constituent society of faseb american society for ... · pdf filea message from asbmb’s...

A Message from ASBMB’s New President

Judith S. Bond

A M E R I C A N S O C I E T Y F O R B I O C H E M I S T R Y A N D M O L E C U L A R B I O L O G Y

w w w . a s b m b . o r gJ U LY 2004J U LY 2004

Constituent Society of FASEB


ASBMB Sponsors UNConference on Cloning

Page 2

Report Finds BrighterProspects For Biotech

Page 20

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE

ASBMB Sponsors UNConference on Cloning

Page 2

Report Finds BrighterProspects For Biotech

Page 20

A Message from ASBMB’s New President

Judith S. Bondsee 2

BIOPOLYMERSThe Biospectroscopy and Nucleic Acid Sciences sections are now fully inte-grated into Biopolymers to present a unified publication. Biospectroscopyand nucleic acid science articles will appear regularly in issues ofBiopolymers. This truly international journal publishes original research paperson the structure, properties, interactions and assemblies of biomolecules.Biopolymers covers organic and physical chemistry, experimental and theo-retical research, and static and dynamic aspects of structure. Papers fromworld-renowned laboratories offer the latest research on the developmentof experimental and theoretical studies of the structure of biologically signifi-cant molecules.

PEPTIDE SCIENCEThroughout her distinguished career, Dr. Lila Gierasch, the new Editor ofPeptide Science, has used biophysical approaches to explore the relation-ship between amino acid sequence and preferred conformations of peptidesand proteins, with an emphasis on the impact of a cellular environment.Current thrusts of her work are the mechanism of folding of a class of pre-dominantly ß-sheet proteins, the structure and function of Hsp-70 molecularchaperones, and the roles of signal sequences in protein targeting. She haseffectively utilized synthetic peptides to dissect and probe complex biologi-cal systems.

Peptide Science is the sole affiliate Journal of the American Peptide Society.This section of Biopolymers is designed to provide a forum for current topics inpeptide research and to publish articles that correlate research resultsbetween the subdisciplines of the peptide sciences. Peptide Science willcontinue to publish reviews on “Current Trends in Peptide Sciences” as well asoriginal research papers.

ONLINE SUBMISSION AND PEER REVIEW SYSTEM FOR AUTHORS

BIOPOLYMERS and PEPTIDE SCIENCE— ONLINE SUBMISSION AND PEER REVIEW!

PEPTIDE SCIENCE — NEW EDITOR!

In taking a step toward facilitating seamless international schol-arly communication, Biopolymers and Peptide Science offerweb-based submission and peer review. This process makes iteasier than ever for you to submit a paper to the Journals.

For detailed instructions, visit:

Biopolymers: bip-wiley.manuscriptcentral.com

Peptide Science: bip-pep-wiley.manuscriptcentral.com

When submitting Biopolymers manuscripts online, authors willalso have the opportunity to designate one of the BiopolymersEditorial Board Members or Biospectroscopy Editors to man-age the peer review process of their manuscript.

PRESENTING A NEW UNIFIED BIOPOLYMERS

www.interscience.wiley.com

BIOPOLYMERS EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Murray GoodmanDepartment of Chemistry

and BiochemistryThe University of California,

San Diego6223 Pacific Hall

La Jolla, California [email protected]

PEPTIDE SCIENCE EDITOR

Lila M. GieraschDepartment of Biochemistry

and Molecular BiologyUniversity of Massachusetts713G Lederle GRC Tower B

Amherst, MA [email protected]

f e a t u r e s2 ASBMB Sponsors UN Conference on Human Cloning

4 House Appropriations Process Begins

6 Research!America Promotes Investment in Science

8 Top Institutions Receiving NIH Awards

9 Staying on the Path; One Atom at a Time

10 New Research at UNC

11 Views from IUBMB/ASBMB

16 Insulin-Producing Pancreatic CellsReplenished by Duplication

18 New Spin on Spirochetes

20 Report Finds Brighter Prospects for Biotech

d e p a r t m e n t s4 News From the Hill

8 NIH News

20 Biotech Business

24 Calendar


w w w . a s b m b . o r g

O N T H E C O V E R :

12 A Message FromASBMB’s NewPresident

9

JULY 2004, Volume 3, Issue 4

16

BRONZE AWARD WINNER 2003

ASBMBToday JULY 20042

he Genetics Policy Institute(GPI) hosted a conference onstem cell research to openly

discuss the repercussion of an interna-tional ban on therapeutic cloning andto draw a clear distinction betweencloning of human beings (reproductivecloning) vs this potential life-savingmethodology of therapeutic cloning.The meeting was organized by lawyerBernard Segal, Executive Director ofGPI, who succeeded in bringing someof the world’s most renown investiga-tors on this topic to New York for thislandmark meeting on June 2, 2004. “AUN vote to ban this important scien-tific research would be tragic andwould destroy the hopes of millionssuffering from Alzheimer’s, diabetes,cancer , spinal cord injuries, heart dis-ease, ALS, and other devastating condi-tions for which no cure is known,” saidSegal. Christopher Reeve addressed thegathering via a taped commentary andurged everyone to do everything possi-ble to support stem cell research and topersuade the UN not to prohibit thisvital area of research.

I attended the one-day meeting forPresident Bettie Sue Masters, who wasunable to participate. ASBMB was rec-ognized as one of the sponsors of thismeeting which featured speakers suchas “Dolly” cloner Ian Wilmut, of theRoslin Institute in the United King-dom, Shin-Yong Moon and Woo SukHwang of Seoul National University inthe Republic of Korea. The latter twoinvestigators were the first to clone ahuman embryo and to legitimize theapplication of somatic nuclear transfer(SCNT) for the production of humanstem cells to use to successfully repair

spinal chord injury. Speakers from theU.S. included Gerald D. Fischbachfrom Columbia University, who servedas moderator; Rudolf Jaenisch, White-head Institute, whose research has res-cued mice with genetic defectsthrough therapeutic cloning and genetherapy; Douglas A. Melton, Harvard, anoted authority on stem cell technol-ogy; Camillo Rocordi of the DiabetesInstitute, University of Florida; JohnWagner of the University of Min-nesota; and William Dalton Dietrich,Miami Project to Cure Paralysis,Uni-versity of Miami School of Medicine.Other U.S. speakers included LawrenceS. B. Goldstein, UC San Diego, a veryactive member of the American Societyfor Cell Biology in the science policyarena, who presented an excellentoverview of human cloning and stemcell biology at the opening of the con-ference; and Dr. Gerald Schatten ofthe University of Pittsburgh School ofMedicine who is recognized interna-tionally for his work on primate repro-duction and stem cell technology.

This was, by far, the most effectivepublic policy forum on stem cells that Ihave attended and the programattracted world-wide participation.Speakers were factual, but careful not toover-sell this promising technology.Each speaker was especially cautious todefine SCNT and stem cell methodologyaccurately, and to state clearly that legiti-mate scientists around the world aretotally and unequivocally opposed toreproductive cloning of human babies.On the positive side, with the remark-able findings by the Koreans, the genie isout of the bottle–SCNT and stem cells,

T

AS BM B Sponsors United Nat ionsConference on ‘Human CloningIssues in All i ts Aspects’

By W i l l i am R . Br ink ley, Ph .D . , Cha ir, Pub l i c A f fa i rs Adv isory Commit tee , ASBMB

A S B M B C o u n c i l

OfficersJudith S. Bond PresidentBettie Sue Masters Past-PresidentPeggy J. Farnham SecretaryKenneth E. Neet Treasurer

Council MembersThomas Blumenthal CouncilorWilliam R. Brinkley CouncilorJoan W. Conaway CouncilorRobert A. Copeland CouncilorLila M. Gierasch CouncilorFrederick P. Guengerich CouncilorWilliam J. Lennarz CouncilorPeter J. Parker Councilor William S. Sly CouncilorWilliam L. Smith Councilor

Ex-Officio MembersGeorge M. CarmanChair, Meetings CommitteeCecile Rochette-EglyDennis R. VoelkerCo-chairs, 2005 Program CommitteeJ. Ellis BellChair, Education and ProfessionalDevelopment CommitteeWilliam R. BrinkleyChair, Public Affairs Advisory CommitteePeter A. RubensteinChair, Publications CommitteePhillip A. OrtizChair, Minority Affairs CommitteeHerbert TaborEditor, JBCRalph A. BradshawEditor, MCPEdward A. DennisEditor, JLR

ASBMB Todayis a monthly publication

of The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

Editorial Advisory BoardIrwin FridovichRichard W. HansonBettie Sue MastersEvan J. SadlerRobert D. Wells

CommentsPlease direct any comments or questionsconcerning ASBMB Today to:

John D. ThompsonEditor, ASBMB Today9650 Rockville PikeBethesda, MD 20814-3996Phone: 301-634-7145; Fax: 301-634-7126E-mail: [email protected]

For information on advertising contact FASEB AdNet at 800-433-2732

ext. 7157 or 301-634-7157, or email [email protected]. Continued on page 4

I S EI S E P r e s e n t s TP r e s e n t s T w o N e w E v e n t s F o r 2 0 0 4 !w o N e w E v e n t s F o r 2 0 0 4 !

