having to explain my research in simple easy-to-understand ways, making it accessible, interesting and exciting to a public audience. I got some great questions and I think my talk really got the public thinking. I feel I’ve made Newcastle a little more knowledgeable about my topic, bacterial spores!”

Clare on her Soapbox, presenting her science to the public

Katherine Jacques and Helen Atkinson, Faculty of Medical Sciences Engagement Team and Soapbox organisers:

“We really enjoyed organising Soapbox Science this year and had a great time on the day. The enthusiasm from the speakers and volunteers to engage with the public was fantastic and it was wonderful to see so many people stopping to listen and ask questions.

We would like to say a big thank you to the speakers, volunteers and our fellow organisers for their contribution and making the day a huge success. We’re already looking forward to another successful Soapbox Science event for next year!”

You can also read a blog post from one of this year’s speakers, Luiza Andrade, on MicrobeBlog from the Society for Applied Microbiology here.

Volunteering at Soapbox Science

Posted on 16 July, 2015 by Paula

By Hannah Somers, University of Nottingham

Playing close attention to Jasmine’s explanations

I volunteered to take part in Soapbox Science for two reasons; firstly I think public engagement with science is key to moving research forward and applying discoveries to the real world. The more people understand, the more likely they are to accept, and even welcome changes and developments in healthcare and environmentalism. Secondly, as a female PhD student I see the problems women currently face whilst maintaining academic careers and finding their way to being top class researchers. I think that the STEM fields need more female role models and trailblazers who can change the stereotype of scientists from “old male professor”, to “anyone”. Soapbox Science is a great way to show the public that women do exist in scientific communities, and that they are excelling in their fields.
The glorious weather on Saturday, 27th June, helped us engage a lot of people out enjoying the sunshine. Over the course of three hours, many came to investigate Soapbox Science (we even broke a record!) and listen to female scientists talk about the research being carried out all over the country.

What is a “fish detective”? Jessica Duffil Telsnig from Newcastle University explains.

From understanding the physics of everyday things, to the wondrous world of soil and its ecosystems or what is a fish detective visitors were encouraged to take part in demonstrations and ask questions of the experts on their soapboxes. Despite the many other events going on around us, the scientists held their own, standing out to huge numbers of people and encouraging everyone to get involved.

Cait MacPhee, from the University of Edinburgh, inspiring the next generation of female scientists.

One speaker was told by a visitor that “my daughter saw a female scientist for the first time at your event”. This experience will hopefully encourage this girl to pursue any career of her choice, and shows the importance of Soapbox Science events. We need to show the world that women are working hard in STEM and that these subjects can be pursued by anyone, regardless of gender.

It’s all about soil and sustainability!

I had a brilliant time volunteering with the Soapboxers. I was fortunate enough to be assisting Jasmine Black (a Dr once her corrections are complete!), learning about soil composition and the importance of sustainable farming in continual crop growth. As a molecular microbiologist, this work was new to me, but it was great to see Jasmine’s passion for her subject and how she shared that passion with the public.

Libby Gibson from Newcastle University, enthusiastically engaging the crowds with DIY solar cells!

Every speaker gave accessible, exciting talks and left people enthused and informed, completely fulfilling the aim of the day. Personally I got to see some incredible women at work, encouraging the next generation of female STEM researchers – very much outreach in action!

You might wonder why I specifically volunteered to join Soapbox Science in Newcastle. Firstly, it was one of the closest events to me and I really wanted to get involved with the project. Secondly, I did my undergraduate degree at Newcastle University, studying Medical Microbiology with Immunology. It is my favourite city, I think the people are the friendliest in the UK and I am always excited to travel back! The way many of them join in our Soapbox Science event shows that I was right, everyone was really friendly! I’m glad I took part and I’m sure I’ll take part in the future. Hope I’ve inspired you to join in as well!

Standing on the soapbox for Science!

Posted on 15 July, 2015 by Paula

In the second in our series on the recent Soapbox Science event in Newcastle, we have a guest post from Cathleen Thomas, who was a speaker at the event. She tells us about her work at the Northumberland Wildlife Trust and why Soapbox Science is both important AND enjoyable.

By Cathleen Thomas, Northumberland Wildlife Trust

A soapbox, a paddling pool and the passing crowd: recipe for science communication!

On Saturday, 27th June, I stood on a soapbox by Grey’s Monument in the centre of Newcastle to talk about my scientific work to the passing public, and as it turned out, there were a lot of people around that day. We got the best turn out for a Soapbox Science event yet and best of all these were people that were out doing their shopping and wouldn’t necessarily choose to engage with science. This was what drew me to speak at Soapbox Science – the chance to engage with a new audience – because as scientists we spend a lot of time discussing our science with other scientists, but it’s difficult to converse with the wider public. We publish results of our experiments in scientific journals that require an expensive subscription for access and often use very technical language. When science is made available in newspapers or online news sites, it is written by journalists and often has emotive, attention grabbing headlines that may not represent the real science underlying the story. So, here we were, in Newcastle, unedited and unabridged – just us and the public.

I was the only speaker at Soapbox Science who wasn’t from a university, so I wanted to spread the message that science isn’t just done by grey haired old men in lab coats with expensive lab equipment. It can be done by everyone. British people have a long history of collecting species and recording the wildlife they see, so natural history, or citizen science as it now seems to be called, has a long tradition. We need to get new generations to recognise its value and convince them to be part of it otherwise in the future no one will appreciate our wildlife or protect it and it will all be lost. However, it isn’t just a matter of continuing tradition. For the Northumberland Wildlife Trust but also for the person on the street, learning what wildlife lives around our homes is important for another reason.

