会议报告:发育生物学学会第83届年会。

IF 1.7 4区 生物学 Q4 CELL BIOLOGY
Shunsuke Yaguchi
{"title":"会议报告:发育生物学学会第83届年会。","authors":"Shunsuke Yaguchi","doi":"10.1111/dgd.12950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The 83rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Developmental Biology (SDB) (https://www.sdbonline.org/2024mtg) was held in Atlanta, where the Japanese Society of Developmental Biologists (JSDB) participated as the guest society. To promote societal interactions, three researchers from Japan and gave invited talks in the SDB meeting as representatives of JSDB. On the other hand, four researchers from SDB gave invited talks and also participated in the Diversity Committee's Luncheon Seminar that I organized in the JSDB meeting (https://pub.confit.atlas.jp/en/event/jsdb2024). These scientific exchanges are aimed at fostering collaboration between developmental biologists in the United States and Japan and promoting mutual research advancements. The hope is that these initiatives will continue to build a long-term cooperative framework between both parties. Notably, this year, SDB President Dr. Ken Cho attended the JSDB meeting in Kyoto and played a significant role in facilitating our visit, underscoring the importance of mutual exchange.</p><p>I had the privilege of attending the Society for Developmental Biology (SDB) Annual Meeting for the first time in 2024. The 2024 SDB Annual Meeting took place at the Signia by Hilton, a newly opened venue in downtown Atlanta, Georgia (Figure 1). The hotel location offers excellent access to key landmarks such as the Mercedes-Benz Stadium and the Georgia World Congress Center. The city of Atlanta, with a population of approximately 500,000 as of 2022, is one of the major urban centers of the southern United States and is notable for hosting the 1996 Summer Olympics for our generations. The hotel provided an ideal setting for networking and engaging with colleagues, which complemented the productive scientific sessions held throughout the meeting.</p><p>The SDB meeting delivered a broad range of topics in developmental biology, and the sessions offered excellent opportunities for exchanging ideas and discussing the latest research advances. As a participant, I found the meeting to be highly valuable for staying updated with cutting-edge discoveries and methodologies, as well as for establishing new collaborations within the developmental biology community.</p><p>The scheduling format included a Presidential Symposium in the evening of day 1, with concurrent sessions and symposia in the morning, and plenary sessions after dinner. The invited speakers delivered outstanding presentations, both in terms of research content and presentation skills. The presentation by Dr. Zeba Wunderlich and her team from Boston University explored the functional significance of shadow enhancers, a critical yet enigmatic element in gene regulation. Using Drosophila embryos, they demonstrated how shadow enhancers, which bind distinct sets of transcription factors, ensure robust gene expression even under stress conditions. A particularly surprising finding came from their experiments with “squish” enhancers, where the endogenous DNA between shadow enhancers was eliminated. The results suggested that the spatial separation between enhancers is not essential for their function. This discovery prompts a reevaluation of the necessity for distributed enhancer configurations in the genome. In the same session, particularly memorable was Dr. Mike Levine of Princeton University, a well-known researcher in my field. His talk, as always, was engaging, involving the audience with humor, making it a truly enjoyable experience. Humor, in fact, was a common feature in many presentations, which is typical of Western conferences and something I feel is worth emulating. He presented an in-depth look at the regulatory architecture of long-range enhancer-promoter interactions in Drosophila. His team's work highlighted the critical role of boundary and tethering elements in the precise activation of segmentation and <i>Hox</i> genes during embryogenesis. The talk then transitioned to findings from the brain, where the researchers identified hundreds of regulatory loops. With regard to experimental techniques, the study employed relatively new methods such as the Micro-C XL assay, along with extensive use of bioinformatics, marking a significant advancement from traditional enhancer analysis approaches. As I may touch on in other sections, the integration of computational science and informatics has greatly accelerated progress in biology. By actively adopting these novel technologies and ideas, Mike's work, despite his consistent focus on transcription and enhancer analysis, always seems to be positioned with a fresh vision. On the other hand, many of today's cutting-edge technologies involve large-scale data analysis, which in turn require substantial funding. Consequently, with the current standard levels of grants in our country, it is becoming increasingly difficult to incorporate these new technologies extensively.</p><p>I had the opportunity to present in one of the concurrent sessions, titled “Evolutionary Conservation, Divergence, and Regulatory Network,” which covered a wide range of topics, from the organisms studied to the methods used and the evolutionary phenomena targeted. I presented about the light-regulated digestive function in sea urchin larvae, while other speakers discussed topics such as the dynamics of enhancer activity during the maternal–zygotic transition and evolutionary insights drawn from the developmental similarities between outer ear and gill formation. Among the many fascinating talks, I found Dr. Armin Moczek's presentation on the acquisition and evolution of horn morphology in beetles particularly intriguing. In the talk, Dr. Moczek presented fascinating insights into the evolutionary origins and developmental mechanisms of beetle horns, which have become a powerful model system in evolutionary developmental biology. What I found particularly interesting was the contrast between the horns developing from the first thoracic segment and those from the posterior head. While both types of horns serve a similar function in male combat, their genetic and developmental underpinnings are quite different. Thoracic horns are derived from partial wing serial homologs and are controlled by a conserved and ancient gene regulatory network (GRN), which was intriguing because it highlights how deep evolutionary pathways can shape novel traits. On the other hand, head horns develop through localized over-proliferation of head sclerites without the guidance of a specific GRN, showing a completely different developmental strategy. Another point that caught my attention was the fact that despite these differing evolutionary origins and initiation mechanisms, both types of horns share similar regulatory mechanisms for diversity, such as sex- or nutrition-responsive growth. This suggests that while novel traits such as these horns can evolve through different developmental pathways, they may converge on similar genetic mechanisms to facilitate their diversification. This aspect of the talk really emphasized how evolutionary novelties can arise and diversify in different ways, which has broad implications beyond beetles.