Monday, April 2, 2012

Monday Musical Offense

Practice time has been nonexistent here--I've been playing a couple of the Bach Inventions and Sinfonias, which are nice because they are about a minute long, so if I only have five minutes to practice a week, I can at least play one a couple of times.

Absent anything presentable, I will quote this, which circulated 'round the intertubes a couple of weeks ago. If you haven't seen it, you should. It's from Czech dissident/jazz musician/etc Josef Skvorecky, describing the instructions given to pop bands by the Nazis after they took control of Czechoslovakia (full article here, worth reading):

  1. Pieces in foxtrot rhythm (so-called swing) are not to exceed 20% of the repertoires of light orchestras and dance bands;
  2. in this so-called jazz type repertoire, preference is to be given to compositions in a major key and to lyrics expressing joy in life rather than Jewishly gloomy lyrics;
  3. As to tempo, preference is also to be given to brisk compositions over slow ones so-called blues); however, the pace must not exceed a certain degree of allegro, commensurate with the Aryan sense of discipline and moderation. On no account will Negroid excesses in tempo (so-called hot jazz) or in solo performances (so-called breaks) be tolerated;
  4. so-called jazz compositions may contain at most 10% syncopation; the remainder must consist of a natural legato movement devoid of the hysterical rhythmic reverses characteristic of the barbarian races and conductive to dark instincts alien to the German people (so-called riffs);
  5. strictly prohibited is the use of instruments alien to the German spirit (so-called cowbells, flexatone, brushes, etc.) as well as all mutes which turn the noble sound of wind and brass instruments into a Jewish-Freemasonic yowl (so-called wa-wa, hat, etc.);
  6. also prohibited are so-called drum breaks longer than half a bar in four-quarter beat (except in stylized military marches);
  7. the double bass must be played solely with the bow in so-called jazz compositions;
  8. plucking of the strings is prohibited, since it is damaging to the instrument and detrimental to Aryan musicality; if a so-called pizzicato effect is absolutely desirable for the character of the composition, strict care must be taken lest the string be allowed to patter on the sordine, which is henceforth forbidden;
  9. musicians are likewise forbidden to make vocal improvisations (so-called scat);
  10. all light orchestras and dance bands are advised to restrict the use of saxophones of all keys and to substitute for them the violin-cello, the viola or possibly a suitable folk instrument.

(I sometimes play too strictly; I had a teacher who would urge me to squelch my inner German.)

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Apparently, Bacteria have ears...

Bacteria have an endless ability to amaze. Even plain old Escherichia coli, the workhorse organism of thousands of labs—an organism that, in my youth, I thought too boring and well-known to be worth focusing a career on—still generates research that leaves us dumbstruck and groping for explanations. Nowadays, as often as not, these surprises turn up on the fringes of science and don’t really affect our understanding of how the world works. However, they do make us pause and scratch our heads—sometimes at the result itself, other times at why the initial experiments were done. So, we have findings from Czech researchers about how E. coli in “heavy” water (enriched for the deuterium isotope of hydrogen, 2H2O) grow faster than they do in normal water. We have the finding from an astrobiology group that growth in zero gravity causes changes in the expression of almost half of E. coli’s genes. And now, a new report suggests that E. coli can actually sense and respond to sound—in a word, bacteria can hear.


The finding, like many in the history of science, is an example of Pasteur’s dictum about fortune favoring the prepared mind. In this case, the mind belongs to Felix Balatro of Miskatonic University. He was actually testing a pet hypothesis about whether Bacteria could learn.


Of course, one would not expect terribly deep thinking from a bacterium. Nor would you expect deep thinking from the flatworm Planaria—however, this has been demonstrated using a T-maze. A T-maze is the simplest possible maze: the worm can go forward from the bottom of the T to the top, then it can turn left or right. If the reward is consistently on the right, then the little guys start turning right more than half of the time. Balatro had the rather crazy idea that bacteria could do the same trick. One problem he had to solve was a matter of scale: a planarial T-maze is a few centimeters long, a distance that would take a couple of generations for E. coli to swim. Fortunately, advances in microfluidics and techniques borrowed from semiconductor production enabled him to produce a T-maze of millimeter scale, with exactly equal concentrations of an attractant (aspartate) at each branch of the maze.


