Blog

CU ��Ĵ�ý graduate student wins DOE award, joins NASA-DARES

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Jun 2026 19:10:26 +0000

CU ��Ĵ�ý graduate student wins DOE award, joins NASA-DARES Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 06/16/2026 - 13:10

Catherine Fontana, a geobiology PhD candidate in the ��Ĵ�ý Department of Earth Science and the Interdisciplinary Quantitative Biology Program, was recently selected for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science Graduate Student Research (SCGSR) award for her research on cyanobacterial biofilms.

The highly competitive program offers PhD candidates in various STEM fields the opportunity to advance their thesis research at one of DOE’s research facilities alongside a DOE national laboratory scientist. Additionally, awardees are eligible to receive a stipend for general living expenses and inbound and outbound transportation.

“The DOE SCGSR program allows me to study microbial processes using cutting-edge analytical techniques and world-class facilities that are a hallmark of the Department of Energy national laboratories,” Fontana says.

In the Department of Earth Science, Fontana is co-advised by stable isotope geochemist Boswell Wing and microbial physiologist Sebastian Kopf. Her research on cyanobacterial biofilms seeks to understand the connections between microbial physiology, mineral precipitation and stromatolite (a layered, rock-like formation built by microbial communities) formation using stable isotope geochemistry and experimental evolution.

From October 2026 to April 2027, Fontana’s SCGSR award will support her study at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, where she will work closely with Rhona Stuart, who leads the DOE’s MicroBiospheres Scientific Focus Area. The DOE laboratory offers Fontana the opportunity to leverage a stable isotope technique called NanoSIMS to track variation in stable isotope composition at the micron-scale level.

The project, “Tracking Carbon Flow in Cyanobacteria Biofilms and Their Mineral Byproduct,” explores “how carbon moves through cyanobacterial biofilms and the extent to which this carbon contributes to minerals they make, like carbonate, that eventually turns them into rocks, like stromatolites,” she explains, adding that her work is especially meaningful in the context of developing next-generation biotechnologies in which cyanobacteria and their biofilms may be an innovative foundation for bioeconomy products.

Charting the future of NASA astrobiology

Additionally, after a highly competitive open-call application, Fontana was selected as one of nine early-career scientists to serve on the 49-member NASA-DARES Task Force 2. Composed of members of the astrobiology community, NASA-DARES, or NASA’s Decadal Astrobiology Research and Exploration Strategy, will serve as a roadmap for the organization’s future astrobiology research, which aims to understand life’s origins, evolution and distribution across the universe.

Since January, NASA-DARES Task Force 2 has been building on the nine major focus areas—which include comparative planetology to understand habitability and astrobiology in society, among others—identified by Task Force 1 by gathering community input through virtual webinars and public discussions. Task Force 2 is currently synthesizing community perspectives into a document outlining contemporary astrobiological interests, available opportunities and the diverse scientific approaches and disciplines in motion across NASA Science.

As the executive secretary of Focus Area 8, Early Career and Workforce Development, Fontana has worked with her team to solicit and synthesize community input regarding how NASA can best support early-career astrobiologists and develop the field over the next decade.

“As an early career researcher passionate about the future of astrobiology, I am profoundly honored to be part of NASA-DARES,” says Fontana. “As the only early-career member of the ‘Early Career and Workforce Development’ focus area, I feel a strong responsibility to represent early-career voices and perspectives. This role provides me with a unique opportunity to help shape the chapter’s findings and contribute to pivotal conversations about the future of astrobiology.”

NASA-DARES is still soliciting feedback: The public comment period for NASA-DARES is open this month and close July 2. The final NASA-DARES document will be shared at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in December.

Earth science PhD candidate Catherine Fontana will pursue cyanobacterial biofilm research at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Off

Traditional

White

Chris Smith: Evolution Meeting

Anonymous — Wed, 26 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0000

Chris Smith: Evolution Meeting Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 06/25/2019 - 18:00

Chris Smith

I just got back from the Evolution Meeting in Providence and I’m full of information and ideas for research. I had the opportunity to reconnect with past colleagues and meet some new people. Other CU ��Ĵ�ý folks attended, including the labs of Dan Doak, Nancy Emery, Nolan Kane, Stacy Smith, and Scott Taylor (sorry if I missed any others).

