Tag Archives: Science Week

Visualising the inner workings of the living cell

This post was contributed by Clare Sansom, senior associate lecturer at the Department of Biological Sciences

microscopeDr Alan Lowe, who gave the second of the two Science Week lectures on March 25, is a relatively new arrival at Birkbeck. He has been a lecturer at the Institute for Structural Molecular Biology – that is, his post is jointly held between Birkbeck and UCL – for two years.

He obtained his degrees from the universities of Bath and Cambridge and spent several years in California as a postdoctoral researcher before he was appointed to this position. He is researching the development of techniques that allow him to see inside individual, living cells, to identify single molecules, and to follow biochemical processes in ‘real time’.

Lowe started his lecture by citing the so-called central dogma of molecular biology, which can be stated in simplistic terms as ‘DNA makes mRNA makes protein’: or, in other words, that the information in DNA is transformed into the molecules that implement biochemical processes, the proteins, via mRNA.

This, however, has to be very tightly regulated to ensure that the right reactions are carried out in the right cells at the right times: regulation that is out of kilter can cause serious disease.

Metabolism is generally regulated in one of three ways. Taking a simple reaction such as
A + B à C, if you want to limit the amount of C that is produced, you can remove A or B; you can inhibit the enzyme that carries out the reaction; or you can separate A and B into different compartments.

Animal and plant cells contain many specialist compartments, the most important of which is the nucleus that segregates the chromosomes that contain the DNA from the rest of the cell. Proteins that interact with chromosomes can be kept outside the nucleus and therefore inactive until they receive a signal to enter it. Disruption of this signalling or of the nuclear membrane can lead to cancer.

A diagram that shows the distribution of (for example) molecules of one protein within a cell at a given time can be thought of as a map. Like a map, too, this information is limited because it is static. It is more instructive to follow the distribution over time, and that, too, has a geographical equivalent.

Lowe explained that when he was living in California the San Francisco Exploratorium conducted an experiment in which they gave a GPS device to each taxi in the city and followed them all over 24 hours. They could follow one taxi throughout the day or see how the overall patterns changed from hour to hour; the results are still online.

Most of the taxis behaved in a fairly predictable way, but one result could never have been predicted: a taxi landed up in San Francisco Bay. Even now, nine years after the experiment, no one knows exactly why; this is, perhaps, the geographical equivalent of a molecular event that provides one of the steps leading to cancer.

Lowe explained that he would like to be able to put a mini-GPS unit on a molecule within a cell so that it could be tracked in a similar way. This is not quite possible, but it is possible to attach a glowing molecular probe to a molecule. A protein that is isolated from jellyfish and that is known, for obvious reasons, as green fluorescent protein (GFP) can be attached to other proteins to make them glow when exposed to ultra-violet light. Derivatives of this protein have been produced that fluoresce with all the colours of the visible spectrum. It is possible to label interesting proteins with a fluorescent probe and track them through a microscope as they move through the cell, just as the San Francisco taxis were tracked.

One problem with this technique, however, is that optical microscopes and fluorescent probes rely on the visible part of the electro-magnetic spectrum. The protein molecules that we are interested in tracking are smaller than the wavelength of visible light, and, therefore, they will appear fuzzy, with all the fine detail missing. This problem was only solved by the invention of the super-resolved fluorescent microscope: its developers, Eric Betzig, Stefan Hell and William Moerner, were awarded equal shares of the 2014 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Lowe went back to the example of proteins entering the cell nucleus to explain this further. The membrane that surrounds the nucleus, which is known as the nuclear envelope, typically contains about 2000 nuclear pore complexes. Each complex has an hourglass-like shape with a narrow aperture through which proteins enter the nucleus, and which is filled with unstructured proteins. Small molecules can diffuse at random into the nucleus through the pore. Large molecules such as proteins, however, may be excluded from the nucleus completely, or, in contrast, they may enter but not leave it.

This is an example of the workings of ‘Maxwell’s demon’, a thought experiment that explains how the Second Law of Thermodynamics – which appears to imply that disorder must always increase – can be violated by imagining a tiny demon at a gate that only lets faster-than-average molecules through.

In the case of the molecular gate in the pore complex, only certain proteins that have been attached to another protein, known as an importin, are allowed into the pore. Lowe and his group bound quantum dots, which are fluorescent nano-particles that are small and bright enough to be visible when attached to a single molecule, to importin molecules, and tracked them as they moved through the pore complex. They found the pore complex channel to go through several stages in selecting cargoes. Most of the molecules are rejected before they enter the complex, others move into the channel before returning to the cytoplasm and only a relatively small fraction enter the nucleus. Nuclear entry requires energy; if energy is removed from the system a ‘gate’ at the bottom of the complex will remain closed.