Cathleentext4 It’s important to note that not all introduced species become invasive. For example, people were surprised to learn that the feral pigeon, which is a common sight around Newcastle, is not a native species. However, it doesn’t really cause any problems for other wildlife because it has learnt to exploit urban areas and thrives in the centre of the city where few other species dare to tread, at least in daylight.

By being vigilant, getting out and about in nature and protecting wildlife and our wild places we can conserve it for future generations.

Japanese Knotweed (Photo by KENPEI, licensed under CC BY via Wikimedia)

My street theatre debut at Soapbox Science started by showing people the figure £1,288,262,000 and asking them what they thought the government spent this on. After guesses including NHS spending or benefits, people were quite shocked when I revealed that this money was spent last year on eradicating invasive species. This doesn’t include money spent by other organisations such as Wildlife Trusts or individuals having to remove Japanese Knotweed from their garden before they can sell their house, so the UK-wide figure is probably much higher. Invasive species have a massive economic cost, as well as being one of the leading causes of biodiversity loss.

Me and a lovely little girl from the crowd got in the pool to demonstrate good welly washing practice and have a bit of a splash about!

To really demonstrate the impact of invasive species, I had some of demonstrations, ably assisted by my volunteer for the day, Ruth Nottingham. My pink paddling pool was filled with representations of invasive species and was a real draw for the children. It was quite warm on the day, so the kids were looking to cool off in my paddling pool. This gave me the opportunity to explain that when we work on different nature reserves we have to wash our wellies between visits so as not to transfer species from one place to another. This could be any small pond creatures as well as bacteria or fungi that could be carried in water droplets on our wellies.

Catching “invasive species” can be hard! One smart kid even tries blocking them at source, but that has problems too…

I was asked why we couldn’t just get rid of invasive species, but I had come prepared. I switched on my bubble machine and asked people to imagine that this was a flying, invasive insect, such as the harlequin ladybird. Then were then challenged to try to catch and ‘eradicate’ all of the ladybirds. With a bit of a tailwind blowing down Grey Street this was harder than they imagined and as some of the bubbles floated off into the ether.

One of the children then had the idea to cut them off at source and stood in front of the bubble machine and was applauded by other audience members who marvelled at his ingenuity. However, I explained that often we don’t know exactly where the invasive species are coming from, so I picked up the bubble machine and started to move it around so the bubbles were coming from lots of different directions. The sound of understanding was audible as people exclaimed and realised why invasive species often present a complex challenge.

My taxidermied specimens, showcased by my fantastic volunteer Ruth, meant that people could get up close and compare red and grey squirrels. That helped people to understand why our native reds are declining so rapidly.

I was then able to talk to people about squirrels, a subject which is always on our minds here at Northumberland Wildlife Trust as we have a team of around 20 people working to help our native red squirrel. I was able to answer questions about why grey squirrels are so invasive, what the pox thing is that they carry and whether they steal red squirrels food. However, I was able to share some good news in that we are finding that on some sites where we are controlling grey squirrels we are starting to find red squirrel numbers are on the increase. The battle isn’t won yet, not by a long way, but there are small signs of hope.

I hope I left people with a better understanding of wildlife and why it’s important to know what you lives around you and I left feeling hopeful that people understood our sometimes contentious work and was pleased to see that we had lots of support from the people of Newcastle.

Organising Soapbox Science Newcastle

Posted on 14 July, 2015 by Paula

Soapbox Science Newcastle Organising team ready to go!

Our team of Soapbox Science organisers – Dianne Ford, Paula Salgado, Nancy Rios, Kevin Waldron, Lis Lowe and Joanna Keith – are definitely doing it again! It was fun and rewarding!

On the 27 of June 2015, Soapbox Science, a team from Newcastle University and a fantastic group of speakers and volunteers helped transform the Monument area in Newcastle City Centre into a hub for science and discovery. As female scientists from across the region – and beyond it – took to the streets, got on a soapbox and showcased their science to the public, the aim was simple: bring science and the women doing it to the attention of the general public. Founded five years ago by Dr Seirian Sumner (University of Bristol) and Dr Nathalie Pettorelli (Zoological Society of London, ZSL), Soapbox Science has grown exponentially and this year there were seven events taking place in Bristol, London, Exeter, Swansea, Newcastle, Glasgow and Belfast, with over 90 female scientists participating.
For the Newcastle event, it all started when Prof Hilary Lappin-Scott, Vice Chancellor at Swansea University, visited in the summer of 2014 to speak at ICaMB‘s Equality in Academia day. Having just run Soapbox Science for the first time in Swansea, Hilary set us the challenge of doing the same this year in Newcastle. A few early indications of acquiescence and some tentative enquiries resulted in little immediate progress, but then Nancy discovered that it was her old friend, Seirian Summer that, together with Natalie Pettorrelli, was responsible for coordinating the whole operation nationally (and are branching out now globally). With Nancy, on board we began to motor ahead.

Our soapboxes getting final touches in ICaMB’s workshop

Potential speakers and volunteers responded enthusiastically to our call and it was tough to decide who should make up the final bill of inspirational women scientists speaking on diverse and engaging topics. Soapboxes were ‘commissioned’ (huge thanks to Newcastle Wood Recycling for their generosity and time and ICaMB’s workshop team for their inventive solutions!) and the go-ahead was given to set up at the Monument on our chosen Saturday afternoon. We were assured that the Morris dancers would be finished (they were, and only one of them then heckled us).

