共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 46 毫秒
1.
Rosangela Itri Mauricio Baptista Antonio Jos Costa-Filho Richard Charles Garratt 《Biophysical reviews》2021,13(6):797
The 20th IUPAB Congress took place online, together with the annual meetings of the Brazilian Biophysical Society and the Brazilian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, from the 4th to the 8th of October, 2021. The ten keynote lectures, 24 symposia, two poster sessions, and a series of technical seminars covered the full diversity of current biophysical research and its interfaces with other fields. The event had over 1000 attendees, with an excellent gender balance. Although the Americas dominated, there were also significant numbers of participants from Europe, Asia, and Africa.The International Union of Pure and Applied Biophysics (IUPAB) came into existence in Stockholm in 1961 and has been a member of the International Science Council since 1966 (Solomon 1968). Its overall objectives aim to foster international collaboration in all aspects of biophysics and related areas and to catalyze the advancement of basic biophysical research as well as its many applications. Although IUPAB is active on many fronts, undeniably one of its showcase events is the IUPAB Congress, traditionally organized every three years in different locations worldwide. In 2021, the event was organized and run from Brazil, albeit for the very first time in a virtual format due to travel restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. On this occasion, the Congress was organized in conjunction with the annual meetings of both the Brazilian Biophysical Society (SBBf, in its 45th edition) and the Brazilian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (SBBq, in its 50th edition). Even with the united forces of these well-established local societies, it turned out to be a bumpy ride to bring the event to fruition.Plans for the 20th Congress began in 2016, almost immediately after the decision to hold the event in Brazil, a cause championed by the then-president of the Brazilian Biophysical Society, Marcelo Morales. The original plans had the meeting to be held in the Cidade Maravilhosa (The Wonderful City) of Rio de Janeiro in October 2020. However, it soon became apparent that the political and economic difficulties that the State of Rio was facing at the time meant that it would be wise to search for an alternative venue. The previous experience of SBBq in organizing similar events in the city of Foz do Iguaçu, on the borders with Argentina and Paraguay, made this an obvious choice. Furthermore, the natural attraction of the spectacular Iguaçu waterfalls seemed to be an ideal compensation for Sugar Loaf Mountain, Copacabana beach, and the statue of Christ the Redeemer on Corcovado Mountain.Then came the pandemic. By mid-2020, it had become apparent that there were too many unknowns to make it possible to proceed with an in-person event in October of that year. It was decided to postpone the congress to 2021 but with a firm belief that things would be “back to normal.” Sweet delusion! As 2020 turned into 2021 and the severity and longevity of the pandemic became clearer and clearer (not to mention the abysmal performance of the Brazilian government in failing to rise to the challenge), the inevitable decision was taken to transform the event into an “on-line” congress. This was a first for both the local organizers and the IUPAB.The move to an online format immediately had an impact on the organization of the Young Scientist Program. This was initially envisaged to be a combination of formal and informal activities aimed at uniting about 40 early carrier scientists and post-docs for a couple of days prior to the main event in a stimulating atmosphere conducive to networking. Skillfully conceived, organized, and executed by Eneida de Paula (Campinas) and Eduardo Reis (São Paulo), this too had to be adapted to a “virtual reality.” The successful solution turned out to be a series of fortnightly thematic webinars, including a talk from a recognized authority in the field followed by three or four short presentations from the participants themselves (Table (Table1).1). The standard was extremely high and the YSP ended up being a highly effective warm-up to the congress itself. Furthermore, there was excellent geographical diversity among the participants with Europe, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and both North and South America represented.Table 1Young Scientist Webinar Program