C B A - 2 0 0 4C B A - 2 0 0 4

1 s t I n t e r n a1 s t I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e o n C e l l B a s e dt i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e o n C e l l B a s e d

A s s aA s s a y s f o r D r u g D i s c o v e ry s f o r D r u g D i s c o v e r y & D e v e l o p m e n t :y & D e v e l o p m e n t :

App l i c at i o ns o f Pr imary C e l l Cu l t ur e s , Eng i n e e r e d C e l l s , andH i gh Throughpu t Approach e s f or th e Drug E f f i c a cy, Me t abo l i sm ,

and Tox i c i t y Eva luat i o n

Sep t ember 20-2 1 , 2004

Renaissance Philadelphia Hotel Airport; Philadelphia, PA, USA

I S E TI S E T r a i n i n g C o u r s e s i n D r u gr a i n i n g C o u r s e s i n D r u g

D e v e l o p m e n tD e v e l o p m e n t

D r . C h r i s t o p h e r A . L i p i n s k iAdjunc t S en i o r Res e arch Fe l l ow, P f i z e r G loba l R&D, Gro ton

New London Labs (Gro ton , CT )D r . A l b e r t P. L i

Found i n g Cha i rman , Pr e s i d e n t & CEO ; Advanc ed Pharmac eu t i c a lSc i e n c e s , I n c . (Ba l t i mor e , MD)

Augus t 5 -6 , 2004

San Francisco Marriott Hotel; San Francisco, CA, USA

Monday, SSeptember 220, 22004

Session 1: Primary andEngineered Cell Systems

Chairs: AAlbert PP. LLi aand AAlanM. GGoldberg

•Keynote Lecture: TheImportance of Cell BasedAssays in BiomedicalResearch (Alan MM. GGoldberg,Department of EnvironmentalHealth Sciences; Baltimore,MD)

•A Novel In Vitro AngiogenesisAssay Suitable for Drug-Screening (Chris CC.W.Hughes, University ofCalifornia, Irvine; Irvine, CA)

•Assays for AdipocyteDifferentiation and Function(Lucas AArmstrong, ChemiconInternational, Inc. Temecula,CA)

•Utilization of P-glycoproteinTransport Assay in CNS DrugDiscovery (Liyue HHuang,AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE)

•Establishment of SAR to facil-itate the development ofdrugs with high potential forCNS penetration (Jerome HHHochman; Merck and Co.;West Point, PA)

•Ion ConductanceMicroscope for Locating andStudying Ion Channels andReceptors in SurfaceMembranes of Living Cells(Yuri KKorchev, ImperialCollege; London, UK)

•Integrated Multiple OrganCulture System (IdMOC) - ACell-Based Assay for theEvaluation of Multiple OrganEffects (Albert PP. LLi, Ph. D.,Advanced PharmaceuticalSciences, Inc., Baltimore, MD)

Tuesday, SSeptember 221, 22004

Session 2: High ThroughputScreening Approaches

Chairs: TThomas FFletcher aandSerguei VV. KKozlov

•Managing Cell-based Assayswith Flow Cytometry (John FFDunne, BD Biosciences SanJose, CA)

•Ultra-High Throughput Cell-Based Assays for Liver XReceptors (Lyndon JJ. MMitnaul,Merck and Company; Rahway,NJ)

•Cell-Based ScreeningAssays for Compounds WhichInduce Apoptosis or Disruptthe Cell Cycle (Dianne MM.Fishwild; Guava TechnologiesInc.; Hayward, CA)

•Antiviral Discovery for SARS -Rapid Development andExecution of Cell-Based HTSScreening in Response to anEmerging Pathogen Outbreak(Thomas MM. FFletcher IIII;Southern Research Institute;Birmingham, AL)

•Proteome-Wide HighThroughput Cell-Based Assayfor Activators of NFkB (HansBiebuyck, JJohn KKenten,Stefanie NNelson, JJohn JJoern,Pankaj OOberoi, aand JJacobWohlstadter; Meso ScaleDiscovery; Gaithersburg, MD)

•In "Coopetition" with NF-kB:Development of AnalyticalTools for Rapid Assessment ofInflammatory [Potential of TestSubstances (Serguei VV.Kozlov, National CancerInstitute at Frederick,Frederick, MD)

•Development of Calcium-Based Assays for Screeningand Characterization ofGABA-A Receptor Modulators(Tino DD. JJorgensen,NeuroSearch A/S; Ballerup,Denmark)

Thursday, AAugust 55, 22004

Physical and Chemical CompoundProperties in Drug Discovery

Dr. CChristopher AA. LLipinski

Length of Lecture: 1 day

Course syllabus:

•Definition of chemistry physicaland chemical compound prop-erties. Current status of com-pound properties; comparisonto drugs: Cost, time, and chal-lenges.

•Quality chemical structures indrug discovery.

•Medicinal chemistry and thechemistry structure--Structural features to avoid--Solving problems usingbioisosteres ---Structural features to include--Privileged structures, molecu-lar anchors, masterkeys

•Solubility--Importance of aqueous andDMSO solubility--Computational and experi-mental approaches to solubility--Compound handling, storageand when to change the chem-istry isolation procedure

•Permeability--GI and blood brain permeabil-ity - how it depends on thechemical structure--Computational and experi-mental approaches to permabil-ity--How chemistry can improvepermeability

•Chemistry structure and thediscovery process--Chemistry and HTS screeningerrors --Lead-like versus drug-like--Hit to lead and lead optimization chemistry

•Summary of lecture and opendiscussion.

Friday, AAugust 66, 22004

In Vitro Evaluation of ADMETDrug Properties

Dr. AAlbert PP. LLi

Length of Lecture: 1 day

Course syllabus:

•Definition of ADMET. Currentstatus of drug development:Cost, time, and challenges.

•Role of in vitro ADMET systemsin drug development.

•Evaluation of drug absorption--Mechanisms of drug absorp-tion--Cell-based systems for drugabsorption--Artificial membrane systems

•Drug metabolism--Drug metabolizing enzymes--Metabolic stability evaluation--Metabolite identification--Species comparison

•Drug-drug interactions--Examples of drug-drug inter-actions--Enzyme inhibition--Enzyme induction--Transporter-based drug inter-actions

•Toxicity screening--Examples of toxic drugs andtoxic mechanisms--Screening for acute drug toxi-city including general cytotoxic-ity, hepatotoxicity, neurotoxicity,and cardiotoxicity--Genotoxicity evaluation--Toxicogenomics

•Summary of lecture and opendiscussion

P h o n e : ( 4 1 0 ) 8 6 9 - 9 1 6 6 E m a i l : N o l a@ I s c i e n c e x . c o m

Please visit us at www.Isciencex.com for program and registration detailswww. ISEbooks . c om - -Your On l i n e Sc i e n c e Book So lu t i o n

JJ oo ii nn UU ss FF oo rr AA nn yy TTww oo II SS EE EE vv ee nn tt ss AA nn dd RR ee cc ee ii vv ee AA DD ii ss cc oo uu nn tt !!

N E W S F R O M T H E H I L L


budget resolution sets overall spendingpriorities, and the total budget isdivided into several broad categories—mandatory spending (that required bylaw); interest on the national debt; anddiscretionary spending. Discretionaryspending is further divided intodefense and non-defense discretionaryspending.

The total amount of discretionaryspending available under the budgetresolution is then divided up amongthe 13 appropriations sucommittees.

In practice, Congress’ actually stick-ing to this schedule is very rare; it hashappened only twice in the last 20 orso years. This year is no different.While both House and Senate havecompleted work on budget resolutions,there is no progress on setting up aconference, and the spending goalsand amounts for programs containedin the two resolutions are quite differ-ent. The numbers below are from theHouse budget resolution. As of thiswriting, the Senate had not divideddiscretionary spending among its sub-committees.

House A l locat ions The two subcommittees we are most

interested in—Labor/HHS (whichfunds NIH), and VA/HUD (whichfunds NSF), both got slightly morethan the President had asked for lastspring.

Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH) chairs theHouse Appropriations Subcommitteeon Labor/HHS and that subcommitteegot only about $300 million morethan the President’s request, for a totalof about $142.3 billion. This smallamount of additional money probablygives Regula the room he needs to

fund NIH at the President’s requestlevel ($729 million above last year).Thus, is it quite unlikely, without alast-minute infusion of new moneyfrom somewhere, that NIH will domuch better than the President’srequest level this year, as far as theHouse is concerned.

Regarding the VA/HUD subcommit-tee allocation, it got $92.9 billion,about $800 million more than thePresident had asked for. However, thisallocation does not begin to addresswhat is needed in this large and diversebill. Subcommittee Republicansbelieve they need at least $4 billionabove the President’s request, but sub-committee Democrats think the figureneeded is actually more like $7 billion.Of course, this means that theNational Science Foundation is proba-bly going to get squeezed, as VA med-ical care is short about $1.2 billion ofwhat is needed to make it whole thisyear.

Thus, barring some surprises—always possible in an election year—itis likely that we are in for more con-tentious times when Congress beginsseriously grappling with appropria-tions (not expected until after LaborDay).

A brief footnote on NIH—in the Sen-ate, there is some hope that SenatorArlen Specter (who chairs the SenateAppropriations Subcommittee onLabor/HHS) might be able to improveon the President’s number, but unlesshe gets a better allocation than Rep.Regula got, this is probably a reach. Itis unlikely, however, that SenatorSpecter will be able to do much betterthan $1 billion over FY 2004 for NIH,about a 3% increase.

fter weeks of partisan wran-gling, the House Appropria-tions Committee released its

302(b) allocations on June 2. Unfortu-nately, the news is not very good. Itappears as though the best theNational Institutes of Health canexpect this year is something along thelines of the President’s budget requestfor the agency, that is, about $729 mil-lion, a 2.6% increase over FY 2004.Prospects for the National ScienceFoundation are even more grim.

In theory, under the annual budgetprocess, the House and Senate weresupposed to have completed work on abudget resolution by May 15. The

House Appropriat ions Process Beg insA

by Peter Farnham , CAE , ASBMB Pub l i c A f fa i rs O f ficer

derived from left-over human embryosdestined to be frozen or discarded, canbe used to repair damaged cells and tis-sues and potentially cure many of theworld’s most daunting and horrific dis-eases. UN resolution 56/93 of December12, 2001, from the Ad Hoc Committeeto consider prohibition of all forms ofhuman cloning, including therapeuticcloning, will potentially close the doorto future medical research involving thistechnology.

The time has come for scientists,especially members of ASBMB, to pickup the gauntlet and define and defenda technology that promises to end suf-fering and provide hope for all human-ity; the United Nations is a good placeto start. Support a ban on reproductivecloning but oppose the Costa Ricanproposal to ban therapeutic cloning. Atthe same time, we must carry the mes-sage to our various state legislatures.

Continued from page 2

U N cont inued …

JULY 2004 ASBMBToday 5

administration was actively engagedin battling the Soviet Union in a vari-ety of Third World hotspots fromAfghanistan to Africa and CentralAmerica. As part of the same strategyof active opposition and confronta-tion, the Reagan administrationlaunched major efforts to restrict for-eign access to U.S. technology. Thescientific community worked veryhard to carve out basic research as anarea where such restrictions wouldnot be put in place since sciencecould only advance effectively if basicresearch was freely and openly avail-able. The result of the science com-munity’s lobbying was the seeminglybenign directive cited above.

The Bush Administration noted inNovember 2001 that it continues tosupport this policy and will ensure thatit is followed. Unfortunately, this assur-ance is not as helpful as initiallythought, since the last seven words ofthe directive—“except as provided inapplicable U.S. statutes”—have becomea key tool for the imposition of restric-tions on basic research (in seemingcontrast to the clear language of thedirective) in the post-9/11 era.

