A new invertebrate member of the p53 gene family is developmentally expressed and responds to polychlorinated biphenyls.

The cell-cycle checkpoint protein p53 both directs terminal differentiation and protects embryos from DNA damage. To study invertebrate p53 during early development, we identified three differentially expressed p53 family members (p53, p97, p120) in the surf clam, Spisula solidissima. In these mollusks, p53 and p97 occur in both embryonic and adult tissue, whereas p120 is exclusively embryonic. We sequenced, cloned, and characterized p120 cDNA. The predicted protein, p120, resembles p53 across all evolutionarily conserved regions and contains a C-terminal extension with a sterile alpha motif (SAM) as in p63 and p73. These vertebrate forms of p53 are required for normal inflammatory, epithelial, and neuronal development. Unlike clam p53 and p97, p120 mRNA and protein levels are temporally expressed in embryos, with mRNA levels decreasing with increasing p120 protein (R(2) = 0.97). Highest surf clam p120 mRNA levels coincide with the onset of neuronal growth. In earlier work we have shown that neuronal development is altered by exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a neurotoxic environmental contaminant. In this study we show that PCBs differentially affect expression of the three surf clam p53 family members. p120 mRNA and protein are reduced the most and earliest in development, p97 protein shows a smaller and later reduction, and p53 protein levels do not change. For the first time we report that unlike p53 and p97, p120 is specifically embryonic and expressed in a time-dependent manner. Furthermore, p120 responds to PCBs by 48 hr when PCB-induced suppression of the serotonergic nervous system occurs

Using Elevator Speeches to Develop Research & Communication Skills in Biology

The ability to communicate and collaborate effectively was recognized as a core competency for undergraduate biology education in the AAAS Vision and Change report. In order to develop competency in scientific communication, students need opportunities for guided practice. This article describes the use of short ‘elevator speeches’ in the context of a Biology Capstone course. Students present a 60 – 90 second speech at three key points in the course when they are facing an intellectual challenge in the process of writing an original research proposal. Writing and presenting the elevator speeches provides students with the opportunity to build on their prior knowledge and critically analyze the literature in order to develop an initial research question, an experimental approach, and finally a complete proposal. After each elevator pitch, students receive targeted feedback from an audience of peers and from their instructor, which allows them to refine their research proposal and improve their oral presentation skills

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field