It is possible to visualise the positions of all the molecules using a technique called single-molecule localisation microscopy (SMLM), in which the fluorescence signal is turned on in one small group of molecules at a time. This enables Lowe and his group to zoom out and look at the nuclei of thousands of cells (as at all the taxis in San Francisco), or, alternatively, to zoom in on a single channel. He used this technique to look at the distribution of proteins at the bottom of the channel through which cargo proteins enter the nucleus.

This structure is composed of tendril-like proteins that reach into the centre of the channel, and these proteins are known to be able to form a solid hydrogel under some circumstances. Lowe mixed them with an importin and showed that the proteins cross-linked to form a material that fell apart when energy was added.

This suggests a molecular mechanism through which the pore may open and close to let cargo into the nucleus. However, many of the details of the system are still unknown; he is developing ways to ‘zoom out’ and combine these images of the cell at the molecular level with larger-scale visualisation of cells that grow and divide.

Find out more

Share

What can we learn from laughing?

This post was contributed by Aline Lorandi, a visiting postdoctoral researcher under the supervision of Prof Annette Karmiloff-Smith, investigating the precursors of phonological awareness in Down Syndrome. Aline attended Dr Caspar Addyman’s recent event during Birkbeck’s Science Week

LaughterLaughter is one of the most well-known characteristics of babies, although greatly ignored by science. Motivated by this intriguing gap in the study of babies, Dr Caspar Addyman (Research Fellow from the Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development, Birkbeck) decided to invest on the research on baby laughter.

Dr Addyman quotes Victor Borge when he says that “laughter is the shortest distance between two people”. As laughter is one of the central characteristics of babies and a way to connect people, Dr Addyman’s interest in this sort of study is more than justified.

Maternity and paternity brings several challenges: fewer hours of sleep, loads of mess to organise, lack of time for the parents themselves or to work, their lives changed forever – although most of them would say, for the better. One of the greatest rewards for all those challenges in parenting is, undoubtedly, to hear their babies laughing.

“Baby laugh is appealing!” states Dr Addyman. It is present from the very beginning of life, and, historically, it can be tracked to non-mammals more than six-million years ago. It encourages social play, and it is also linked to tickling, which is as old as laughter itself, phylogenetically speaking.

Some researches on rats (like Weaver et al., 2004, published on Nature Neuroscience) show that rats whose mothers lick and groom them were less stressed, for the mother’s touch may be an answer to stress. From this, Dr Addyman argues that touching and tickling are very important for development.

Ontogenetically speaking, Dr Addyman maintains that laughter begins really early. Through a survey with parents, he found out that at three months of life, in general, babies give their first laugh (the first smile is at one month). According to Dr Addyman, laughing is more difficult than crying, for it requires more motor and voice control. When looking for how many laughs per day a baby gives, the number can be bigger than 150. And, of course, a guaranteed way for a laugh is tickling.

As to fun games and toys, Dr Addyman found that ‘peek-a-boo’ seems to be the best one. It also provides social interaction, as you have to wait for the other person to appear, and there is pleasure in doing that.

Naturally, at some point, children will realise that they can make parents laugh, changing the games. By this, Dr Addyman shows us that laughter is about social learning, and ‘peek-a-boo’ is a condensed form of this kind of interaction.

There is another important feature about laughing that distinguishes it from crying – it makes it a way for communication: While crying is a sign that something is wrong and must be stopped by parents, laughing points to something that they want to be continued.

As an argument for the social role of laughing, Dr Addyman presented research where he shows that children laugh more when in a group than alone, independently of how funny they think a movie is. Another experiment shows that laughter captures and holds attention from babies, and it is more ‘contagious’ than yawning!

Dr Addyman believes that we can learn from babies’ laughter. He says that we should challenge ourselves to be happy; for people who challenge themselves see more purpose in life. He also believes that we should do things with joy, be 100% in it, share with other people and simply be happy!

As Abraham Lincoln once said: “Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be”. If this is correct, and babies can show us that it is, as Dr Addyman’s research points out, the answer to happiness is not ‘how to be happy’, but ‘how to change our minds’, remembering ourselves of the pleasures of tickling and laughing, as if we were still babies, and of the rewards of living a less stressful life, through the happiness of laughing out loud.

Find out more

Share

Attention Machines: The science of cinematic perception

This post was contributed by Sofia Ciccarone (master student of Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology, Birkbeck University of London)

It was exciting to be a part of this event, which took place in Birkbeck cinema in Gordon Square during Science Week.

Birkbeck CinemaThe people who participated not only had the opportunity to experience the amazing and capturing cinematography of The Fountain by Darren Aronofsky; they could also be both the participants and the researchers of a live experimental study.