That bit of meteorite used by Christina McQuirk was heavy!

Even the potentially tedious jobs such as completing a risk assessment provided some amusement, courtesy of an email thread with the subject line ‘meteorite risk assessment’.

Newcastle Central MP, Chi Onwurah, joined the crowd to listen to our scientists

We drew up a press release and got some media interest, including interviews on BBC Radio Newcastle. Nancy even found a small team of filmmakers from the Tyneside Cinema to record the highlights and interview the speakers, volunteers and spectators, including local MP Chi Onwurah who came by to offer support.

We were grateful for great weather on the day. Three rounds of four speakers engaged the public with accessible descriptions of their science, hands-on participation and range of imaginative props, from baby dolls to boxes and even weirder objects:

Lis Lowe from ICaMB explaining to some “passers-by” how babies acquire gut bacteria

Rachel Williams, from Newcastle University used a range of striking props to explain inflammation

Kathy Romer from University of Sussex using stacks of boxes and fluff balls to talk about Dark energy

One of our volunteers, Kirsty Steed from Newcastle University, gathers the crowds with a passing comet

In our matching Soapbox Science T-shirts, we were (as was overheard) mistaken for a hen party! Not quite, sir!

Matching t-shirts – what could it be?

After a massively busy, fun and frantic three hours, speakers and volunteers assembled in the Tyneside Bar Café for come food and refreshments. We were delighted to learn that with more than 19,000 people passing through our Soapbox Science site, we had smashed all previous records. We are proud that we showcased great scientists and great science to so many. As one little girl told us “The problem now is choosing which science I want, there’s so much to choose from!”

We learnt a lot (there were mistakes!) and look forward to putting on an even better event next year. See you next summer, for Soapbox Science Newcastle 2016!

Discovery at the Discovery Museum

Aside

Great Hall

Ready to replicate the success of last year’s Away Day, it was en masse outing time for ICaMB again! Time to find out who all the new faces are, and to find out exactly what that person you have a ‘hello and a nod in the corridor’ relationship with actually does at the bench all day. This year we headed to the Great Hall of the Discovery Museum. Despite the leaking roof caused by the downpour outside and the sometimes dodgy acoustics the day was still a success.

Serious faces, this is science

ICaMB is a fast paced, constantly evolving institute. Everybody is busy with their own research, making a break and a get-together once in a while a vital part of reminding ourselves of the vast range of expertise and diverse set of interests beavering away in our labs and offices. The answer to that tricky problem or that elusive technique is quite possibly just a few yards away.

But also fun!

With that in mind, this year’s Away Day felt particularly important as we welcomed 8 new academic groups to ICaMB from CAV (Campus for Aging and Vitality) as well new IRES fellows and a list of other recent recruits. Drs Victor Korolchuk and Gabi Saretzki from the CAV both spoke at the away day about their interests in neurodegenerative diseases and the role of oxidative stress in the ageing process.

As ever the day was kicked off by the Institute director, Bob (Professor Robert Lightowlers), who gave us a taster of ICaMB’s growth and success stories over the past year. Without breaking into the tune of that well known Christmas song; 7 Vacation Studentships, 6 BBSRC awards, 5 MRC awards, 2 Wolfson awards, 2 Senior Investigator awards and 1 Henry Dale ………. Not to mention all the promotions, outstanding research papers and commercial contracts = 1 happy Bob.

A cell-tastic morning then ensued: the completely dispensable nature of bacterial cell walls (Professor Jeff Errington); the role of NF-kB in the pathogenesis of lymphoma (Dr Jill Hunter); and the cell death independent functions of inhibitors of apoptosis (new IRES recruit Dr Niall Kenneth). The session was wrapped up by Dr Paula Salgado summarising 3.5 years of structural C. difficile research in 15min. Some feat Paula!

Of course just as last year, an absolute highlight of the day were the six, animated, three minute thesis presentations by our brave PhD students …….. Soon to be followed by the look of horror on several Professorial faces when it was suggested by PAN!C that at next year’s Away Day we have a session of 3 minute PI pitches! We can’t ignore the demands of our PhD students now can we? And congratulations to Mandeep Atwal from the Cowell/Austin lab who against steep competition was awarded the prize for best three minute thesis.

The possibilities of alginate bread?

A spot of oxidative stress and the evolution of peroxidases by Dr Alison Day, and some lunch completed the morning’s discovery. Though half an hour later and Dr Peter Chater had us all wishing we’d had an alginate packed lunch (and a go with the model gut!). Perhaps the Pearson lab can cater next year’s event? If it’s good enough for the One Show it’s good enough for the ICaMB Away Day.

A major focus of the Away Day is not just to learn about the breadth of exciting research carried out in our institute, but also to learn all about the very latest techniques and expertise ripe for exploitation. This year the focal point of new techniques came from Dr Alex Laude and the Bio-Imaging facility, with some beautiful images and super resolution microscopy techniques, which again left a number of the audience wanting a turn!

An afternoon transcribing and translating with Dr Danny Castro-Roa; learning about how the crucial nature of cell polarity means we really don’t mix up our arse from our elbow (thank you new IRES recruit Dr Josana Rodriguez); and last but by no means least, how on earth all that DNA manages to faithfully copy and repackage itself time after time from yet another new recruit, Professor Jonathan Higgins.