Although most of the research represented at Evolution is empirical research on understanding and preserving biodiversity, many attendees were excited to discuss methods. In particular, producing large amounts of DNA sequencing data - both empirically, and using computer simulations - is no longer limiting in many cases. Therefore, the challenge of developing theory and methods for analyzing these data has received more attention in recent years.

Highlighting a couple of talks I thought were memorable: Paul Hohenlohe (U. Idaho) described the array of reduced representation sequencing approaches that are available and important trade-offs among them. Adam Jones (also U. Idaho) used simulations to see if and how pleiotropy and epistasis affect scans for loci involved in adaptation; he reported that pleiotropic effects don’t really affect outlier scans and that some important loci are still detected in the presence of genetic interactions. Zach Gompert (Utah State) presented a cool approach for quantifying fluctuating selection.

My presentation was part of the session on Population Genetics Theory, which is too broad of a name for the session because the talks were each focused specifically on inferring historical population sizes and admixture. Multiple speakers used ancient DNA to infer population history and used computer simulations to validate their approach. Other speakers, including myself, were trying to “break” commonly used tools that infer population history, to understand which parameters and data work best, or worst.

On a fun note, we got to see the “WaterFire” event in downtown Providence next to the convention center. This event is a big deal. There were thousands of attendees packed onto bridges and standing in the park along the river. Leading up to, and during the event, large amplifiers played music covering a range of- and alternating dissonantly between- intense classical music, tribal music, country music, and horns. At dusk, they lit small bonfires floating on the river. That’s it.

Off

Traditional

White

World Congress of Biomechanics – Dublin, Ireland

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:42:41 +0000

World Congress of Biomechanics – Dublin, Ireland Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 10/24/2018 - 10:42

Kristin Calahan

This summer, I had the opportunity to present my research at the 2018 World Congress of Biomechanics in Dublin, Ireland. As the premier meeting worldwide in the field of biomechanics, this was an incredible opportunity to network with scientists in this field, both within my subfield of biomechanics and far outside of it. I especially enjoyed this aspect of the conference because as an IQ Biology student I am intrigued by interdisciplinarity and the intersection of biology and mechanics at different length scales.

The talks spanned many areas of interest, but some of my favorites were sports and injury biomechanics, cell biomechanics, tissue engineering, images and devices, and biomechanics education. There were about fifteen research presentation sessions going on at any given time which was overwhelming at first, but once I was able to navigate the conference, I liked having the freedom to decide if I wanted more depth or breadth each day.

In addition to attending so many great talks, I had the opportunity to present a poster showing my latest research results describing mechanisms of friction between bio-inspired micropatterns on medical devices and the in vivo tissue environment. During my poster presentation, I was able to network with several graduate students from around the world as well as some professors that are active researchers in my subfield of biomechanics. It was motivating to discuss and ideate with other scientists focused on biomechanics research because it opened some new perspectives in thinking about my research. Overall, the conference was an awesome experience that reinforced my interest in the interdisciplinary field of biomechanics.

Off

Traditional

White

Curiosity killed the cat, but it may help you get the Nobel prize

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0000

Curiosity killed the cat, but it may help you get the Nobel prize Anonymous (not verified) Thu, 03/16/2017 - 18:00

Catia Tarasava

I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose - which is the way it really is so far as I can tell - it does not frighten me.

–Richard Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out

Doctoral students have a lot of time on their hands. It may appear otherwise, but the unstructured nature of a graduate student’s life lends itself to exploring seemingly endless plains of fascinating information. I am a Materials Science and Engineering Ph.D. student working on developing molecular tools like CRISPR (Clustered Regularly-Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats used for editing DNA) to make microorganisms that can convert sugar into plastics. And somehow, on a snowy day in early January, I found myself going down a rabbit hole of attention-grabbing references that led from CRISPR to molybdenum.

