Botox, jellyfish and a galaxy of molecules

Inaugural_lecture_poster_4acropped
Today I give a public lecture, curiously entitled, 'Botox, jellyfish and a galaxy of molecules', which is meant to give a flavour of the work that goes on in my research group. I thought it'd be a good idea to try to do the same here - it's turned into a of a whopping blog post but stick with it, I hope you'll find it interesting.

Cell biology, the study of cells and how they work, has undergone a bit of a revolution (if you can have a bit of one of those) in recent years. This has come about because of a better-late-than-never close integration between the life sciences with the physical sciences. This has led to an acceleration in our abilities to actually 'see' what is going on inside living cells (defined as the minimal units of life). Now we can determine the precise locations of single molecules (the minimal units of cells) with nano-scale certainty (there are a BILLION nanometres in one metre), inside living samples.

The gallery below tries to familiarise you with the tiny scales we are talking about - the flea on the pinhead is about half a millimetre long, the orange pollen grains are about 0.1 mm. We can relate to that. The red things are erythrocytes - red blood cells. These are about 8 microns diameter (there are 1000 microns in a millimetre...) - and the green nasties are single E. Coli cells, smaller still at 1 micron long (ie one one thousandths of a millimetre). Living things run out of steam at scales smaller than this - the colourful thing is a viral particle - at around 50 nanometres it is too small to have all the qualifications for being 'alive' but it's made of the same things as cells are; proteins and DNA. Clever biochemistry can determine the position of every atom in a protein (single proteins are between 1- 5 nanometres diameter, incidentally) - but this approach can't be applied to living samples.

The challenge is to determine the postions, interactions and dynamic movements of single protein molecules inside living samples, in 'real-time' - this can only lead to further understanding of cells, diseases and physiology, but needs biology, physics, chemistry and mathematics to come together to make it work.

(download)

This is made possible by using fluorescence - the property of some things to absorb light of a particular wavelength (colour) and emit a colour of a longer wavelength. Fancy microscopes can detect these colours with enormous sensitivity, down to single photons. This got really exciting when zoologists discovered that the Pacific jellyfish, Aequorea victoria (named after the great queen, natch) had cells in its body that were fluorescent. Work in the 1980s determined that these amazing light-emitting cells were able to do their tricks using only a single protein - imaginatively dubbed 'Green Fluorescent Protein', or GFP, at that time.

(download)

The key point here is that the sequences and subsequent structures of proteins are determined by the sequence of DNA in the cells - so taking the DNA encoding GFP from the jellyfish and putting it into any cell made the recipient green, so making it visible down the microscope. The genetic code being completely conserved across all species means that we can take the gene encoding GFP, fuse the DNA to the gene making any other protein (say, for example, insulin), and the subsequent novel 'fusion protein' made by the cells becomes fluorescent. Now, not only can we see cells, but we can see where groups of individual proteins go inside cells, because we can introduce DNA that we made from a jellyfish gene fused to the gene of something we want to study and get the cells to make a fluorescent protein out of it, that behaves in the way we want it to. Amazing, isn't it?

It gets better. Molecular biologists (the new and better word for 'genetic engineers') and biochemists looked at the structure of the GFP protein and predicted which bits of the protein gave it particular features, like its colour. They then changed the DNA sequence to alter the encoded protein and created a palette of fluorescent proteins that have only ever existed because we made them - and these allow us to specifically illuminate different parts of cells all at once. We've got available to us hues from blue to cyan, green, yellow, orange and reds to play with now, all encoded from different DNA sequences encoding distinct proteins. Beautiful, isn't it?

Fps

This has enabled all sorts of things to be seen in living cells, in three-dimensions, over time - things we never saw happening before. An entire software industry, driven by advances in gaming, has sprung up to deal with the very large 3-D computer data files describing microscope images, allowing cell biologists to interact with cells in ways we never imagined even 10 years ago. 3-D glasses were never put to a more productive use.

