The history of the discovery of the nerve growth factor

The Nerve Growth Factor (NGF) is the progenitor of a family of growth factors which is still expanding. The history of its discovery is very colorful; it is a rare combination of scientific reasoning, intuition, fortuities, and good luck. In addition, I believe that the collaboration of three scientists with very different backgrounds contributed to the success: I had grown up in a laboratory of experimental embryology, Dr. Levi-Montalcini came from neurology, and Dr. Stanley Cohen was from biochemistry. The decision where to begin the history of a discovery is always arbitrary. I shall give my reasons why I begin this story with my wing bud extirpations on chick embryos and the analysis of the effects of the operation on the development of spinal nerve centers, published in 1934. Of course, I am aware of the fact that the analysis of neurogenesis had been pioneered by Dr. R. G. Harrison and his students at Yale University since the beginning of this century. It should be mentioned that their experiments had been done on amphibian embryos. My own interest in problems of neurogenesis dates back to my Ph.D. thesis in the Zoology Department of Professor H. Spemann at the University of Freiburg in (the Federal Republic of) Germany; it dealt with the influence of the nervous system on the development of limbs in frog embryos. After I had obtained some inconclusive results I did the crucial experiment of producing nerveless legs. I removed the lumbar part of the spinal cord and the spinal ganglia before the outgrowth of nerve fibers. The nerveless legs developed normally in every respect, but the muscles atrophied eventually.     

My journey into the birth of plant transgenesis and its impact on modern plant biology

I had the fortune to start my scientific carrier during the early stages of the development of plant transformation in one of the leading laboratories in the field. Here, I describe my personal experience in the laboratory of Marc van Montagu and Jeff Schell, and some important contributions that the group made to the development of the technology to produce transgenic plants. I also briefly summarize the impact of this technology on the development of modern plant biology and in plant molecular improvement.     

Establishing an academic laboratory: mentoring as a business model

It is a tremendous honor for my group and me to receive the recognition of the 2014 Women in Cell Biology Junior Award. I would like to take the opportunity of this essay to describe my scientific journey, discuss my philosophy about running a group, and propose what I think is a generalizable model to efficiently establish an academic laboratory. This essay is about my view on the critical components that go into establishing a highly functional academic laboratory during the current tough, competitive times.     

Last days in the old radiation laboratory (ORL), Berkeley,California, 1954

Govindjee, the founding editor of the Historical Corner of Photosynthesis Research, invited me 3 years ago to tell the story of why I left Melvin Calvin’s laboratory in the mid 1950s long before the 1961 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Calvin for the path of carbon in photosynthesis. I have already written my scientific perspective on this topic (see Benson (Photosynth Res 73:29–49, 2002); also see Bassham (Photosynth Res 76:35–52, 2003) as he was also a major player in this research). Here, I present my recollections of my last days in the old radiation laboratory (ORL) at Berkeley, California. References have been added by Govindjee for the benefit of the readers.     

A path to the powerhouse: systems‐to‐structure approaches for studying mitochondrial proteins

The young investigator award from the Protein Society was a special honor for me because, at its essence, the goal of my laboratory is to define what obscure proteins do. Years ago, I stumbled into mitochondria as a venue for this work, and these organelles continue to define the biological theme of my laboratory. Our approaches are fairly broad, reflecting my own somewhat unorthodox training among diverse scientific fields spanning organic synthesis, chemical biology, mechanistic biochemistry, signal transduction, and systems biology. Yet, whatever the theme or the discipline, we aim to understand how proteins work—especially those that hide in the dark corners of mitochondria. Below, I recount my own path into this arena of protein science, and describe how my experiences along the way have shaped our current multi‐disciplinary efforts to define the inner workings of this complex biological system.     