Open in a separate windowThe main event attracted over 1000 participants, with an excellent gender balance. Although the Americas dominated, there were also significant numbers of participants from Europe, Asia, and Africa (Fig. 1). Table Table22 gives an excellent idea of the diverse subject matter covered during the 5 days of the congress itself. As to be expected, the way in which biophysics naturally interfaces with biochemistry, molecular biology, cell biology, chemistry (including medicinal chemistry), physics, engineering, etc. was more than apparent. Nevertheless, several themes appeared to be particularly recurrent throughout the event. Notwithstanding the plethora of other topics, several main threads permeated the proceedings, and these included (1) lipids, membranes, their assembly, and dynamics; (2) bioimaging at all levels; (3) drug targets and drug development/delivery; and (4) molecular recognition including membrane/protein interactions. This special issue aims to cover the main topics of the event as comprehensively as possible in similar vein to previous efforts (Hall and dos Remedios, 2017). In over 50 articles, including reviews, commentaries, letters, and editorials, we aim to convey the full flavor of the congress. It is hoped that this will serve simultaneously as both a useful source of reference and a historical record. The short, focused review articles are all up-to-date and expected to be of particular value to a broad readership. We hope that you enjoy them as much as we have and find them to be instructive and beneficial.Open in a separate windowFig. 1Participants by continentTable 2Symposia organized during the 20th IUPAB Congress
Open in a separate windowAll of the Keynote lectures (Table (Table3)3) were very well attended. The Nobel laureate Richard Henderson set the ball rolling with a beautifully clear historical overview of how cryo-EM got to be where it is now and what we might expect for the near future. Tony Watts (the new president-elect of IUPAB) closed the event with the Avanti/IUPAB award lecture and a clear message that biophysics is not all about proteins—lipids are important (also)! Midweek, a second Nobel prize winner, Michael Levitt, gave his take on the COVID-19 pandemic by applying his talent for mathematical modeling in much the same way as he so successfully applied it to macromolecular systems in the past. At the very least, his talk gave plenty of food for thought to those who were present.Table 3Keynote speakers
Open in a separate windowOverall, the sessions were very well attended with typically over 200 participants. The ease of moving from one session to another under the virtual format proved to be a notable advantage. Furthermore, since many of the talks were pre-recorded, most of the sessions kept to time rather better than is often the case at traditional events. The two poster sessions were also very well frequented, and the pre-recorded videos were generally of high quality. Approximately 10% of all poster presenters were awarded prizes during the closing ceremony, and six special prizes were generously provided by the Royal Society of Chemistry.Several special activities were held throughout the week. These included technical seminars by some of the sponsors, including Cytiva, Thermo-Fisher, and Sartorius as well as sessions devoted to Brazil-German exchange programs and one on “Gender in Science.” The latter was particularly motivational for the congress participants, whose demographic was heavily biased towards early-career scientists, post-docs, and students (Fig. 2). Biophysical Reviews organized two early-morning sessions, one of which was an editorial board meeting whilst the other was open to all interested parties and represented an opportunity to promote the journal within the community. The IUPAB held its general assembly on the 6th of October. Manuel Prieto formally took over as President with Marcelo Morales stepping down but continuing as a council member in the role of immediate Past President. Tony Watts becomes the new President Elect.Open in a separate windowFig. 2The distribution of participants according to their stage in the careerDespite the challenges of organizing a widely diverse international event online, we came away with the feeling of a mission accomplished and the hope that we will be able to meet up in person in the very near future. From the extremely high standard of the presentations and the overall satisfaction of the participants, we think it can be considered to have been a success. See you all in Kyoto! 相似文献
