Treating chronic disease has proven difficult because there is not one simple cause, like a single gene mutation, that a treatment could target. At least, that’s how it has appeared to scientists. However, research from Whitehead Institute Member Richard Young and colleagues, published in the journal Cell on November 27, reveals that many chronic diseases have a common denominator that could be driving their dysfunction: reduced protein mobility. What this means is that around half of all proteins active in cells slow their movement when cells are in a chronic disease state, reducing the proteins’ functions. The researchers’ findings suggest that protein mobility may be a linchpin for decreased cellular function in chronic disease, making it a promising therapeutic target.

In this paper, Young and colleagues in his lab, including postdoc Alessandra Dall’Agnese, graduate students Shannon Moreno and Ming Zheng, and research scientist Tong Ihn Lee, describe their discovery of this common mobility defect, which they call proteolethargy; explain what causes the defect and how it leads to dysfunction in cells; and propose a new therapeutic hypothesis for treating chronic diseases.

“I’m excited about what this work could mean for patients,” says Dall’Agnese. “My hope is that this will lead to a new class of drugs that restore protein mobility, which could help people with many different diseases that all have this mechanism as a common denominator.”

“This work was a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort that brought together biologists, physicists, chemists, computer scientists and physician-scientists,” Lee says. “Combining that expertise is a strength of the Young lab. Studying the problem from different viewpoints really helped us think about how this mechanism might work and how it could change our understanding of the pathology of chronic disease.”

Commuter delays cause work stoppages in the cell

How do proteins moving more slowly through a cell lead to widespread and significant cellular dysfunction? Dall’Agnese explains that every cell is like a tiny city, with proteins as the workers who keep everything running. Proteins have to commute in dense traffic in the cell, traveling from where they are created to where they work. The faster their commute, the more work they get done. Now, imagine a city that starts experiencing traffic jams along all the roads. Stores don’t open on time, groceries are stuck in transit, meetings are postponed. Essentially all operations in the city are slowed.

The slow down of operations in cells experiencing reduced protein mobility follows a similar progression. Normally, most proteins zip around the cell bumping into other molecules until they locate the molecule they work with or act on. The slower a protein moves, the fewer other molecules it will reach, and so the less likely it will be able to do its job. Young and colleagues found that such protein slow-downs lead to measurable reductions in the functional output of the proteins. When many proteins fail to get their jobs done in time, cells begin to experience a variety of problems—as they are known to do in chronic diseases.

Discovering the protein mobility problem

Young and colleagues first suspected that cells affected in chronic disease might have a protein mobility problem after observing changes in the behavior of the insulin receptor, a signaling protein that reacts to the presence of insulin and causes cells to take in sugar from blood. In people with diabetes, cells become less responsive to insulin — a state called insulin resistance — causing too much sugar to remain in the blood. In research published on insulin receptors in Nature Communications in 2022, Young and colleagues reported that insulin receptor mobility might be relevant to diabetes.

Knowing that many cellular functions are altered in diabetes, the researchers considered the possibility that altered protein mobility might somehow affect many proteins in cells. To test this hypothesis, they studied proteins involved in a broad range of cellular functions, including MED1, a protein involved in gene expression; HP1α, a protein involved in gene silencing; FIB1, a protein involved in production of ribosomes; and SRSF2, a protein involved in splicing of messenger RNA. They used single-molecule tracking and other methods to measure how each of those proteins moves in healthy cells and in cells in disease states. All but one of the proteins showed reduced mobility (about 20-35%) in the disease cells.

“I’m excited that we were able to transfer physics-based insight and methodology, which are commonly used to understand the single-molecule processes like gene transcription in normal cells, to a disease context and show that they can be used to uncover unexpected mechanisms of disease,” Zheng says. “This work shows how the random walk of proteins in cells is linked to disease pathology.”

Moreno concurs: “In school, we’re taught to consider changes in protein structure or DNA sequences when looking for causes of disease, but we’ve demonstrated that those are not the only contributing factors. If you only consider a static picture of a protein or a cell, you miss out on discovering these changes that only appear when molecules are in motion.”