Sociobiology and the Comparative Approach: One Way to Study Ourselves

This paper is based on my lecture in a macroevolution course I team-teach with Profs. Daniel Brooks and David Evans at the University of Toronto. The lecture has undergone many revisions over the years as I grappled with problems discussing certain areas (e.g., rape as an adaptive strategy, gender “roles”). Eventually, I realized that the problem areas said more about my personal conflicts than they did about the science. This was one of those epiphany moments, a time when I recognized that I was less likely to accept hypotheses that contradicted the way I wanted the world to be and more likely to uncritically accept hypotheses that confirmed my world view. That epiphany, in turn, led me to realize that science is never separate from the personal biases/demons of its practitioners, especially when we are asking questions about the evolution of human behavior. That realization was not novel within the vast literature of sociology and philosophy. But it was novel for me. I was aware of discussions about personal biases clouding scientific interpretation; I just didn’t think it applied to me (I absorbed the philosophical discussions without making the connection to “my world”). So, on the heels of that epiphany, the following is a very personal take on the question of teaching sociobiology, based on where my journey, aided by my experience as an ethologist and phylogeneticist and colored by my own history, has taken me.     

Reminiscences,collaborations and reflections

This is a personal account by a semi old-timer who completed his official term as a professor of plant biochemistry at Nagoya University in Japan in 1992. My university student life began soon after the World War II (1948). I shared the hardships of many in my age group, in that life was difficult during my college years. I was fortunate to have the opportunity of studying in the USA on a Fulbright scholarship first at Purdue University (1955–1956), and then at the University of California, Berkeley (1956–1957). My graduate study and postdoctoral training in the new world were vitally refreshing and stimulating, which gave me the impetus for becoming a natural scientist associated with academic institutions. Consciously and subconsciously I was impressed by the friendly and liberal atmosphere surrounding young students as well as senior scholars in the United States. But more importantly, I was inspired by the critical and competitive minds prevailing among these people.The appointment as a biochemist at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines (1962–1964) was the real start of my professional career. The work was continued upon my return to Nagoya to become a staff member of the Research Institute for Biochemical Regulation (1964–1992). Throughout the years, my major research interest has covered photosynthesis as a whole, involving photosynthetic CO₂-fixation (RuBisCO), carbohydrate metabolism, e.g. starch biosynthesis and breakdown (-amylase), and metabolic regulation, which are interrelated in the basic metabolism of plant cells.I shall briefly describe in this article highlights from my studies and discoveries made and I shall also discuss their possible significance in plant metabolism, with the hope that it does not contradict my sense of humility: They are (a) discovery of ADPG in plants and its role in starch biosynthesis; (b) structure-function relationship of RuBisCO proteins, in particular on heterologous recombination of their subunits of plant-type enzyme molecules derived from the prokaryotic photosynthetic bacteria; (c) molecular evolution of RuBisCO genes; (d) mode of actions (formation, intracellular transport and secretion) of rice seed -amylase and its structural characteristics (distinctive glycosylation), and (e) DNA methylation and regulatory mechanism of photosynthesis gene expression in plastids (amyloplasts). In each step of my research, I shared joy, excitement, disappointment, and agony with my colleagues, an experience that may be common to all researchers. Although it is now becoming well recognized among the scientific community in Japan, I want to point out that interaction of multinational scientific minds in the laboratory produces a vital and creative atmosphere for performance of successful research. I experienced and realized this important fact in my earlier days in the USA and the Philippines. Inasmuch as I believe that this is the most crucial element for any research laboratory to possess, I fondly remember the friendships gained with numerous overseas visitors and collaborators who have contributed immensely to our work.Written at the invitation of Govindjee.     

Twenty years of research on primordial germ cells.

Just twenty years ago I was preparing a research project centred on establishing methods for the isolation and culture of mouse primordial germ cells (PGCs). The project had been suggested to me by Anne McLaren and was to be developed at the Medical Research Council (MRC) "Mammalian Development Unit" in London under the direction of Anne herself. At that time I was a young postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Histology and Embryology of the University of Rome "La Sapienza" and did not imagine that my decision to be involved in this project would signal a profound switch in my scientific life. From then on my research would mostly concentrate on primordial germ cell biology. I feel like saying that the modern history of mammalian primordial germ cells began twenty years ago at the MRC Mammalian Development Unit under Anne McLaren's impulse. It is not surprising that among the most active researchers in the last twenty years in studying mammalian primordial germ cells, three, namely Chris Wylie, Peter Donovan and myself, began their studies under Anne McLaren's guidance. Over the years, Anne's suggestions and encouragement were always precious for my studies and her presence marked my most important findings on PGC biology. She often invited me to present the results obtained in my laboratory to workshops and congresses. In the present article some of these results particularly influenced by Anne's teaching and suggestions will be briefly reviewed.     