Date | General subject area | Invited speaker |
---|---|---|
19th May | Biomimetic Structures and Systems/Multiscale Biophysics of Membranes | Manuel Prieto, Portugal |
26th May | Cell Biophysics and Phase Transition | Clifford Brangwynne, USA |
9th June | Plant biotechnology/Biofuels/Bioenergy | Igor Polikarpov, Brazil |
23rd June | Applications in Biomedical and Materials Science | – |
7th July | Mechanisms of Membrane Protein | Natalie Strynadka, Canada |
21st July | Membrane Permeation: Channels and Transporters | Eduardo Perozo, USA |
4th August | Bioenergetics and Metabolism | Alicia Kowaltowski, Brazil |
18th August | Protein Structure to Function/Structural Biology | Wah Chiu, USA |
1st September | Computational Biophysics and Biochemistry | Ingemar André, Sweden |
15th September | Drug Discovery and Delivery | Fabio Sonvico, Italy |
Title | Chair |
---|---|
Drug design and delivery | Joke Bouwstra (Leiden, Netherlands) |
Protein Structure, Dynamics and Function | Richard Garratt (São Carlos, Brazil) |
Biological Photosensors and their Applications in Optogenetics | Silvia Braslavsky (MPI, Germany) |
Macromolecular Machines and Switching Devices | Alejandro Buschiazzo (Montevideo, Uruguay) |
RSC–Chemical Biology | Randall Peterson (Utah, USA) |
Young Talent in Life Sciences (Cytiva Award) | Juliana Fietto (Viçosa, Brazil) |
Deforming Membranes | Patricia Bassereau (Curie Institute, France) |
Systems Biology and Biomarkers for Human Disorders | Peter Nilson (KTH, Stockholm, Sweden) |
PABMB Symposium: Metabolism and Bioenergetics | Alicia Kowaltowski (São Paulo, Brazil) |
Biophotonics | Georg Wondrak/Martha Ribeiro (Arizona, USA/São Paulo, Brazil) |
Microbiomes: human and environmental | Leda Vieira (Belo Horizonte, Brazil) |
Molecular and Cell Imaging | Paulo Bisch (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) |
Ionic Channels and Membrane Transporters | John Baenziger (Chicago, USA) |
Biomolecular Association and Dynamics | Paul Whitford (Boston, USA) |
Gender in Science | Cristina Nonato/David Crossman (Ribeirão Preto, Brazil/Aukland, New Zealand) |
Protein Folding, Misfolding and Unfolding | Vladimir Uversky (Tampa, USA) |
EBSA Symposium on Translational Biophysics | Anthony Watts/Jesús Pérez-Gil (Oxford, UK/Madrid, Spain) |
Autophagy: Mechanisms and Applications | Marcelo Mori (Campinas, Brazil) |
Membrane Simulation | Mikko Karttunen (Ontario, Canada) |
Systems Biologics: at the interface… | Stephen Michnick (Montreal, Canada) |
IUBMB Symposium: Science Education | Manuel João Costa (U. Minho, Portugal) |
Scissioning Membranes | Rumiana Dimova (Potsdam, Germany) |
Redox Biology | Rafael Radi (Montevideo, Uruguay) |
Biophysics of the Immune System | Jean-Marie Ruysschaert (Brussels, Belgium) |
Speaker | Title |
---|---|
Richard Henderson (LMB, Cambridge) | Impact of Single Particle Cryo-electron Microscopy on Structural Biology |
Carlos Bustamante (University of California, Berkeley) | Co-temporal Force and Fluorescence Measurements Reveal a Ribosomal Gear-shift Mechanism of Translation Regulation by mRNA Secondary Structures |
Giorgio Trinchieri (Center for Cancer Research, NIH, Maryland) | Targeting the microbiome in cancer immunotherapy |
Tao Xu (Chinese Academy of Sciences) | The Bei Shizhang Lecture: Cryogenic superresolution correlative light and electron microscopy on the frontier od subcellular imaging |
Michael Levitt (Stanford) | Lessons from 620 days Studying COVID-19 |
Ohara Augusto (São Paulo) | Carbon Dioxide Redox Metabolites in Eustress and Oxidative Distress |
Ramon Latorre (Valparaíso) | Calcium-driven Voltage Sensingand the role of Charged Residues in the voltage sensor domain of BK |
Angela Gronenborn (Pittsburgh) | The Awesome Power of Fluorine NMR |
Yoav Shechtman (Haifa) | IUPAB Young Investigator Lecture: Next Generation Localization Microscopy—or How and Why to Ruin and Perfectly Good Microscope |
Anthony Watts (Oxford) | Avanti/IUPAB Award Lecture: Lipids are important |
2.