Here are just a few fascinating facts I learned from this search: Did you know that molybdenum, occupying position 42 in the periodic table, has the sixth-highest melting point of any element? And that one of the world’s largest molybdenum mines – the Henderson Mine – is located near Leadville, Colorado, and adjoins a 10-mile railroad tunnel that goes under the Continental Divide? Or that molybdenum is an essential cofactor for nitrogen fixation in plants and arsenic detoxification in the liver? That there are species of archaea – some of the most ancient organisms on our planet – that can survive at pH < 0 (think battery acid) and reproduce at 250° F? And that some archaea have flat square-shaped cells? Oh, and that thing that initially began my search? There are now over 16 different subtypes of CRISPR systems.

So, how did I get from CRISPR to molybdenum mining? Mere curiosity. It may appear like a form of procrastination, but I prefer to think of it as an “idea treasure hunt.” In the process of mental exploration, one thought leads to another through association. Sometimes they flow in a linear pattern, other times they branch, splay and explode into thousands of new connections, forming intricate webs of facts and concepts in our brains. Occasionally an idea might wormhole its way to a distant node in the network, generating a surprising product – or even a revolutionary discovery. The mind theorists call this process the “promiscuous combination of ideas,” and it has led many scientists to come up with new theories and unexpected solutions.

Richard Feynman had the spark for his Nobel Prize-winning idea when he saw a student throw a plate across the cafeteria. Initially, he set out to solve a classical mechanics problem, but ended up in the quantum physics realm: the calculations of the wobbling speed and rotation of the plate transformed into a theory of how electron orbits move in relativity. Of course, that flying dish alone did not inspire the Nobel Prize theory. It involved connecting the dots from a giant constellation of concepts and theories in his mind. In the words of Feynman, “then there's the Dirac equation in electrodynamics. And then quantum electrodynamics. And before I knew it…the whole business that I got the Nobel Prize for came from that piddling around with the wobbling plate.”

One could argue that it was his deep understanding of physical principles and intense concentration that led Feynman to formulate the theory. I bet at least part of it was that Feynman was a man with insatiable curiosity; he was curious about how dreams work, how smart ants are, Japanese culture, or whether jelly can set at a low temperature if continuously stirred. When something grabbed his attention – like the wobbling plate – he chased after it, regardless of whether it was an elusive physics problem or something trivial he simply wanted to know more about. On his curiosity-fueled hunt for interesting things, he acquired a wealth of information and the ability to effectively process it, which enables one to draw surprising connections between distant ideas.

The information age has created a kind of “meta-mind” where people can easily share their ideas and together contribute to solving advanced problems. Most of the scientific discoveries today come not from individual researchers, but from the combined efforts of many people working in a field. For example, initial observations of the effects of CRISPR occurred in the dairy industry, where deliberate exposure to bacterial viruses (phages) was used to protect bacterial cultures against future phage infections¹. A computer search for similar sequences found fragments of phage DNA in the curious spacer-repeat CRISPR patterns, so it was proposed to be the bacterial “immune system”. Later, other researchers realized that CRISPRs could be expressed in different organisms and harnessed to target specified DNA sequences. Thus, CRISPR editing technology emerged from the combined efforts of many different labs and is now being proposed for applications like modifying human embryos – a prospect almost as far removed from its original use for making yogurt as it is from molybdenum mining.

I doubt that any scientist could have single-handedly figured out the application of CRISPR technology for gene editing purposes. Advancements like that take the combinatorial powers of the collective scientific mind. However, smaller discoveries are happening in labs every day, and they also require connecting the dots between quite distant concepts. So, next time you catch yourself procrastinating by reading seemingly unrelated articles on the internet, or by watching ants going about their business, or throwing a Frisbee (while trying to calculate its rotation speed in the air) – don’t be so hard on yourself. After all, you may just stumble upon your Nobel Prize idea.

¹If you are curious, this source provides a great timeline of CRISPR discovery and development.

Off

Traditional

White

SIAM Life Sciences Conference in Boston

Anonymous — Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:25:25 +0000

SIAM Life Sciences Conference in Boston Anonymous (not verified) Thu, 10/13/2016 - 09:25

Jacqueline Wentz

This July I attended the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) Conference on the Life Sciences in Boston. It was four days long, packed with talks, poster sessions, and unnecessary amounts of coffee. At the conference, I presented a poster on my latest research examining a molecular mechanism that is associated with aging in C. elegans. There were eight other graduate students from CU ��Ĵ�ý who gave presentations on topics, such as, biofilm dynamics, bacterial flocculation, wound healing, and disease outbreaks.