The experiment was interested in how viewers’ attention changes throughout a movie. To this aim, audience’s attention was measured by locating their eye position on the screen. This was done by making the image disappear sometimes during the film and briefly substituting it with a flashing grid, which filled the whole cinema screen and contained a series of letters and number combinations.

The audience was asked to pay attention to this grid and to report (using their smartphones) the letter and numbers pairs (e.g. S76) they could identify among the other pairs contained in the grid. This procedure, which is known as crowdsourcing gaze data collection, is a method proposed in 2012 by Rudoy and others for collecting gaze direction from any number of participants simultaneously.

The eye movements of one volunteer from the audience were instead recorded using a portable eye tracker. The eye tracker was calibrated right before the start of the film and the participant sat in the front row of the cinema and enjoyed the film while her eye movements were being recorded.

After a shot practice trial, the audience’s eye movements were collected for the first part of the film. During the second half, while participants were allowed to watch the film without distractions, Dr Tim Smith and his team used the available time (48 minutes!) to analyse the answers submitted through the smartphones and the data recorded by the eye tracker.

After the film finished, Dr Tim Smith presented the results of the experiment. It was really surprising to find out that the two eye movement collection methods showed similar results: people mainly focused their attention on the centre of the screen. This is where the more frequently detected letter-number pairs were located. The gaze of the volunteer who wore the portable eye tracker also seemed to be mainly focussing on that area of the screen.

Why does this happen?

The composition of the shots, the camera movements, the staging and the editing of the scenes are some of the ways in which filmmakers direct viewers’ attention. As opposed to films shot in the past, modern TV and Hollywood cinema use a compositional style which involves rapid editing, bipolar extremes of lens length, wide-ranging camera movements and close shots.

For example, the scene in “The shop around the corner” (Esnst Lubitsch, 1940) where the two protagonists meet in the café, lasts 9 minutes and contains 20 shots lasting 27 seconds each. The same scene from a recent remake of this film, “You’ve got mail” (Nora Ephron, 1998), lasts 9 minutes and contains 134 shots of 4 seconds each.

This style causes the audience to have a unified experience of the film being watched, as it induces spectators to focus their attention on the centre of the screen, a type of behaviour defined as central tendency by Le Meur and others in 2007.

Find out more

Share

Curiosity: A study about babies and ways to learning

This post was contributed by Aline Lorandi, a visiting postdoctoral researcher under the supervision of Prof Annette Karmiloff-Smith, investigating the precursors of phonological awareness in Down Syndrome.

Curiosity is unique to humans. There are many stories and quotes about curiosity in literature and in mythology. Sometimes you can get in trouble because of your curiosity, as Pandora did when she opened the box that she was given by Zeus and discovered what was inside.

Experiments at babylabWe are all curious, but there are some researchers who are curious about curiosity, as Katarina Begus, who talked about “The development of human curiosity: A few baby steps”, during Science Week.

Some researchers have shown that curiosity activates the same areas in the brain as when we consume chocolate, nicotine or when we win a race. If curiosity seems to be linked to pleasure, why is it so difficult to awaken curiosity in some people?

Driven by the curiosity about curiosity, Katarina is investigating curiosity on babies. She maintains that children seem curious about things, and that the universal gesture for showing curiosity about something is pointing. However, how can we know what babies mean by pointing?

Katarina presented a series of tests that aimed to verify in which situations babies point, including informative versus non-informative parents, different kinds of objects, and spontaneous pointing. She also reported that theta oscillation (during EEG/ERP) is found in the hippocampus during situations that involve reward.

The more motivate a child is, the more theta oscillation is found, and, consequently, the greater is his or her learning. Based on this assumption, Katarina invested on tests that can look at brain activation during play, in order to attest whether the babies would recognise some objects that they saw before as a sign of learning and motivation.

When testing learning of nonwords in informative versus non-informative contexts, she found greater theta oscillations in the brain when babies were expecting for information in informative contexts (contrasted to non-informative contexts, where no real information was available).

Although Katarina Begus has already found some very exciting results for how children demonstrate curiosity, her work is still going on, and her curiosity about curiosity never ends:

  • What is the role of technology in our curiosity?
  • How will children explore their curiosity using technology?
  • How the studies about curiosity and learning can help us prevent dementia?

Those were questions that Katarina would like to address in future researches. The audience was also curious, a fact that was shown by the questions made by the end of the talk:

  • How far children go with non-informative teachers?
  • What about their reaction to surprises?
  • What about the effects of surprise on learning?
  • How can we make people more curious?
  • What is the role of the environment on curiosity?

As Albert Einstein once said, “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.” Let’s keep curious!

Find out more

Share