Now, the first piece of luck for Balatro was that he didn’t really think this through. Planaria, being flatworms, have a clearly defined left and right. They crawl, instead of swimming. So, the right side of the T-maze corresponds only to the right side of the flatworm’s body. Not so with E. coli. They swim, and spiral and loop and frequently tumble as they swim, so they “know not their right hand from their left.” Anyone knowing this basic fact of E. coli’s biology knows that this experiment would fail—but Balatro, either through ignorance or (more likely) stubbornness, pushed ahead.


Amazingly, E. coli seemed to learn to turn right. Balatro ran his cells through the T-maze, and collected the cells that made it to the right side of the maze. Using some nifty microfluidic devices, he let these cells reproduce for one generation, and ran them through the maze again. Again he selected the cells that turned right, and let them grow again…and again, and again, for approximately a thousand generations. After this time, when he ran a thousand cells through the maze, he found that between 60 and 70% of the cells would turn right.


This result is completely, totally, 100% unbelievable. Being a good scientist, Balatro didn’t believe it. Suspecting some barely perceptible turbulence in his test chamber, he turned the microfluidic slide upside down in the microscope—and obtained the same result. He wondered if the bacteria were somehow responding to light, so he blacked out his lab and ran the cells through the maze with the microscope’s lights out—and again found that nearly three quarters of the cells turned right.


Magnetotaxis—the ability to sense and respond to the Earth’s magnetic field—is not unknown among the bacteria, so Balatro tried to test this. “Right” in his original maze corresponded to south-southeast. He spent a day rearranging the tangle of pumps and controllers surrounding the apparatus so that “right” now corresponded to north-northwest, and he must have experienced a mixture of surprise and elation when he found that now, 75% of his cells got to the T and turned left!


Balatro’s celebratory mood was presumably deflated when he shared his results with his colleague, D. Avril Poisson. She looked through the microscope at the maze, coolly removed a magnet from a nearby refrigerator door, and set it upon the stage. The resulting magnetic field was many times stronger than the Earth’s, and the bacteria did not change their behavior at all. In fact, when Balatro ran the experiment in her presence, the bacteria seemed to forget everything—they got to the T, and half turned left, half turned right.


Here’ was Balatro’s second piece of luck. It had to do with a combination of his intellect and his personal eccentricities. I got to know one of Balatro’s PhD committee members when I was in graduate school, and she described him as “one of the most brilliant and…um…uh…ehhh…I guess you could say lateral thinkers I’ve met.” He apparently lived in the lab, only going home to shower; he spent a fair amount of his time in lab stoned, and he spent absolutely all of his time in lab, awake or asleep, with the stereo blasting the Grateful Dead at deafening volume. He even ditched one thesis advisor (and, thus one field of study and one future career) for another solely because his newly chosen advisor was deaf and didn’t mind the noise—and so oncology’s loss was microbiology’s gain.


Rather than mope about a failed experiment, Balatro realized that only one thing had changed when Poisson had entered the room. Out of hard-learned politeness, he had muted Jerry Garcia’s solo from “Sugaree” at the Rockpalast, 1977, blasting from the speakers in the south end of his lab. Nothing else had changed—nothing about light, the magnetic field, temperature, pH, nutrient or redox gradients, or any of the myriad other things bacteria are known to sense. Just pure, Gratefully Dead sound. Had he discovered phonotaxis?


Of course, Balatro confirmed this result, and spent a lot of time designing experiments that eliminated other possibilities and left the conclusion that his bacteria could hear and turn towards sound. And so we have the paper, given the innocuous title “Novel functions for mechanosensitive channel proteins in an evolved Escherichia coli system,” and slipped into print in the obscure journal Acta Pathologica, Microbiologica et Immunologica Scandinavica. It’s as if Balatro doesn’t want us to notice that he has discovered something incredible.


However, this is a powerful paper; Balatro, working with Poisson, even proposes a plausible mechanism. Sound, at the cellular level, is a mechanical phenomenon—an alternation of high and low pressure. Bacterial cells have mechanosensory proteins in their membranes, and these have been intensively studied for their role in helping cells survive osmotic stresses. These proteins, as they sit in the cell’s membrane, are deformed when the cell membrane is deformed; the change in the protein’s shape causes the protein to send a signal into the cell, resulting in a change in the expression of several genes.


Balatro and Poisson examined the genes for these mechanosensory proteins, mscL and mscS, in the cells that consistently turn towards high-intensity sound, and found that these genes had evolved over the course of generations of selection. The genes had, in fact, recombined with genes for chemotaxis—that is, genes that encoded proteins that sensed food, and directed cells to swim towards higher concentrations of food. The evolved gene encoded a hybrid protein that still sensed mechanical pressure (though this too had changed slightly), but now controlled the cell’s swimming behavior.