The SIAM Life Sciences conference is geared towards applied mathematicians who are interested in using their mathematical expertise to help answer biological questions, ranging from questions on intracellular dynamics to epidemiology. Thus, the conference is inherently interdisciplinary. At many of the talks I was pleasantly surprised when I realized that the courses I took during my first year of IQ Biology helped me understand the biological problems discussed. For example, several of the talks dealt with microtubule dynamics, a topic that was extensively covered in the biophysics course I took in the spring. Other talks of note included a discussion of how mathematical modeling helped in the development of an artificial heart valve and an exploration into how the extracellular matrix affects sperm dynamics. I even got to see the notable Donald Knuth discuss the topic of satisfiability (i.e., given a formula, is there a model that makes that formula true). Besides making significant contributions to theoretical computer science, Donald Knuth is the developer of TeX, a computer typesetting language used extensively by mathematicians (myself included).

There were also many presentations that directly related to my research. For example, several talks discussed Turing instabilities. This is a type of instability that can explain how patterns arise from random distributions through a reaction/diffusion process. I am currently studying a system in which, I hypothesize, this type of instability leads to spatial expression patterns of a small heat shock protein in C. elegans. I actually met a PhD student who was examining Turing instabilities in C. elegans, but instead of mechanisms related to aging, she was modeling the development of neuronal synapses.

Overall the conference was a great experience. I was introduced to a group of interdisciplinary scientists who, like me, are interested in biological processes and want to use mathematics to enhance our understanding of these processes. I even had the opportunity to meet my academic “grandfather”, Dr. H. T. Banks. Dr. Banks greeted me at my poster session and explained to me that since he had advised my advisor, Dr. David Bortz, he was my academic grandfather and would treat me as such. Some additional bonuses included exploring the nearby Aquarium, visiting my alma mater, and getting to tour around Boston.

Off

Traditional

White

My experience with Evolution

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0000

My experience with Evolution Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 08/29/2016 - 18:00

April Goebl

Attending Evolution, the premier international conference for evolutionary biology, had a big influence on my recently spawned, yet still vague, choice to pursue a career in evolutionary biology. Held in Austin, Texas this year and the largest conference in its field, Evolution is a joint event for three major societies: the American Society of Naturalists, the Society for the Study of Evolution, and the Society of Systematic Biologists.

By observing well-seasoned Evolution attendees, I noted their strategy for making the most of the busy conference: Attend talks on emerging methods, and spend time re-connecting with old lab mates and collaborators. For those transitioning from undergraduate, this conference was an optimal space to explore the breadth of current evolutionary biology research and to casually meet and chat with potential graduate advisors.

For me (someone recently starting on their PhD journey with broad interests in ecology, evolution and environmental biology) attending this conference felt like a well-timed bonus. I was able to attend talks and posters ranging from genomics, population genetics theory and ecological genetics to speciation and adaptation, biogeography, and conservation biology.

While this breadth of selection was nothing short of overwhelming for someone that struggles with indecision, the payoff of defining where my interests lie was well worth it. The challenge of navigating which talks to attend and how to traverse the conference center in time to make my next session of interest, was balanced by the reward of gaining insight into how to appropriately ask questions in this field and how to try to answer them.

Off

Traditional

White

Computing Machinery and Mouse Genomes

Anonymous — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0000

Computing Machinery and Mouse Genomes Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 03/09/2015 - 18:00

Daniel Malmar

I recently attended the 2014 Association for Computing Machinery Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Health Informatics (ACM BCB) with fellow IQ Biology student Joey Azofeifa and our advisor Robin Dowell. The conference had many interesting talks, ranging from theory-heavy explanations of algorithm improvements to very applied talks on using computational analysis for medical procedures. Joey presented his work on FStitch, a tool for measuring RNA transcription with GRO-seq data, which is soon to be published in the conference journal. His talk went very well and he fielded many good questions from interested attendees. In addition, Robin was a panelist for the “Women in Bioinformatics Panel” which addressed specific issues women might face in the field of bioinformatics.