Halyna R Shcherbata 《EMBO reports》2022,23(5)
The Invasion of Ukraine prompts us to support our Ukranian colleagues but also to keep open communication with the Russian scientists who oppose the war. In the eyes of the civilized world, Russia has already lost the war: politically, it is becoming ever more isolated; economically as the sanctions take an enormous toll; militarily as the losses of the Russian army mount. In contrast, the courage of Ukrainian people fighting for their independence has united the Western world that is providing enormous support for those Ukrainians who fight the Russian invasion and those who have fled their war‐torn country. Once this war is over, Ukraine will have to heal the wounds of war, reunite families, restore its economy, reestablish infrastructure, and rebuild science and education. Russia will have to restore its dignity and overcome its self‐inflicted isolation.Europe’s unity in condemning Russia’s war of aggression and showing its solidarity with Ukraine has been impressive. This includes not the least welcoming and accommodating millions of refugees. We, the scientific community in Europe, have a moral obligation to help Ukrainian students and colleagues by providing safe space to study and to continue their research. First, European research organizations and funding agencies should develop strategies to support them in the years to come. Second, efforts by EMBO, research funders, universities, and research institutions to support Ukrainian students and scientists are necessary. As a first priority, dedicated and unbureaucratic short‐term scholarship and grant programs are required to accommodate Ukrainian scientists; such programs have been already initiated by many organizations, for example, by EMBO, Volkswagen Stiftung, Max Planck Society, and the ERC among others. These help Ukrainian scientists to stay connected to research and become integrated into the European research landscape. In the long‐term and after the war, this aid should be complemented by funding for research centers of excellence in Ukraine, to which scientists could then return.Even though the priority must be to help Ukrainians, we must also think of students and colleagues in Russia who oppose the war and are affected by the sanctions. As the Iron Curtain closes again, we have to think differently about our ongoing and future collaborations. Although freezing most, if not all, research collaborations with official Russian organizations is justified, it would be a mistake to extend these sanctions to all scientists and students. There is already an exodus of Russian and Belarusian scholars, which will only accelerate in the next months and years, and accepting scientists who ask for political asylum will be beneficial for Europe.The fraction of Russian society in open opposition to the war is, unfortunately, smaller than that officially in support of it. At the beginning of the war, a number of Russian scientists published an open letter on the internet, in which they condemn this war (https://t‐invariant.org/2022/02/we‐are‐against‐war/). They clearly state that "The responsibility for unleashing a new war in Europe lies entirely with Russia. There is no rational justification for this war”, and “demand an immediate halt to all military operations directed against Ukraine". At the same time, other prominent Russian science and education officials signed the “Statement of the Russian Union of University Rectors (Provosts)”, which expressed unwavering support for Russia, its president and its Army and their goal to “to achieve demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine and thus to defend ourselves from the ever‐growing military threat” (https://www.rsr‐online.ru/news/2022‐god/obrashchenie‐rossiyskogo‐soyuza‐rektorov1/).Inevitably, Russian scientists must decide themselves how to live and continue their scientific work under the increasingly tight surveillance of the Kremlin regime. History is repeating itself. Not long ago, during the Cold War, Soviet scientists were largely isolated from the international research community and worked in government‐controlled research. In some fields, no one knew what they were working on or where. However, even in those dark times, courageous individuals such as Andrei Sakharov spoke out against the regime and tried to educate the next generation about the importance of free will. Many Soviet geneticists had been arrested under Stalin’s regime of terror and as a result of Lysenkoism and were executed or sent to the Gulag or had to emigrate, such as Nikolaj Timofeev‐Resovskij, one of the great geneticists of his time and an opponent of communism. As a result of sending dissident scientists to Siberia, great educational institutions were created in the region, which trained many famous scientists. History tells us that it is impossible to kill free will and the search for truth.The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a major humanitarian tragedy and a tragedy for science at many levels. Our hope is that the European science community, policymakers, and funders will be prepared to continue and expand support for our colleagues from Ukraine and eventually help to rebuild the bridges with Russian science that have been torn down.This commentary has been endorsed and signed by the EMBO Young Investigators and former Young Investigators listed below. All signatories are current and former EMBO Young Investigators and endorse the statements in this article.