The microenvironment matters

The physical and biochemical properties of the microenvironment regulate cell behavior and modulate tissue development and homeostasis. Likewise, the physical and interpersonal cues a trainee receives profoundly influence his or her scientific development, research perspective, and future success. My cell biology career has been greatly impacted by the flavor of the scientific environments I have trained within and the diverse research mentoring I have received. Interactions with physical and life scientists and trainees and exposure to a diverse assortment of interdisciplinary environments have and continue to shape my research vision, guide my experimental trajectory, and contribute to my scientific success and personal happiness.     

Novel eicosanoid pathways

This article reviews a lecture I was honored to present at the Leon Wolfe Symposium in Montreal on March 25, 2004. The lecture described my research career, which started with my interaction with Wolfe at the Montreal Neurological Institute as a postdoctoral fellow and research associate and was followed by additional research discoveries after I left Montreal for my first academic position at the Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children and University of Toronto. The article consists of two parts. The first part involves the discovery (in Wolfe’s laboratory) of a new pathway of arachidonic acid, in which a bicyclic prostanoid structure (later called prostacyclin by John Vane and his group) was described, and its further development in Toronto, which led to the discovery of the conversion of the bicyclic prostanoid into 6-keto prostaglandin F_1α. The second part deals with the hepoxilin pathway, a pathway I discovered during a sabbatical leave in Japan with Professor Shozo Yamamoto, which was followed by a stay of several months in the laboratory of Professor Bengt Samuelsson in Sweden. I deal with the historical aspects of both pathways and end with interesting novel aspects of hepoxilin stable antagonist analogs in the treatment of solid tumors in experimental animals.     

Getting around

This essay is a response to a request from the Editor for a "historical reflection" relating to work on DNA repair from my laboratory. The writing has been an interesting exercise since it made me recall the people I have worked with and some of the things we found and the many we missed. In the course of the writing, an article was published in The New York Review of Books, which argued that there is a "pervasive dishonesty in the practice of science" relating to the authorship of scientific papers. It seemed to me that the events I was relating spoke to that charge and I appreciate the opportunity to comment.     

A career pathway in protein folding: from model peptides to postreductionist protein science

This review discusses the inherent challenge of linking "reductionist" approaches to decipher the information encoded in protein sequences with burgeoning efforts to explore protein folding in native environments-"postreductionist" approaches. Because the invitation to write this article came as a result of my selection to receive the 2010 Dorothy Hodgkin Award of the Protein Society, I use examples from my own work to illustrate the evolution from the reductionist to the postreductionist perspective. I am incredibly honored to receive the Hodgkin Award, but I want to emphasize that it is the combined effort, creativity, and talent of many students, postdoctoral fellows, and collaborators over several years that has led to any accomplishments on which this selection is based. Moreover, I do not claim to have unique insight into the topics discussed here; but this writing opportunity allows me to illustrate some threads in the evolution of protein folding research with my own experiences and to point out to those embarking on careers how the twists and turns in anyone's scientific path are influenced and enriched by the scientific context of our research. The path my own career has taken thus far has been shaped by the timing of discoveries in the field of protein science; together with our contemporaries, we become part of a knowledge evolution. In my own case, this has been an epoch of great discovery in protein folding and I feel very fortunate to have participated in it.     