</p><p>The other sessions spanned a wide range of topics, from fundamental developmental biology in areas such as “Morphogenesis and Pattern Formation” to discussions on developmental biology in the context of disease, as well as synthetic biology aimed at engineering developmental processes. A significant portion of the research presented utilized well-established model organisms. As I mentioned earlier, incorporating new technologies to further one's original research interests can be challenging when working with non-model organisms due to difficulties in breeding or establishing new systems, making model organisms the more practical first choice for many. However, as someone working with non-model organisms, I felt somewhat disheartened. It seems that a model-centric approach, rather than focusing on phenomena, is becoming increasingly prevalent among the younger generation in developmental biology, which leaves me with a sense of concern. Although there were several presentations using non-model organisms during the poster sessions, I noticed that studies on plants were particularly scarce overall.</p><p>The talk sessions were held in the Triumph Ballroom, located on the second floor of the hotel, a vast space of 37,080 square feet partitioned into several sections. The spacious rooms with high ceilings provided an open and relaxed atmosphere for each session. However, due to the size of the rooms, two screens were placed side by side for presentations, which often caused issues for speakers using laser pointers and PowerPoint presentations, as they could only direct their attention to one screen at a time. Depending on the seating position, it was sometimes unclear which part of the presentation the speaker was referring to. This is an area where improvements could be made from the perspectives of the organizers, speakers, and audience members, to avoid missing valuable insights. Such issues can arise at any conference, and I hope to address this point in future JSDB meetings. Additionally, the partition walls were less soundproof than fixed walls, and attendees seated near the edges of the rooms could occasionally hear voices from adjacent sessions, which made it difficult to concentrate.</p><p>As a speaker, I found it beneficial that the number of concurrent sessions was relatively low, allowing a larger audience to attend each session. This structure is similar to JSDB meetings, and I believe it is a well-designed approach. While it is understandable that some conferences must run many parallel sessions due to space constraints, even with just two or three concurrent sessions, it was disappointing to miss certain talks due to overlaps. Fewer concurrent sessions would be ideal to maximize attendance at each presentation. Speakers were required to visit the computer room beforehand to upload their slides into the conference system. I was impressed by how efficient the system was. By simply copying the PowerPoint file to a USB flash drive and connecting it to the provided PC, the system would ask if you were using Mac or Windows, then allow you to search for your name and presentation title. After uploading, all presentations in that session room were automatically queued in the correct order for playback. This fully automated system eliminated the need for on-site engineers and prevented technical issues from speakers fumbling with their own devices. Although there is a minimal risk of information leakage when handing over files, the system was extremely practical. I believe this type of system could greatly reduce the burden on conference staff and should be adopted more widely.</p><p>The poster sessions were divided into three groups, with each group using the same room and poster boards on different days. This arrangement made the process of putting up and taking down posters feel somewhat rushed. Although each day allowed around 3 hr for the poster session, it was impossible to see everything within the allotted time. At conferences where posters are left up for a longer period, attendees can use breaks or meal times to view posters they missed during the official session. Unfortunately, this was not feasible with the setup at this meeting. Balancing the large number of presenters with limited room space is undoubtedly a challenge, but this experience made it clear that leaving posters up for longer periods is beneficial. There were several posters that I missed completely, and once they were taken down, I had no access to them. Moreover, without knowing the presenter's identity, I couldn't obtain any more information beyond the abstract.</p><p>I also realized the importance of keeping presentations concise. Some presenters tended to talk at length, which made it difficult to visit as many posters as I would have liked. In future meetings, including JSDB, I believe presenters should practice delivering their key points in a more compact form, perhaps within 2 or 3 min. A short, impactful explanation can pique the audience's interest, followed by a longer discussion for those who want to dive deeper. Additionally, I noticed that the best posters often used more images and fewer words, which allowed attendees to absorb the content quickly. Whether in English or Japanese, and whether it is a talk or a poster, reducing text and emphasizing visuals, complemented by the presenter's spoken explanation, seems to be the most effective approach.</p><p>One of the interesting aspects of this year's SDB meeting was the wide range of small sessions. Although I did not personally attend them, there were sessions aimed at students and/or trainees, as well as dedicated sessions with funding agencies. Additionally, there were workshops covering various themes. These initiatives strike a great balance between focusing on the core goal of the conference—research—while also educating and supporting the future generation of developmental biologists, including students and early career researchers.</p><p>One session I found particularly engaging as a participant was the SDB Town Hall held on the final day. This meeting allowed the organizers/committees of the SDB and participants to openly exchange views on both the current and future SDB itself and meetings. I recall a similar initiative from a previous JSDB meeting, but in Japan, there is often a reserved atmosphere that makes it difficult to engage in open debate. In contrast, this type of format allowed everyone—whether a senior researcher, a big name, or a student—to voice their opinions equally. This inclusive environment highlighted one of the strengths of American scientific culture.</p><p>It was noteworthy, however, that the number of participants from Japan at this year's SDB meeting was quite small. This trend is not limited to the SDB; I have observed a similar lack of representation from Japan at other North American conferences as well. While the ability to attend virtually or watch on-demand sessions, combined with the difficulties of funding travel during the current weak yen, likely contributed to the low attendance, I believe it is still crucial for Japanese developmental biologists to participate in person. Engaging in face-to-face discussions at international conferences is just as important as publishing high-quality papers for maintaining Japan's presence in the global developmental biology community. Therefore, I strongly encourage both young researchers and senior scientists to attend international meetings more actively.</p><p>I also hope that Japan's scientific community, including governmental agencies, will create funding systems that make it easier for researchers to participate in such conferences abroad.</p><p>I declare no conflict of interests.