This result is curious, and leaves open lots of questions. We still don’t quite understand how sound waves, which should be much larger than a bacterial cell, can have a perceived direction to E. coli—it would be as if we could tell, just using our own senses, what direction a change in barometric pressure came from. There is also the puzzle of how the changes in the pressure-sensing component of the MscL and MscS proteins in these “hearing” bacteria relate to their ability to hear. Information about the structure of these mutant proteins should provide some answers, and Balatro is quite able to get that data rapidly.


Ultimately, like cells growing in Deuterium or microgravity, this is a completely artificial situation, and thus not likely to be of especial biological significance. Still, it’s pretty neat, and a good reminder of both how science progresses and how amazingly extraordinary even “ordinary” bacteria can be.


Mann, L.R., and Moses, V. (1971). Properties of Escherichia coli grown in deuterated media. Folia Microbiol Praha 16 (4): 267-84.


Rosenzweig, J.A., Abogunde, O., Thomas, K., Lawal A., Nguyen, Y-U., Sodipe, A., and Jejelowo, O (2010). Spaceflight and modeled microgravity effects on microbial growth and virulence. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 85 (4): 885-891.


Jacobson, A.L, Fried, C., and Horowitz, S.D. (1966) Planarians and memory. Nature 209: 599-601.


Matsunaga, T., and Okamura, Y (2003). Genes and Proteins involved in Bacterial Magnetic Particle Formation. Trends in Microbiology 11(11): 536-41.


Balatro, Felix, and Poisson, D. Avril (2012). Novel functions for mechanosensitive channel proteins in an evolved Escherichia coli system. Acta Pathologica, Microbiologica et Immunologica Scandinavica 120 (4): 4652-4661.


Haswell, Elizabeth, Phillips, R., and Rees, D.C. (2011) Mechanosensitive Channels: What Can They Do and How Do They Do It? Structure 19: 1356-1369.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Friday Flora More from Socal

Some more of the flora encountered while hiking in Topanga State Park a couple of weeks ago...these are a little fresher than last weeks.

Ribes speciosum, Fuchsia-flowered gooseberry:Anaphalis margaritacea, Pearly everlasting (so called because the flowers are little and pearly, and dry as straw so they last a long time--kind of like the Australian strawflower)
Ceanothus i-have-no-clue-what-species Mountain lilac.
And a nice view of some sycamores in the next canyon over.
I had to work hard to make it so there was little human impact in the picture. Flying into LAX, I had a view of the entire Santa Monica Mountains, and it seemed as if every ridgeline was capped with mega-mansions or at least a fire road. Every time I look, the sprawl has crept further up the hills. It had been several years since I visited Topanga State Park, and I was kind of surprised to see just how developed the town of Topanga had become.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Amphibious

I sometimes feel like I live in two parallel universes, the inhabitants of which don't really know about each other.

Last week saw me participating in the adventure of air travel, which gave me the chance to dig into some back issues of Science, and this evening I had a chat with brother M., who told me about his lesson plan for his environmental science class tomorrow. In this world, everyone knows that evolution happens and is well documented, and there are really neat studies being done right now that give insights into the detailed mechanisms and pace of evolutionary change. In this world, a driver of evolutionary change is a climate that is changing due to human activity. Everybody in this world knows about it, and sees the evidence in every nook and cranny of the environment. Heck, everybody in this world even calls the current geologic era the "Anthropocene." Everybody in this world knows why it's happening, and what ought to be done about it.

Traveling by air, one also gets treated to the journalistic stylings of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal and all manner of political opinion--when I looked up from my magazines, I felt like I had portaled into a parallel world where teaching evolution is highly questionable, and where the politicians preferred by about half of the populace denied the existence of climate change and vehemently denied that humans had any role in the problem. It causes a sort of psychic whiplash, this tunneling back and forth between universes. As I was saying to brother M., it must be really nice to live in that universe where the laws of physics don't obtain.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

FRETting about folding

Nature is the consummate magician. There are things that human intelligence and its servant computers fail to do despite the mightiest struggles; nature does them with an insouciant shrug. For a biologist, the most maddening example of this is the folding of proteins.