 Can’t commute across the cell, I’m all tied up right now

Next, the researchers needed to determine what was causing the proteins to slow down. They suspected that the defect had to do with an increase in cells of the level of reactive oxygen species (ROS), molecules that are highly prone to interfering with other molecules and their chemical reactions. Many types of chronic-disease-associated triggers, such as higher sugar or fat levels, certain toxins, and inflammatory signals, lead to an increase in ROS, also known as an increase in oxidative stress. The researchers measured the mobility of the proteins again, in cells that had high levels of ROS and were not otherwise in a disease state, and saw comparable mobility defects, suggesting that oxidative stress was to blame for the protein mobility defect.

The final part of the puzzle was why some, but not all, proteins slow down in the presence of ROS. SRSF2 was the only one of the proteins that was unaffected in the experiments, and it had one clear difference from the others: its surface did not contain any cysteines, an amino acid building block of many proteins. Cysteines are especially susceptible to interference from ROS because it will cause them to bond to other cysteines. When this bonding occurs between two protein molecules, it slows them down because the two proteins cannot move through the cell as quickly as either protein alone.

About half of the proteins in our cells contain surface cysteines, so this single protein mobility defect can impact many different cellular pathways. This makes sense when one considers the diversity of dysfunctions that appear in cells of people with chronic diseases: dysfunctions in cell signaling, metabolic processes, gene expression and gene silencing, and more. All of these processes rely on the efficient functioning of proteins—including the diverse proteins studied by the researchers. Young and colleagues performed several experiments to confirm that decreased protein mobility does in fact decrease a protein’s function. For example, they found that when an insulin receptor experiences decreased mobility, it acts less efficiently on IRS1, a molecule to which it usually adds a phosphate group.

From understanding a mechanism to treating a disease

Discovering that decreased protein mobility in the presence of oxidative stress could be driving many of the symptoms of chronic disease provides opportunities to develop therapies to rescue protein mobility. In the course of their experiments, the researchers treated cells with an antioxidant drug—something that reduces ROS—called N-acetyl cysteine and saw that this partially restored protein mobility.

The researchers are pursuing a variety of follow ups to this work, including the search for drugs that safely and efficiently reduce ROS and restore protein mobility. They developed an assay that can be used to screen drugs to see if they restore protein mobility by comparing each drug’s effect on a simple biomarker with surface cysteines to one without. They are also looking into other diseases that may involve protein mobility, and are exploring the role of reduced protein mobility in aging.

“The complex biology of chronic diseases has made it challenging to come up with effective therapeutic hypotheses,” says Young, who is also a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “The discovery that diverse disease-associated stimuli all induce a common feature, proteolethargy, and that this feature could contribute to much of the dysregulation that we see in chronic disease, is something that I hope will be a real game changer for developing drugs that work across the spectrum of chronic diseases.”

The post Cellular traffic congestion in chronic diseases suggests new therapeutic targets appeared first on MIT Department of Biology.

The post Whitehead Institute Member Sebastian Lourido receives the 2024 William Trager Award appeared first on MIT Department of Biology.

Cheeseman, who is also a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and graduate student in his lab Jimmy Ly have now identified how cells switch to a different pattern of protein variant production during mitosis, or cell division. In research published in the journal Nature on October 23, they show that this broad regulatory switch helps cells survive paused cell divisions that can sometimes occur in healthy humans or be triggered by certain chemotherapy treatments. The work confirms that cells make variants of thousands of proteins, and also demonstrates that cells do not do so indiscriminately. Rather, cells use precise regulatory mechanisms to switch between different patterns of protein variant production, in order to rapidly tailor the proteins available to fit the changing needs of the cell.

