Lisa Elfring

Identification and characterization of Drosophila relatives of the yeast transcriptional activator SNF2/SWI2.

The Drosophila brahma (brm) gene encodes an activator of homeotic genes that is highly related to the yeast transcriptional activator SWI2 (SNF2), a potential helicase. To determine whether brm is a functional homolog of SWI2 or merely a member of a family of SWI2-related genes, we searched for additional Drosophila genes related to SWI2 and examined their function in yeast cells. In addition to brm, we identified one other Drosophila relative of SWI2: the closely related ISWI gene. The 1,027-residue ISWI protein contains the DNA-dependent ATPase domain characteristic of the SWI2 protein family but lacks the three other domains common to brm and SWI2. In contrast, the ISWI protein is highly related (70% identical) to the human hSNF2L protein over its entire length, suggesting that they may be functional homologs. The DNA-dependent ATPase domains of brm and SWI2, but not ISWI, are functionally interchangeable; a chimeric SWI2-brm protein partially rescued the slow growth of swi2- cells and supported transcriptional activation mediated by the glucocorticoid receptor in vivo in yeast cells. These findings indicate that brm is the closest Drosophila relative of SWI2 and suggest that brm and SWI2 play similar roles in transcriptional activation.

Integrating Quantitative Thinking into an Introductory Biology Course Improves Students' Mathematical Reasoning in Biological Contexts.

The authors designed and taught an introductory molecular and cell biology course integrating math and biology throughout the course, and designed a pre/postcourse assessment to measure student gains on biology and bio-math concepts. Students in the experimental section made greater gains on bio-math and comparable gains on biology assessment items than did students in other sections.

Ph.D. in biochemistry (education)

One of us (EO) forwarded PDF copies of Harold White’s commentary entitled ‘‘Ph.D. in Biochemistry Education?’’ [1] to the other two, and the ensuing conversation is presented here for the broader community. Indeed, a program leading to a Ph.D. degree in biochemistry based on research in the teaching of biochemistry does exist, and one of us (EO), a graduate student in the program, finished writing the dissertation and defended the work early in 2008. We have two points that we would like to make. First, we believe that Prof. White is correct in his assertion that the prevailing culture of higher education places much greater weight on research creativity and productivity than on teaching. However, we feel that his commentary misses the subtle distinction between teaching biochemistry and research on teaching and learning biochemistry, thereby underestimating the significance of a Ph.D. degree in biochemistry education. Second, we believe that his commentary misjudges the level to which the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) has increasingly been incorporated into discussions of graduate education. Our experiences demonstrate that graduate programs in biochemistry education can be established provided that careful attention is given not only to the prevailing culture but also to the local environment of the institution and department. We draw on one example, the program developed in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics (BMB) at the University of Arizona, as part of our discussion. As Prof. White points out, most university science faculty members enter their academic positions with limited teaching experience and little to no formal training in pedagogy [2]. Many of these faculty members will endeavor to improve as instructors, despite the noncommensurate reward system for teaching excellence. These professors are curious about their students and their roles as instructors. Yet for some this curiosity extends beyond a particular teaching situation and questions the complexity of teaching and learning of science in general. These individuals are curious about the entire system in which teaching and learning occurs, not just how to achieve excellence in their own teaching. Doctoral programs in science education are not designed simply to prepare good college and university instructors. Rather, their purpose is to provide training to individuals who want to empirically investigate teaching and learning of their discipline. Results from their investigations can be translated into practical, accessible teaching strategies that can support their colleagues’ efforts as science instructors, but they also contribute to the wider literature about how people learn. Not only are there doctoral degrees in chemistry education, as Prof. White describes, but there are similar degree programs in biology, physics, geology, and biochemistry. At our own institution, there are five science departments that offer such degrees. The creation of these programs was shaped partially by the local culture of teaching and outreach within the institution and was strongly influenced by individual departments. For example, tenure-track lines for science-education faculty were created by the Dean of the College of Science in four of these departments. All of these faculty members teach within their own departmental disciplines [as well as working together to prepare secondary science teachers]. The local culture within our department has also been very supportive of scholarship of teaching and learning within our discipline, as evidenced by the dedication of departmental funds for another science education faculty member as well as programs such as The Biology Project [3], The Manduca Project [4], and AZSTART [5], which target science education from elementary to the college level. The creation of a Ph.D. program in biochemistry was a logical and easy next step in this progression. One might ask what the future of a biochemistry education Ph.D. program graduate looks like. Prof. White’s commentary states that the day that there are ‘‘schools that would consider those graduates for tenure-track positions in competition with traditionally trained researchers, and faculty colleagues who would grant them tenure for the SoTL of biochemistry, is far off.’’ It has become increasingly more common to find biochemistry, biology, chemistry, geosciences, and physics educators in science departments in colleges across the country [6]. Three such positions were advertised in the Chronicle ‡ To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: eofferda@email.arizona.edu. * This work is supported by Grant K-12 0147-07 from the Science Foundation Arizona and Grant (#52005889) from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.