Open in a separate window 相似文献
Igor Adameyko | Karolinska Institut, Stockholm, Sweden |
Bungo Akiyoshi | University of Oxford, United Kingdom |
Leila Akkari | Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands |
Panagiotis Alexiou | Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic |
Hilary Ashe | Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, United Kingdom |
Michalis Averof | Institut de Génomique Fonctionnelle de Lyon (IGFL), France |
Katarzyna Bandyra | University of Warsaw, Poland |
Cyril Barinka | Institute of Biotechnology AS CR, Prague, Czech Republic |
Frédéric Berger | Gregor Mendel Institute of Molecular Plant Biology, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria |
Vitezslav Bryja | Institute of Experimental Biology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic |
Janusz Bujnicki | International Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, Warsaw, Poland |
Björn Burmann | University Gothenburg, Sweden |
Andrew Carter | MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kingdom |
Pedro Carvalho | Sir William Dunn School of Pathology University of Oxford, United Kingdom |
Ayse Koca Caydasi | Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey |
Hsu‐Wen Chao | Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan |
Jeffrey Chao | Friedrich Miescher Institute, Basel, Switzerland |
Alan Cheung | University of Bristol, United Kingdom |
Tim Clausen | Research Institute for Molecular Pathology (IMP), Vienna, Austria |
Maria Luisa Cochella | The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, USA |
Francisco Cubillos | Santiago de Chile, University, Chile |
Uri Ben‐David | Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel |
Sebastian Deindl | Uppsala University, Sweden |
Pierre‐Marc Delaux | Laboratoire de Recherche en Sciences Végétales, Castanet‐Tolosan, France |
Christophe Dessimoz | University, Lausanne, Switzerland |
Maria Dominguez | Institute of Neuroscience, CSIC ‐ University Miguel Hernandez, Alicante, Spain |
Anne Donaldson | Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom |
Peter Draber | BIOCEV, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Vestec, Czech Republic |
Xiaoqi Feng | John Innes Centre, Norwich, United Kingdom |
Luisa Figueiredo | Institute of Molecular Medicine, Lisbon, Portugal |
Reto Gassmann | Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology, Porto, Portugal |
Kinga Kamieniarz‐Gdula | Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland |
Roger Geiger | Institute for Research in Biomedicine, Bellinzona, Switzerland |
Niko Geldner | University of Lausanne, Switzerland |
Holger Gerhardt | Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany |
Daniel Wolfram Gerlich | Institute of Molecular Biotechnology (IMBA), Vienna, Austria |
Jesus Gil | MRC Clinical Sciences Centre, Imperial College London, United Kingdom |
Sebastian Glatt | Malopolska Centre of Biotechnology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland |
Edgar Gomes | Institute of Molecular Medicine, Lisbon, Portugal |
Pierre Gönczy | Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research (ISREC), École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland |
Maria Gorna | University of Warsaw, Poland |
Mina Gouti | Max‐Delbrück‐Centrum, Berlin, Germany |
Jerome Gros | Institut Pasteur, Paris, France |
Anja Groth | Biotech Research and Innovation Centre (BRIC), University of Copenhagen, Denmark |
Annika Guse | Centre for Organismal Studies, Heidelberg, Germany |
Ricardo Henriques | Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal |
Eva Hoffmann | Center for Chromosome Stability, University of Copenhagen, Denmark |
Thorsten Hoppe | CECAD at the Institute for Genetics, University of Cologne, Germany |
Yen‐Ping Hsueh | Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan |
Pablo Huertas | Andalusian Molecular Biology and Regenerative Medicine Centre (CABIMER), Seville, Spain |
Matteo Iannacone | IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy |
Alvaro Rada‐Iglesias | Institue of Biomedicine and Biotechnology of Cantabria (IBBTEC) University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain |
Axel Innis | Institut Européen de Chimie et Biologie (IECB), Pessac, France |
Nicola Iovino | MPI für Immunbiologie und Epigenetik, Freiburg, Germany |
Carsten Janke | Institut Curie, France |
Ralf Jansen | Interfaculty Institute for Biochemistry, Eberhard‐Karls‐University Tübingen, Germany |
Sebastian Jessberger | HiFo / Brain Research Institute, University of Zurich, Switzerland |
Martin Jinek | University of Zurich, Switzerland |
Simon Bekker‐Jensen | University, Copenhagen, Denmark |
Nicole Joller | University of Zurich, Switzerland |
Luca Jovine | Department of Biosciences and Nutrition & Center for Biosciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden |
Jan Philipp Junker | Max‐Delbrück‐Centrum, Berlin, Germany |
Anna Karnkowska | University, Warsaw, Poland |