Z7-00227
Things got even better when the physicists wised-up to what we were doing. The fluorescent light we see coming from our new cell-made tools arises from molecules of GFP (or a coloured cousin) - but we can't resolve the single molecules because there are too many of them, too close together, for the microscope to see.Imagine if we could turn off and on single molecules at will, note their positions repetitively until we had resolved the precise location of every molecule in the cell. This way, the light from each individual protein wouldn't overlap so we would be able to determine where it has come from, given sufficient understanding of how the optics in a microscope work.

This idea was made possible using a new form of GFP - a 'photoactivatable' GFP, unable to be fluorescent unless told to do so by the viewer. Shining a controlled amount of UV light onto these proteins randomly 'activates' a subset of the molecules, making them fluorescent - their limited lifetime means they burn bright but die young, until replaced by another subset. Activating proteins, imaging them until they are gone, then repreatedly activating another cohort and imaging those until all the molecules in the cell are consumed, allows us to determine where each light signal arose from. The flashing spots in the movie file below all arose from single molecules like some tiny firework display.

(download)
Software mathematically determines the precise centre of each and every one of those spots and so delivers the XY-coordinates of the molecule the light signal arose from - then those coordinates are used to generate a 'map' showing us the location of each single protein. The resulting galaxy of molecules exists in every cell in the body on a scale impossible to imagine. 

Palm_figure3
Not only that, but of course things move around if the cells are alive. We recently pushed this further, teaming up with physicists and mathematicians who wrote software algorithms to track the fast-moving signals from each molecule zooming around inside cells. You can see this below - the images are inverted because it's easier to see with your eyes, so the dark spots arise from single proteins moving with some purpose or other in the membrane of a living cell. 
(download)

Determining the nano-scale tracks that each molecule follows takes some computing power and a lot of time - but it is tremendously informative. None of us could have imagined that we'd be able to measure the speeds and directions 10000s or 100000s of molecules possess inside cells, never mind that it's possible because of a jellyfish.

Why is all this important? What's it got to do with the botox in the title?

Well, protein molecules are the machines of the cell - they catalyse reactions, act as factories to make other components of the cells, form scaffolding and tracks for things to move along as well as countless other tasks. The ones we are particularly interested in are those that regulate secretion - this process is central to all inter-cellular communication and if something goes wrong with it it leads to all manner of problems (such as diabetes and neurological disorders). Biochemists over the decades have defined literally every protein involved in secretion, driven by the fact that it's so important. The final definition of which proteins were absolutely essential came in the late 1980s with the discovery that neurotoxins from Clostridium botulinum bacteria had eveolved to attack specifically sequences only in 3 proteins in the body: those involved with driving secretion in nerve cells. These botulinum neurotoxins are the most poisonous things known on the planet and at the time were used in the lab to prove that the proteins we thought were important were just that, by cutting them with the toxins and determining that their function in cells had gone. With the toxin-cut proteins, the nerves can't communicate with their targets properly, muscles don't work, and you die.

Now we use the toxins for making foreheads smooth. Who could have predicted that?

Bread making for dummies!

There has been a bit of interest from Twitter, asking for bread recipes. This is due in no small part to my incessant bread posts, and the politeness of the readers. Anyway, here are the requested recipes and methods.

I don't make any claims to be an artisan baker or similar, I just have an interest in making bread that's nicer than I can buy for a decent price, that is worth the effort to make. The methods that I use require a food mixer with a dough-hook to take the hard work out of it. This also allows me to make the bread during the week when we really need it. I've included the two recipes I follow here - one is a "quick ciabatta" (master-bakers look away now) and the other is a "semi sourdough" - that is it's flavoured with sourdough starter but also has bakers' yeast in it to make it more practical for me to do mid-week. The ciabatta recipe is really easy and can give you really nice bread in about 5 hours. That sounds like a long time, but it means that you can start from scratch and have a great loaf the same day. The sourdough is a bit more involved, and requires a "starter" culture; the method for this comes from a Dan Lepard recipe. It's also great, and has the advantage that you can proof the dough overnight in the fridge for baking in the morning. That means freshly baked bread for breakfast. Easy.

Recipe 1: Ciabatta-like bread

It’s easy and never fails!