It turns out that a number of federalagencies are using “applicable U.S.statutes” to restrict publication or for-eign student access to research pro-duced under certain contracts, andthe practice is growing. The task forcereport notes that at least 105 researchawards include language that restrictspublication of results or the access offoreign nationals to the research.While many of these restrictions arefound in Department of Defense con-tracts (as might be expected), a wide

variety of federal agencies, includingthe National Science Foundation andthe Department of Health andHuman Services, also include suchrestrictions in at least some of theircontracts.

The problems for academic researchare several. First, the Department ofDefense, for example, often requiresthat contractors not disseminate anyunclassified information generated bythe contract to anyone outside thecontractor’s organization. This meansthat unclassified work cannot be pub-lished in an open journal. Further,industrial contractors sometimes sub-contract work to universities, and rou-tinely include such restrictions in thesubcontract to the university if thecompany has to comply with therestriction itself.

However, it is not jut companiespassing along such restrictions.Depending on the research involved,the DoD sometimes requires universi-ties to comply with this languagewhen they are the contractors. A fewuniversities have turned down con-tracts containing this language. How-ever, most have not.

A second problem is related to stu-dents at universities. Thousands offoreign nationals study science andengineering at American universities,and if a researcher has a contract thatrestricts foreign student access tounclassified information generatedfrom the work, the researcher couldbe in a situation where one studentcould work on the project, butanother student sitting beside thefirst could not.

Reagan-era national securitydirective, hailed at the time asa major victory for science, is

looking considerably less helpfulalmost 20 years after it was issued. Thisis the main message of a reportreleased recently by the Association ofAmerican Universities and the Councilon Government Relations. The report,called “Restrictions on ResearchAwards: Troublesome Clauses,” notesvarious restrictions included inresearch contracts between a variety ofgovernment agencies and universitiesbecause of a seven-word clause inNational Security Decision Directive189, issued in September 1985.

NSDD 189 was a policy statementindicating that “to the maximumextent possible,” the Reagan adminis-tration’s policy was not to restrict dis-semination of the products offundamental research. “It is also thepolicy of this Administration that,where the national security requirescontrol, the mechanism for controlof [research] information…is classifi-cation.” The directive went on toinstruct federal agencies on how todetermine if a research projectneeded to be classified, and endedwith the following statement: “Norestriction may be placed upon theconduct or reporting of federallyfunded fundamental research thathas not received national securityclassification, except as provided inapplicable U.S. statutes.”

This statement was widely praisedat the time by most of the scientificcommunity as a major victory forfreedom of scientific communication.You may recall the era—the Reagan

Troublesome Clauses: The Importance of Seven Wordsby Peter Farnham , CAE , ASBMB Pub l i c A f fa i rs O f ficer

A

Continued on next page


first century, scientific discoveriesaffect how we live, how we work, howwe communicate with the worldaround us. Yet scientists did not setout to develop many of these nowvital technologies. The history of sci-ence is rich in stories of how thestudy of very abstract concepts gaverise to unanticipated major techno-logical advances. In the 1600s, Isaac

Newton questioned why objectsmove and the best way to describetheir motion. He introduced a newand abstract concept called gravityand pondered how it could reachacross space, even to the planets andstars. His questions became key tomechanical engineering, the use ofsatellite observatories, the under-standing of the geology of our planetand to flight.

The most powerful, yet non-inva-sive, diagnostic tools of the twenty-first century provide doctorsimmediate access to detailed images oftheir patients’ bodies. Scientists didnot set out to invent MRI, it emergedby applying knowledge learnedthrough our commitment to fundbasic scientific exploration. Whatbegan as solely laboratory based phe-nomena evolved into the invention ofnew tools for the diagnosis and treat-ment of disease. Today, magnetic reso-nance imaging (MRI) scans are able tolook at the size and shape of organsand body structures, allowing doctorsto identify strokes, soft tissue injuriesand tumors quickly and prepare amedical response.

A S B M B i s a s u p p o r t e r o fResearch!America.

his spring, Research!America,in partnership with the Uni-versities Research Associa-

tion, Inc., and the Science Coalition,launched an advertising campaign topromote the importance of invest-ment in the basic science. The campaign consisted of ads in theWashington Post, a medium selectedbecause it is considered a must read byWashington policy makers. The themeof the advertising was:

Research in Basic Science BringsInnovations That Improve Our Lives… like MRI. Science is an importantinvestment for America, even whengovernment resources are scarce.

The ads noted that in the twenty-

T

Research!America Ads PromoteInvestment in Science

Obviously, in an academic setting,restrictions on publication and foreignaccess to otherwise unclassifiedresearch findings are unfair, impracti-cal, and not helpful to the advance-ment of science.

The AAU/COGR report thereforerecommends that agencies “adhere tothe spirit” of NSDD 189 and “notimpose publication and foreignnational restrictions” in research con-tracts. The report also recommendsthat a distinction be drawn betweenbasic, fundamental research such asthat typically done at universities,and the developmental and commer-cialization work typically done in

industry. Further, industry should beinstructed in these distinctions, andtold they are not required to passalong restrictions that they must dealwith when they subcontract work touniversities (if the work is basic innature).

The AAU/COGR report can be foundat: www.aau.edu/research/Rpt4.8.04.pdf

The ASBMB Public Affairs AdvisoryCommittee and staff is monitoringthis little noticed problem, and wouldappreciate any information or com-ments that researchers reading thisarticle may have on the issue. Pleasecontact the Society’s public affairs officer, Peter Farnham, at [email protected]

Continued from page 5

Troublesome Clauses cont inued …

A N N U A L R E V I E W SNonprofit Publisher of the Annual Review of ™ Series

Call toll free (US/Canada): 800.523.8635

Call worldwide: 650.493.4400

Fax: 650.424.0910 Email: [email protected]

www.annualreviews.org

Contact Annual Reviews for institutional pricing and site license options.

The Annual Review of Biochemistry, in publication since 1932, covers the significant developments in Biochemistry including DNA and RNA chemistry and structure; DNArepair, modifications, replication, and methodology; RNA transcription and gene regulation; enzymes and binding proteins; membrane protein structure and function; enzymol-ogy; the biochemistry of carbohydrates, lipids and other biomolecules; signal transduction; cellular biochemistry and organismal biochemistry as it relates to development, dif-ferentiation, molecular physiology, and nutritional biochemistry; biochemical basis of disease and immunochemistry.

The Annual Review of Biochemistry is ranked #1 by impact factor of the 226 Biochemistry and Molecular Biology publications, and #2 of ALL journals assessed by theISI

®Journal Citation Reports (JCR

®).

The Definitive Resource for Relevant Research in BiochemistryNow Ava i lab le in P r in t and On l ine

A n n u a l R e v i e w o f B i o c h e m i s t r y ®� Volume 73, July 2004

Editor: Charles C. Richardson, Harvard Medical SchoolAssociate Editors: Roger D. Kornberg, Stanford University School of Medicine,

Christian R.H. Raetz, Duke University Medical Center and Jeremy W. Thorner, University of California, Berkeley

·Markus Aebi· Ueli Aebi· Robert A. Bambara· Selena E. Bartlett· Robert T. Batey· Sarah Baxter· Philip A. Beachy· Gil Blander· Darren Boehning· Carlos Bustamante· Yann R. Chemla· Jue Chen· Peter Chien· Jerold Chun· Jeff Coller· Amy L. Davidson· Valérie de Crécy-Lagard· Titia de Lange· Angela H. DePace· Jennifer A. Doudna· Andrew C. Eliot

· Jeyanthy Eswaran· Nancy R. Forde· Nobuyuki Fukushima· Mark Gerstein· Blake Gillespie· Dov Greenbaum· Leonard Guarente· Robert S. Haltiwanger· Ari Helenius· Tamara L. Hendrickson· Harald Herrmann· Colin Hughes· Peter M. Hwang· Giuseppe Inesi· Isao Ishii· David Izhaky· Ronald Jansen· Xuejun Jiang· Erica S. Johnson· Gerald F. Joyce· Laurie S. Kaguni

· Hui-I Kao· Lee D. Kapp· Lewis E. Kay· Randall J. Kimple· Jack F. Kirsch· Vassilis Koronakis · Maurine E. Linder· Laura A. Lindsey-Boltz· Stuart Linn· Yuan Liu· Jon R. Lorsch· John B. Lowe· Randall K. Mann· Roy Parker· Randen L. Patterson· Kevin W. Plaxco· Olena Pylypenko· Susanne M. Rafelski· Alexander Rich· Aziz Sancar· Paul Schimmel

· Ilme Schlichting· Michael Seringhaus· David P. Siderovski· Agata Smogorzewska· Jessica E. Smotrys· Solomon H. Snyder· Julie A. Theriot· Chikashi Toyoshima

Vitali Tugarinov· Keziban Ünsal-Kaçmaz· Maria Waldhoer· Xiaodong Wang· Jonathan S. Weissman· Jennifer L. Whistler· Francis S. Willard· Yu Xia· Xiaoqin Ye· Haiyuan Yu· Hongyu Zhao

Access Onl ine NOW at h t tp ://biochem.annualrev iews.org

Authors in the current volume include:

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology members SAVE onthe Annual Review of Biochemistry and other Annual Review titles.

To order, contact the ASBMB Membership and Subscriptions Office.

Call: 301- 634- 7140 � Fax: 301-634-7108 � Email: [email protected]


Rank Organ iza t ion A l l Awards Research Gran ts R&D Cont rac t s1 Johns Hopkins University $414,225,650 $371,244,640 $21,749,426

2 Washington University 368,355,293 341,702,460 10,822,788

3 University of Pennsylvania 359,944,311 331,165,125 991,169

4 University of CaliforniaSan Francisco 350,786,145 305,890,184 28,925,060

5 Duke University 305,405,308 271,877,809 9,292,482

6 University of Washington 290,097,322 266,524,625 1,904,512

7 University of CaliforniaLos Angeles 264,873,857 247,471,696 8,673,963

8 Yale University 261,706,751 236,996,674 3,347,436

9 University of Pittsburgh 258,276,361 227,703,969 5,268,268

10 Baylor College of Medicine 246,410,097 222,205,006 15,001,107

11 University of Michigan 241,388,940 216,969,254 5,266,169

12 Stanford University 235,522,176 214,966,069 3,859,036

13 Boston University 232,179,841 97,942,051 0

14 Columbia University 220,316,305 199,261,122 4,078,040

15 University of CaliforniaSan Diego 219,646,784 198,583,224 9,900,030

16 University of Alabamaat Birmingham 208,229,354 159,169,432 23,901,670

17 Vanderbilt University 205,896,115 188,634,437 1,027,999

18 Case Western ReserveUniversity 203,512,407 183,123,959 13,455,976

19 University of Texasat Galveston 202,863,845 76,952,533 13,262,508

20 University of North CarolinaChapel Hill 199,091,797 174,300,048 14,761,483

21 University of Texasat Dallas 173,839,840 152,430,428 14,890,525

22 University of ColoradoHealth Science Center 165,148,917 154,913,439 1,688,428

23 Emory University 158,120,873 149,337,231 2,626,946

24 New York UniversityMount Sinai School 155,959,314 146,615,860 3,028,990

25 University of ChicagoPritzer School 153,751,372 137,973,565 5,167,185

Listed below in rank by dollar amount, are the top 25institutions that received NIH awards in Fiscal Year 2003. Fora complete listing of all institutions receiving awards, the

number of awards and total amounts, including traininggrants, fellowships R&D contracts, and other awards, go tothe NIH website.