Sampling phylogenetic tree space with the generalized Gibbs sampler

A recent article published in Cladistics is critical of a number of heuristic methods for phylogenetic inference based on parsimony scores. One of my papers is among those criticized, and I would appreciate the opportunity to make a public response. The specific criticism is that I have re‐invented an algorithm for economizing parsimony calculations on trees that differ by a subtree pruning and regrafting (SPR) rearrangement. This criticism is justified, and I apologize for incorrectly claiming originality for my presentation of this algorithm. However, I would like to clarify the intent of my paper, if I can do so without detracting from the sincerity of my apology. My paper is not about that algorithm, nor even primarily about parsimony. Rather, it is about a novel strategy for Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling in a state space consisting of trees. The sampler involves drawing from conditional distributions over sets of trees: a Gibbs‐like strategy that had not previously been used to sample tree‐space. I would like to see this technique incorporated into MCMC samplers for phylogenetics, as it may have advantages over commonly used Metropolis‐like strategies. I have recently used it to sample phylogenies of a biological invasion, and I am finding many applications for it in agent‐based Bayesian ecological modelling. It is thus my contention that my 2005 paper retains substantial value.     

From oxidative phosphorylation to transcription--a postdoctoral adventure

The period as a postdoctoral fellow is crucial for the establishment of one's scientific research career. I illustrate here its importance based on my own experience. Although luck played a part, moving to the right place at the right time and having generous leaders who allowed me freedom to express unconventional views were most valuable in my venture into two scientific territories that were previously unfamiliar to me. My first encounter with an unknown field led to me challenging the well-established dogma of uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation as the explanation for hormone action; the second, led to the demonstration of the multiplicity of eukaryotic RNA polymerase. I hope that the events described here will provide some encouragement to young scientists embarking on a research career and also be of interest to others.     

Interactive labs

What makes for a good lab? Obviously the principle investigator and members of the team are important. So too, of course, are the correct services and environmental conditions. But there is another aspect, less quantifiable but of great importance. It's the ability of a laboratory to maximize the possibilities for scientific interaction. Having spent many years as an architect designing laboratories, here I give my views on designing successfully for interaction.     

A moderate Buddhist animal research ethics

Though there is a burgeoning interest in applied Buddhist ethics, Buddhist animal research ethics remains an underdeveloped area. In this paper I will explore how some central Buddhist ethical considerations can usefully engage our use of other animals (henceforth, animals) in science. As the scientific use of animals is broad, I will narrow my focus to laboratory science. I will show that, though a Buddhist abolitionism would not be unmotivated, it is possible to reject it. While doing so, it will be important to resist emphasizing elements of Buddhist thought that merely provide reasons to adopt the dominant ethical framework governing laboratory animal research ethics, known as the 3Rs. Though I will suggest how a Buddhist animal research ethics can sometimes permit the use of animals in harmful research, it will also require ethical constraints that resonate with some of the more progressive elements in ‘Western’ bioethics.     

The Chemical Synthesis of DNA/RNA: Our Gift to Science

It is a great privilege to contribute to the Reflections essays. In my particular case, this essay has allowed me to weave some of my major scientific contributions into a tapestry held together by what I have learned from three colleagues (Robert Letsinger, Gobind Khorana, and George Rathmann) who molded my career at every important junction. To these individuals, I remain eternally grateful, as they always led by example and showed many of us how to break new ground in both science and biotechnology. Relative to my scientific career, I have focused primarily on two related areas. The first is methodologies we developed for chemically synthesizing DNA and RNA. Synthetic DNA and RNA continue to be an essential research tool for biologists, biochemists, and molecular biologists. The second is developing new approaches for solving important biological problems using synthetic DNA, RNA, and their analogs.     

Amoralist Rationalism? A Response to Joel Marks

In a recent article, Joel Marks presents the amoralist argument against vivisection, or animal laboratory experimentation. He argues that ethical theories that seek to uncover some universal morality are in fact useless and unnecessary for ethical deliberations meant to determine what constitutes an appropriate action in a specific circumstance. I agree with Marks’ conclusion. I too believe that vivisection is indefensible, both from a scientific and philosophical perspective. I also believe that we should become vegan (unfortunately, like the two philosophers mentioned by Marks, I too am still struggling to reduce my meat and dairy consumption). However, I am in the dark as to Marks’ vision of normative deliberations in the spirit of amoralism and desirism.