I presented my poster titled “Inferring Ancestry in Mouse Genomes using a Hidden Markov Model”, where I showed my work on determining haplotype block inheritance using single-nucleotide polymorphism data from two selectively bred mouse strains and six of the eight ancestor strains that they were bred from (the other two ancestor strains haven’t been sequenced). To infer ancestry, I used a hidden Markov model (HMM)- a probabilistic model used to find the maximum likelihood path through a state machine. The poster session was great and I ended up having many visitors over during the two-hour timeframe. Some were simply intrigued by the pretty pictures and wanted to know what an HMM was, while others had worked on similar inheritance problems and had good questions about my process. I even spoke with a group that works with the mice strains we used and have imputated the genomes of the two unsequenced ancestor mouse strains, so I’m now looking into incorporating this data in my model.

The conference was held in Newport Beach, CA and while it was hot and sunny the entire weekend, I unfortunately never got a chance to visit the beach. I was lucky enough, however, to have a good friend who lives in the area and whom I hadn’t seen in over a year, so I got to spend some quality time with her. We were trying to plan a trip to see each other soon anyways, so it was really lucky that the conference happened to be in her area!

Currently, other members of the Dowell Lab and I are in the process of writing a paper on the sequencing of the two selectively bred mice strains, which will include my ancestor inference piece as a section. We then hope to extend my work by refining our methods, running simulations, and including the imputed genomes of the missing ancestors. This can hopefully be published as a conference paper later this year.

Off

Traditional

White

Science is Hard

Anonymous — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0000

Science is Hard Anonymous (not verified) Sun, 11/17/2013 - 17:00

Joey Azofeifa

It must be said that I have had a very difficult time writing this blog-post. The reason, after a few too many cups of coffee, came clear to me: Science is Hard (and I worried if that’s what I should tell my readers). Certainly there are intellectual struggles in Science, the esoteric aspects of an algorithm, and the even more enigmatic explanations of it on StackOverflow, can be mind-numbingly painful. But the real reason that Science is Hard (at least from the perspective of a lowly and naïve graduate student) circumvents “advanced” material and is better understood as an emotional one.

At the point of a really innovative thought, the scientist exists outside the documented, outside the history. At such an apex, he or she is met with a flurry of emotions: motivation, passion, strength and, to a degree, reluctance. But why feel the fear? Did Richard Feynman feel the fear? Albert Einstein? Probably. No, definitely. Any truly original moment identifies the thinker as different and such a separation from the comfort of the known begets questions of assuredness, obligation and failure. And so, Science is Hard because the very nature of Science is to innovate, push-past and discover and these struggles bring along the unwelcome feelings of separation.

As someone who works at the interface of computer science and biology, let me tell you: I feel the fear. Not because I would presume to have had something truly original but because such an interface is so new, untouched and foreign that every step is fraught in new territory. New textbooks are created every year to describe the field of “bioinformatics” but with very little collective agreement. Why? Well I think there are just so few foundational principles for bioinformatics that consensus still waits; I mean it’s a chaotic, free-for-all.

Within this spinning cacophony, innovation is ripe for the picking and this reason (among others) motivated a move from a background in biology to a graduate degree in computer science. Should I emphasize my thesis again? I think so: Science is Hard. The move away from the comfortable pleasures of a biological background was/is hard. But don’t worry, here is the silver lining: it has been a wildly rewarding experience.

Without going into the gory details of my 2-hour nights of sleep, eye’s glazed by a terminal screen and the quiet jitters of too much caffeine, I can honestly say I am glad to have taken the plunge into computer science. Not only because the field of bioinformatics is “hot” but such a transition highlights the whole purpose of Science: to stand outside the comfortable.

Few biologists are willing to venture into the blackbox of computer science (and probably even fewer computer scientists dare walk into the realm of the wet-lab). Yet, the knowledge that a field frightens or intimidates is reason enough to walk into it. And in all honestly, it need not frighten. With so many new graduate programs emerging like BioFrontier’s Interdisciplinary Quantitative Biology Program more resources are available now more than ever to help smooth the transition between varying scientific disciplines.