Top 25 Inst i tut ions Receiving N I H Awards in FY 2003

N I H N E W S


Staying on the Path; One Atom at a TimeNew perco lat ion mode l may a l low researchers to study

b iochemistry at the atomic leve l .

properties of these types of materials,researchers can enhance conductiv-ity in batteries, flow paths in filtersand numerous other percolationmechanisms.

Sastry won a 1997 NSF PresidentialEarly Career Award for Scientists andEngineers (PECASE), the highest honorbestowed by the United States govern-ment on scientists and engineersbeginning their independent researchcareers. The NSF support from thataward contributed to the developmentof the percolation model.

Support for the work was also pro-vided by the Defense AdvancedResearch Projects Agency (DARPA) andthe Office of Naval Research through theSynthetic Multifunctional Materials Pro-gram, managed by Leo Christodoulou ofDARPA, and the W.M. Keck Foundation.

“With her PECASE award, AnnMarie Sastry has expanded her researchfocus from a single area in mechanicalengineering, materials processing, intoa broad exploration to uncover funda-mental knowledge. She has demon-strated an ability to take advantage of

support to move beyond her own ini-tial training and move out to addresssocietal needs,” said Delcie Durham,Program Pirector in NSF’s Division ofDesign, Manufacture and IndustrialInnovation who oversaw Sastry’s five-year award. “Because of her interestsand abilities, Sastry has attracted adiverse team of students and guidedthem to address core areas withinmechanical engineering. Sastry hasexpanded her research to address fun-damental issues in mathematics, biol-ogy and energy.”

report in the May 24 Proceedings of the Royal Soci-ety of London. Series A:

Mathematical and Physical Sciencesannounces a mathematical modelthat will help researchers understandcell signaling and learn how singleatoms travel along the circuitouspathways in a cell.

The model is a new approach to lookat percolation-the flow of a liquid orsmall particle through a porous mate-rial. In the simulation, materials passthrough fields of complex, three-dimensional shapes, a scenario that iscloser to realworld environments thanexisting two-dimensional models andmodels incorporating simpler shapes.

The model was developed by Dr.Ann Marie Sastry and Dr. Yun-Bo Yi,both of the University of Michigan.The researchers will use their find-ings in a larger study that will deploysensor proteins inside a cell wherethe nanoscale devices will track thepaths of ions.

The model reveals how the sensorsmight interact with the miniscule ionsthat contribute to such diseases asstroke, cardiovascular disease and can-cer. With the proper experimentaldesign, the researchers may be able towatch fundamental chemical reac-tions, at the molecular level, as theyoccur in living cells.

In addition to biological applica-tions, the simulation will helpresearchers develop new materials byrevealing better ways to craft poroussubstances. By understanding the

A

Clusters of two, three and four permeable ellipsoids, generated from the percolation simulations ofYun-Bo Yi and Ann Marie Sastry. Credit: Yun-Bo Yi and Ann Marie Sastry, University of Michigan

The r e s ea rche r s w i l l

u s e t h e i r f i n d i n g s i n

a l a r g e r s t u d y t h a t

w i l l d ep l oy s enso r

p ro t e i n s i n s i d e a c e l l

w h e re t h e n a n o s c a l e

d e v i c e s w i l l t r a c k t h e

p a t h s o f i o n s .


rier,” she said. This was done by com-paring the energy barrier of the reac-tion when the ribosome was present,and when the ribosome was not pres-ent. The reactions both with the ribo-some present and without theribosome have the same enthalpic acti-vation barrier, the researchers found.

“The means by which the ribosomespeeds up the chemical transformationis purely entropic in origin; the ribo-some acts as a mechanical readoutdevice, rather than speeding up the

reaction in the way that conventionalenzymes do,” Dr. Sievers said.

The experiments will help scientistsnarrow their view of how ribosomesfunction and understand them better,Wolfenden said. This discovery hasimportant implications for the designof inhibitors of protein synthesis andmight ultimately furnish a new basisfor drug design. It shows that the ribo-some’s effect is to introduce order intochaos.

*ASBMB member.

ontrary to what some scien-tists have suggested, key intra-cellular particles known as

ribosomes serve as mechanical match-makers or readout devices rather thanacting chemically to speed up reactionsin the body the way enzymes do, Uni-versity of North Carolina (UNC) atChapel Hill researchers have discovered.

A report on the findings by Dr.Annette Sievers and Dr. RichardWolfenden* of the UNC School ofMedicine appears in the May 2004issue of the Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences.

“Enzymes, of which we have hun-dreds, participate chemically in thetransformation of biological moleculesby making and breaking bonds,” saidWolfenden, Alumni Distinguished Pro-fessor of Biochemistry and Biophysics.“A hallmark of that direct chemicalinvolvement is that their catalyticeffects are extremely temperaturedependent. The question was whetherthe ribosome acts as an enzyme, sincethere has been considerable interest inwhether this particle does that.”

Ribosomes are critical sites of proteinsynthesis, he said. Inside those parti-cles, amino acids are laid down in pro-teins in the order specified by thegenetic code. In general, enzymes,which are biological catalysts, facilitatea chemical transformation by loweringthe energy barrier, said Dr. Sievers.

“In our present work we tested thecontribution of enthalpy and entropyto lowering the activation energy bar-

C

New Research at U NC Shows RibosomesDo Not Funct ion as Convent ional Enzymes

The National Academy of Sciences(NAS) is currently accepting nomi-nations for three separate awardsfor excellence in scientific achieve-ment. Nominations for all threeawards will be accepted throughSeptember 10, 2004.

Richard Lounsbery Award The Richard Lounsbery Award, a prizeof $50,000, is presented to young (to45 years of age) American and Frenchscientists to recognize extraordinaryscientific achievement in biology andmedicine. The award is intended tostimulate research and to encouragereciprocal scientific exchangesbetween the United States andFrance.

NAS Award in Molecular Biology The NAS Award in Molecular Biology,

a prize of $25,000, is presented to ayoung scientist (35 to 45 years of age)for a recent, notable discovery inmolecular biology.

Selman A. Waksman Award inMicrobiology The Selman A. Waksman Award inMicrobiology, a prize of $5,000, pre-sented for excellence in the field ofmicrobiology.

For more information on theseawards, contact:National Academy of Sciences Awards Program, Room NAS 285 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 Phone: 202-334-1602 Fax: 202-334-1682 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.nas.edu/nas/awards

NAS Seeking Nominat ions For Science Awards


Above: Over 70 posters were entered inthe ASBMB Undergraduate Poster

Competition and more than 200 inthe Graduate Competition.

Views from AS BM B 2004M o r e t o c o m e i n A u g u s t !

First annual Herbert Tabor/Journal of Biochemistry Award, waspresented to Robert Lefkowitz (center) by Bruce Thomas,

President and CEO of Cadmus, at right. JBC Editor Tabor is at left.

Minority Affairs Committee meeting was attended by Phillip Ortiz,Thomas Landefeld, Gail Pinder of ASBMB staff, Juliette Bell, and Jacque-

lyn Roberts of FASEB.

ASBMB’s Past-President Bettie Sue Masters was surprised

with birthday cake during reception at Annual Meeting.

ASBMB booth was active site on the exhibit floor.


planned for our centennial celebrationin San Francisco in April 2006, initi-ated under the outstanding leadershipof Bettie Sue Masters.

The Society underwent an importanttransition this year when Chuck Han-cock retired as Executive Director after24 years of exceptional service. After athorough and extensive search, BarbaraGordon was chosen to be our ExecutiveDirector, and assumed that position inApril 2004. Many of you know Barbarabecause she as been associated with theASBMB for 32 years; in the capacity ofAssistant to the Editor of The Journal of

Biological Chemistry (JBC) since 1987,Director of Publications since 1994,and Deputy Executive Officer since1996. Barbara is uniquely qualified totake the helm as Executive Directorbecause of her extensive experiencewith ASBMB publications, meetings,council and committee work. Herenergy, understanding of the organiza-tion, and commitment to the Societyare exemplary. The Society did not losea beat in the transition to new staffleadership. Barbara has already hiredJoan Geiling to fill a vacancy in meet-ings management, a science writer,

t is with pleasure and anticipa-tion that I assume the presi-dency of our Society in July

2004. Because the President serves atwo-year term, I will be the last presi-dent of the first century of the Societyand the first president of the Society’ssecond century. What an honor it is toserve in these transitional years! It willbe a time to celebrate our history,growth and member accomplish-ments, to plan strategies for the secondcentury, and to move ahead into thefuture with newly defined goals. Thereare already many activities being

I

A Message from the New President of the AS BM B

– Judith S. Bond

In One Era


that spans a multitude of systems fromthe prokaryotic, archea and eukaryoticworld, and from small molecules tomulticomponent complex ”omes”(e.g., genome, proteome, lipidome,glycome, metabonome).

Our flagship journal, The JBC, hasvery clearly defined its scope, andadvises authors that: “Manuscripts fail-ing to deal with biological processes atthe biochemical or molecular level areusually inappropriate for The Journal.In the absence of novelty and signifi-cance, medical relevance or pharmaco-logical potential will not be consideredsufficient justification for publication.”Thus, the Society through the Journalstresses biochemical and molecularbiological insights and mechanisms,not the translation of these underlyinginsights into medical, pharmacologi-cal, or agricultural advances.