</p>","PeriodicalId":50589,"journal":{"name":"Development Growth & Differentiation","volume":"67 1","pages":"6-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dgd.12950","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meeting report: Society for Developmental Biology 83rd annual meeting\",\"authors\":\"Shunsuke Yaguchi\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/dgd.12950\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The 83rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Developmental Biology (SDB) (https://www.sdbonline.org/2024mtg) was held in Atlanta, where the Japanese Society of Developmental Biologists (JSDB) participated as the guest society. To promote societal interactions, three researchers from Japan and gave invited talks in the SDB meeting as representatives of JSDB. On the other hand, four researchers from SDB gave invited talks and also participated in the Diversity Committee's Luncheon Seminar that I organized in the JSDB meeting (https://pub.confit.atlas.jp/en/event/jsdb2024). These scientific exchanges are aimed at fostering collaboration between developmental biologists in the United States and Japan and promoting mutual research advancements. The hope is that these initiatives will continue to build a long-term cooperative framework between both parties. Notably, this year, SDB President Dr. Ken Cho attended the JSDB meeting in Kyoto and played a significant role in facilitating our visit, underscoring the importance of mutual exchange.</p><p>I had the privilege of attending the Society for Developmental Biology (SDB) Annual Meeting for the first time in 2024. The 2024 SDB Annual Meeting took place at the Signia by Hilton, a newly opened venue in downtown Atlanta, Georgia (Figure 1). The hotel location offers excellent access to key landmarks such as the Mercedes-Benz Stadium and the Georgia World Congress Center. The city of Atlanta, with a population of approximately 500,000 as of 2022, is one of the major urban centers of the southern United States and is notable for hosting the 1996 Summer Olympics for our generations. The hotel provided an ideal setting for networking and engaging with colleagues, which complemented the productive scientific sessions held throughout the meeting.</p><p>The SDB meeting delivered a broad range of topics in developmental biology, and the sessions offered excellent opportunities for exchanging ideas and discussing the latest research advances. As a participant, I found the meeting to be highly valuable for staying updated with cutting-edge discoveries and methodologies, as well as for establishing new collaborations within the developmental biology community.</p><p>The scheduling format included a Presidential Symposium in the evening of day 1, with concurrent sessions and symposia in the morning, and plenary sessions after dinner. The invited speakers delivered outstanding presentations, both in terms of research content and presentation skills. The presentation by Dr. Zeba Wunderlich and her team from Boston University explored the functional significance of shadow enhancers, a critical yet enigmatic element in gene regulation. Using Drosophila embryos, they demonstrated how shadow enhancers, which bind distinct sets of transcription factors, ensure robust gene expression even under stress conditions. A particularly surprising finding came from their experiments with “squish” enhancers, where the endogenous DNA between shadow enhancers was eliminated. The results suggested that the spatial separation between enhancers is not essential for their function. This discovery prompts a reevaluation of the necessity for distributed enhancer configurations in the genome. In the same session, particularly memorable was Dr. Mike Levine of Princeton University, a well-known researcher in my field. His talk, as always, was engaging, involving the audience with humor, making it a truly enjoyable experience. Humor, in fact, was a common feature in many presentations, which is typical of Western conferences and something I feel is worth emulating. He presented an in-depth look at the regulatory architecture of long-range enhancer-promoter interactions in Drosophila. His team's work highlighted the critical role of boundary and tethering elements in the precise activation of segmentation and <i>Hox</i> genes during embryogenesis. The talk then transitioned to findings from the brain, where the researchers identified hundreds of regulatory loops. With regard to experimental techniques, the study employed relatively new methods such as the Micro-C XL assay, along with extensive use of bioinformatics, marking a significant advancement from traditional enhancer analysis approaches. As I may touch on in other sections, the integration of computational science and informatics has greatly accelerated progress in biology. By actively adopting these novel technologies and ideas, Mike's work, despite his consistent focus on transcription and enhancer analysis, always seems to be positioned with a fresh vision. On the other hand, many of today's cutting-edge technologies involve large-scale data analysis, which in turn require substantial funding. Consequently, with the current standard levels of grants in our country, it is becoming increasingly difficult to incorporate these new technologies extensively.</p><p>I had the opportunity to present in one of the concurrent sessions, titled “Evolutionary Conservation, Divergence, and Regulatory Network,” which covered a wide range of topics, from the organisms studied to the methods used and the evolutionary phenomena targeted. I presented about the light-regulated digestive function in sea urchin larvae, while other speakers discussed topics such as the dynamics of enhancer activity during the maternal–zygotic transition and evolutionary insights drawn from the developmental similarities between outer ear and gill formation. Among the many fascinating talks, I found Dr. Armin Moczek's presentation on the acquisition and evolution of horn morphology in beetles particularly intriguing. In the talk, Dr. Moczek presented fascinating insights into the evolutionary origins and developmental mechanisms of beetle horns, which have become a powerful model system in evolutionary developmental biology. What I found particularly interesting was the contrast between the horns developing from the first thoracic segment and those from the posterior head. While both types of horns serve a similar function in male combat, their genetic and developmental underpinnings are quite different. Thoracic horns are derived from partial wing serial homologs and are controlled by a conserved and ancient gene regulatory network (GRN), which was intriguing because it highlights how deep evolutionary pathways can shape novel traits. On the other hand, head horns develop through localized over-proliferation of head sclerites without the guidance of a specific GRN, showing a completely different developmental strategy. Another point that caught my attention was the fact that despite these differing evolutionary origins and initiation mechanisms, both types of horns share similar regulatory mechanisms for diversity, such as sex- or nutrition-responsive growth. This suggests that while novel traits such as these horns can evolve through different developmental pathways, they may converge on similar genetic mechanisms to facilitate their diversification. This aspect of the talk really emphasized how evolutionary novelties can arise and diversify in different ways, which has broad implications beyond beetles.</p><p>The other sessions spanned a wide range of topics, from fundamental developmental biology in areas such as “Morphogenesis and Pattern Formation” to discussions on developmental biology in the context of disease, as well as synthetic biology aimed at engineering developmental processes. A significant portion of the research presented utilized well-established model organisms. As I mentioned earlier, incorporating new technologies to further one's original research interests can be challenging when working with non-model organisms due to difficulties in breeding or establishing new systems, making model organisms the more practical first choice for many. However, as someone working with non-model organisms, I felt somewhat disheartened. It seems that a model-centric approach, rather than focusing on phenomena, is becoming increasingly prevalent among the younger generation in developmental biology, which leaves me with a sense of concern. Although there were several presentations using non-model organisms during the poster sessions, I noticed that studies on plants were particularly scarce overall.