There have been some serious setbacks for those who propose that evolution is a “mere theory” to be approached with skepticism and that science is to be debated in the public square instead of rigorously tested by experimentation. To put this in an historical context, an excellent summary of the legal and political battle over the teaching of evolution has been recently provided [1]. Although courts have ruled, voters have decided, and legislatures have passed rules, new levels of action make it clear that the controversy over the teaching of evolution is not an issue that is going away. Also, as the conflict moves to a new arena, it has become front and center for us as biochemistry and molecular biology educators. It almost appears that the attack on evolution, excuse the expression, evolves. A 1987 Louisiana law required the teaching of “creation science” as part of the teaching of evolution. After this law was struck down by the U. S. Supreme Court (Edwards versus Aguillard), the creationists devised the thinly disguised “intelligent design” (ID) 11 The abbreviation used is: ID, intelligent design. concept. Although Federal District Court Judge John E. Jones III struck down the teaching of ID as non-science (Tammy Kitzmiller et al. versus Dover Area School District), the antiscience attack continues, albeit in new forms. A recent report in the Los Angles Times [2] recounts the efforts of a high school biology teacher who tried to teach evolution in what is likely a typical public school science class. He is also likely to be representative of a cadre of teachers who are prepared to teach their students and who are dedicated professionals educated in our finest institutions. Despite their ability and intentions, however, they are being ambushed by students who are well prepared with arguments based on specious logic and a flat refusal to accept scientific evidence, all of which sounds plausible to other students who come in to a classroom from a context that is skeptical and ignorant of science. For teachers who try to maintain an atmosphere of open discussion with an exchange of ideas based on scientific observations, the attacks must be devastating. As was noted in the news article, many teachers are now avoiding the topic of evolution altogether. The results of decades of research leave no doubt as to the validity of evolution as essentially the unifying concept in biology. The explosion in genomic information has provided a rich appreciation for the details of evolution, and even recent experimental work adds further mechanistic proof. A recent article [3], for example, provides yet more detailed experimental proof that one of the core concepts of ID (namely “irreducible complexity,” i.e. one cannot evolve the lock and the key simultaneously) is untrue. In the accompanying “Perspectives,” my colleague Chris Adami [4] clearly points out the elegance of the experimental work and correctly notes that any further debate about the validity of ID is purely political and not in any way scientific. However, for those who reject carbon dating, the fossil record, and experimentation, little is left but disruption and distraction, desperate yet powerful tools when used in a background of scientific ignorance. There are numerous groups providing teachers with background and information to fight the battles that will unfortunately be waged in their classrooms, and we need to support and enhance those efforts whenever possible. Most importantly, as biochemists and molecular biologists, we need to assure the best and most current curricula not only in our advanced courses but also in all of the earliest teaching in biology. It is only when teachers who might not have been biology or biochemistry majors have strong enough backgrounds in the science of evolution that they will be comfortable taking on the disruption and confusion created by students filled with good intentions and bad science. I ask you to join me in making BAMBED the source of material and curricula that can be incorporated at the beginning of the biology curricula, demonstrating that evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. I welcome your suggestions as to how to formalize and expand this effort so that we can ultimately provide all of our students with quality science education.