This completes our diverse and entertaining line-up, just leaving enough time for complementary wine, and the amusement as speakers and audience alike embarrass themselves at the ICaMB quiz (and I hear also in the pub afterwards).

Antisense Science: A Science Blog by Students

Posted on 9 May, 2014 by Paula

Blogs are now a widespread science communication tool, with many researchers taking to the blogosphere to discuss the latest scientific discoveries, explain the basic concepts in their research field to a wide audience or just talk about science and scientists. Our 3rd year bioscience students have done just that, and this week we have a guest post prepared by them.

by Antisense Science

Antisense Science is a science blog founded by a group of 3rd year bio-scientists from Newcastle University. As a team, we recognise that science is not as accessible to the general public as it should be. We therefore make it our primary aim to translate complex scientific principles and research articles that interest us personally, into topical, thought provoking blogs accessible to everyone.

Our project is small but our ambition is big! Since our founding in October 2013 we have published 58 articles covering psychoactive baths salts, human evolution and the neurobiology of love, to name a few, and with a growing following (we’ve had over 6000 hits since inception) we were thrilled to be given the opportunity to guest post on ICaMBlog. As Newcastle University students, our interest in research was stirred by the professors at Newcastle University, including those who founded this blog. With planned guest posts focusing on research by Prof Rick Lewis among others, maybe YOU will feature on Antisense Science in the near future! We foresee (we hope!) that our blog can form a bridge between researchers here at Newcastle and the student body, raising awareness of what is actually being discovered right under our noses. By forming mutually beneficial collaborations, we hope to diversify and grow our following and expose our current readers to a continual stream of stimulating articles which never fail to pique the interest of the curious.

Meet the Antisense Science team

Currently, we have a total of 7 writers, all of whom enjoy sharing the intrigue of the latest developments in science, from biochemistry to microbiology (and even physics) and we have no plans of stopping. Although many of us will be moving on from our BScs to ever greater things, Antisense Science will remain and we are even in the process of recruiting further up and coming bio-scientists as writers (keep your eyes peeled for blogs from first year students Bethany Lumborg and Lucy Gee, as well as our fellow third year Emily Lawson and a multitude of guest posters from across the student body). The future looks bright and we’re very glad with the progress we have made thus far!

For an example of what we do, here is an article on depression written by our very own Joe Sheppard. We hope you enjoy it! If you ever want to be involved in any of our projects feel free to drop us a message. We also have Facebook (www.facebook.com/antisensescience) and Twitter (@AntisenseSci) so there are plenty of ways to keep in the loop.

The Confounding Contradictions of Depression

If you currently have or have had depression then you may already be able to tell your MAOIs from your SSRIs, but if you haven’t then what you read here might actually help. Knowledge is power and I believe learning a little something about depression could contribute a bit of control to an otherwise daunting and often underestimated medical condition.

Depression is perhaps the ultimate “common complex disorder”. Unlike pathogens or mutations that affect physical body tissue, depression is a condition that alters the very consciousness and emotional state of an individual making it a truly unique affliction. Throughout the course of our lives 1 in 5 of us will experience depression or anxiety of some kind, yet the majority of people conceive depression simply as a disease of “sadness” when the truth is much more complex. “Anhedonia“, an inability to feel joy in anything and “congruent memory bias”, the inability to remember or altered recall of specific memories, are extremely common cognitive behaviours in depression that we often inflict upon ourselves on a day to day basis.

It may surprise you to know that modern science can say with little certainty what neuro-physiological changes initiate depression, and linking those that we do think are involved to the broad psychiatric manifestations seen in cases of depression is even harder as human experience and consciousness is beyond the understanding of molecular neuroscience (and by extension, definitely me). But from the murky depths of our own minds patterns do emerge, and as such there are a few good theories out there.

Rather confusingly the best fitting theory of depression is actually based on the drugs WE ALREADY USE to treat it, not a common theme in medicine, I might add. “The monoamine theory of depression” states that depressed brains have reduced signalling between neurons via a group of specific chemical neurotransmitters called monoamines. Two in particular called 5-hydroxytryptophan (hereafter referred to as serotonin) and dopamine are released into a synapse to induce electrical signals between neurons in the midbrain. These two neurotransmitters and the resulting electrical signals are most notably perceived as feelings of joy, euphoria, reward and attention. And there is some evidence to back this up: depletion of tryptophan, an amino acid essential for serotonin synthesis in the brain, caused mood congruent memory bias, and altered reward-related behaviours. Biochemical evidence exists too, abnormalities of the protein that binds serotonin in the brain called the 1A receptor have been noted in multiple brain areas of major depressive disorder (MDD) patients. Why does serotonin decline in patients with depression? Well, search my pockets, you will find no answers.

Rather reassuringly this hasn’t stopped treatment of depression at all, and several drugs for which the theory is named are all targeted at increasing serotonin, and so good feelings, within the brain. The so named selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (those “SSRIs” I snuck in earlier, such as fluoxetine and sertraline) are the most prescribed group of antidepressants and work in a way best aided pictographically:

Schematic representation of neuron activity

Serotonin is synthesised in the presynaptic neuron from tryptophan, from here it is packaged into vesicles and upon nerve impulse firing (see previous article “ shedding light on neural networks”) is released in the synaptic cleft (the space between neurons). Serotonin then binds to receptors on the postsynaptic neuron, stimulating a similar nerve impulse. However, serotonin is also able to control its own release: By binding to the 1A receptor on the presynaptic neuron it prevents continued release of serotonin, allowing the proposed channel protein SCL6A4 to re-absorb serotonin in the presynaptic neuron to be destroyed.