</p><p>The talk sessions were held in the Triumph Ballroom, located on the second floor of the hotel, a vast space of 37,080 square feet partitioned into several sections. The spacious rooms with high ceilings provided an open and relaxed atmosphere for each session. However, due to the size of the rooms, two screens were placed side by side for presentations, which often caused issues for speakers using laser pointers and PowerPoint presentations, as they could only direct their attention to one screen at a time. Depending on the seating position, it was sometimes unclear which part of the presentation the speaker was referring to. This is an area where improvements could be made from the perspectives of the organizers, speakers, and audience members, to avoid missing valuable insights. Such issues can arise at any conference, and I hope to address this point in future JSDB meetings. Additionally, the partition walls were less soundproof than fixed walls, and attendees seated near the edges of the rooms could occasionally hear voices from adjacent sessions, which made it difficult to concentrate.</p><p>As a speaker, I found it beneficial that the number of concurrent sessions was relatively low, allowing a larger audience to attend each session. This structure is similar to JSDB meetings, and I believe it is a well-designed approach. While it is understandable that some conferences must run many parallel sessions due to space constraints, even with just two or three concurrent sessions, it was disappointing to miss certain talks due to overlaps. Fewer concurrent sessions would be ideal to maximize attendance at each presentation. Speakers were required to visit the computer room beforehand to upload their slides into the conference system. I was impressed by how efficient the system was. By simply copying the PowerPoint file to a USB flash drive and connecting it to the provided PC, the system would ask if you were using Mac or Windows, then allow you to search for your name and presentation title. After uploading, all presentations in that session room were automatically queued in the correct order for playback. This fully automated system eliminated the need for on-site engineers and prevented technical issues from speakers fumbling with their own devices. Although there is a minimal risk of information leakage when handing over files, the system was extremely practical. I believe this type of system could greatly reduce the burden on conference staff and should be adopted more widely.</p><p>The poster sessions were divided into three groups, with each group using the same room and poster boards on different days. This arrangement made the process of putting up and taking down posters feel somewhat rushed. Although each day allowed around 3 hr for the poster session, it was impossible to see everything within the allotted time. At conferences where posters are left up for a longer period, attendees can use breaks or meal times to view posters they missed during the official session. Unfortunately, this was not feasible with the setup at this meeting. Balancing the large number of presenters with limited room space is undoubtedly a challenge, but this experience made it clear that leaving posters up for longer periods is beneficial. There were several posters that I missed completely, and once they were taken down, I had no access to them. Moreover, without knowing the presenter's identity, I couldn't obtain any more information beyond the abstract.</p><p>I also realized the importance of keeping presentations concise. Some presenters tended to talk at length, which made it difficult to visit as many posters as I would have liked. In future meetings, including JSDB, I believe presenters should practice delivering their key points in a more compact form, perhaps within 2 or 3 min. A short, impactful explanation can pique the audience's interest, followed by a longer discussion for those who want to dive deeper. Additionally, I noticed that the best posters often used more images and fewer words, which allowed attendees to absorb the content quickly. Whether in English or Japanese, and whether it is a talk or a poster, reducing text and emphasizing visuals, complemented by the presenter's spoken explanation, seems to be the most effective approach.</p><p>One of the interesting aspects of this year's SDB meeting was the wide range of small sessions. Although I did not personally attend them, there were sessions aimed at students and/or trainees, as well as dedicated sessions with funding agencies. Additionally, there were workshops covering various themes. These initiatives strike a great balance between focusing on the core goal of the conference—research—while also educating and supporting the future generation of developmental biologists, including students and early career researchers.</p><p>One session I found particularly engaging as a participant was the SDB Town Hall held on the final day. This meeting allowed the organizers/committees of the SDB and participants to openly exchange views on both the current and future SDB itself and meetings. I recall a similar initiative from a previous JSDB meeting, but in Japan, there is often a reserved atmosphere that makes it difficult to engage in open debate. In contrast, this type of format allowed everyone—whether a senior researcher, a big name, or a student—to voice their opinions equally. This inclusive environment highlighted one of the strengths of American scientific culture.</p><p>It was noteworthy, however, that the number of participants from Japan at this year's SDB meeting was quite small. This trend is not limited to the SDB; I have observed a similar lack of representation from Japan at other North American conferences as well. While the ability to attend virtually or watch on-demand sessions, combined with the difficulties of funding travel during the current weak yen, likely contributed to the low attendance, I believe it is still crucial for Japanese developmental biologists to participate in person. Engaging in face-to-face discussions at international conferences is just as important as publishing high-quality papers for maintaining Japan's presence in the global developmental biology community. Therefore, I strongly encourage both young researchers and senior scientists to attend international meetings more actively.</p><p>I also hope that Japan's scientific community, including governmental agencies, will create funding systems that make it easier for researchers to participate in such conferences abroad.</p><p>I declare no conflict of interests.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50589,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Development Growth & Differentiation\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"6-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dgd.12950\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Development Growth & Differentiation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dgd.12950\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CELL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Development Growth & Differentiation","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dgd.12950","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CELL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