Zuzana Keckesova | Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry AS CR, Prague, Czech Republic |
René Ketting | Institute of Molecular Biology (IMB), Mainz, Germany |
Bruno Klaholz | Institute of Genetics and Molecular and Cellular Biology (IGBMC), University of Strasbourg, Illkirch, France |
Jürgen Knoblich | Institute of Molecular Biotechnology (IMBA), Vienna, Austria |
Taco Kooij | Centre for Molecular Life Sciences, Nijmegen, Netherlands |
Romain Koszul | Institut Pasteur, Paris, France |
Claudine Kraft | Institute for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Universität Freiburg, Germany |
Alena Krejci | Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic |
Lumir Krejci | National Centre for Biomolecular Research (NCBR), Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic |
Arnold Kristjuhan | Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Tartu, Estonia |
Yogesh Kulathu | MRC Protein Phosphorylation & Ubiquitylation Unit, University of Dundee, United Kingdom |
Edmund Kunji | MRC Mitochondrial Biology Unit, Cambridge, United Kingdom |
Karim Labib | MRC Protein Phosphorylation and Ubiquitylation Unit, University of Dundee, United Kingdom |
Thomas Lecuit | Developmental Biology Institute of Marseilles ‐ Luminy (IBDML), France |
Gaëlle Legube | Center for Integrative Biology in Toulouse, Paul Sabatier University, France |
Suewei Lin | Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan |
Ming‐Jung Liu | Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan |
Malcolm Logan | Randall Division of Cell and Molecular Biophysics, King’s College London, United Kingdom |
Massimo Lopes | University of Zurich, Switzerland |
Jan Löwe | Structural Studies Division, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kingdom |
Martijn Luijsterburg | University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands |
Taija Makinen | Uppsala University, Sweden |
Sandrine Etienne‐Manneville | Institut Pasteur, Paris, France |
Miguel Manzanares | Spanish National Center for Cardiovascular Research (CNIC), Madrid, Spain |
Jean‐Christophe Marine | Center for Biology of Disease, Laboratory for Molecular Cancer Biology, VIB & KU Leuven, Belgium |
Sascha Martens | Max F. Perutz Laboratories, University of Vienna, Austria |
Elvira Mass | Universität Bonn, Germany |
Olivier Mathieu | Clermont Université, Aubière, France |
Ivan Matic | Max Planck Institute for Biology of Ageing, Cologne, Germany |
Joao Matos | Max Perutz Laboratories, Vienna, Austria |
Nicholas McGranahan | University College London, United Kingdom |
Hind Medyouf | Georg‐Speyer‐Haus, Frankfurt, Germany |
Patrick Meraldi | University of Geneva, Switzerland |
Marco Milán | ICREA & Institute for Research in Biomedicine (IRB), Barcelona, Spain |
Eric Miska | Wellcome Trust/Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom |
Nuria Montserrat | Institut de Bioenginyeria de Catalunya (IBEC), Barcelona, Spain |
Nuno Barbosa‐Morais | Institute of Molecular Medicine, Lisbon, Portugal |
Antonin Morillon | Institut Curie, Paris, France |
Rafal Mostowy | Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland |
Patrick Müller | University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany |
Miratul Muqit | University of Dundee, United Kigdom |
Poul Nissen | Centre for Structural Biology, Aarhus University, Denmark |
Ellen Nollen | European Research Institute for the Biology of Ageing, University of Groningen, Netherlands |
Marcin Nowotny | International Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, Warsaw, Poland |
John O''Neill | MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kigdom |
Tamer Önder | Koc University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey |
Elin Org | University of Tartu, Estonia |
Nurhan Özlü | Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey |
Bjørn Panyella Pedersen | Aarhus University, Denmark |
Vladimir Pena | London, The Institute of Cancer Research, United Kingdom |
Camilo Perez | Biozentrum, University of Basel, Switzerland |
Antoine Peters | Friedrich Miescher Institute for Biomedical Research (FMI), Basel, Switzerland |
Clemens Plaschka | IMP, Vienna, Austria |
Pavel Plevka | CEITEC, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic |
Hendrik Poeck | Technische Universität, München, , Germany |
Sophie Polo | Université Diderot (Paris 7), Paris, France |
Simona Polo | IFOM ‐ The FIRC Institute of Molecular Oncology, Milan, Italy |
Magdalini Polymenidou | University of Zurich, Switzerland |
Freddy Radtke | Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research (ISREC), École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland |
Markus Ralser | Institute of Biochemistry Charité, Berlin, Germany & MRC National Institute for Medical Research, London, United Kingdom |
Jan Rehwinkel | John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom |
Maria Rescigno | European Institute of Oncology (IEO), Milan, Italy |