A plethora of hidden proteins

Hw can our cells contain unknown proteins? In high school biology classes, students learn the rule that each gene codes for exactly one protein, such that if you know an organism’s genetic code, you should know every protein it can make. In fact, there are instead many genes that code for multiple proteins. For a protein to be made, first the genetic code for it is copied from DNA into a messenger RNA (mRNA). Then, a ribosome, the cellular machine that follows the instructions in genetic code to build a protein, locates the coding sequence within the mRNA by scanning for the start codon, a sequence of the three bases A, U, and G – bases are the chemical building blocks of RNA, abbreviated as A, U, C, and G. The ribosome recognizes the AUG start codon as the place to begin following instructions, and builds a protein based on the genetic sequence from there through to another trio of bases called a stop codon. However, one way that different versions of a protein can be produced is that a ribosome may begin reading the instructions from multiple different starting points.

Sometimes, a ribosome may miss the first AUG start codon and skip ahead to another AUG somewhere in the middle of the gene’s code, creating a truncated version of the protein. Sometimes, a ribosome may treat a similar trio of bases, such as CUG or GUG, as a start codon. This can cause it to begin earlier, creating a protein based on an extended genetic sequence. These possibilities mean that cells contain thousands more different proteins, or variants of proteins, than are represented by the dogma of one gene, one protein.

In order to understand protein variant production, the researchers—in collaboration with researchers from Whitehead Institute Member David Bartel’s lab–used a method that let them carefully track ribosomes to compare which start sites ribosomes tended to use. They looked at start site selection during mitosis versus during the rest of the cell cycle and found that a dramatic shift in use occurred for thousands of start sites. Specifically, the researchers found that during mitosis, ribosome scanning becomes more stringent. The ribosome will only begin making proteins at AUG sequences, and even then, only at AUGs that have preferable sequences of bases surrounding them—known as a strong Kozak context. This increased selectivity does not always lead to the familiar version of the protein being made during mitosis; sometimes the first AUG start codon has a weak Kozak context, so a truncated protein gets made from an AUG start codon with a stronger Kozak context that lies within the gene.

“Coming into this project, we knew very little about protein production during mitosis—for a long time, people didn’t think much protein production happened in mitosis at all,” Ly says. “It was satisfying to show not only that it is occurring, but that there’s a shift in which proteins are being made—and that this shift is important for cellular viability.”

How cells switch between protein variant programs

The researchers next identified how the switch to increased stringency is initiated during mitosis. They discovered that the key player is a protein called eIF1, which is one of many partners that can pair with ribosomes to help them select their start site. In particular, increased eIF1 pairing with ribosomes causes the ribosomes to be more stringent in their start codon selection, inhibiting the usage of non-AUG initiation sites or sites with weak Kozak contexts.

During mitosis, ribosome pairing with eIF1 increases sharply, leading to the shift in stringency. This change in pairing rate during mitosis puzzled the researchers: ribosomes and their partners, including eIF1, all typically reside together in the main body of the cell—where ribosomes make proteins—so they should be able to pair freely at any time. The researchers looked for other molecules in the same location that could be altering how ribosomes and eIF1 interact during different parts of the cell cycle, but they couldn’t find anything. Eventually, the researchers realized that the answer to the puzzle lay in a separate location: the nucleus.

They found that cells maintain a large pool of eIF1 inside of the nucleus, locked away from the ribosomes. Then, during cell division, the wall of the nucleus dissolves, mixing its contents with the rest of the cell. This is necessary for the dividing cell to divvy up its DNA, but it also releases the pool of eIF1 to pair with ribosomes, increasing stringency. At the end of mitosis, the nucleus reforms and eIF1 is re-incorporated into the nucleus of each of the two daughter cells, and the cells return to a less stringent program.

“The explanation for increased interaction between eIF1 and ribosomes during mitosis had really stumped us, and so when I saw eIF1 localizing to the nucleus, that was a really exciting ‘aha’ moment,” Ly says. “Discovering this mechanism of nuclear release during mitosis was unexpected, and it’s interesting to think about how else cells might be using it.”