第83届发育生物学学会(SDB)年会(https://www.sdbonline.org/2024mtg)在美国亚特兰大召开,日本发育生物学学会(JSDB)作为特邀社团参加。为了促进社会互动,来自日本的三位研究人员作为SDB的代表在SDB会议上做了特邀演讲。另一方面,深发展的四位研究人员应邀发言,并参加了我在JSDB会议(https://pub.confit.atlas.jp/en/event/jsdb2024)组织的多元化委员会午餐会。这些科学交流的目的是促进美国和日本发育生物学家之间的合作,促进双方的研究进展。希望这些举措将继续为双方建立长期合作框架。值得一提的是,今年深发展董事长赵建贤博士出席了在京都举行的深发展会议,为我们的访问发挥了重要作用,凸显了相互交流的重要性。我有幸在2024年第一次参加了美国发育生物学学会(SDB)年会。2024年SDB年会在佐治亚州亚特兰大市中心新开业的希尔顿Signia酒店举行(图1)。该酒店地理位置优越,可通往梅赛德斯-奔驰体育场和佐治亚州世界会议中心等重要地标。截至2022年,亚特兰大的人口约为50万,是美国南部的主要城市中心之一,并因举办1996年夏季奥运会而闻名于世。酒店提供了一个理想的环境,网络和参与与同事,补充了整个会议期间举行的富有成效的科学会议。SDB会议讨论了发育生物学的广泛主题,会议为交流思想和讨论最新研究进展提供了极好的机会。作为一名参与者,我发现这次会议对于了解最新的发现和方法以及在发育生物学社区内建立新的合作关系是非常有价值的。日程安排包括第一天晚上的总统专题讨论会,上午的同期会议和专题讨论会,以及晚餐后的全体会议。受邀的演讲者在研究内容和演讲技巧方面都做了出色的演讲。来自波士顿大学的Zeba Wunderlich博士和她的团队的演讲探讨了阴影增强剂的功能意义,阴影增强剂是基因调控中一个关键而神秘的元素。利用果蝇胚胎,他们展示了影子增强子是如何结合不同的转录因子,即使在压力条件下也能确保稳健的基因表达。一个特别令人惊讶的发现来自他们对“压扁”增强子的实验,其中消除了阴影增强子之间的内源性DNA。结果表明,增强子之间的空间分离对它们的功能并不是必需的。这一发现促使人们重新评估基因组中分布式增强子配置的必要性。在同一场会议上,特别令人难忘的是普林斯顿大学的迈克·莱文博士,他是我所在领域的一位知名研究员。他的演讲一如既往地引人入胜,让听众沉浸在幽默之中,使之成为一次真正愉快的经历。事实上,幽默是许多演讲的共同特点,这是西方会议的典型特征,我觉得值得效仿。他对果蝇的远程增强子-启动子相互作用的调控结构进行了深入的研究。他的团队的工作强调了边界和栓系元素在胚胎发生过程中精确激活分割和Hox基因的关键作用。然后,谈话转向了大脑的发现,研究人员在大脑中发现了数百个调节回路。在实验技术方面,本研究采用了相对较新的方法,如Micro-C XL测定,以及生物信息学的广泛使用,标志着传统增强子分析方法的重大进步。正如我可能在其他章节中提到的,计算科学和信息学的融合极大地加速了生物学的进步。通过积极采用这些新颖的技术和想法,尽管Mike一直专注于转录和增强子分析,但他的工作似乎总是以新的视角定位。另一方面,当今许多尖端技术都涉及大规模数据分析,这反过来又需要大量资金。因此,以我国目前的赠款标准水平,越来越难以广泛地采用这些新技术。 我有机会在其中一个同期会议上发言,题为“进化保护、分化和调控网络”,涵盖了广泛的主题,从研究的生物体到使用的方法和针对的进化现象。我介绍了海胆幼虫的光调节消化功能,而其他演讲者讨论了诸如母系-合子过渡期间增强子活性的动力学以及从外耳和鳃形成的发育相似性中得出的进化见解等主题。在许多引人入胜的演讲中,我发现阿明·莫泽克博士关于甲虫角形态的获得和进化的演讲特别吸引人。在演讲中,Moczek博士对甲虫角的进化起源和发育机制提出了令人着迷的见解,这已经成为进化发育生物学中一个强大的模型系统。我发现特别有趣的是第一胸椎段和后头形成的角之间的对比。虽然两种类型的角在雄性战斗中起着相似的作用,但它们的遗传和发育基础却大不相同。胸角来源于部分翅膀序列同源物,并由一个保守的古老基因调控网络(GRN)控制,这很有趣,因为它突出了进化途径是如何形成新特征的。另一方面,在没有特异性GRN引导的情况下,头角通过头部巩膜的局部过度增殖发育,表现出完全不同的发育策略。另一个引起我注意的事实是,尽管这些不同的进化起源和启动机制,这两种类型的角具有相似的多样性调节机制,例如性别或营养反应性生长。这表明,虽然像这些角这样的新性状可以通过不同的发育途径进化,但它们可能在相似的遗传机制上趋同,以促进它们的多样化。谈话的这一方面确实强调了进化上的新奇事物是如何以不同的方式产生和多样化的,这不仅对甲虫有广泛的影响。其他会议涵盖了广泛的主题,从“形态发生和模式形成”等领域的基础发育生物学到疾病背景下的发育生物学讨论,以及旨在工程发育过程的合成生物学。所提出的研究的很大一部分利用了成熟的模式生物。