Basic science is essential to the foun-dation of many practical advances, butthis is not always obvious to the publicand policy makers. In my own field ofproteases and their substrates, I canthink of many examples in whichbasic science has led to unanticipatedcommercial developments. One exam-ple of this is the development ofinhibitors to the HIV protease for thetreatment of AIDS. I recall an interna-tional meeting in the 1980s on asparticproteases (endopeptidases that dependon an aspartic residue for their cat-alytic activity). At that meeting, manyof my colleagues were expressing con-cern that it was increasingly difficult toobtain funding to investigate themechanisms and regulation of asparticproteases (enzymes such as cathepsinD and E). Only a very small subset ofinvestigators was interested in this sub-

group of enzymes, and there were noobvious immediate utilities. Not longafter that meeting, the world becameaware of AIDS and HIV, a virus thatdepends on an aspartic protease toreplicate, and the rapid and uncon-trolled spread of the disease in manyparts of the world. It was because ofthe great wealth of basic scienceknowledge on the structure and func-tion of these enzymes that scientistscould move rapidly to developinhibitors of the AIDS virus protease,and capitalize on the difference of thisprotease to the mammalian asparticproteases. This is just one example ofhow basic science can lead to treat-ment of a disease.

Over the course of my professionalcareer, I have observed many examplesof how science progresses, and how tech-nology, communication, collaborationand curiosity drives science. My personalscientific contributions illustrate this.

In the early 1980s meprins, zincendopeptidases, were discovered in mylaboratory when a colleague from Eng-land, Robert Beynon, came to work

Nicole Kresge, and is in the process ofidentifying a person to replace herselfas Director of Publications. Barbara andher staff of 20 in the ASBMB office arecrucial to our Society’s success and theimplementation of the new goals thatwe set during the coming years.

We have much to be proud of in ourSociety, such as the quality of our publi-cations, our leadership role in onlinepublications, the professional success ofour members, the outreach of our mem-bers to the next generation of scientists,and our advocacy efforts to inform deci-sion makers of the importance of ourscience. Our Society’s mission is:

“Promoting understanding of themolecular nature of life processes”

We represent the discipline of Bio-chemistry and the technologies ofMolecular Biology, which are funda-mental to all the life sciences, anddefine the universal language of thelife sciences. It is clear that what we doas biochemists and molecular biolo-gists overlaps and benefits otherbranches of science. Our Society mustadapt to the environment in the age ofinterdisciplinary and multidisciplinaryscience, and be true to the mission ofpromoting understanding of themolecular nature of life processes. Weare committed to promulgatingadvances, bringing in new people andideas, and communicating our mes-sage to the public, leaders, and thenext generation of scientists. Ourmembers have inquisitiveness aboutthe molecules that make up living sys-tems, their regulation, function andinteractions. We represent a basic sci-ence that is driven by curiosity, some-times considered ‘untargeted,’ and one

Out the Other

Two presidents:ASBMB’s Judith Bond and Pennsylvania State University President

Graham Spanier.


ing activity. This observation resultedin a collaboration with a mouse geneti-cist, Chella David, who recognizedthat one of the genes for meprins waslinked to the histocompatibility com-plex on mouse chromosome 17. It wascommunication and collaboration,again, that led to this insight.

Through other collaborations thegenes for the α and ß subunits ofmeprins were mapped in the mouseand human genomes, and theenzymes were visualized as brush bor-der enzymes using electronmicroscopy. In the late 1980s and early1990s, my trainees, colleagues (includ-ing Erwin Sterchi) and I applied thetechnologies of molecular biology andcloned and sequenced the mouse andhuman meprin subunits. Using therapidly expanding information in pro-tein databases, we discovered thatmeprins were members of an evolu-tionary family that we named “theastacin family of metalloproteinases.”Astacin, a crayfish enzyme, is one ofthe smallest members of this family,and to date is the only member of thisfamily that has been crystallized.

Meprins are quite complex multido-main, multimeric enzymes that arehighly glycosylated. There are mem-

brane-bound and secreted forms thattend to self-associate and form some ofthe largest proteolytic complexes seenin living systems, 1 to 6 MDa. Meprinsare capable of hydrolyzing biologicallyactive peptides such as bradykinin, gas-trin, and angiotensin, cytokines andchemokines such as MCP-1 and osteo-pontin, and proteins such asfibronectin, collagen IV, and gelatin.Through collaboration we have con-structed homology models of meprinactive sites and determined aminoacids critical to the different prote-olytic activities of the subunits.

More recently we and others havefound that meprins are upregulated incertain cancer cells and in leucocytesduring intestinal inflammation. Oneof the subunits has been suggested as a candidate gene for diabeticnephropathy, and the other subunitimplicated in ulcerative colitus.Meprins are also implicated in tumorcell metastasis, and thus we are begin-ning to ask how they can be down-regulated and inhibited. The basicscience has led to science that haspotential targets for disease, and per-haps this will lead to translationalresearch, from bench to bedside.

My story illustrates too that we asindividuals wear many hats and can beidentified with many different types ofresearch during the course of a career,as independent scientists, members ofa team, or through collaboration.Members of our Society are not onlybiochemists and molecular biologists,but also pharmacologists, immunolo-gists, microbiologists, geneticists,bioinformatics specialists, develop-mental biologists, physicians, plantphysiologists to name a few. We havein common an interest in promotingthe understanding of the molecularnature of life processes, but we usemany different approaches and sys-

with me at the Medical College of Vir-ginia of Virginia Commonwealth Uni-versity. I had met Rob at aninternational conference on proteases,and through discussions we realizedthat we had common interests in cell-associated proteases and protein degra-dation. Meprins were discovered asazocasein-degrading proteases of therodent kidney because of my interestin the regulation of proteases in dia-betic mice, and Rob’s use of azocaseinas a good substrate for proteinases thatact at neutral and basic pH values.

When we discovered a very highproteolytic activity in Balb/c mousekidney using this substrate, and couldnot find evidence for this activity inthe literature, it was curiosity that ledto purifying and characterizing themembrane-associated enzyme. A fewyears after the discovery of meprins,we found that some inbred strains ofmice (the Strong C strain of mice, suchas C3H/He and CBA mice) had verylow levels of kidney azocasein-degrad-

Critical amino acid differences within the activesite of meprin a and ß metalloproteinases for

substrate and peptide bond specificity. The toppanels are homology models in space filling

(left) and ribbon (right) representations of theprotease domain of mouse meprin a based on

the crystal structure of crayfish astacin. For thespace filling representations acidic residues, Aspand Glu, are red, basic residues Lys and Arg, are

blue; all other residues are white. The zinclocated in the center of the active site is green.

For the ribbon representation α-helices are redand ß-sheets are cyan. The bottom panels con-

tain the corresponding representations formouse meprin ß. Active site electrostatic differ-

ences are denoted by arrows in space fillingmodels and are numbered in ribbon representa-

tions. (from J Biol Chem 278:42545-42550)


Proteomics), to acquire the Journal ofLipid Research, and to publish Bio-chemistry and Molecular Biology Educa-tion (BAMBED) in collaboration withthe International Union of Biochem-istry and Molecular Biology. The newjournals are establishing a con-stituency and their own niche, andwill also need to find the right for-mula for financial sustainability.

Membership: The Society hasincreased its membership to 12,000 atabout 10% per year for the last fewyears. It will be important to determinehow we wish to grow, and particularlyhow to recruit the next generation ofscientists and diverse populations. Asurvey of the membership several yearsago indicated that the great majorityour members are at American academicinstitutions. Many of the new scientistsare engaged in diverse enterprises suchas biotechnology companies, industrialcompanies, government agencies andforeign institutions. As the authors ofmanuscripts in our journals are increas-ingly international, there is the possi-bility of increasing numbers of foreignmembers of our Society. Do we want toencourage membership of other groupsnot traditionally members of our soci-ety, such as college and high schoolteachers?

Meetings: The Society currentlysponsors the annual meeting (usuallybut not always with the FASEB) andsmall meetings. Because there are somany meetings available to scientists,the question becomes what role

should the Society play in sponsoringmeetings. Meetings are important forour mission and developing a commu-nity of scientists. But the Society willhave to determine what type of meet-ings best serve our members and fulfillour mission.

Public Advocacy: There are multi-ple issues of interest to our members inthe public arena these days, includingfunding issues (especially governmen-tal), regulatory issues (cloning, stemcell, animal rights, compliance), andevidence-based decision-making. OurSociety will no doubt want to continueto inform governmental leaders aboutissues that directly affect us, and workwith other agencies such as the FASEB.What mechanisms are most effective?

Education: The Education and Pro-fessional Development Committee hasmade great strides in setting up net-works with undergraduate faculty andstudents for curriculum developmentand for interactions with our Society.How do we want to expand on this?Do we want to reach down to elemen-tary and high school education, as wellas support career development for grad-uate students and postdoctoral fellows?

This is a healthy Society. We have aclear mission, are in a financially soundposition, and are growing in member-ship. In my positions as a Chair of aBiochemistry and Molecular BiologyDepartment, an Associate Editor of theJBC, and an active researcher, I have apersonal interest in all the major activi-ties of the Society and want to see theSociety flourish. I promise to work dili-gently with the Council, Staff, Editors,and Committees of the Society to takeus into the next century of the Societywith a clear vision. We will develop astrategic plan this fall, and implementthe plan over the coming years.Together we can do so much morethan we can do as individuals.

tems to accomplish our aims andadvance science.

This brings me to the topic of howour Society intends to grow anddevelop, and to address some of theissues and challenges we face. Theleadership of the Society intends toundertake strategic planning in the fallof 2004, and to set the agenda for thecoming years. However, let me brieflymention issues that I see confrontingus as a Society. They generally fallunder: publications, membership,meetings, public advocacy, education.

Publications: The first and mostimportant issue is maintaining andimproving the quality and impact ofour journals. This is a topic that Edi-tors and Associate Editors of our Jour-nals, along with our PublicationsCommittee will be addressing. Inaddition, it is important that webuild on the strength of our publica-tions and our leadership in online,accessible publication. The JBC wasthe first biomedical journal to pub-lish online in 1995. All JBC articlesare now accessible online back to thefirst issue in 1905, and articles arefreely accessible the day they areaccepted for publication. We are inthe transition from total print to totalonline publication, and there are sig-nificant questions as to how the jour-nal will be sustainably financed andarchived once there are no print jour-nals. The Society also made a deci-sion several years ago, to publish anew journal (Molecular and Cellular

Bond Laboratory Group: Seated (from left toright): Susan Senchak, Sanjita Banerjee, Bond,

Xiaoli Han; Standing (left to right): JohnBylander, Renee Dusheck, Bill Patrie, Ryan

Gailey, Gail Matters


pancreatic tissue to both maintain thepancreas and to regenerate it,” said Dr.Melton. “Previous studies have sug-gested that there are sources of adultstem cells that might give rise to betacells. However, those studies hadlargely depended on histological`snapshots’ of tissues.” Those snap-shots can only suggest the “geo-graphic” origin of new beta cells andnot the identity of the cells fromwhich they arise, he noted.