Consequences of increased stringency for the cell

Once the researchers understood the how, they then wanted to understand the why? What they discovered is that when cells have no nuclear pool of eIF1, and so no change in stringency during mitosis, they are more likely to die during mitosis. In particular, these cells fare poorly during mitotic arrest, a state in which cells get stuck in mitosis for hours or even days–much longer than typical mitosis. Arrest occurs when cells detect a possible cell division error and so halt their division until the error is corrected or the cell dies.

One effect of increased stringency during mitosis is related to mitochondria, which are required for energy production in many cell types and are therefore required for maintaining viability. Cells stuck in mitotic arrest need energy to keep them going through this unexpected delay. The researchers found that increased stringency during mitosis led to an increase in the production of important mitochondrial proteins, boosting the cells’ energy supply to get them through arrest.

Increased stringency also gives cells the tools they need to escape arrest, even if they haven’t fixed the error that caused them to pause division. In a Nature paper in 2023, Cheeseman and then-postdoc in his lab Mary-Jane Tsang showed that when cells build up enough of the truncated version of a protein called CDC20, they can escape arrest. Ly’s work adds to this story by showing that the nuclear release of eIF1 increases stringency, leading to more production of truncated CDC20 during mitosis, which explains how cells build up enough of this protein variant during mitosis to trigger their escape. These findings may have important potential implications for some cancer chemotherapy strategies.

Some chemotherapies work by trapping cancer cells in mitotic arrest until they die. Cheeseman, Tsang, and Ly’s work collectively shows that when cancer cells lack sufficient truncated CDC20—as can occur in the absence of nuclear eIF1—the cells cannot escape arrest and so are killed off by these chemotherapies at higher rates. These results could be used to improve the efficacy of antimitotic chemotherapy drugs.

The switch in protein variant production that the researchers found affects thousands of proteins. These newly identified protein variants serve as a foundation for many future projects in the lab.

As the researchers continue to examine the consequences of this switch to stringency during mitosis, they are also searching for other cases in which cells regulate protein variant production outside of mitosis. For example, the researchers are interested in how this switch in stringency affects fertility; immature egg cells spend a long time in a form of arrested cell division without an intact nucleus, and Ly observed eIF1 in the nucleus of the immature female eggs.

“Cells have axes of control that they use to quickly make broad changes in gene expression,” Cheeseman says. “Several of these are central to controlling cell division—for example, the role of phosphorylation as a regulatory switch in mitosis has been well studied. Our work identifies another axis of control, and we’re excited to discover more about when and how cells make use of it.”

The post An elegant switch regulates production of protein variants during cell division appeared first on MIT Department of Biology.

The post Establishing boundaries of the genetic kind appeared first on MIT Department of Biology.

The post Bat cells possess a unique antiviral mechanism, preventing the SARS-CoV-2 virus from taking control appeared first on MIT Department of Biology.

The post A tour of our cells through time appeared first on MIT Department of Biology.

With her recent appointment as an Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) investigator, Gehring joins an elite legion of HHMI investigators at the Institute. New cohorts of investigators are only announced once every three years, and they receive $11 million in funding over a seven year term (which can be renewed). Three other MIT faculty received HHMI appointments this year: Gene-Wei Li, associate professor of biology, and brain and cognitive sciences professors Mehrdad Jazayeri and Steven Flavell.

Here, she shares her lab’s research, journey into plant biology, and what she values in undergraduate researchers.

TT: What does your lab conduct research in, and how has being named an HHMI investigator changed your plans, if at all?

My lab focuses on plant biology, particularly on how epigenetic mechanisms like DNA methylation affect gene regulation in plants, especially during reproduction and seed development. We mostly work with Arabidopsis thaliana, a model plant, but we’re also exploring other plant systems.

A typical day in the lab can vary, but it often starts with checking on our plants in the greenhouse. Depending on the day, we might pollinate plants for genetic crosses or genotyping them by isolating DNA and performing PCR. We’re particularly focused on understanding gene expression within seeds: we isolate different seed tissues, sort nuclei based on their properties, and then perform RNA sequencing. We also do a lot of chromatin profiling, histone modifications and DNA methylation analyses across the genome. Since much of our work is genome-wide, bioinformatics plays a big role in our research, with a significant amount of time spent on analyzing data.

