Seductive Details in Educational Materials: Exploring Attention Distraction Using Eye-Tracking

Current advances in technology allow for a great deal of learning intervention materials to be designed by teachers. An active body of research is being conducted on how information is processed from these materials which are often created using electronic media. The design of these materials often includes interesting but irrelevant details which may detract from learning. These are termed “seductive details” and the impact of these inclusions in learning materials is not yet fully understood. Developing a better understanding of what factors play a role in the damaging effects of seductive details can help in the design of learning materials. The primary cognitive explanations to date for the impact of seductive details include working memory capacity (WMC) and distracted attention. These elements do not fully explain the variation in results from prior studies. A primary goal of this study was to explore if the emotional salience of seductive details could help explain whether and how seductive details detract from learning. This experimental study was conducted with 39 undergraduate university students. The design accounted for WMC and directly measured visual attention using eye-tracking. Eye-tracking devices allow for empirical measures of how much time a learner spends attending to seductive details versus pertinent learning materials. The study provided little evidence to suggest the seductive details used in the materials detracted from learning. The evidence suggests learners visually attend to seductive details when they are present, and they are more likely to attend to emotionally salient seductive details than neutrally valenced details

What determines cell size?

AbstractFirst paragraph (this article has no abstract) For well over 100 years, cell biologists have been wondering what determines the size of cells. In modern times, we know all of the molecules that control the cell cycle and cell division, but we still do not understand how cell size is determined. To check whether modern cell biology has made any inroads on this age-old question, BMC Biology asked several heavyweights in the field to tell us how they think cell size is controlled, drawing on a range of different cell types. The essays in this collection address two related questions - why does cell size matter, and how do cells control it

Eukaryotic Cell Size Control and Its Relation to Biosynthesis and Senescence

The most fundamental feature of cellular form is size, which sets the scale of all cell biological processes. Growth, form, and function are all necessarily linked in cell biology, but we often do not understand the underlying molecular mechanisms nor their specific functions. Here, we review progress toward determining the molecular mechanisms that regulate cell size in yeast, animals, and plants, as well as progress toward understanding the function of cell size regulation. It has become increasingly clear that the mechanism of cell size regulation is deeply intertwined with basic mechanisms of biosynthesis, and how biosynthesis can be scaled (or not) in proportion to cell size. Finally, we highlight recent findings causally linking aberrant cell size regulation to cellular senescence and their implications for cancer therapies. </jats:p

Localized phosphorylation of RNA Polymerase II by G1 cyclin-Cdk promotes cell cycle entry

AbstractThe cell cycle is thought to be initiated by cyclin-dependent kinases (Cdk) inactivating transcriptional inhibitors of cell cycle gene-expression(1, 2). In budding yeast, the G1 cyclin Cln3-Cdk1 complex is thought to directly phosphorylate Whi5, thereby releasing the transcription factor SBF and committing cells to division(3-7). Here, we report that Cln3-Cdk1 does not phosphorylate Whi5, but instead phosphorylates the RNA Polymerase II subunit Rpb1’s C-terminal domain (CTD) on S5 of its heptapeptide repeats. Cln3-Cdk1 binds SBF-regulated promoters(8) and Cln3’s function can be performed by the canonical S5 kinase(9) Ccl1-Kin28 when synthetically recruited to SBF. Thus, Cln3-Cdk1 triggers cell division by phosphorylating Rpb1 at SBF-regulated promoters to activate transcription. Our findings blur the distinction between cell cycle and transcriptional Cdks to highlight the ancient relationship between these processes.</jats:p

G ₁ cyclin–Cdk promotes cell cycle entry through localized phosphorylation of RNA polymerase II

Control by RNA polymerase II Evidence indicates that yeast cells initiate DNA synthesis and transition from the G 1 to the S phase of the cell cycle when cyclin 3 accumulates and causes phosphorylation of Whi5, a functional equivalent of the mammalian Rb (retinoblastoma) protein. Kõivomägi et al . now present evidence for a different cyclin-dependent kinase target (see the Perspective by Fisher). They found that the cyclin 3–cyclin-dependent kinase (Cdk) 1 complex in yeast promoted phosphorylation of RNA polymerase II and thus increased transcription at genes that control entry into the cell cycle. Cdks that regulate the cell cycle can thus act by similar mechanisms to so-called “transcriptional Cdks,” which are known to act as transcriptional regulators but not to function in control of cell division. —LBR </jats:p

Genome-wide distribution of 5-hydroxymethyluracil and chromatin accessibility in the Breviolum minutum genome

Abstract Background In dinoflagellates, a unique and extremely divergent genomic and nuclear organization has evolved. The highly unusual features of dinoflagellate nuclei and genomes include permanently condensed liquid crystalline chromosomes, primarily packaged by proteins other than histones, genes organized in very long unidirectional gene arrays, a general absence of transcriptional regulation, high abundance of the otherwise very rare DNA modification 5-hydroxymethyluracil (5-hmU), and many others. While most of these fascinating properties are originally identified in the 1970s and 1980s, they have not yet been investigated using modern genomic tools. Results In this work, we address some of the outstanding questions regarding dinoflagellate genome organization by mapping the genome-wide distribution of 5-hmU (using both immunoprecipitation-based and basepair-resolution chemical mapping approaches) and of chromatin accessibility in the genome of the Symbiodiniaceae dinoflagellate Breviolum minutum. We find that the 5-hmU modification is preferentially enriched over certain classes of repetitive elements, often coincides with the boundaries between gene arrays, and is generally correlated with decreased chromatin accessibility, the latter otherwise being largely uniform along the genome. We discuss the potential roles of 5-hmU in the functional organization of dinoflagellate genomes and its relationship to the transcriptional landscape of gene arrays. Conclusions Our results provide the first window into the 5-hmU and chromatin accessibility landscapes in dinoflagellates

CDK substrate phosphorylation and ordering the cell cycle

S phase and mitotic onset are brought about by the action of multiple different cyclin-CDK complexes. However, it has been suggested that changes in the total level of CDK kinase activity, rather than substrate specificity, drive the temporal ordering of S phase and mitosis. Here, we present a phosphoproteomics-based systems analysis of CDK substrates in fission yeast and demonstrate that the phosphorylation of different CDK substrates can be temporally ordered during the cell cycle by a single cyclin-CDK. This is achieved by rising CDK activity and the differential sensitivity of substrates to CDK activity over a wide dynamic range. This is combined with rapid phosphorylation turnover to generate clearly resolved substrate-specific activity thresholds, which in turn ensures the appropriate ordering of downstream cell-cycle events. Comparative analysis with wild-type cells expressing multiple cyclin-CDK complexes reveals how cyclin-substrate specificity works alongside activity thresholds to fine-tune the patterns of substrate phosphorylation