Katerina Rohlenova | Prague, Institute of Biotechnology, Czech Republic |
Guadalupe Sabio | Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares (CNIC), Madrid, Spain |
Ana Jesus Garcia Saez | University of Cologne, CECAD Research Center, Germany |
Iris Salecker | Institut de Biologie de l''Ecole Normale Supérieure (IBENS), Paris, France |
Peter Sarkies | University of Oxford, United Kingdom |
Frédéric Saudou | Grenoble Institute of Neuroscience, France |
Timothy Saunders | Centre for Mechanochemical Cell Biology, Interdisciplinary Biomedical Research Building, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, United Kingdom |
Orlando D. Schärer | IBS Center for Genomic Integrity, Ulsan, South Korea |
Arp Schnittger | Biozentrum Klein Flottbek, University of Hamburg, Germnay |
Frank Schnorrer | Aix Marseille University, CNRS, IBDM, Turing Centre for Living Systems, Marseille, France |
Maya Schuldiner | Department of Molecular Genetics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel |
Schraga Schwartz | Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel |
Martin Schwarzer | Institute of Microbiology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic |
Claus Maria | Instituto de Medicina Molecular Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal |
Hayley Sharpe | The Babraham Institute, United Kingdom |
Halyna Shcherbata | Institute of Cell Biochemistry, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany |
Eric So | Department of Haematological Medicine, King''s College London, United Kingdom |
Victor Sourjik | Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology, Marburg, Germany |
Anne Spang | Biozentrum, University of Basel, Switzerland |
Irina Stancheva | Institute of Cell Biology, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom |
Bas van Steensel | Department of Gene Regulation, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands |
Richard Stefl | CEITEC, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic |
Yonatan Stelzer | Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel |
Julian Stingele | Ludwig‐Maximilians‐Universität, München, Germany |
Katja Sträßer | Institute for Biochemistry, University of Giessen, Germany |
Kvido Strisovsky | Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry ASCR, Prague, Czech Republic |
Joanna Sulkowska | University, Warsaw, Poland |
Grzegorz Sumara | Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology, Warsaw, Poland |
Karolina Szczepanowska | International Institute Molecular Mechanisms & Machines PAS, Warsaw, Poland |
Luca Tamagnone | Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment, University of Torino Medical School, Italy |
Meng How Tan | Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore |
Nicolas Tapon | Cancer Research UK London Research Institute, United Kingdom |
Nicholas M. I. Taylor | University, Copenhagen, Denmark |
Sven Van Teeffelen | Université de Montréal, Canada |
Maria Teresa Teixeira | Laboratory of Molecular and Cellular Biology of Eukaryotes, IBPC, Paris, France |
Aurelio Teleman | German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany |
Pascal Therond | Institute Valrose Biology, University of Nice‐Sophia Antipolis, France |
Pavel Tolar | University College London, United Kingdom |
Isheng Jason Tsai | Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan |
Helle Ulrich | Institute of Molecular Biology (IMB), Mainz, Germany |
Stepanka Vanacova | Central European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic |
Henrique Veiga‐Fernandes | Champalimaud Center for the Unknown, Lisboa, Portugal |
Marc Veldhoen | Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Lisbon, Portugal |
Louis Vermeulen | Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands |
Uwe Vinkemeier | University of Nottingham Medical School, United Kingdom |
Helen Walden | MRC Protein Phosphorylation & Ubiquitylation Unit, University of Dundee, United Kingdom |
Michal Wandel | Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, PAS, Warsaw, Poland |
Julie Welburn | Wellcome Trust Centre, Edinburgh, United Kingdom |
Ervin Welker | Institute of Biochemistry, Biological Research Center of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Szeged, Hungary |
Gerhard Wingender | Izmir Biomedicine and Genome Center, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey |
Thomas Wollert | Institute Pasteur, Membrane Biochemistry and Transport, Centre François Jacob, Paris, France |
Hyun Youk | University of Massachusetts Medical School, USA |
Christoph Zechner | MPI für molekulare Zellbiologie und Genetik, Dresden, Germany |
Philip Zegerman | Wellcome Trust / Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom |
Alena Ziková | Institute of Parasitology, Biology Centre AS CR, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic |
Piotr Ziolkowski | Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland |
David Zwicker | MPI für Dynamik und Selbstorganisation, Göttingen, Germany |
3.