It goes without saying: one must be willing to feel stupid for an indeterminate (seemingly infinite) amount of time. But there are moments, really great, exciting, outstanding moments (albeit, few in the beginning), when you start to make connections, drawing parallels between the two fields. And such connectivity cannot be described or written down, it is felt. It is the clichéd, quintessential “a-ha” moment that harkens to the archetype of a true scientist. Those willing to step outside the familiar will feel the fear, I can promise you that, but you will also feel strength of character that will better you both as a scientist and as a thinker.

Off

Traditional

White

On the leading edge

Anonymous — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0000

On the leading edge Anonymous (not verified) Thu, 09/05/2013 - 18:00

Nora Connor

Studying Quantitative Genomics in Italy

I returned this past weekend from a conference and workshop called Quantitative Laws of Genome Evolution in Lake Como, Italy. An Italian physicist named Marco Lagomarsino created the conference, which brought together an interdisciplinary group of statistical physicists, biophysicists, chemists and biologists to talk about genomics.

My personal research interests lie in understanding horizontal gene transfer in bacteria and its relationship to the development of antibiotic resistance. I talked with many attendees – who were mostly European grad students and postdocs – about my own research on bacterial genome size. But to really understand the talks and lectures, I needed a solid grounding in a broad range of fields.

In that regard, I couldn’t have been better prepared for this conference. IQBiology gave me the background I needed to understand and appreciate almost every seminar for ten jam-packed days. I had done a project on protein folding for the IQBiology Foundations course, which enabled me to talk with a Danish researcher about his work on metabolic networks. I understood the talks about evolutionary processes in software packages because of my advisor Aaron Clauset’s research about macroevolution – and I spoke with those physicists about their work, how it relates to genetic evolution, and future collaborations. I could converse with biophysicists studying biofilm growth because I had done wet lab work with Bacillus subtilis and watched (and smelled!) my colonies grow wrinkly biofilms. And I was able to engage with researchers studying nucleosome methylation and its potential role in tumor-cell replication, because I understood the nucleosome’s role in transcriptional regulation, thanks to my Statistical Genomics class with Robin Dowell and Manuel Lladser.


*Nora enjoyed this view on her daily conference commute.*

Many of the senior scientists at the conference are interested in the next frontier in biology. They asserted that the years 1990-2010 were the era of genomics, and the years 2010-2020 will be the years of “pangenomics.” The pangenome describes the whole universe of possible genes that might be available to an organism, and thus the possible functions or traits that an organism might be able to adopt. In bacteria, these can be acquired via horizontal gene transfer or viral transduction. The incredible conclusion thus far is that the entire prokaryotic pangenome may include only one million genes. Sure, that may sound like a lot of genes, but remember that bacteria and archaea have been evolving for 3.5 billion years! This area is just developing, but there was a lot of enthusiasm about how ecology may constrain functional radiations, and the implications for cell immunity – for instance, whether individual cells can combat cancerous mutations or viral invasions.

Even though many of the physicists and chemists at the conference were engaged in theoretical research, most of them saw direct application of their work to medical and societal problems. The talks alternated between models of so-called “fitness flux”, to the philosophy of the origin of life, to new approaches to combating HIV and antibiotic resistance. This is the frontier of science, being navigated by interdisciplinary researchers from all over the world. I am incredibly grateful to the IQBiology program for my interdisciplinary education to allow me to be on the leading edge of the cutting-edge.

Off

Traditional

White

Understanding RNA

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0000

Understanding RNA Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 07/15/2013 - 18:00

Aaron Wacholder

The newly constructed structure in the National Botanical Gardens in Ireland, meant to symbolize the flow of information from DNA to RNA and proteins, contains a representation of the DNA double helix, a ribosome, and thehammerhead ribozyme. Sculptures of the DNA helix have been constructed all over the world; indeed, wandering through Trinity College Dublin a few miles from the gardens I found a double helix sculpture that had been unveiled by James Watson in 2003. Though much rarer, there's at least one previous sculpture of a ribosome, located at Cold Spring Harbor. I can say after some searching, however, that I believe the Ireland National Botanical Gardens contains the first example of a sculpture of catalytic RNA. Ribozymes, hugely important to our understanding of the place of RNA in the universe, had been discovered by Nobel Laureate, BioFrontiers Institute Director, and IQ Biology Foundations class instructor Thomas Cech in 1981, but this appears to be its first manifestation in sculpted form.