ADVERTISEMENT RETURN TO ISSUEPREVArticleNEXTKinetic mechanism of beef pancreatic L-asparagine synthetaseRodney S. Markin, Craig A. Luehr, and Sheldon M. SchusterCite this: Biochemistry 1981, 20, 25, 7226–7232Publication Date (Print):December 1, 1981Publication History Published online1 May 2002Published inissue 1 December 1981https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/bi00528a027https://doi.org/10.1021/bi00528a027research-articleACS PublicationsRequest reuse permissionsArticle Views63Altmetric-Citations16LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICSArticle Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Share Add toView InAdd Full Text with ReferenceAdd Description ExportRISCitationCitation and abstractCitation and referencesMore Options Share onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InRedditEmail Other access optionsGet e-Alertsclose Get e-Alerts
On a recent tour of several states speaking to undergraduates in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology about Professional Science Masters Degree (PSM) programs, I was struck by the overwhelming ignorance regarding careers in the Life Sciences. I didn't do any formal poling, but somewhere between 80 and 90% of the students were pre-med, and they were nearly unanimous in rejecting any suggestion that alternatives were either acceptable or available! Freshmen and sophomores told me how they were going to get both the MD and the PhD and become surgeons! Of course, there is no shame in wanting to enter these professions, and indeed, we need more young people to become physician scientists. What was so striking were the reasons they gave when queried as to why they wanted to follow that path: mostly, they believe there are really no professional career alternatives for using their science degrees! While students need to be allowed their naivety and encouraged to dream, the complete lack of rationale beyond familiarity through the popular media was astounding. We need not turn our Biochemistry and Molecular Biology educational programs into trade schools as we achieve a far higher level of sophistication about the wide variety of career opportunities awaiting graduates. The excitement and scientific enrichment which our programs provide are sufficient in and of themselves. But especially in these times of economic distress when there is much justifiable concern over job markets the students need to understand that a successful and growing industry needs their scientific skills. Too often, they are completely unaware of rewarding careers both doing and utilizing the science we teach. On a hopeful note, they seem to have a somewhat better understanding of what PhD scientists do in academe because of the greatly expanded opportunities for undergraduate research at most of our educational institutions. But when it comes to career paths in an industry that could possibly dominate the 21st century, they appear uninformed. It is our duty to make this information available and to include it in our curricula. The job opportunities for science graduates of PSM programs illustrate the array of careers where a scientific background is essential, but does not require either an MD or a PhD. The combination of science and business, science and regulatory affairs, science and intellectual property management, science and supply chain management, and science and operations management are just a few of the careers in the life sciences industry. Indeed, a recent report noted that among the major pharmaceutical and Biotechnology companies, over 80% of the advertised job openings required science as a background, in addition to a professional skill [1]. To further this point more scientifically, a recent report by the National Research Council [2] suggests that young professionals with Masters Degrees experience salary growth that significantly outpaces that of either PhD's or BS graduates. Nearly 95% of the $1,200,000,000, it takes to produce a new drug is spent after the initial discovery; so, it is not surprising that job opportunities are plentiful throughout the testing, approval, production, and commercialization process. There is a significant challenge in designing curricula that would effectively present the opportunities in the Life sciences industry. Some schools invite representatives of various professions to participate in programs designed specifically to highlight the career paths scientists can pursue. Others have lectures as part of a standard curriculum. It is unclear how effective any of these efforts are, so there is a great deal of course development and evaluation needed. But anecdotally, there is a suggestion that an enhancement of such efforts could stem the loss of students from science. We don't know how many students reject pursuing an education in science in general or Biochemistry in particular because they believe that if they can't get into medical school, no science-based professional careers are available. Moreover, the industry desperately needs these young people, if we are to continue to produce new pharmaceuticals, devices, and diagnostics. We have a chance to make a difference for our students and their careers, as well as to help assure that the commercialization and discovery processes remain strong and productive. Let's exchange ideas and suggestions for the benefit of the entire community.
In the absence of crystallographic data, the mechanism of nitrogen transfer from glutamine in asparagine synthetase (AS) remains under active investigation. Surprisingly, the glutamine‐dependent AS from Escherichia coli (AsnB) appears to lack a conserved histidine residue, necessary for nitrogen transfer if the reaction proceeds by the accepted pathway in other glutamine amidotransferases, but retains ability to synthesize asparagine. We propose an alternative mechanism for nitrogen transfer in AsnB which obviates the requirement for participation of histidine in this step. Our hypothesis may also be more generally applicable to other glutamine‐dependent amidotransferases.