It’s still sinking in, but being named an HHMI investigator certainly provides a new level of freedom. It allows us to pursue ideas without the constraints of specific grant funding, which is incredibly liberating. We’re considering expanding our research into new areas beyond epigenetics, like genome structure and chromosome dosage changes, while sticking with plant biology. This recognition has encouraged us to think bigger and explore new directions in our work.

TT: How far back do these interests extend for you?

My interest in plant biology started during my undergraduate years. I majored in biology and was eager to get involved in research. My real fascination with plants began when a new professor, with a background in plant biology, came to my school. I took her course on plant growth and development, which I found incredibly exciting. I was drawn to how plants communicate within their tissues and with each other. This led me to work on a research project for two years, culminating in a senior thesis on root development. After college, I took a year off to work in environmental consulting before heading to graduate school in Plant Biology at UC Berkeley.

TT: What perspectives and characteristics do you appreciate in undergraduate researchers?

Whether it’s undergraduates or postdocs, I value curiosity and dedication. For undergraduates, especially those in UROPs, it’s crucial that they are genuinely interested in the research and willing to ask questions when they don’t understand something. Balancing research with coursework and extracurriculars at MIT is challenging, so I also look for students who can manage their time well. It’s about being curious, dedicated, and communicative.

I hope there are students at MIT who are excited about plant research. It’s a vital area of biology, especially with the growing focus on climate change. While there isn’t a large presence of plant biology at MIT yet, I’m hopeful that it will expand in the coming years, and I’d love to see more students getting involved in this important field.

The post Growing to greatness: Professor Mary Gehring on plant epigenetics and becoming an HHMI Investigator appeared first on MIT Department of Biology.

The post Brain cell types are affected differently by Rett Syndrome mutation appeared first on MIT Department of Biology.

Why this single-celled parasite is so widespread, and what triggers it to reemerge, are questions that intrigue Sebastian Lourido, an associate professor of biology at MIT and member of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research. In his lab, research is unraveling the genetic pathways that help to keep the parasite in a dormant state, and the factors that lead it to burst free from that state.

“One of the missions of my lab to improve our ability to manipulate the parasite genome, and to do that at a scale that allows us to ask questions about the functions of many genes, or even the entire genome, in a variety of contexts,” Lourido says.

There are drugs that can treat the acute symptoms of Toxoplasma infection, which include headache, fever, and inflammation of the heart and lungs. However, once the parasite enters the dormant stage, those drugs don’t affect it. Lourido hopes that his lab’s work will lead to potential new treatments for this stage, as well as drugs that could combat similar parasites such as a tickborne parasite known as Babesia, which is becoming more common in New England.

“There are a lot of people who are affected by these parasites, and parasitology often doesn’t get the attention that it deserves at the highest levels of research. It’s really important to bring the latest scientific advances, the latest tools, and the latest concepts to the field of parasitology,” Lourido says.

A fascination with microbiology

As a child in Cali, Colombia, Lourido was enthralled by what he could see through the microscopes at his mother’s medical genetics lab at the University of Valle del Cauca. His father ran the family’s farm and also worked in government, at one point serving as interim governor of the state.

“From my mom, I was exposed to the ideas of gene expression and the influence of genetics on biology, and I think that really sparked an early interest in understanding biology at a fundamental level,” Lourido says. “On the other hand, my dad was in agriculture, and so there were other influences there around how the environment shapes biology.”

Lourido decided to go to college in the United States, in part because at the time, in the early 2000s, Colombia was experiencing a surge in violence. He was also drawn to the idea of attending a liberal arts college, where he could study both science and art. He ended up going to Tulane University, where he double-majored in fine arts and cell and molecular biology.

As an artist, Lourido focused on printmaking and painting. One area he especially enjoyed was stone lithography, which involves etching images on large blocks of limestone with oil-based inks, treating the images with chemicals, and then transferring the images onto paper using a large press.