This is where SSRIs come in. Believed to bind to SCL6A4 and prevent the re-absorption of serotonin, it allows serotonin to remain in the synaptic cleft for longer and therefore stimulate nerve impulses in the post synaptic neuron for longer, and so increase the degree of monoamine signalling.

Let’s not forget our friend dopamine:

Dopamine too is a monoamine consistently found reduced in the blood of patients with depression, as a result of decreased synthesis and degradation in the brains of these patients. Neurons that signal using dopamine (as opposed to serotonin) are found in a region of the brain called the substantia nigra that degenerates during Parkinson’s disease. Interestingly the motor impairment (shaking) in this disease is often preceeded by major depressive disorder in 50% of Parkinson’s cases!

This brings me quite nicely to my final point. Since so little is known about the basis of psychiatric disorders their treatment has been almost purely symptomatic for the last 60 years. Thomas Insel, director of the US National Institute for Mental Health was quoted in 2013 as saying “In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain, or the quality of fever.” This was following the release of the 5th edition of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5), that diagnoses psychiatric conditions based on common symptoms presented by each condition. Despite the strong agreement with Insel by many psychiatrists that this method is outdated, the shift to a more objective and molecular diagnostic is years away given the outstanding complexity of these diseases. But keep the hope, recent booms in neuroscience research are a sure step towards a less archaic means of treating depression and other mental disorders.

A new approach spearheaded by the same Thomas Insel called “Research Domain Criteria” or RDoC is already doing just that by utilizing genomic sequencing technology, fMRI imaging techniques and cognitive science to develop an entirely new platform for diagnosis based on new data being attained all the time, rather than the laboured DSM-5 classification. While still in its infancy this new approach aims to start looking at broader groups for diagnosis rather than classification of different disorders by the symptoms they present. For instance, by looking at a group of patients with different disorders but all experiencing anhedonia will not only allow a greater insight into a unifying cause for these symptoms, but also speed up treatments in the future.

Of course, there are always two sides to each argument and depression does in some sense stand alone from other psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia in that it imparts a greater emotional influence on the sufferer – if “precision medicine” were able to prescribe a pill for the treatment of emotional conditions, would you want it to? Of course this is a quandary we won’t face for some time, but worth a thought.

Some interesting but by no means comprehensive reviews on depression, its far too huge for 3 articles!

Hasler G (2010). Pathophysiology of depression: do we have any solid evidence of interest to clinicians? World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 9 (3), 155-61 PMID: 20975857

Martinowich K, Manji H, & Lu B (2007). New insights into BDNF function in depression and anxiety. Nature neuroscience, 10 (9), 1089-93 PMID: 17726474

Frances, A. (2013) One manual shouldn’t dictate US mental health research
(Accessed: 07/01/14).

Deep Impact

Posted on 24 April, 2014 by Suzanne

Alginate bread on a pedestal under show-biz lights.

Another excellent post by ICaMB’s Dr Matthew Wilcox as the fame of alginate spreads and seaweed bread goes on tour!

Well, I was kindly invited along to the BBSRC Fostering Impact awards ceremony in London a couple of weeks ago and although I wasn’t up for anything, Newcastle University were.

Fostering impact is a scheme run by the BBSRC to capture the economic and social impact of research funded by them. There are three competitions that fit the fostering impact scheme; ‘innovator of the year’, ‘activating impact’ and ‘excellence with impact’. The first is for an individual researcher, the second is for the knowledge exchange teams and the final award is for research organisations (runs from 2013 – 2015).

The knowledge exchange and commercialisation team at Newcastle University has changed substantially over the past couple of years. What was once a centralised Business Development Directorate has now become the Research Enterprise Service, comprised of three teams, each embedded in one of the Faculties. Each Institute or School now has their own dedicated business development manager (BDM), with ICAMB’s BDM being Laura Rush (who is very nice). They are now much easier to contact, whether it’s just a quick question or the drafting of patents.

Home baking practice.

Newcastle’s application for the Activating Impact award was submitted back in October 2013 and used the wonderful research done by the beautiful people of ICAMB as its basis. In January the RES team found out that they had successfully made it to the final five (from 18) and through to the grand final in London. Newcastle was up against the knowledge exchange and commercialisation teams from King’s college London, Queen Mary University of London, University College London and University of Aberdeen. One of the requirements of the competition was to bring along someone to the final who had worked with RES, a ‘user’ (according to the BBSRC). They also wanted an iconic object?! Alginate bread it was then. Back in the kitchen I went. How many loaves would I need to feed the people there? Two should do it, right?

Martin and Laura on the train gearing up for competition.

In London Martin Cox presented the case for Newcastle in front of a panel of scientists, business types and other technology transferers, assembled by the BBSRC. Demonstrating what Newcastle does well, how BDM’s have been embedded into each institute and also what they would do with the money if we won (£100k). He also described the additional internal funds that are available to help activate impact. FMS has two funds available; the first is to help with data collection for translational grant applications, the second is to support further claims in patent applications. The two internal grants can both potentially support a post doc salary for three months, plus consumables.

Dengue fever carrying mosquito.