正如我前面提到的,在研究非模式生物时,由于育种或建立新系统的困难,将新技术应用于进一步的原始研究兴趣可能是具有挑战性的,这使得模式生物成为许多人更实用的首选。然而,作为一个研究非模式生物的人,我感到有些沮丧。似乎在发育生物学的年轻一代中,一种以模型为中心的方法,而不是关注现象,正变得越来越普遍,这让我感到担忧。虽然在海报会议期间有几次使用非模式生物的演讲,但我注意到,对植物的研究总体上特别少。会议在凯旋宴会厅举行,宴会厅位于酒店二楼,面积达37,080平方英尺,被分成了几个区域。宽敞的房间和高高的天花板为每次会议提供了一个开放和轻松的氛围。然而,由于房间的大小,两个屏幕并排放置用于演示,这经常给使用激光笔和ppt演示的演讲者带来问题,因为他们一次只能将注意力集中在一个屏幕上。根据座位位置的不同,有时不清楚演讲者指的是演示文稿的哪一部分。这是一个可以从组织者、演讲者和观众的角度进行改进的领域,以避免错过有价值的见解。这样的问题可能出现在任何会议上,我希望在未来的JSDB会议上解决这一点。此外,隔断墙的隔音效果不如固定墙,坐在房间边缘附近的与会者偶尔会听到相邻会议的声音,这使得他们很难集中注意力。作为一名演讲者,我发现并发会议的数量相对较少是有益的,这样可以让更多的听众参加每个会议。这种结构类似于JSDB会议,我相信这是一种设计良好的方法。由于空间的限制,有些会议必须同时举行许多次会议,这是可以理解的,即使只有两三个会议同时举行,但由于重叠而错过某些会议,令人失望。 更少的并发会议将是理想的,以最大限度地提高每个演示的出席率。发言者必须事先到电脑室把他们的幻灯片上传到会议系统。这个系统的效率给我留下了深刻的印象。只需将PowerPoint文件复制到USB闪存驱动器上,并将其连接到所提供的PC上,系统就会询问你使用的是Mac还是Windows,然后允许你搜索自己的名字和演示标题。上传后,该会议室中的所有演示都会自动按照正确的顺序排队播放。这种完全自动化的系统消除了对现场工程师的需求,并防止了扬声器摸索自己的设备所产生的技术问题。虽然在移交文件时信息泄露的风险很小,但该系统非常实用。我认为这种制度可以大大减轻会议工作人员的负担,应该得到更广泛的采用。海报会议被分为三组,每组在不同的日子使用相同的房间和海报板。这样的安排让张贴和撤下海报的过程显得有些匆忙。虽然每天有大约3个小时的海报时间,但在规定时间内看完所有内容是不可能的。在海报张贴时间较长的会议上,与会者可以利用休息时间或用餐时间查看他们在正式会议期间错过的海报。不幸的是,这在这次会议的设置中是不可行的。在有限的空间内平衡大量的演讲者无疑是一项挑战,但这次经历清楚地表明,长时间张贴海报是有益的。有几张海报我完全错过了,一旦它们被取下,我就无法访问它们了。而且,在不知道主讲人身份的情况下,我无法获得除了摘要以外的更多信息。我也意识到保持演讲简洁的重要性。一些演讲者倾向于长篇大论,这使得我很难参观尽可能多的海报。在未来的会议中,包括JSDB,我相信演讲者应该练习用更紧凑的形式来表达他们的重点,也许在2到3分钟内。一个简短而有影响力的解释可以激起听众的兴趣,然后是一个更长的讨论,供那些想要深入探讨的人使用。此外,我注意到最好的海报通常使用更多的图片和更少的文字,这使得与会者能够更快地吸收内容。无论是用英语还是日语,无论是演讲还是海报,减少文字,强调视觉效果,辅以演讲者的口头解释,似乎是最有效的方法。今年SDB会议的一个有趣的方面是广泛的小型会议。虽然我没有亲自参加,但有针对学生和/或学员的会议,以及与资助机构的专门会议。此外,还举办了涵盖各种主题的讲习班。这些举措在关注会议的核心目标(研究)与教育和支持下一代发育生物学家(包括学生和早期职业研究人员)之间取得了很好的平衡。作为参与者,我发现特别吸引人的一个环节是在最后一天举行的SDB市政厅。是次会议让深发展的主办/委员会和与会者就目前和未来的深发展本身及会议公开交换意见。我记得在以前的JSDB会议上有过类似的倡议,但在日本,通常有一种保守的气氛,这使得很难进行公开辩论。相比之下,这种形式允许每个人——无论是高级研究员、知名人士还是学生——平等地发表意见。这种包容的环境凸显了美国科学文化的优势之一。然而,值得注意的是,参加今年深发展会议的日本代表人数甚少。这种趋势并不局限于SDB;我也观察到,日本在其他北美会议上也同样缺乏代表。虽然参加虚拟会议或观看点选会议的能力,加上在当前日元疲软的情况下资助旅行的困难,可能导致出席率低,但我认为日本发育生物学家亲自参加仍然至关重要。在国际会议上进行面对面的讨论与发表高质量的论文一样重要,以保持日本在全球发育生物学社区的存在。因此,我强烈鼓励青年科学家和资深科学家更积极地参加国际会议。我还希望日本科学界,包括政府机构,将建立资助系统,使研究人员更容易参加国外的此类会议。 我声明没有利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Meeting report: Society for Developmental Biology 83rd annual meeting