500g water
500g strong white flour
5 g salt
5 g yeast

Put the whole lot in a mixer bowl. Mix on a slow speed (3) for 5 minutes (see the first picture - it's sloppy). Let rest for 10 minutes. Then mix on a higher speed (8 on a kitchenaid). It looks like a batter to begin with.

Img_2713
After 10-20 minutes of rapid mixing it’ll get very stringy as the gluten develops. Keep mixing until the dough comes together and the bottom of the bowl is clean.
Img_2714
Remove the dough hook (see how stringy it is in the picture -  that's the gluten strands) and proof for about 3-4 hrs at room temp, covered. The dough must triple in size (you can see what this looks like in the lower image, below).
Img_2715
Img_2720

Scrape out the proofed dough onto a heavily floured chopping board (it’s a sticky dough!)
Img_2723
Stretch into a ciabatta type shape, fold over like an envelope and let rest for another 20 minutes at least, on some baking paper. This is the hardest, messiest job to get the hang of.
Img_2724
There are two pictures, above, for this - one immediately after shaping, the other after about 30 minutes on the paper. You can see big bubbles forming in the dough. Pre-heat your oven to maximum during this time. Add some water to a hot baking tray a few minutes before baking, to create steam in the oven, then slide the bread on its paper onto a hot baking sheet and bake on max for 15-20 minutes. Turn down the heat to gas mark 7 or equivalent and continue baking for 30-35 minutes in total. Cool on a rack. The crust forms properly after about 45 minutes of cooling. This is great bread, makes fabulous toast (it takes much longer than shop bread to toast but it's like a crumpet - soaks up butter!)
Img_2727
Img_2730

Recipe 2:

This is my usual recipe, it’s a mixture of a Raymond Blanc and a Dan Lepard loaf recipe. It's a bit more effort, but in fact the dough is much firmer and easier to handle (and so less messy).
 

Pre-ferment starter (cultures wild yeasts, for flavour)

100 g water

10 g strong white flour
10 g rye flour
Handful of raisins (the white stuff in their creases is yeast, apparently)

Mix up, and put in a jar with a lid. Each day, throw away 75% of it and replace with 100 ml water, and 20 g each of the flours. On day 3 you should see some bubbles. Then throw away 75% of it, and replace with

Img_2680

100 g water
125 g white unbleached strong flour
 

By day 6 of this it should look very lively and bubbly, and smell quite beery;

Img_2699
You can store in the fridge, and feed it daily as above, for use in each bread dough.


Loaf:

 113 g starter
343 g strong white flour
43 g of rye flour

5 g salt
2 g bakers yeast (or not, depending on how lively your starter is)
250 g room temperature water

 Normally I do the next bit in a Kitchenaid with a dough hook, but by hand should be just as good:
 
Mix slowly for 5 minutes then let sit in a covered bowl for 10 mins. Mix again for 5 minutes, let sit for 20 mins. Mix again for 5 mins, let sit for 30 mins. Mix again for 5 mins, let sit for 1 hour. Make sure to cover the bowl with clingfilm or a damp cloth between mixes, to stop a skin forming on the dough). By now it should be looking like a bread dough.

Img_2681

Knead briefly for 30 seconds on a floured board, return to the bowl for 2 hours. Knead again on the board, then shape (by folding in each corner, then over like an envelope - see images below) and place in a proving basket.

Img_2683

Img_2684

(If you don’t have one (a “brotform”) - I got mine from ebay) then put it back in the bowl and cover.

Img_2682
Put in the fridge overnight to proof  - I put the whole thing in a carrier bag to stop it drying out. The next picture shows the dough after its overnight proofing.
 
Img_2690

To bake: pre-heat the oven to max (we have a gas oven so gas mark 10!) Put a baking sheet in there to get really hot, above a tray to hold some water. 5 minutes before baking, put some cold water in the tray to create steam in the oven.
 

If you have used a proving basket: take it out of the fridge and upturn the dough onto the hot sheet and bake for 30 minutes of so.

Img_2689

Turn the oven down to gas mark 7 after the first 15 minutes.
 
If you’ve proofed in a bowl: scrape out the dough onto parchment and shape. Allow to recover for 30 minutes at room temperature, then bake as above, dragging the parchment onto the hot baking sheet on your worktop.