The awards ceremony combined the ‘innovator of the year’ and ‘activating impact’. I got a glitzy stand for my bread and also had the chance to look around the other pretty amazing stuff that was on display, like Dr Luke Alphey’s work. Luke ended up being named both social innovator and overall innovator of the year for his work on the genetic control of pests, including the dengue fever carrying mosquito.

I even got to meet the new (ish) CEO of the BBSRC, Professor Jackie Hunter, who was definitely not snapped stuffing free stuff into her bag!

BBSRC's CEO Jackie Hunter enjoying the exhibition

On the right BBSRC’s CEO Professor Jackie Hunter enjoying the exhibition.

Unfortunately Newcastle did not win, but being down to the last five of the competition is brilliant and should give confidence to ICAMB scientists that when help is required in achieving impact (social or economic), we have a great team to help.

Queen Mary University of London, whose entry was also being supported by a previous BBSRC Enterprise Fellow and King’s College London, ended up being joint winners each scooping £100k.

Perhaps if a few more of the world leading researchers in ICaMB engaged with the Enterprise team, they might not have to only take some eejit and his bread to the competition next year and increase NU’s chance of winning!

Pruning the Tree of Life

Posted on 13 December, 2013 by Neil

Dr Tom WIlliams

Anyone who has studied biology has seen an image of the tree of life in the text books. Most of us think of this as being set in stone, one of the rock solid foundations on which evolutionary biology is built. However, all is not quite as settled as it seems. Recently, a Nature article from the laboratory of ICaMB’s Professor Martin Embley challenges the traditional three domain structure of the root of life. Here, first author on the paper, Dr Tom Williams, tells us the story.

By Dr Tom Williams

Our modern understanding of the tree of life began in 1977 when Carl Woese and his colleagues discovered the Archaea, a group of prokaryotes originally isolated from extremely hot or salty environments. Although Archaea looked indistinguishable from Bacteria under the microscope, their gene sequences were at least as different to those of Bacteria as from the eukaryotes – the group of organisms, including fungi, animals and plants, whose cells contain a mitochondrion and a nucleus. According to these analyses, living cells should be classified into three main groups: Bacteria, Archaea and eukaryotes – rather than the two (prokaryotes and eukaryotes) that had previously been established based on cell structure. In 1990, Woese and his colleagues published another seminal paper in which they argued for this “three domains” classification. This three-domains tree has become an iconic image in biology, and is often found in the popular science literature, as well as many textbooks – you’ve probably seen it before. Here it is from a 1997 review by Norman Pace:

The traditional 3 domain Tree of Life. From: A molecular view of diversity and the biosphere. Pace NR Science (1997) 276: 734-740

Professor Martin Embley

This was certainly the tree of life that I was familiar with, first as an undergrad and later as a Ph.D. student at Trinity College Dublin. So I was surprised and very intrigued when a certain Martin Embley came to talk at an Irish bioinformatics meeting, claiming that support for the three-domains tree was not as strong as you might expect. New work from his lab instead favoured the “eocyte tree”, in which the eukaryotes (or, at least, some of their genes) actually evolved from within the Archaea. If true, this tree would imply that there were originally only two types of cells – Bacteria and Archaea – and that the eukaryotes (i.e., us!) originated later in a partnership between the two primary domains.

The new model of the Tree of Life proposed by the Embley lab

Fast-forward a couple of years, and I was thinking about where I wanted to do my postdoc. I remembered Martin not only from that talk, but also from some interesting work (2nd link) he had done on a group of parasitic fungi called Microsporidia. I joined his group and began working on microsporidians, but I was still very interested in the tree of life and the origin of eukaryotes. In the meantime, DNA sequencing technology had been improving, and microbial ecologists were beginning to publish genomes from new groups of Archaea that could not be grown in the lab, and so had never been studied before. One of the really exciting findings from these studies was that some Archaea contained genes that looked very similar to fundamental components of our own cells, such as actin and tubulin – two proteins that help to define the microscopic “skeleton” of eukaryotic cells. When we added these new genomes to our analyses, we found even stronger support for the eocyte tree; those findings were reported last year in Proceedings B. At about the same time, a number of other researchers were reporting something similar: as our view of archaeal biodiversity increased, support for the three-domains tree was on the wane. Given the prominent position of the three-domains tree in the literature, and the importance of this question for understanding early life on Earth, we decided to write a review summarizing these recent developments in the field – it came out in Nature this week, and it’s the reason for this blog post!

As we delved back into the 30 years of literature on the molecular tree of life, one of the most interesting discoveries for me was a seam of eocyte literature that I hadn’t been aware of previously. Although many analyses over the past three decades have recovered the three-domains tree, and it appears in all the textbooks, the literature has actually never been unanimous in its support. Nonetheless, it is only in the last five years or so that support for the eocyte hypothesis has reached critical mass, perhaps due to improvements in our statistical methods and, more recently, sampling of archaeal biodiversity.

The Embley lab: Back row, left-to-right: Kacper Sendra, Martin Embley, Tom Williams, Robert Hirt. Front row: Shaojun Long, Ekaterina Kozhevnikova, Andrew Watson, Paul Dean, Maxine Geggie,Alina Goldberg-Cavalleri, Sirintra Nakjang.