A protein is a linear molecule, hundreds or thousands of atoms long. Every third atom in this chain has a chemical decoration; there are twenty different types of decorations, some acidic, some basic, some neutral, some positively charged, or negatively, or relatively large or small. Depending on the linear arrangement of these decorations, the protein can coil up like an old-fashioned telephone cord, or fold itself in pleats, or sort of randomly squiggle about, in any combination of different patterns in three-dimensional space. Here’s an example, the botox protein I wrote about earlier.

If this protein were to fold up in the wrong shape, it wouldn’t work at all. So how does a protein always fold up into the right shape?


Now, we know that the decision about how to bits of the protein line up next to each other is in some way dependent upon the order of decorations on the atoms in the protein chain. Some decorations like to be next to each other, while others shun each other’s company. In a really simplified image, you can imagine a protein as being like a whip with decorated with a plus and a minus static charge, a north and a south pole magnet, a bit of fuzz and a bit of claw Velcro, a “male” and a “female” Lego block, a similar pair of Duplo blocks, and an electrical plug and a socket. If you were to randomly shake that whip around, you could predict that you would always end up at the same end state: plus with minus, north with south, and so on. This arrangement is the most stable state—the lowest energy state.


Proteins (in theory) behave similarly, only the “whip” is shaken by the random jiggling of thermal motion—and, usually, a specific protein with a specific arrangement of decorations will always end up in the same three-dimensional shape. And, as a testament to human ingenuity and the power of computers, we can actually predict the most stable, lowest-energy state of short proteins with relatively simple arrangements of decorations.


We run into problems, though, when we try to predict the three-dimensional structure of more everyday proteins—which have hundreds of decorations. The most sophisticated computers get bogged down with all the possible permutations, and we have a mixed record at best for understanding how these things fold up. And while we crack our skulls about the problem, nature casually takes proteins and effortlessly folds them into the right shape, over and over again. It keeps a biologist humble.


We don’t even really understand the kinetics of the process—some proteins fold up into their finished shape in milliseconds, while others that are not much longer take thousands of times longer to fold up. What takes longer? Do the slower proteins have more possibilities to try out before they settle on the best shape? Are they just not as flexible? A neat technical tour-de-force gives us at least a little clue towards this last problem. A group of researchers at the National Institutes of Health (I approve of this use of my taxes) found an interesting similarity between the behavior of “fast-folding” and “slow-folding” proteins.


So, consider these two proteins.

This one, nicknamed WW, folds into this shape rapidly.

This one, named GB1, folds into shape 10,000 times more slowly.


What does that mean, what I just wrote? Those numbers are based on taking a huge number of unfolded protein molecules of WW or GB1, putting them in solution, and measuring how long it takes for half of them to assume their folded shape. So, in this case, “how fast something folds” is descripting of a large population, but doesn’t tell us much about how an individual molecule behaves. How long does it take a single individual protein to transition from unfolded to properly-folded?


A morbid analogy would be the half life of a human population: if you looked at all the people born in 1903, you could calculate a half-life, or how long it takes for half of that group of people to die. This tells you a lot about how long an average person lives, which is many years. It tells you nothing about how long it takes to transition from alive to not-alive, which is usually a rapid transition.


What the NIH researchers did was to modify these proteins so that they could examine them, and distinguish more precisely how long it took an individual to change from unfolded to properly folded. To do this, they attached specific dye molecules to either end of the unfolded protein. These dye molecules have a really cool property: if you zap one with the right amount of energy in the form of purple light, it will actually dump that energy onto the other dye molecule, which will fluoresce, shining with red light. They will only do this, though, if the dye molecules are really close together, and in this setting, they are only close together if the protein is properly folded. This process is called Förster Resonance Energy Transfer, or FRET. To go back to the image of a decorated whip, this is like attaching dye markers to either end of the whip. If the whip is unfolded, when you shone purple light on it, it wouldn't fluoresce. Energy couldn't get from one end of the whip to the other:

If it were partially folded, it would fluoresce weakly, because it would be hard for energy to get from one dye molecule to the other.


If it were fully folded, and you shone purple light on it, it would be easy for energy to get from one dye molecule to the other, so it would fluoresce brightly.

So, you could measure how fast it takes the whip to get folded by measuring how rapidly red fluorescence increases. So, measuring how long it takes an individual protein to change from unfolded to properly folded was a matter of measuring how rapidly FRET efficiency increased.


The data from these experiments are not all that fun to look at, involving a fair amount of

But the bottom line was that for both fast- and slow-folding proteins, the transition from no structure at all to completely folded structure was about the same, in the range of a hundredth of a millisecond. The "slow-folding" proteins seem to dawdle and delay and do everything they can to put off folding, but once they decide to fold, they fold just as rapidly as the "fast-folding" ones. It's kind of like the situation mentioned earlier with the population of humans born in 1903; some may live a long time, others die in infancy, but the transition between alive and dead always takes the same, brief amount of time.