The bread is delicious, with a really good crust and fine crumb, and no large bubbles.

 Hope it works!

Img_2692
Img_2695
Img_2696

Portobello veg plot - end of May

I've been working quite diligently on growing more veg than ever this year. We spent a small fortune on seeds in January with an emphasis on expanding on what was successful last year (beans and spuds) and also trying to grow as wide a range of coloured vegetables as possible. With this in mind I started off "Blauhide" and "Goldfield" climbing beans (purple and yellow, respectively) in February - far too early as it turned out (frost got them at then end of April when planted out). The second batch of beans I germinated indoors were going great, but the pesky hens ate them when planted out in mid-May. So the beans now (pic, below) are a bit behind, but I think they'll come good as they're growing very fast in the warmth now. Also colourful are beetroot, of course, and Swiss chard ("Bright Lights") - both taste and look fantastic.

Img_1112
Img_1120

The spuds went in in February (International Kidney - the variety of Jersey Royals) and then "Charlotte" in March. The Charlottes have grown really well, not so the IK's. Hopefully they'll be fine if a bit later. Also in the IK bed is garlic "Solent White" - that went in in December and will be ready to pull up in July or so. It's doing really well.

The peas are also gunning for it now-I started them indoors in drain gutters so they had a head start. They are "Snowpea" sugar-snap variety this year - that ay we can eat the pods or as peas so less waste. In the middle of the peas is a standard green courgette plant and lots of Jerusalem artichokes. All are growing well - the courgette will be ready to start harvesting from early June.

Img_1114
The broad beans are "Giant Exhibition longpod" standard variety - growing larger than last year's Sutton. They are flowering, I'll pinch out the tops shortly.
Photo

Salad beds too are great - got lots of mixed leaves, wild rocket, and Cos "Longfolia" lettuce. We'd have more if the hens hadn't got in there too. The raised beds are like mini-fortresses now to keep the hens out.

Img_1123
Img_1115

The next round of plants are in pots - pictured are Cavolo Nero (black kale), which is fantastic here all winter, and pea shoots - very fashionable, very expensive salad. Those are from dried peas sold for soups - an Alys Fowler tip.

Img_1122

It's all in the pattern...

Picture1
Cells are bound by membranes. And everything inside the cell is also covered by a membrane. Membranes are important - if something goes wrong with a membrane, you're in trouble (or dead).

The problem is, aside from the cartoons in high school text books, our understanding of membranes and how they are regulated remains a bit sketchy. We just know that a membrane is important. About 15 years ago, some very high profile cell biologists proposed that membranes weren't the uniform seas of lipids (the fatty bits) the school books said they were, but rather that the lipids could organise themselves into important platforms determined by their inherent properties. These "rafts" would provide locations for specific proteins to insert into or attach to, and so the whole membrane would self-assemble into an intricately balanced machine. This has rumbled on amidst a lot of scientific controversy (that no one normal would be aware of) since at least the mid-1990s. The problem is that there have been no techniques available for anyone to look at the membranes in the required detail - the apparent absence of these "rafts" was always easily explained away, as they were "too small" or "too fleeting" to see.


If you've read the rest of the science bits here (not the bits about coffee, or chard tarts) you'll see that my research group looks at very small, very fast things, in cells. And mainly in cell membranes. Our recent funding success (in the face of ever-dwindling funds) has been to look at specific protein interactions (proteins rarely act alone, but rather as macro-molecular machineries) inside living cells. So, now seemed like the time to try to extend this into a more fundamental area, away from the specifics that the Research Councils (ie the tax payer-that's you, that is) seem to have gone cold on.

These images are of membranes. We can see them working. The bright spots are called vesicles-small spherical things inside the cell that carry cargo destined for release (think neurotransmitter, or hormones, like insulin). The movie shows the cargo being released to the outside world, when we told the cell to do so - this is seen as a bright "flash" as each single vesicle membrane fuses with the cell outer membrane, and the fluorescent stuff we persuaded the cell to put in there is secreted (just imagine you're lying on your back, looking up at the bottom of the cells). The fluorescent stuff comes from a jellyfish (amazing as it may seem...!) The clever fish use it to scare predators in the dark - we take the gene that makes it and put it into the insulin-secretion pathway. The important bit is that the flash bit is over in a few milliseconds and that the spots are very small.