Dr. Melton and his colleagues knewthat they could finally put such ques-tions to rest if they could tag beta cellsin such a way that that they coulddetermine unequivocally whether thenew cells were made from existing betacells or from a different reservoir ofstem cells. For these studies, theydevised a “genetic lineage tracing”technique that involved engineering amouse whose beta cells contained atelltale genetic marker that could beswitched on by administering the drugtamoxifen to the mice.

The logic behind the technique is rel-atively straightforward: When theresearchers administer a pulse of tamox-ifen to the adult mice, Cre recombinaseis induced transiently and removes a“stop” sequence from an alkaline phos-phatase reporter gene, allowing it to beexpressed. They can easily follow the

marker to determine whether it is inher-ited by subsequent generations of betacells. If it is inherited, then the cellsexpressing the marker are the offspringof pre-existing beta cells.

When the researchers applied theirtechnique to the mice, they discov-ered that all the new beta cells theyexamined — whether arising in theusual process of renewal or duringregeneration following partial removalof the pancreas—were generated frompre-existing beta cells. According toDr. Melton, the finding highlights alargely unappreciated capability ofbeta cells.

lthough the experiments,which were done using mice,do not rule out the possibility

that there are adult stem cells in thepancreas, the researchers say that theydo suggest strongly that embryonicstem cells or mature beta cells may bethe only way to generate beta cells foruse in cell replacement therapies totreat diabetes.

The research team, which was led byHHMI Investigator Douglas A. Melton*at Harvard University, reported its find-ings in a research article published inthe May 6, 2004, issue of the journalNature. Melton’s co-authors includeYuval Dor, Juliana Brown and Olga I.Martinez, all of Harvard.

In cell culture, embryonic stem (ES)cells retain the properties of undiffer-entiated embryonic cells. ES cellshave the capacity to make all celltypes found in an adult organism.One of the most hotly debated ques-tions in biology is whether adultstem cells, which have been isolatedfrom blood, skin, brain and otherorgans, have the same developmentalcapacity as ES cells.

Researchers have known for sometime that ES cells can give rise to pan-creatic beta cells during development.“But the more interesting question forus has been what happens in mature

A

Howard Hughes Med ica l I nst itute (HHMI ) researchers atHarvard Un ivers ity have d iscovered that insu l in-

produc ing beta ce l ls in the pancreas that are attacked intype 1 d iabetes are rep len ished through dup l icat ion ofex ist ing ce l ls rather than through d i f ferent iat ion of

adu lt stem ce l ls .

A pancreatic islet, in which a subset of betacells have been marked in red to trace their

genetic lineage. Insulin appears as green andDNA has been stained blue.

©20

04 Y

uval

Dor

, HH

MI a

t Har

vard

Un

iver

sity

Insulin-Producing Pancreat ic Cells


restore insulin production in suchpatients.

“On the other hand, if type 1 diabet-ics don’t have any beta cells left, thenthese findings suggest that the onlysource of new beta cells is probablygoing to be embryonic stem cells,because there don’t appear to be adultstem cells involved in regeneration.”

He emphasized that although theresults by his group cannot rule outthe existence of beta-cell-producingadult stem cells, “they raise the bar ontrying to demonstrate their existence.In these experiments, we find no evi-

“No one has really paid much atten-tion to the replicative capacity of thebeta cell,” he said. “And this workshows the cells to have a significantproliferative capacity that could beclinically useful.”

According to Dr. Melton, the find-ings might have implications fordeveloping treatments for type 1 dia-betes, a disease that destroys betacells. “If such people have residualbeta cells, these findings suggest thata useful clinical direction would beto find a way to boost the prolifera-tive capacity of those beta cells, to

Replenished by Duplicat iondence for the existence of adult pan-creatic stem cells.”

The genetic lineage tracing techniquedevised by the group is a tool that cannow be used to trace the origin of cellsinvolved in the maintenance and repairof other types of tissue. Dr. Melton andhis colleagues are now using this tech-nique to determine the origin of newcells in lung tissue, and they believe itshould be possible to apply the tech-nique to understand the origin of cancercells in tumors or to understand the roleof stem cells in such malignancies.

* ASBMB member


divergence from a common ancestor“was an ancient event” in contrast tothe more recent divergence of manyother groups of bacteria from theirancestral relatives.

The genome study is expected tohelp scientists find out more abouthow oral pathogens interact in den-tal plaque to cause gum disease. T.denticola tends to aggregate in suchsubgingival plaque with Porphy-romonas gingivalis, a bacterium thatis associated with periodontitis, agum disease that affects an estimated200 million Americans. Having thecomplete genomes of both microbeswill help researches study their inter-actions and possibly provide molecu-lar clues to find targets for drugs totreat gum disease.

TIGR scientists and collaboratorssequenced the genome of P. gingivalislast year and are now deciphering the

genomes of six other oral-cavity bacte-ria and conducting a “meta-genomic”assay of mouth microbes. Of the esti-mated 500 microbial species in thehuman mouth, only about 150 specieshave been cultured in laboratories.

“The genome sequence revealsmechanisms used by T. denticola to col-onize and survive in the complex envi-ronment of oral biofilms,” says Dr.Seshadri, the study’s first author.TIGR’s collaborators in the PNAS studyincluded Dr. Steven J. Norris at theUniversity of Texas Health ScienceCenter at Houston and Dr. George M.Weinstock* at Baylor College of Medi-cine’s Department of Molecular andHuman Genetics.

In the PNAS paper, researchersreported that the genome of T. denti-cola “reflects its adaptations for colo-nization and survival” with otherbacteria in plaque. Compared to

hree centuries after a pioneer-ing Dutch microbiologist firstobserved the spiral-shaped

oral pathogen Treponema denticola, sci-entists have deciphered the bac-terium’s entire DNA sequence andused comparative genomics to castnew light on other spirochetemicrobes.

The study by scientists at The Insti-tute for Genomic Research (TIGR) andcollaborators at Baylor College of Med-icine and the University of TexasHealth Science Center at Houstonfound profound differences betweenthe gene content of T. denticola, whichis associated with periodontal (gum)disease, and of other spirochetes thatcause syphilis and Lyme disease.

“This highlights the power of com-parative genomics to help us under-stand how related pathogens can causecompletely different diseases,” says IanPaulsen, who led the sequencing alongwith fellow TIGR researcher RekhaSeshadri. Dr. Paulsen says the T. denti-cola genome “provides an excellentpoint of reference to study the biologyof spirochetes.”

The paper appeared in the April 13,2004, issue of Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences (PNAS). The studywas supported by the National Instituteof Dental and Craniofacial Research(NIDCR), which is part of NIH.

The researchers found that T. denti-cola has more than twice as manygenes as the spirochete that causessyphilis, T. pallidum, and that there isvirtually no conservation of gene order(synteny) between the genomes of thetwo related microbes. The authors saythat indicates that the two spirochetes’

T

A New Spin on

AS BM B Welcomes New Ph.D.sASBMB extends its congratulations to these individuals who recently received

their Ph.D. degrees. In recognition of their achievement, ASBMB is presentingthem with a free one-year membership in the Society. The new Ph.D.s are listedbelow with the institution from which they received their degree.

Gregory J. CarvenMassachusetts Institute ofTechnology

Gustavo A. NaderUniversity of Illinois at Chicago

Jennifer PalencharUniversity of Delaware

Peter R. PanizziVanderbilt University School ofMedicine

Anna SeibertState University of New York Buffalo

Zarixia Zavala-RuizMassachusetts Institute ofTechnology

In our June issue, Shawn Sweeneywas incorrectly listed as receiving aPh.D. from University of Texas, A&MUniversity. The degree was fromThomas Jefferson University.

* Candidates with an asterisk were previous Associate members who met the requirements for a freeone-year membership.


the 1670s. Even after three centuries,however, spirochetes are poorly under-stood in contrast to many other majortypes of bacteria.

So far, TIGR has sequenced the com-plete genomes of three spirochetes: T.denticola, T. pallidum, which causessyphilis; and Borellia burgdorferei, whichcauses Lyme disease. The genome of a fourth spirochete, Leptospira inter-rogans, which causes Leptosporisis, wassequenced at the Chinese NationalHuman Genome Center.

TIGR’s comparative analysis foundthat about half of T. denticola’s 2,786genes are not present in the other

three sequenced spirochetes. The 618genes that all four spirochetes have incommon include some that are notfound in other microbes whosegenomes have been sequenced.

Claire M. Fraser,* TIGR President,says the sequence data “provide a newstarting point” for exploring themolecular differences that mayexplain why and how T. denticola andT. pallidum cause such different dis-eases: “This study has revealed newinsights into spirochete-specific biol-ogy as well as the evolutionary forcesthat have shaped these genomes.”

* ASBMB member

other spirochetes (including an esti-mated 60 other treponomal species orphylotypes found in dental plaque),T. denticola is relatively easy to culti-vate and manipulate genetically,making it an excellent model forspirochete research.

Spirochetes are distinguished bytheir spiral shapes and their ability tocorkscrew their way through gel-liketissues, causing a number of differentdiseases. The father of microbiology,Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, had firstsketched an oral spirochete—laternamed T. denticola—after viewing itthrough his primitive microscope in

Spiroche tes

Move Your ReliableDiode Array into the Modern Era with

Move into faster data acquisition, superior data handling,and modern data fitting with Olis SpectralWorks!

Ten scans per second becomes possible!WindowsTM 2000/NT/XP compatibility becomes a reality!And 3D data analysis adds a modern twist to traditional

2D fitting of kinetic and equalibrium spectra.

$3995 includes the entire PC hardware and software package.$3995 includes the entire PC hardware and software package.

Call today for ordering details!1-800-852-3504 or visit www.olisweb.com

B I O T E C H B U S I N E S S N E W S


into sluggish development pipelines,as well as a trend on the part of thebiotechs to refocus their businessstrategy.

Meanwhile, the fledging biotechindustry in Asia is on a rapid growthcurve. Ernst & Young estimates thatthere are some 660 biotech compa-nies in the Asia-Pacific region, thebulk of them in Australia, China,India, Japan, and Singapore. The totalis small compared to that in the U.S.,but the Asians are beginning to estab-

lish themselves as rivals in suchniches as drug screening biotech-drugmanufacturing.