Of course, our latest work is almost certainly not going to be the last word on the relationship between eukaryotes and other cells. Our methods are getting better – in part thanks to the statisticians we are collaborating with here in Newcastle – but there is much room for improvement, and so much about the microbial world that we still have to discover. Still, if the eocyte tree is correct – and it appears to be the best-supported tree on the current evidence – then that has important implications for how we understand early life on Earth and the origin of our own cells. For one thing, it rules out the eukaryotes as a primordial cellular lineage, as old as the Bacteria and Archaea. Instead, it suggests that the Bacteria and Archaea were established and diversifying on Earth before the origin of eukaryotes, resurrecting the concept of an “Age of Prokaryotes” on the early Earth. Of course, when you think about the phenomenal number of Bacteria and Archaea that live in your own body, never mind the wider environment, you might well argue that it never ended…

This work was supported by a Marie Curie postdoctoral fellowship to Tom Williams. Martin Embley acknowledges support from the European Research Council Advanced Investigator Programme and the Wellcome Trust.

Links

The Nature Article: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v504/n7479/full/nature12779.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20131212

The Proceedings B paper: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1749/4870

The Embley lab website: http://research.ncl.ac.uk/microbial_eukaryotes/

Microsporidia papers: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7187/full/nature06606.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7194/full/nature06903.html

Leading the Way… in Protein Structure

Posted on 5 July, 2013 by Paula

By Kevin Waldron

This week, ICaMB welcomed the Leading the Way winners into our labs for an exciting day of science. As you may remember from our previous post a couple of weeks ago, Leading the Way was ICaMB and Leading Edge’s collaborative pilot scheme to take some of ICaMB’s great science (and early career scientists) into a local school, George Stephenson High School in Killingworth. That week was a great success, inspiring all of its participants: students, teachers and ICaMB members alike.

The overall winners during the week in GSHS were the AU team, made up of Lucy Hainsworth, Libby Macpherson, Rebecca Brown, Lauren Rhodes, Abbey Wrightson, Kimberley Stoker, Sophie Anson, Connor Little, Nathan Clapperton. AU designed an outstanding poster to illustrate how the prion protein represents a biomarker of mad cow disease (or, more scientifically, variant Creutzfeld-Jakob disease, vCJD), how the structure of this protein changes from the ‘normal’ form to the ‘abnormal’, disease-causing form, and how knowing the structure of the prion protein can enable us to design a diagnostic test.

AU’s prize was to spend a day in an ICaMB laboratory, learning about how we determine the structure of a protein, with the members of the judging panel, Dave Bolam, Paula Salgado and myself.

After a brief welcome and introduction, we kitted our guests out in fetching lab coats, supplied them with ‘Leading the Way’ lab books and got started.

Showing the kids how to plate cells on a petri dish

First, the kids tried their hands at microbiology with the Waldron lab, streaking E. coli cells onto agar plates and then picking colonies to inoculate cultures for recombinant protein production.

Practising to become a PhD student, staring at a pouring column…

Next, Dave Bolam and his team demonstrated how a His-tagged protein can be purified using affinity chromatography, and then the kids loaded each of their protein samples on SDS-PAGE gels. Remarkably, all of the students successfully purified their target protein, though it’s worth noting that this was not actually the prion protein, PrPC (Imagine the risk assessment!).

“Here, let me help you” says Dave.

“It was great fun spending time with enthusiastic kids and giving them a flavour of what we do. It reminds you why you do science in the first place“, says Dave after taking part in this type of activity for the first time.

“We’re doing science now, Miss!” – shouted one of the students

The day finished with a demonstration of protein crystallisation with Paula Salgado and Will Stanley of the Structural Biology Laboratory. The students attempted to crystallise lysozyme (with mixed success), and then observed protein crystals under the microscope.

“It’s always great to share our love for science with young minds and see them get really excited about carrying out the experiments we do routinely. It’s a breath of fresh air in the lab. Hopefully we’ve given them an experience to remember, as well as a better understanding of research in a biomedical institute.” commented Paula at the end of the day.

Although this was a high-paced tutorial in protein production and structure determination – a process that usually takes at least several weeks, and in some extreme cases an entire career – the students received a hands-on demonstration of some real-life research techniques. We all hope that this experience, even at such an early age, might just implant the idea of a future in science for some of these young people.

But from my own perspective, I can say that their enthusiasm has been infectious (no pun intended), and is a timely reminder of why I got into science in the first place – because at school I always found science classes more interesting than any others. I would have loved such an opportunity when I was that age.

Thanks go to Phil Aldridge, ICaMB’s Leading the Way coordinator, all of the members of the Waldron, Salgado and Bolam labs who helped out during the visit, the staff of George Stephenson High, and most of all to the members of the AU team, for making the day a success.

Links

Leading the Way https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/leadingedge/category/leading-the-way/blog-posts/

Leading Edge https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/leadingedge/

George Stephenson High School http://www.gshs.org.uk/home

You don’t always want what your mother gives you! – can we prevent mitochondrial disease?

Posted on 11 April, 2013 by Robert

By Professor Robert Lightowlers

In 1988, scientists in the UK and US recognised that certain diseases were caused by mutations in mtDNA . Over the following 20 years, mtDNA defects have been shown to cause a range of debilitating diseases many affecting different parts of the body. However, the main disorders relate to your muscle tissue and the brain.

Human muscle fibres stained for mitochondrial function. As can be seen in B, some of the fibres show no activity. This is because these fibres have high levels of mutated mitochondrial DNA.