While the media might portray the essence of the Biotechnology industry as a direct route from DNA to an effective biopharmaceutical, we understand that it is somewhat more complex. What distinguishes the life sciences industry from traditional pharmaceutical development is that in Biotechnology, it often requires a living system to produce a therapeutically effective product. Examining what initiated the modern bioscience industry (commercial production of insulin and erythropoietin for example) makes it clear that the industry was founded through producing previously known and well-characterized biomolecules efficiently enough to become commercially viable and reproducibly enough to meet the rigorous requirements of regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration. The complexity of manipulating living systems for industrial purposes might have had roots as early as the production of bread, beer, and wine, but today's life sciences industry requires vastly more precision and sophistication. The complexity of higher order protein structure and often problematic stability make for challenging issues of production and quality control. Not to take anything from the fermentation skill of a vintner of fine wine, but there is no tolerance for a difference in “vintage” for our biopharmaceuticals—they must be exactly the same every time for every patient. The commercial production of recombinant hormones, peptides, growth factors, monoclonal antibodies, and vaccines has been increasing at a rapid pace, providing benefit for sufferers of numerous diseases. As a result, within the industry there has been much discussion of the impending shortage of production facilities. The physical facilities required to produce biomolecules involve long lead times and enormous capital to design, build, and validate. Less is heard regarding an equally difficult, expensive, and time consuming challenge: having enough sufficiently educated people who not only appreciate the engineering challenges required to make a GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices) facility, but who also understand the basic principles of biochemistry, cell biology, and structural biology. It makes little sense to invest in expensive facilities that will produce biopharmaceuticals if there will not be enough sufficiently trained people to operate and manage them. More importantly, however, if we cannot produce the molecules that will cure and prevent disease, we deny the benefits of our science to society. If our students are to participate in the production of new biomolecules, it is imperative that we review our Biochemistry and Molecular Biology curricula to assure the proper balance of recombinant DNA technologies with structural biology and physical methods, especially in regards to protein structure and function. There is already far too much material to teach in most of our courses so it will take an active discussion among academic disciplines to work out strategies for teaching the basics effectively. However, there must be time within our curricula to include a complete survey of protein purification technologies, physical methods of structural analysis, and kinetic methods for quantitative analysis of enzymatic activities. My informal and unscientific survey of course material reveals a decreasing proportion of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology courses devoted to the “old fashioned” principles of protein chemistry. However, it is essential that our students understand the basic principles of protein purification and the criteria used to establish the meaning of “pure.” They must have at least an appreciation of the power and limits of the technologies employed to determine protein structure, purity, and function. This will include spectroscopic and physical methods that are the underlying technologies used in the industry, from Raman spectroscopy to differential scanning calorimetry. While it will not be easy to fit these into curricula already jammed with important molecular concepts that are expanding every day, it must be actively discussed, and then appreciated as foundational material. It might not be important to know how a particular protein is purified; only that it functions as predicted as a treatment. That is true enough if all you want to do is be a user of the product. The real opportunity to effect change and to benefit from it optimally comes to those who develop, understand, and control the technology. The people who have this power will be those who understand how to produce the wonderful products yet to come. They should be our students.
A synthetic gene coding for the inhibitor protein of bovine heart mitochondrial F1 adenosine triphosphatase was designed and cloned in Escherichia coli. Recombinant F1-ATPase inhibitor protein was overproduced in E. coli and secreted to the periplasmic space. Biologically active recombinant F1-ATPase inhibitor protein was recovered from the bacterial cells by osmotic shock and was purified to near homogeneity in a single cation-exchange chromatography step. The recombinant inhibitor protein was shown to inhibit bovine mitochondrial F1-ATPase in a pH-dependent manner, as well as Saccharomyces cerevisiae mitochondrial F1-ATPase. Thorough analysis of the amino acid sequence revealed a potential coiled-coil structure for the C-terminal portion of the protein. Experimental evidence obtained by circular dichroism analyses supports this prediction and suggests F1I to be a highly stable, mainly alpha-helical protein which displays C-terminal alpha-helical coiled-coil intermolecular interaction.