Meeting report: Society for Developmental Biology 83rd annual meeting

The 83rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Developmental Biology (SDB) (https://www.sdbonline.org/2024mtg) was held in Atlanta, where the Japanese Society of Developmental Biologists (JSDB) participated as the guest society. To promote societal interactions, three researchers from Japan and gave invited talks in the SDB meeting as representatives of JSDB. On the other hand, four researchers from SDB gave invited talks and also participated in the Diversity Committee's Luncheon Seminar that I organized in the JSDB meeting (https://pub.confit.atlas.jp/en/event/jsdb2024). These scientific exchanges are aimed at fostering collaboration between developmental biologists in the United States and Japan and promoting mutual research advancements. The hope is that these initiatives will continue to build a long-term cooperative framework between both parties. Notably, this year, SDB President Dr. Ken Cho attended the JSDB meeting in Kyoto and played a significant role in facilitating our visit, underscoring the importance of mutual exchange.

I had the privilege of attending the Society for Developmental Biology (SDB) Annual Meeting for the first time in 2024. The 2024 SDB Annual Meeting took place at the Signia by Hilton, a newly opened venue in downtown Atlanta, Georgia (Figure 1). The hotel location offers excellent access to key landmarks such as the Mercedes-Benz Stadium and the Georgia World Congress Center. The city of Atlanta, with a population of approximately 500,000 as of 2022, is one of the major urban centers of the southern United States and is notable for hosting the 1996 Summer Olympics for our generations. The hotel provided an ideal setting for networking and engaging with colleagues, which complemented the productive scientific sessions held throughout the meeting.

The SDB meeting delivered a broad range of topics in developmental biology, and the sessions offered excellent opportunities for exchanging ideas and discussing the latest research advances. As a participant, I found the meeting to be highly valuable for staying updated with cutting-edge discoveries and methodologies, as well as for establishing new collaborations within the developmental biology community.

The scheduling format included a Presidential Symposium in the evening of day 1, with concurrent sessions and symposia in the morning, and plenary sessions after dinner. The invited speakers delivered outstanding presentations, both in terms of research content and presentation skills. The presentation by Dr. Zeba Wunderlich and her team from Boston University explored the functional significance of shadow enhancers, a critical yet enigmatic element in gene regulation. Using Drosophila embryos, they demonstrated how shadow enhancers, which bind distinct sets of transcription factors, ensure robust gene expression even under stress conditions. A particularly surprising finding came from their experiments with “squish” enhancers, where the endogenous DNA between shadow enhancers was eliminated. The results suggested that the spatial separation between enhancers is not essential for their function. This discovery prompts a reevaluation of the necessity for distributed enhancer configurations in the genome. In the same session, particularly memorable was Dr. Mike Levine of Princeton University, a well-known researcher in my field. His talk, as always, was engaging, involving the audience with humor, making it a truly enjoyable experience. Humor, in fact, was a common feature in many presentations, which is typical of Western conferences and something I feel is worth emulating. He presented an in-depth look at the regulatory architecture of long-range enhancer-promoter interactions in Drosophila. His team's work highlighted the critical role of boundary and tethering elements in the precise activation of segmentation and Hox genes during embryogenesis. The talk then transitioned to findings from the brain, where the researchers identified hundreds of regulatory loops. With regard to experimental techniques, the study employed relatively new methods such as the Micro-C XL assay, along with extensive use of bioinformatics, marking a significant advancement from traditional enhancer analysis approaches. As I may touch on in other sections, the integration of computational science and informatics has greatly accelerated progress in biology. By actively adopting these novel technologies and ideas, Mike's work, despite his consistent focus on transcription and enhancer analysis, always seems to be positioned with a fresh vision. On the other hand, many of today's cutting-edge technologies involve large-scale data analysis, which in turn require substantial funding. Consequently, with the current standard levels of grants in our country, it is becoming increasingly difficult to incorporate these new technologies extensively.

I had the opportunity to present in one of the concurrent sessions, titled “Evolutionary Conservation, Divergence, and Regulatory Network,” which covered a wide range of topics, from the organisms studied to the methods used and the evolutionary phenomena targeted. I presented about the light-regulated digestive function in sea urchin larvae, while other speakers discussed topics such as the dynamics of enhancer activity during the maternal–zygotic transition and evolutionary insights drawn from the developmental similarities between outer ear and gill formation. Among the many fascinating talks, I found Dr. Armin Moczek's presentation on the acquisition and evolution of horn morphology in beetles particularly intriguing. In the talk, Dr. Moczek presented fascinating insights into the evolutionary origins and developmental mechanisms of beetle horns, which have become a powerful model system in evolutionary developmental biology. What I found particularly interesting was the contrast between the horns developing from the first thoracic segment and those from the posterior head. While both types of horns serve a similar function in male combat, their genetic and developmental underpinnings are quite different. Thoracic horns are derived from partial wing serial homologs and are controlled by a conserved and ancient gene regulatory network (GRN), which was intriguing because it highlights how deep evolutionary pathways can shape novel traits. On the other hand, head horns develop through localized over-proliferation of head sclerites without the guidance of a specific GRN, showing a completely different developmental strategy. Another point that caught my attention was the fact that despite these differing evolutionary origins and initiation mechanisms, both types of horns share similar regulatory mechanisms for diversity, such as sex- or nutrition-responsive growth. This suggests that while novel traits such as these horns can evolve through different developmental pathways, they may converge on similar genetic mechanisms to facilitate their diversification. This aspect of the talk really emphasized how evolutionary novelties can arise and diversify in different ways, which has broad implications beyond beetles.

The other sessions spanned a wide range of topics, from fundamental developmental biology in areas such as “Morphogenesis and Pattern Formation” to discussions on developmental biology in the context of disease, as well as synthetic biology aimed at engineering developmental processes. A significant portion of the research presented utilized well-established model organisms. As I mentioned earlier, incorporating new technologies to further one's original research interests can be challenging when working with non-model organisms due to difficulties in breeding or establishing new systems, making model organisms the more practical first choice for many. However, as someone working with non-model organisms, I felt somewhat disheartened. It seems that a model-centric approach, rather than focusing on phenomena, is becoming increasingly prevalent among the younger generation in developmental biology, which leaves me with a sense of concern. Although there were several presentations using non-model organisms during the poster sessions, I noticed that studies on plants were particularly scarce overall.