Cropped_7y54q8gl_f00000015tirfm_example-1
This supports the notion that there is some spatial organisation in the cell membrane - not everything happens at once, and not all in the same place. So what could determine those things, and how could we look at it? Well, again, see below. We can now localise single protein molecules with an accuracy of about 10 nanometres - there are a billion nanometres in a metre, so that's a very very small distance. Certainly enough to resolve single molecules (check the little guys out in the image - the red spots are each a single protein molecule). And we can see them moving (see the bits about the helpful physicists also below). The multi-coloured "contour" image is the really interesting one - putting together all the tracks from many 10000s of single molecules as they move around across a membrane, and counting up where the trajectories go, gives us this. You can see that there are "hot spots" and cooler areas; bits the molecules prefer and bits they avoid. Putting these things together, we have almost all the bits we need to see the small, fleeting things that have always eluded us, so hopefully we can start to understand membranes better just by looking.
Cropped_cropped_figure_7
"Just looking" has never been enough for science though. So, since we can tell where the molecules are now, we can determine their very precise co-ordinates. To a mathematician, that means a very large list of numbers, and those guys just love number lists. Contained within the list are potential patterns, that in turn tell us whether the molecules are randomly scattered across the membrane, or if there is some masterplan there. Messing with the membrane, or with the protein sequences has long been known to alter their functions, so now we also have the technologies to see if this alters their patterns. It's all in the pattern, I reckon...

Cropped_figure_5

Dynamic nerve cells in 4-dimensions in real time #science #microscopy

Here's something we've been processing since mid November (by processing, I mean the computers were running full-pelt 24/7 since the 25th Nov!)

Neurobiology is pretty hot stuff right now. Why should that be? Well, it seems that it holds the promise of discovery in areas like cognition (ie thought) or diseases, such as schizophrenia / epilepsy etc. The unfortunate bottom line is, however, that we know very little about how the brain works. One thing for sure, though, is that it works fast, and in three dimensions - it's a large thing, made of small things. The smallest bits are neurones - the nerve cells. Some years ago it became clear that nerve cells are "plastic" - that is they change properties and shape over time. This "plasticity" apparently underlies the function of the brain - infants are born with way more neurones than an adult has, and the connections these cells make determine whether they survive or not. Connected neurones = circuits = survival.

How would neurones find each other to connect in the first place? Well, this is where the plasticity comes in. It turns out that there are small structures termed "spines" in the neurones, which are very mobile indeed. These hairy bits search around for neighbouring neurones, and when they find them, make a connection. This is the entire basis of neurobiology, really.

Spines_demo_movie

Seeing this in living cells is hard. So far, it's been done only in 2-dimensions (ie flat bits), because that's the way it's done. Science, biology especially, is very dogmatic and conservative that way. As these things clearly are 3-dimensional (ie they have a shape in space), and moreover 4-dimensional (the shape changes over time), we set out to see how far we could push our existing biology and technologies to try to image these spines moving over time.

This is one small piece of what we got. You can see the neurones (fluorescent these are, labelled with the famous jellyfish protein, mentioned below here) as long thin structures. Even thinner bits stick out of these cells, and these are the spines. The one in the centre of the movie is especially active - you can see it's "searching" around in 3-D space for something - maybe another cell?
To put this in perspective - this hasn't been done or seen before. The cells are much more dynamic than we ever imagined. The scale is minute (each little square in the background of the movie is 2 microns - thats 2/1000ths of a millimetre!). It's neat, isn't it?

Once again, the cells are the biology, but it's the physics that let us see it.

[click the image to see the movie]

 

Very interesting this. Very.

By now, you may have gathered that I use microscopes and imaging to look at very small things inside cells, very fast. And that we hook up with physicists, much cleverer than me in many ways, to help us make sense of the enormous amounts of information that we can glean from these cells.