“I ended up doing a lot of printmaking, which I think attracted me because it felt like a mode of expression that leveraged different techniques and technical elements,” he says.

At the same time, he worked in a biology lab that studied Daphnia, tiny crustaceans found in fresh water that have helped scientists learn about how organisms can develop new traits in response to changes to their environment. As an undergraduate, he helped develop ways to use viruses to introduce new genes into Daphnia. By the time he graduated from Tulane, Lourido had decided to go into science rather than art.

“I had really fallen in love with lab science as an undergrad. I loved the freedom and the creativity that came from it, the ability to work in teams and to build on ideas, to not have to completely reinvent the entire system, but really be able to develop it over a longer period of time,” he says.

After graduating from college, Lourido spent two years in Germany, working at the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology. In Arturo Zychlinksy’s lab, Lourido studied two bacteria known as Shigella and Salmonella, which can cause severe illnesses, including diarrhea. His studies there helped to reveal how these bacteria get into cells and how they modify the host cells’ own pathways to help them replicate inside cells.

As a graduate student at Washington University in St. Louis, Lourido worked in several labs focusing on different aspects of microbiology, including virology and bacteriology, but eventually ended up working with David Sibley, a prominent researcher specializing in Toxoplasma.

“I had not thought much about Toxoplasma before going to graduate school,” Lourido recalls. “I was pretty unaware of parasitology in general, despite some undergrad courses, which honestly very superficially treated the subject. What I liked about it was here was a system where we knew so little — organisms that are so different from the textbook models of eukaryotic cells.”

Toxoplasma gondii belongs to a group of parasites known as apicomplexans — a type of protozoans that can cause a variety of diseases. After infecting a human host, Toxoplasma gondii can hide from the immune system for decades, usually in cysts found in the brain or muscles. Lourido found the organism especially intriguing because as a 17-year-old, he had been diagnosed with toxoplasmosis. His only symptom was swollen glands, but doctors found that his blood contained antibodies against Toxoplasma.

“It is really fascinating that in all of these people, about a quarter to a third of the world’s population, the parasite persists. Chances are I still have live parasites somewhere in my body, and if I became immunocompromised, it would become a big problem. They would start replicating in an uncontrolled fashion,” he says.

A transformative approach

One of the challenges in studying Toxoplasma is that the organism’s genetics are very different from those of either bacteria or other eukaryotes such as yeast and mammals. That makes it harder to study parasitic gene functions by mutating or knocking out the genes.

Because of that difficulty, it took Lourido his entire graduate career to study the functions of just a couple of Toxoplasma genes. After finishing his PhD, he started his own lab as a fellow at the Whitehead Institute and began working on ways to study the Toxoplasma genome at a larger scale, using the CRISPR genome-editing technique.

With CRISPR, scientists can systematically knock out every gene in the genome and then study how each missing gene affects parasite function and survival.

“Through the adaptation of CRISPR to Toxoplasma, we’ve been able to survey the entire parasite genome. That has been transformative,” says Lourido, who became a Whitehead member and MIT faculty member in 2017. “Since its original application in 2016, we’ve been able to uncover mechanisms of drug resistance and susceptibility, trace metabolic pathways, and explore many other aspects of parasite biology.”

Using CRISPR-based screens, Lourido’s lab has identified a regulatory gene called BFD1 that appears to drive the expression of genes that the parasite needs for long-term survival within a host. His lab has also revealed many of the molecular steps required for the parasite to shift between active and dormant states.

“We’re actively working to understand how environmental inputs end up guiding the parasite in one direction or another,” Lourido says. “They seem to preferentially go into those chronic stages in certain cells like neurons or muscle cells, and they proliferate more exuberantly in the acute phase when nutrient conditions are appropriate or when there are low levels of immunity in the host.”

The post Pursuing the secrets of a stealthy parasite appeared first on MIT Department of Biology.