The talk sessions were held in the Triumph Ballroom, located on the second floor of the hotel, a vast space of 37,080 square feet partitioned into several sections. The spacious rooms with high ceilings provided an open and relaxed atmosphere for each session. However, due to the size of the rooms, two screens were placed side by side for presentations, which often caused issues for speakers using laser pointers and PowerPoint presentations, as they could only direct their attention to one screen at a time. Depending on the seating position, it was sometimes unclear which part of the presentation the speaker was referring to. This is an area where improvements could be made from the perspectives of the organizers, speakers, and audience members, to avoid missing valuable insights. Such issues can arise at any conference, and I hope to address this point in future JSDB meetings. Additionally, the partition walls were less soundproof than fixed walls, and attendees seated near the edges of the rooms could occasionally hear voices from adjacent sessions, which made it difficult to concentrate.

As a speaker, I found it beneficial that the number of concurrent sessions was relatively low, allowing a larger audience to attend each session. This structure is similar to JSDB meetings, and I believe it is a well-designed approach. While it is understandable that some conferences must run many parallel sessions due to space constraints, even with just two or three concurrent sessions, it was disappointing to miss certain talks due to overlaps. Fewer concurrent sessions would be ideal to maximize attendance at each presentation. Speakers were required to visit the computer room beforehand to upload their slides into the conference system. I was impressed by how efficient the system was. By simply copying the PowerPoint file to a USB flash drive and connecting it to the provided PC, the system would ask if you were using Mac or Windows, then allow you to search for your name and presentation title. After uploading, all presentations in that session room were automatically queued in the correct order for playback. This fully automated system eliminated the need for on-site engineers and prevented technical issues from speakers fumbling with their own devices. Although there is a minimal risk of information leakage when handing over files, the system was extremely practical. I believe this type of system could greatly reduce the burden on conference staff and should be adopted more widely.

The poster sessions were divided into three groups, with each group using the same room and poster boards on different days. This arrangement made the process of putting up and taking down posters feel somewhat rushed. Although each day allowed around 3 hr for the poster session, it was impossible to see everything within the allotted time. At conferences where posters are left up for a longer period, attendees can use breaks or meal times to view posters they missed during the official session. Unfortunately, this was not feasible with the setup at this meeting. Balancing the large number of presenters with limited room space is undoubtedly a challenge, but this experience made it clear that leaving posters up for longer periods is beneficial. There were several posters that I missed completely, and once they were taken down, I had no access to them. Moreover, without knowing the presenter's identity, I couldn't obtain any more information beyond the abstract.

I also realized the importance of keeping presentations concise. Some presenters tended to talk at length, which made it difficult to visit as many posters as I would have liked. In future meetings, including JSDB, I believe presenters should practice delivering their key points in a more compact form, perhaps within 2 or 3 min. A short, impactful explanation can pique the audience's interest, followed by a longer discussion for those who want to dive deeper. Additionally, I noticed that the best posters often used more images and fewer words, which allowed attendees to absorb the content quickly. Whether in English or Japanese, and whether it is a talk or a poster, reducing text and emphasizing visuals, complemented by the presenter's spoken explanation, seems to be the most effective approach.

One of the interesting aspects of this year's SDB meeting was the wide range of small sessions. Although I did not personally attend them, there were sessions aimed at students and/or trainees, as well as dedicated sessions with funding agencies. Additionally, there were workshops covering various themes. These initiatives strike a great balance between focusing on the core goal of the conference—research—while also educating and supporting the future generation of developmental biologists, including students and early career researchers.

One session I found particularly engaging as a participant was the SDB Town Hall held on the final day. This meeting allowed the organizers/committees of the SDB and participants to openly exchange views on both the current and future SDB itself and meetings. I recall a similar initiative from a previous JSDB meeting, but in Japan, there is often a reserved atmosphere that makes it difficult to engage in open debate. In contrast, this type of format allowed everyone—whether a senior researcher, a big name, or a student—to voice their opinions equally. This inclusive environment highlighted one of the strengths of American scientific culture.

It was noteworthy, however, that the number of participants from Japan at this year's SDB meeting was quite small. This trend is not limited to the SDB; I have observed a similar lack of representation from Japan at other North American conferences as well. While the ability to attend virtually or watch on-demand sessions, combined with the difficulties of funding travel during the current weak yen, likely contributed to the low attendance, I believe it is still crucial for Japanese developmental biologists to participate in person. Engaging in face-to-face discussions at international conferences is just as important as publishing high-quality papers for maintaining Japan's presence in the global developmental biology community. Therefore, I strongly encourage both young researchers and senior scientists to attend international meetings more actively.

I also hope that Japan's scientific community, including governmental agencies, will create funding systems that make it easier for researchers to participate in such conferences abroad.

I declare no conflict of interests.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Development Growth & Differentiation
Development Growth & Differentiation 生物-发育生物学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Development Growth & Differentiation (DGD) publishes three types of articles: original, resource, and review papers. Original papers are on any subjects having a context in development, growth, and differentiation processes in animals, plants, and microorganisms, dealing with molecular, genetic, cellular and organismal phenomena including metamorphosis and regeneration, while using experimental, theoretical, and bioinformatic approaches. Papers on other related fields are also welcome, such as stem cell biology, genomics, neuroscience, Evodevo, Ecodevo, and medical science as well as related methodology (new or revised techniques) and bioresources. Resource papers describe a dataset, such as whole genome sequences and expressed sequence tags (ESTs), with some biological insights, which should be valuable for studying the subjects as mentioned above. Submission of review papers is also encouraged, especially those providing a new scope based on the authors’ own study, or a summarization of their study series.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信