So, here's another snippet to show you. We use the famous jellyfish protein, GFP (the green fluorescent one) to mark things in cells we want to see- they become apparent by their colour. In this case, we fused the GFP to a hormone, and it ended up inside vesicles (small round things with membranes inside the cell). We knew this would happen, and it allows us to look at how the vesicles behave - particularly at the cell membrane. The green things here are the vesicles, and the grey bits are the "tracks" followed by them. The point of this is that the software can mark where all the vesicles go over time, so "highlighting" parts of the cell membrane preferred by these things, for whatever reason.

The track highlighted in red is the interesting one. You can see that the vesicle that follows this track does something remarkable (to me, anyway). It's emphasised by the grey sphere thing, so you can see it. This guy arrives at the cell surface (imagine you're lying on your back, looking up at the base of the cell), but he doesn't arrive just anywhere. In fact, he arrives at a point that was previously occupied by another, dearly departed vesicle (we can see this by the grey tracks left by the older guy). After sniffing around there for a bit, the new guy takes off, fast, before slowing at another point previously occupied. And so on. And not only this vesicle did this - they all like bits of the cell membrane that were previously occupied. So there's something special about those regions, and we need to find out what it is.

This looks like fun, and it is. But it's important too; if you have diabetes, this is one of the things that is upset. Finding out about it might just help one day.

This combo of biology with software shows us something we couldn't have known about in any other way.

Samplingmovie-minus4-16bit

My coffee obsession has consumed lots of time and money. Too much, maybe.

I saw a video on YouTube about latte art a while back. This is a slightly bonkers American thing where the milk is steamed into a "microfoam" of just the right density to sit on top of the perfect espresso. So I had to do it.

I got a fancy espresso machine (my second one actually- the first was rubbish) and a fancy bean grinder too. Daren't say how much they cost. I tried and tried but could never get either the coffee or the milk right. So I took it to bits, under guidance from Google, where else, and modified the steam arm to give more steam. Check out the picture of this - slightly tense moment when I thought I'd just broken the extravagantly expensive machine, but all was well in the end.

Then, someone on Twitter mentioned that fresh (home) roasted green coffee beams is the best way to get the crema layer (the thick brown stuff on top of a perfect espresso). So, I had to do it.

Green beans ordered, and a popcorn popper in the garage. Roasting is easy and really does make the biggest difference (but it's messy and smelly - hence do it in the garage or shed). Oh, then I modified the pricey grinder to grind really fine. That's essential, too. 

So it was nearly there. I ordered many, many different milk jugs to try to get it right. The last 40 quid or so went on the coffee filter with no spout (sometimes called "naked" portafilter) - this helps get the pour of the coffee perfect: this is determined by the tamping (how hard you press the ground coffee into the filter), the fineness of the grind and the machine pressure. Actually, I also bought a fancy tamper (mahogany handle - woo) too. You get the picture. 

Too much time. Too much money. But it looks good, huh? And most importantly, it tastes amazing now.

(download)

 

messing around with physicists today. Look what happened... #science #microscopy

So we had these data for a while, imaging single molecules moving around in the membrane of a living cell (see one of the first posts here). The problem is, that the data were quite "noisy" - well, it is quite hard to image single molecules 10 or so nanometres across with a camera, even if the camera is very swish. So we got a group of physics guys to look at it - they specialise in "de-noising" data like this, using some algorithms they write, which I could never even begin to understand. Then, they use other software they write (again, beyond me) to identify and track the molecules in the now gleaming images. And this is what we get.

This is a movie showing the molecules racing about, or not. It seems that there may be different behaviours, and that's interesting in itself. This is only 100 frames from a 16,000 frame movie- they've gone off with the rest and some poor PhD student is going to earn his supper processing that lot.

As an aside, they also spent a lot of time writing their own scripts to do stuff that other software can do at the press of a button. I've noticed this before - physicists will never use an interface if they can do it in 1000 lines of script instead.

Dots_lines_stack

My images used to decorate Euston road! #microscopy

The Wellcome Trust, who generously fund my research, were building a new HQ a few years back on Euston Road. I had submitted some microscopy images to their gallery there, and a friend of mine noticed that they'd used some of my cell images to decorate the massive scaffolding that was cladding their new building. Neat, huh?

(download)