In contrast, the picture in Europe ison he bleak side. Venture financingdropped by 10 percent last year, andErnst & Young predicts that the Euro-peans will continue to fall behind theU.S. unless they learn how to get moredrugs to the market faster. In The Econo-mist’s words, “There is an urgent needfor consolidation to build critical mass”in order to gain a competitive edge.

After some four years of an up-and-down relationship with investors, thebiotech business in the UnitedStates—and possible Asia, too—is backin the good graces of the investmentcommunity.

The Ernst & Young accounting andconsulting firm reports that the 1,437biotech companies in the U.S. raked in$14.4 billion in new investmentmoney last year. That, according to thereport released last month, is some 66percent more than investors put intobiotech in 2002. That helped raise theindustry’s market capitalization bymore than 50 percent to almost $300billion by the end of 2003. During thatyear, seven U.S. biotechs carried outinitial public offerings (IPOs), and ScottMorrison, head of U.S. Life Sciences atErnst & Young, expects as many as 30such companies to have gone publicby the end of this year.

Why this return to favor in theinvestment community? As usual,money follows money. The total rev-enue of publicly-owned biotech firmshit almost $36 billion last year, andErnst & Young predicts that at this ratethe publicly-owned biotechs actuallybe in the black by 2008. These firms,the consultants note, have already pro-duced several billion-dollar pharma-ceutical blockbusters and are on theroad to delivering more. Last year 25biotech drugs won FDA approval, andanother 300 are in the final stages ofthe approval process.

Some of this productivity reflectsdeals with major pharmaceuticalcompanies which need to pump life

by John D . Thompson , Ed i tor

Report Finds Brighter Prospects ForBiotech in the U.S., Asia

Import ing a Fight With Boston’sThis month, Boston is set to

become the largest city in the U.S. tomake it easy for public employees tobuy imported pharmaceuticals.Boston’s move coincides with a pro-posed bill in the Massachusetts Legis-lature that would permit the state’sresidents to seek federal permissionfor a website with links to Canadianinternet pharmacies. However, thishas drawn criticism from biotechnol-ogy executives. They say importingcheaper drugs will eat into profit anddivert funding from fledgling drugcompanies.

With many drugs selling for 20 to80 percent less in Canada due largelyto government price controls there,several U.S. cities already import drugsfor residents or employees eventhough the FDA considers such pro-grams illegal. Springfield, Massachu-setts, has has had such a program for a

year, reportedly saving taxpayers $2million; and Montgomery, Alabama,and Burlington, Vermont, also haveimport programs.

A statewide importation plan inIllinois is on hold pending a changein the FDA’s stance, but Minnesotaand Wisconsin have already set upwebsites that guide residents toapproved Canadian pharmacies, andRhode Island’s state website links toWisconsin’s.

Massachusetts is home to more than280 biotechnology companies–threetimes as many as 10 years ago–with thevast majority concentrated in Bostonand Cambridge, where start-ups such asGenzyme Corp. and Biogen Inc. havegrown to become some of the industry’slargest and most profitable firms. Druggiant Novartis AG moved its researchheadquarters to Cambridge, the cityacross the Charles River from Boston


more open and willing to educate thepublic about biotech.”We’re doing aterrible job of communication,” saidChireon CEO Howard Pien. He alsopointed to challenges to innovation,the possibility of generic biologics, andrestrictions on stem cell research.

“We tend to be too scientific andclinical,” said James C. Mullen, BiogenIdec’s CEO, who urged the industry’sleaders to increase their presence in thepublic debate about biotech. “It’s gotto be a discussion that brings the sci-ence, but marries it to other issues,such as cultural values.”

Dennis M. Fenton, Executive VicePresident of Amgen, said his greatestconcern for the industry is the push forlower prices by government and healthinsurers that might diminish patientchoice. “We’re moving to an environ-

ment where drugs must not only besafe and effective, but also cost effec-tive,” he stated. Fenton also noted theindustry’s failure to sell many productsin markets beyond the wealthy nationsof Europe and the United States.

Arthur D. Levinson, Chairman andCEO of Genentech, said the increasingcosts of developing drugs may bringbiotech firms into direct competitionwith large pharmaceutical companieslooking to biotechnology for newproducts. He also cited the problem ofconvincing investors to look beyondthe next quarter’s financial results andstand by their investments over thelong run. Genentech, he noted, hadstruggled to win investor support toincrease research funding that hassince paid off in major productapprovals.

While the newly released Ernst &Young Report sees bright prospects forbiotech in the U.S. and Asia, industryleaders at last month’s BiotechnologyIndustry Organization annual meetingexpressed concerns about public supportfor biotech, investor pressure for short-term profits, and increased competitionwith large pharmaceutical companies.

The consenasus of four top execu-tives who spoke at the meeting, wasthat the industry needs to become

Biotech Leaders Express ConcernsAt Industry’s Annual Meet ing


that is home to Harvard Universityand the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology.

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Meninoclaims that his city can be both abiotechnology powerhouse and animporter of prescription drugs fromCanada. However, MassachusettsGovernor Mitt Romney (R) and stateHouse Speaker Thomas M. Finneran(D) have both expressed reservationsabout the impact of importation onthe drug industry.

Industry experts have warned thatthe investment capital that fuelsbiotech companies’ research anddevelopment is likely to dwindle ifthe importation movement acceler-ates. As the goal of importation is todrive down prices paid by Americansfor pharmaceuticals, they say, suchplans cut into the potential profit of asuccessful new drug.

Biotech Industry

Earlier this year it was the Frenchworrying about a foriegn invasion,when Switzerland’s Novartis was try-ing to buy France’s Aventis. Nowbiotech industry watchers in the UKare concerned about a Belgian inva-sion thanks to UCB’s £1.5 billion($2.7 billion) bid for Britain’s secondlargest Biotech company, Celltech.

Celltech, which had sales of £353million ($635 million) last year has ananti-arthritis drug due to go on themarket in 2007, which it looks for toadd another £600 million ($1,080million) in sales. Celltech’s board is

said to be in favor of the Belgian offer,as well it might since it already haslicensed marketing rights for the newdrug to UCB. Some of the Britishmedia, however, have depicted thepotential acquisition as a crushingloss with a rising star of the nation’sbiotech industry being captured by aforeign firm.

That view, however, seems to over-look the fact that a third of the equityin Britain’s Celltech is in Americanhands, namely California’s CapitalGroup and American-owned butBermuda-based Fidelity.

Are the Belg ians Coming?



any such document would necessarilyinvolve the illegal use of proprietarydata the company had submitted tothe FDA in seeking approval forGenentech products. It charges thatFDA approval of generic versions asbeing compatible with the company’sproducts, would inevitably involve thedisclosure of Genentech’s manufactur-ing processes. Subsequent to that fil-ing, Crawford said that the proposedguidelines would only pertain to datain the public domain.

Meanwhile, Senate Judiciary Com-mittee Chair Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and

other influential members of Congressare said to be interested in easing theway for approval of generic biologics.As of this writing, legislation had yet tobe submitted, however Congressappears likely to move along a similartrack to that of the FDA.

Another factor, though, could bepublic concern over the rising cost ofmedication. Conceivably this couldlead to a less restrictive policy for theapproval of generic biologics. That inturn might bring small- and medium-size biotech companies into the field ascompetition for the established players.

The biotech industry, Congress, andthe FDA are on the verge of a three-cornered battle over the approvalprocess for generic drugs developedthrough biotechnology rather than thetraditional chemistry-based process.

At issue is the approval process forthese drugs, called “generic biologics.”The generic equivalents of traditionaldrugs have been approved as beingidentical to the original product, andconsequently not requiring costlyclinical tests in order to gain approval.However, the process of manufactur-ing biologics creates difficulty indemonstrating scientifically that theactive molecules in the biologic prod-uct are identical to those in the origi-nal. The FDA has said that it willconsider approving biologics whilereserving the right to require datafrom clinical tests, but at the sametime it is looking to set a more defini-tive policy. This has been confirmed incongressional testimony by ActingCommissioner Lester Crawford, whosaid the agency was preparing torelease such guidelines

The FDA’s move toward setting pro-cedures for the approval of genericbiologics has become the subject ofindustry concern for some time, as itseems to make clinical testing a likelyrequirement for approval. Last year,the Biotechnology Industry Organiza-tion (BIO) filed a challenge to theFDA’s legal authority and scientific fea-sibility of the agency approving bio-logics under its current procedures.Then, on April 8 of this year, Genen-tech filed a petition aimed at prevent-ing the FDA from issuing the expectedguidelines. Genentech claimed that

Legal Batt le Looming Over Generics Issues

by John D . Thompson , Ed i tor

Upstate, in collaboration with theUniversity of Virginia Health ScienceCenter, has been granted a Phase ISTTR (Small Business TechnologyTransfer) award in the amount of$207,522 by the National CancerInstitute. The grant is to fund initialexperiments to develop novel smallmolecule inhibitors of histone acetyl-transferase enzymes (HATs), impor-tant regulators of genome function.

Abberant HAT function is commonin several types of cancer, and thedevelopment of inhibitors to HATscould lead to future progress in cancertherapeutics. Cell signaling, Upstate’score business, is a common theme incancer research and drug discovery.

The STTR award mandates thatwork be conducted jointly with abusiness performing at least 40 per-cent of the work and a non-profit

research institution performing atleast 30 percent. Under the grantstructure, positive peer reviewedresults at the end of Phase I (nextyear) could lead to an additionalgrant approval for Phase II and a dra-matic increase in funding.

“We are extremely pleased to havethis opportunity to work with theUniversity of Virginia Health ScienceCenter on this project. This type ofresearch can lead to the developmentof novel cancer treatment protocols,”said James Bone, Ph.D., a Researchand Development Manager forUpstate.

Upstate, a supplier of cell signalingproducts, technology, platforms andservices, is headquartered in Char-lottesville, Virginia, and has centersin Lake Placid, New York, andDundee and Cambridge in the UK.

Upstate Awarded Nat ional Cancer Inst i tute Grant In Collaborat ion With University of Virg inia


will be compared to the developmentof penicillin, the polio vaccine and theheart transplant.”

The United Kingdom has recentlypassed several milestones in stem cellresearch. The world’s first stem cellbank was formally opened in Hertford-shire in May, with the deposition oftwo cell lines. In the same month, theNewcastle Centre for Life applied tothe Human Fertilization and Embryol-ogy Authority for a license to under-take research involving somatic cellnuclear transfer.