The Norway spruce genome provides key insights into the evolution of plant genomes, leading to testable new hypotheses about conifer, gymnosperm, and vascular plant evolution.In the past year a burst of plant genome sequences have been published, providing enhanced phylogenetic coverage of green plants (Figure (Figure1)1) and inclusion of new agricultural, ecological, and evolutionary models. Collectively, these sequences are revealing some extraordinary structural and evolutionary attributes in plant genomes. Perhaps most surprising is the exceptionally high frequency of whole-genome duplication (WGD): nearly every genome that has been analyzed has borne the signature of one or more WGDs, with particularly notable events having occurred in the common ancestors of seed plants, of angiosperms, and of core eudicots (the latter ''WGD'' represents two WGDs in close succession) [1,2]. Given this tendency for plant genomes to duplicate and then return to an essentially diploid genetic system (an example is the cotton genomes, which have accumulated the effects of perhaps 15 WGDs [3]), the conservation of genomes in terms of gene number, chromosomal organization, and gene content is astonishing. From the publication of the first plant genome, Arabidopsis thaliana [4], the number of inferred genes has been between 25,000 and 30,000, with many gene families shared across all land plants, although the number of members and patterns of expansion and contraction vary. Furthermore, conserved synteny has been detected across the genomes of diverse angiosperms, despite WGDs, diploidization, and millions of years of evolution.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Simplified phylogeny of land plants, showing major clades and their component lineages. Asterisks indicate species (or lineage) for which whole-genome sequence (or sequences) is (are) available. Increases and decreases in genome size are shown by arrows.Despite the proliferation of genome sequences available for angiosperms, genome-level data for both ferns (and their relatives, collectively termed monilophytes; Figure Figure1)1) and gymnosperms have been conspicuously lacking - until recently, with the publication of the genome sequence of the gymnosperm Norway spruce (Picea abies) [5]. The large genome sizes for both monilophytes and gymnosperms have discouraged attempts at genome sequencing and assembly, whereas the smaller genome size of angiosperms has resulted in more genome sequences being available (Table (Table1)1) [6]. Because of this limited phylogenetic sample, our understanding of the timing and phylogenetic positions of WGDs, the core number of plant genes, possible conserved syntenic regions, and patterns of expansion and contraction of gene families across both tracheophytes (vascular plants) and across all land plants is imperfect. This sampling problem is particularly acute in analyses of the genes and genomes of seed plants; many hundreds of genes are present in angiosperms that are not present in mosses or lycophytes, but whether these genes arose in the common ancestor of seed plants or of angiosperms cannot be determined without a gymnosperm genome sequence. The Norway spruce genome therefore offers tremendous power, not only for understanding the structure and evolution of conifer genomes, but also as a reference for interpreting gene and genome evolution in angiosperms.
Open in a separate windown/a, not applicable. Data based on [6]. 相似文献
Table 1
Genome sizes in land plantsLineage | Range (1C; pg) | Mean |
---|---|---|
Gymnosperms | ||
Conifers | ||
Pinaceae | 9.5-36.0 | 23.7 |
Cupressaceae | 8.3-32.1 | 12.8 |
Sciadopitys | 20.8 | n/a |
Gnetales | ||
Ephedraceae | 8.9-15.7 | 8.9 |
Gnetaceae | 2.3-4.0 | 2.3 |
Cycadaceae | 12.6-14.8 | 13.4 |
Ginkgo biloba | 11.75 | n/a |
Monilophytes | ||
Ophioglossaceae | 10.2-65.6 | 31.05 |
Equisetaceae | 12.9-304 | 22.0 |
Psilotum | 72.7 | n/a |
Leptosporangiate ferns | ||
Polypodiaceae | 7.5-19.7 | 7.5 |
Aspleniaceae | 4.1-9.1 | 6.2 |
Athyriaceae | 6.3-9.3 | 7.6 |
Dryopteridaceae | 6.8-23.6 | 11.7 |
Water ferns | ||
Azolla | 0.77 | n/a |
Angiosperms | ||
Oryza sativa | 0.50 | n/a |
Amborella trichopoda | 0.89 | n/a |
Arabidopsis thaliana | 0.16 | n/a |
Zea mays | 2.73 | n/a |
4.