So, we know a little more about the process of protein folding now. If we are trying to understand why two proteins fold up at rates that differ ten thousand-fold, we at least know where not to look for answers. However, we still don’t really know what the answer is--what the slow protein is doing when it's not folding up. Nature, like a good magician, is still reminding that we are in the dark.


Hoi Sung Chung, Kevin McHale, John M. Louis, and William A. Eaton (2012). Single-Molecule Fluorescence Experiments Determine Protein Folding Transition Path Times. Science 335: 981- 984.


The Wikipedia web page on FRET is not bad. The above is obviously a gross simplification.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Friday Flora Fossil Flake edition


Absolutely no idea what kind of plant this is, but it's a few million years old. It's a chip or flake of fossilized vegetation in a bit of mudstone, Topanga Canyon State Park, Santa Monica Mountains, about 2 cm long. There's a bunch of places where you can fine really fine-grained sedimentary rock, but only a few places where you can find fossils--mostly marine shells, a few tiny fish bones, and a few bits of miscellaneous detritus such as this. The rock is so bland and uniform that anything like this really stands out.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

The Flame Challenge

There was an editorial in Science magazine that really caught my attention; instead of being from the editor in chief or some other notable scientist, it was from Alan Alda, who seems to be enjoying a career as a science popularizer. The letter is a challenge that resonated with me, since it stems from an experience that both Mr. Alda and I shared--a youthful question that was not satisfactorily answered.

"What is a flame?"

I clearly remember asking my dad this very question, and (like Mr. Alda) not getting an answer that made me feel any closer to understanding. I don't know why, but I remember exactly where we were and what time of day it was, walking to the grocery store after dinner one evening. Maybe it's so clear in my mind because the event made me realize my dad couldn't necessarily answer all my questions.

Mr. Alda's challenge (which you should try; if you do, feel free to put it in comments or link to it) is to come up with an answer that will satisfy an 11-year old. So, here's my go--this is off the cuff, in the spirit of me springing the question on my dad, so no editing:

What is a flame? It's kind of hard to define, because it's two things at once--it's a thing and a process, the same way a dance is a thing and a process. I could say a dance is a thing, a set of steps that a group of people do, but it's also a process, where the people are doing a set of steps and moving around from start to finish.

So, a flame's like that--it's a thing, a chemical reaction involving some atoms changing partners. But it's also a process, that starts with some wood and some air and ends up with some ash and some smoke. The process is really neat.

If you're burning wood, it's got a bunch of atoms of carbon that are all bound to each other. Those atoms are OK with their situation, but they'd much rather be bound to oxygen to make carbon dioxide. But if they're in wood, it's really hard for them to do that. The first thing that's got to happen is that you have to give those carbon atoms in the wood the chance to react--get them on the dance floor, like--and the way you do that is with a lot of heat, like from a match. That actually makes wood vapor, kind of like the way that water makes water vapor or steam when you heat it up. Word! Wood--as a gas!

Anyway, wood gas is on the dance floor and now it can bump into oxygen and react with it. That reaction releases a bunch of energy--energy that used to be needed to hold carbon atoms together but isn't needed any more--and we see some of that energy as light, feel some of it as heat, and some more of that energy is used to vaporize more wood. So, the "thing" of a flame is that chemical reaction, but the "process" of a flame is wood or wax getting heated up, vaporizing so it can react with oxygen, reacting with oxygen, giving up a lot of energy, and using some of that energy to keep the process going. You're left with some carbon dioxide, and some ash, which is the bit of wood that can't get vaporized to burn.

I love looking at fire--I mean, it's toasty warm and makes neat patterns, but it's so cool to think about those carbon atoms getting heated up to get on the dance floor, join with oxygen, and keep the dance going.


-----

Well, there it is, no editing. It's definitely not perfect, and a couple of bits make me cringe. Not sure if I should enter, edit and enter, or just give it a miss. I wonder if 11-year old me would be satisfied. As I recall, when I asked my dad this question, I had just finished reading a YA-science book about plasma and how wonderful the world would be when we have fusion power, and my dad was a professor of biochemistry. There's no doubt I wouldn't be able to deliver the above explanation to 11-year old me--I doubt I'd be able to refrain from interrupting with a question.