It is estimated that at least 1:10,000 people suffer from disorders associated with defects in Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) – that’s more than 6,000 people in the UK. Even so, it is only recently that the importance of mitochondrial diseases have hit the general media.

Many of you will have seen the debate on correcting mitochondrial diseases in the newspapers (for example, see the Guardian, Telegraph) and on television recently, but not be aware of the central role that Newcastle researchers have played in making this exciting, or to some, controversial, new therapy closer to becoming a reality. Here, Bob Lightowlers ICAMB Director and senior member of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Mitochondrial Research (WTCMR) reflects on the role mitochondrial research in Newcastle has played in this process over the last 20 years and tells us some of the story behind the headlines.

What are Mitochondria?

Electron micrograph of a cell (coloured blue) revealing part of the mitochondrial structure (orange) within. The entire length of the mitochondrion is about 5 micrometres.

These crucial structures found in all the trillions of cells in our body have many essential functions. One very important role they play is to take our common foodstuffs such as fats and sugars and turn them into energy for our body’s to function.

A single human cell showing the nucleus (green), the mitochondrial network (red) and the mitochondrial DNA within the network (yellow)

One surprising element of these structures is that they contain their own genetic element, mitochondrial (mt) DNA. Much smaller than our chromosomes, mtDNA is essential for energy production.

OK, so this is important, but why have mitochondria and mtDNA begun to work their way into the common conversation of the nation?

Answer: Our mothers!

What has this got to do with our mothers ? Mitochondrial DNA is only transmitted to babies by their mothers. This is different to all our other DNA where copies are made and transmitted from both parents. Unfortunately, as you inherit your mothers mitochondria, diseases caused by mtDNA mutations are inadvertently transmitted from the mother.

How does this relate to Newcastle based Mitochondrial Research?

My colleague Doug Turnbull, a neurologist here in Newcastle (and Director of the WTCMR) and I have been intrigued by these mtDNA mutations since it first became clear that they could cause disease. Back in the early ‘90’s, we discussed whether some day it would be possible to try and prevent the transmission of the faulty mtDNA from the mothers to their children. Of course, at that stage, it was just wishful thinking. As the Mitochondrial Research Group (MRG) began to grow and mature in Newcastle, we often returned to one question:

What if the nucleus from the diseased egg could be transferred to a healthy egg whose nucleus had been removed, in essence leaving all the affected mtDNA behind ?

If it was indeed possible, this reconstituted egg could be fertilised and implanted back into the mother by standard techniques used routinely in fertility clinics throughout the world. We also would consider when would such a technique be most efficient: before or after fertilisation of the egg? On paper both options looked possible, but there are many complications.

Technical Concept: achieving the switch of nuclei without some of the faulty mtDNA being inadvertently taken along for the ride.

Towards the end of the 90’s, scientists working in Canada were able to show that the level of mtDNA inadvertently transferred when the nucleus was switched into a recipient cell lacking a nucleus, was low. This was a promising result, but it led to two central questions:

• Could this be repeated with human cells?

• Was this technique morally and ethically acceptable to everyone?

The ethical debate: Debate raged as to whether this technique would constitute genetic manipulation of humans, which of course would be illegal. Further, it was not possible to perform these types of reconstruction experiments in man, as using viable human fertilised cells for research was also, understandably, illegal.

Professor Mary Herbert working at the nearby Human Fertility Centre came up with an intriguing proposal. She explained that unfortunately, during the standard process of in vitro fertilisation, many eggs became incorrectly fertilised. These eggs are unable to grow correctly and have to be discarded. One way of determining whether it would be possible to swap mtDNA in humans, she suggested, was to use these incorrectly fertilised eggs. As this procedure would still require the manipulation of fertilised human eggs, a licence would need to be applied for from the Human Fertilisation and Embryological Authority (HFEA). Following lengthy and extensive debate, including members of the research team being called to the House of Commons, a licence was eventually awarded in 2005. Five years later, with the essential help of colleagues in the Fertility Centre, Mary, Doug and a group of us from the MRG were able to show that such a swap could be performed without any or very low levels of the defective mtDNA being transferred. Importantly, there was also no defect detectable in the reconstituted cells . In 2011, this very promising result, along with many other important contributions made by the Newcastle MRG to understanding mitochondrial biology in health and disease was recognised by the Wellcome Trust who funded the establishment of a new Research Centre in Newcastle, the Wellcome Trust Centre for Mitochondrial Research.

Getting acceptance of the technique

It was important to know whether the people of the UK agreed that such reconstitution technology was ethically acceptable. In August 2012, the government asked the Human Fertility and Embryological Authority (HFEA) to find out what the general public thought of the procedure . The results were collated last month and the Human Fertility and Embryological Authority made a recommendation to Government. There was an overall support for the new technology with only 10% being fairly or strongly against the concept of mitochondrial gene replacement ) This is an endorsement of the method but there is still a long way to go before the technique can be performed in the clinic.

Its amazing to think how far this concept has come in 20 years. Perhaps in another 20 years we may be able to look back and celebrate how this dream has helped to provide a realistic method to help prevent the transmission of a debilitating disease for many couples.

Wellcome Trust Centre for Mitochondrial Research http://www.newcastle-mitochondria.com/
Human Fertility and Embryological Authority (HFEA) http://www.hfea.gov.uk/index.html
HFEA mitochondria puclib consultation 2012 http://www.hfea.gov.uk/6896.html

ICaMB – Inside Cells and Molecules Blog

Category Archives: Science Communication