Dr. Pedersen, who was drawn toCambridge from California by the free-dom to work on human embryonicstem cells, predicted that his new cen-ter will attract a top stem cellresearchers from the U.S. who are dis-satisfied with the failure of the govern-ment to support human embryonicstem cell research. He told The Scientistthat the stability of the UK’s policy onstem cell research will prove more

attractive than the potential volatilityof U.S. policy which is subject tochange depending on which partycontrols Congress and the WhiteHouse. There is, he said, no guaranteethat any change for the better will notbe undone by a future administration.

The UK ProLife Party urged the newcenter to concentrate on animal, ratherthan human, embryonic stem cells.“There are still fundamental problemsto be solved in animal models, in par-ticular how to control growth of stemcells and stop them forming tumors,” aProLife spokesperson told The Scientist.

Pedersen, however, pointed out thatwhile much of the center’s earlyresearch will be fundamental, it willalso address issues of clinical interestalready identified by other laborato-ries, and this requires human stemcells. “We are already starting alongthat pathway, for example, asking howwe make insulin-producing cells forthe pancreas,” he said.

new £16.5 million ($30 mil-lion U.S.) stem cell center inCambridge that was founded

by the UK government last month willbe committed to fundamental researchon both human embryonic and adultstem cells as a step toward studyingtherapeutic applications.

The new center will be directed byRoger Pedersen, Professor of RegenerativeMedicine at Cambridge University, whosaid that more than half of the researchwill be on embryonic stem cells.

“This funding comes at a critical junc-ture in the development of the stem cellfield, as the UK builds strength andmomentum to take the lead in the inter-national stem cell research effort,” headded. “Thousands of people live with theeffects of juvenile diabetes, even thoughthey take insulin, and existing therapiesfor Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s andmultiple sclerosis, also fall far short of acure. The new Medical Research Council(MRC) Center will help scientists bridgethe gap between fundamental stem cellresearch and clinical application, speedingthe delivery of treatments for diseases,many of which are currently incurable,from the lab to the clinic.”

In the U.S., Christopher Reeve,Chairman of the Christopher ReeveParalysis Foundation, commented, “Iam delighted to hear from Roger Peder-sen that the Medical Research Councilwill be providing support for a stem cellresearch center in Cambridge, bringinga world-class team of scientists togetherunder one roof. I believe that researchon embryonic stem cells must be takenforward with the utmost urgency, as itis our greatest hope for curing condi-tions such as spinal cord injury, dia-betes and Parkinson’s disease that arebeyond the reach of current therapies.Stem cell research should lead to thekinds of medical advances that one day

New U K Center to Focus on Stem Cell ResearchA

Research Associate position in membrane protein structure-function, electron transport, and energy transduction membrane proteincomplexes. Applicant must have a Ph.D. in biochemistry or a relateddiscipline with postdoctoral research experience in the structure functionstudy of membrane protein. Experience in protein crystallization,molecular biology, or organic synthesis is preferred. Competitive salarynegotiable up to $35,002 for 11-month year, plus fringe benefits. Positionrenewable through 04/30/10, depending on performance.

Send CV, list of three references, and copies of three most relevantpublications to: Prof. Chang-An YuDepartmentof Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Oklahoma State University 246 Noble Research CenterStillwater, OK 74078-3035

Oklahoma State University is an Affirmative Action/EqualOpportunity Employer Committed to Multicultural Diversity


C a l e n d a r o f S c i e n t i f i c M e e t i n g sS E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 4

Relaxin 2004: Fourth International Conference onRelaxin and Related Peptides

September 5-10 • Grand Teton National Park, Jackson Hole, WYThis conference will present recent advances on the chemistry,physiology, and pharmacology of relaxin, related peptides, andtheir receptors.Email: [email protected]: http://www.life.uiuc.edu/relaxin2004/

Stem Cell Biology: Development and Plasticity

September 16-19 • Scheman Continuing Education BuildingIowa State University, Ames, Iowa.Abstracts due July 16, 2004; Registration deadline: August 16, 2004 Student Travel Grant Applications due July 16, 2004 Contact: Growth Factor and Signal Transduction ConferencesSymposium OfficePh: 515-294-7978; Fx: 515-294-2244; Email: [email protected]: http://www.bb.iastate.edu/-gfstlhomepg.htmi

Cellular and Molecular Basis of RegenerationEuroConference on the Molecular Pathways Leading toRegeneration

September 18–23 • San Feliu de Guixols, SpainContact: European Science Foundation, EURESCO OfficePh: +33(0)3 88 76 71 35; Fx: +33 (0)3 88 36 69 87Email: [email protected]; Website: http://www.esf.org/euresco

O C T O B E R 2 0 0 4

Cytokines in Cancer and Immunity:Joint Conference of ICS and ISICR

October 21-25 • San Juan, Puerto RicoAn exceptional meeting bringing together leading investiga-tors in cytokine biology, cancer and immunology. Keynote speakers: Michael Karin and Tak Mak.Abstract deadline: June 11, 2004Email: [email protected]; Fax: 706 228-4685 Website: www.cytokines2004.org

An ASBMB Sponsored Symposium:Redox Signaling in Biology and Disease

October 21 – 24 • Kiawah Island, South CarolinaOrganized by Larry Marnett, Vanderbilt U. and Roy J.Soberman, Harvard Med. SchoolPlenary Lecture: Regulation of Mammalian Clock GenesSteven L. McKnight, U. of Texas, Southwestern Medical CenterContact: Joan Geiling, Ph: 301-634-7145; Fax: 301-634-7126Email: [email protected]; Website: www.asbmb.org

A U G U S T 2 0 0 4

12th International Conference on Second Messengersand Phospoproteins

August 3–7 • Montreal, CanadaContact: [email protected]: http://www.secondmessengers2004.ca

FASEB Conference: Transcriptional Regulation DuringCell Growth, Differentiation, and Development

August 14–19 • Saxtons River, Vermont Co-organizers: Barbara Graves and John TamkunGo to http://src.faseb.org to fill out online application.Student travel awards available.

Macromolecular Organization & Cell Function

August 15–20 • Queen’s College, Oxford, UKPh: 401-783-4011; Email: [email protected]: http://www.grc.uri.edu/programs/2004/macromol.htm

EuroScience Open Forum 2004: Highlighting Science,Technology & Innovation in Europe

August 25–28 • StockholmContact: Gabriella Norlin, Project LeaderPhone: +46 8 546 44 154; Fax: +46 8 546 44 155Email: [email protected] address: Swedish Research CouncilSE-103 78 Stockholm, Sweden

International Congress on Biocatalysis 2004

August 29–September 1 • University of Technology, Hamburg,GermanyContact: Gerlinde Loebkens; FON +49-40-76618012FAX +49-40-76618018; e-mail: [email protected]: www.biocat2004.de

8th International Symposium on the Maillard Reaction

August 28–September 1 • Charleston, South CarolinaFor detailed information about the meeting, including abstractsubmission, a call for papers and deadlines.Website: http://Maillard.chem.sc.eduEmail: [email protected]

5th Meeting on Methods in Protein Structure Analysis

August 29-September 2 • University of Washington, SeattlePh: 206-706-8118; Email: [email protected]: http://depts.washington.edu/biowww/mpsa2004/

An ASBMB Sponsored Symposium: Transcriptional Regulation by Chromatin and RNAPolymerase II

October 29 - November 1 • Granlibakken, Lake Tahoe,CaliforniaOrganized by Ali Shilatifard, St. Louis U. School of Med.Keynote Speakers: Joan Conaway and Ronald ConawayContact: Joan Geiling, Ph: 301-634-7145; Fax: 301-634-7126Email: [email protected]; Website: www.asbmb.org

N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 4

4th International Congress on Autoimmunity

November 3–7 • Budapest, HungaryDeadline for Receipt of Abstracts: June 20, 2004 Contact: 4th International Congress on Autoimmunity KenesInternational—Global Congress Organisers and AssociationManagement Services,17 Rue du Cendrier, PO Box 1726,CH-1211 Geneva 1, SWITZERLAND Ph: +41 22 908 0488; Fx: +41 22 732 2850 Email: [email protected]: www.kenes.com/autoim2004

American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists AAPS Annual Meeting and Exposition

November 7-11 • Baltimore, MarylandPh: 703 243 2800; Fx: 703 243 9650Website: www.aapspharmaceutica.com/meetings/futuremeetings/

First Latin-American Protein Society Meeting

November 8-12 • Hotel do Frade, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilSponsored by The Protein Society, The Wellcome Trust, andBrazilian research funding agencies.For more information: Dr. Alberto SpisniBrazilian Synchrotron Light Laboratory, Campinas, Brazil,and Dept. Experimental Medicine, University of Parma, ItalyCaixa Postal 6192 - CEP 13084-971, Campinas, SP, BrazilPh: +55 19 3287-4520; Fx: +55 19 3287-4632 Email: [email protected]; Website: www.lnls.br/lapsm

Second National Meeting of the American Society forMatrix Biology

Nov 10–13 • San Diego, CaliforniaContact: ASMB, 2019 Galisteo Street, Building I-1, Santa Fe,NM 87505; Ph: 505 989-4735; email: [email protected]: http://www.asmb.net

D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 4

American Society for Cell Biology, 44th Annual Meeting

December 4-8 • Washington, DCPh: 301-347-9300; Fx: 301-347-9310Website: http://www.ascb.org/

Department Heads Take Note:

AS BM B Offers Free Membership to

New Ph.D.s ASBMB is now offering a free one-year

Associate membership to all students whohave, within the past year, earned a Ph.D.

degree in the molecular life sciences or related areas.

ASBMB implemented this program as away to recognize the significant

accomplishment of earning the Ph.D., and toprovide new Ph.D.s with something tangible

and of economic value. Membership inASBMB brings with it a free subscription to

the online versions of the Journal of BiologicalChemistry and Molecular and Cellular

Proteomics, as well as subscriptions to TheScientist and the Society’s magazine, ASBMBToday, discounts on other publications, and a

host of other benefits.

The Society is asking department chairs to provide ASBMB with the names and

addresses of each new Ph.D. recipient fromtheir institutions. Upon receipt of this

information, we will write the new Ph.D.s tocongratulate them on their accomplishmentand offer the free one-year membership inASBMB. Names and addresses of the new

Ph.D.s should be sent to:

Membership at ASBMBAmerican Society for Biochemistry

& Molecular Biology9650 Rockville PikeBethesda, MD 20814Email: [email protected]

This is an ongoing project; please advise uswhenever a student in your department earns thePh.D., so that we can make this free membershipoffer to him or her.

constituent society of faseb american society for ... · pdf filea message from asbmb’s...

Documents