My opportunity to attend the unveiling of the scultpure was mostly the result of luck. The sculptor, Charles Jenks, requested a 3D model of the hammerhead ribozyme on which to base his sculpture, and molecular biologist John Atkins, who organized the event asked Tom Cech if he could provide one. Dr. Cech decided it would be a good opportunity for our Foundations class to show off our artistic talents as well as our understanding of RNA structure, a major subject of the course. We divided outselves into teams and competed to see which of us could produce the most accurate representation, with the reward being a trip to Ireland. Building an accurate 3D model from the computer representation in Pymol (a program for molecule visualization) requires spatial skills that I, leaning more towards the theoretical side of biology, do not have. Fortunately, my teammate Zachary Dunlap was much more skilled than myself in this regard, and due to his talent and effort, our final model was deemed the most accurate. Zach and I were invited to attend the unveiling of the statue.

**An early, only moderately succesful attempt at a hammerhead ribozyme model. The one we actually sent was better. I haven't been able to locate it.**

James Watson, who (as you probably know) was one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA, spoke at the unveiling. A major theme of his speech, and the sculpture itself, was the complexity of RNA. Watson said one line which I've thought about quite a bit in the time since (I didn't immediately recognize its significance, so this is my paraphrase): DNA is as much as most people can understand. Understanding RNA makes someone a scientist.

***James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix, speaking in front of the ribozyme***

The public has some understanding and appreciation of DNA, but comprehending RNA, and what it does and means, is much harder, in part due to its many biological roles. That's why there are many sculptures of the DNA double helix in the world, but so few of RNA, and why the exhibition in the Botanical Gardens is novel and interesting. This sculpture, comissioned in order to promote understanding of science among the young, includes RNA as well as DNA so as to educate on the many new discoveries involving RNA in the last 30 years. The discovery of ribozymes established that RNA was more than its role in the Central Dogma as passive messenger, transmitting genetic information from DNA to be translated into proteins, the catalytic units of the cell. Rather, RNA is itself an active player: the hammerhead ribozyme can cleave RNA without protein enzymes. Since the discovery of catalytic RNA, we have learned more and more about how RNA is involved in a multitude of functions: information, structure, regulation, catalysis. The multifaceted nature of the molecule is emphasized in the sculpture. Three forms of RNA are placed on top of the ribozyme, over the words: The First Multitasker. It is an appropriate term.

**This is supposed to look like a question mark, to symbolize all we still don't know about RNA.**

The structure of DNA is aesthetically pleasing, and its discovery a great accomplishment. But I think it was the right decision to put an example of catalytic RNA as the focus of the exhibit, the first structure a person will see walking down the path towards the sculpture. The discovery of Watson and Crick represented the accomplishment of a great scientific goal that had been established as soon as it was understood that DNA was the genetic material. But Cech's discovery is an example of something that, to me, is an even more exciting appeal of science: the potential for an unexpected result to overturn previous knowledge, to add complexity to our old understanding of life and open the path to whole new areas of research, previously unimagined.

***The familiar DNA double helix, with ribosome in the background***

Off

Traditional

White

Blog

CU ���Ĵ�ý graduate student wins DOE award, joins NASA-DARES

Off

Chris Smith: Evolution Meeting

Off

World Congress of Biomechanics – Dublin, Ireland

Off

Curiosity killed the cat, but it may help you get the Nobel prize

Off

SIAM Life Sciences Conference in Boston

Off

My experience with Evolution

Off

Computing Machinery and Mouse Genomes

Off

Science is Hard

Off

On the leading edge

Studying Quantitative Genomics in Italy

Off

Understanding RNA

Off

CU ��Ĵ�ý graduate student wins DOE award, joins NASA-DARES