The Regeneron Prize, sponsored by global biotechnology company Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a competitive award designed to recognize and honor exceptional talent and originality in biomedical research. Individual graduate students and postdoctoral fellows in the biomedical sciences are nominated by the nation’s top research universities. Then, nominees outline their “Dream Projects” — potentially groundbreaking research projects that they would pursue given unrestricted access to resources and state-of-the-art technology.

The “Dream Project” proposals, presented by the nominees to a selection committee comprised of Regeneron’s leading scientists, are used to evaluate a trainee’s scientific merit, elegance, precision, and creativity. Novel research ideas and out-of-the-box thinking is encouraged — although the proposal must include a strong rationale, basic methodology and design for the project, and a discussion of how its results could advance the field. Both Giuliano and Roessler have been awarded $50,000 for their proposals, which can be used in any way the winners choose. In addition, Weng was awarded $5,000 as a finalist, and Regeneron has made a $10,000 grant to the Whitehead Institute as the home institute of the winners to support its seminar series.

This year’s awards are distinctive in that the two winners are from the same institution: Both Giuliano and Roessler are pursuing their PhDs at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and conducting their doctoral research at Whitehead Institute.

Giuliano is a researcher in the lab of Whitehead Institute Member Sebastian Lourido, who is also an associate professor of biology at MIT and holds the Landon Clay Career Development Chair at Whitehead Institute. Giuliano’s Dream Project seeks to address the unique challenges posed by genetically based muscle disorders. “An obstacle in using current gene therapies to treat these conditions,” he explains, “is that muscle tissue comprises large syncytial cells, which contain hundreds of nuclei in a shared cytoplasm. Even when a gene therapy is able to reach an individual muscle cell, it often isn’t able to spread to every nucleus within that cell.” However, certain parasites, like Toxoplasma gondii, thrive because they have the capacity to successfully gain access to and manipulate muscle cells. T. gondii, the primary focus of the Lourido lab’s work, may infect nearly one third of all humans. “My project,” Giuliano says, “would identify the specific biological mechanisms used by the parasites to spread their virulence factor proteins throughout the cell. Using genetic screens for protein spread, we would work toward applying these protein features to improve the efficiency of muscle-directed gene therapies, and ultimately test our system in a mouse model of Duchenne muscular dystrophy.”

Roessler is a researcher in the lab of Whitehead Institute Member Siniša Hrvatin, who is also an assistant professor of biology at MIT. While Roessler’s doctoral research focuses on the neuronal circuitry underlying torpor and hibernation in small mammals, his Dream Project seeks to identify the sensory circuitry regulating the “diving reflex” displayed in land- and sea-dwelling mammals, including humans. The diving reflex occurs when an animal’s face is immersed in cold water, prompting an array of organs to reduce their function in ways that, scientists believe, privileges the flow of oxygen to the brain and muscles. “That this reflex has been conserved across millions of years of mammalian evolution suggests an extraordinary genetic advantage,” Roessler says. “Yet, researchers have given comparatively little attention to the neuronal circuits underlying this reflex, and we don’t understand even the fundamental mechanisms by which the nervous system coincidently detects both cold temperature and the presence of water.” Beyond elucidating a foundational aspect of mammalian biology, Roessler’s projects could, if pursued, underpin new interventions for conditions ranging from migraine headaches to cardiac arrhythmia that might be ameliorated by artificial stimulation or inhibition of the diving response.

Weng is a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of Whitehead Institute Member Jonathan Weissman, who is also a professor of biology at MIT, the Landon T. Clay Professor of Biology at Whitehead Institute, and an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. His Dream Project — which proposes a new approach to using single-cell genealogy to understand factors driving cell line evolution — is an extension of his current work. Indeed, this past year he co-developed a technology that details the family trees of human blood cells and provides new insights into the differences between lineages of hematopoietic stem cells. The technology gives researchers unprecedented access to any human cells’ histories — and a path to resolving previously unanswerable questions.

The post Two Whitehead Institute graduate researchers awarded the 2024 Regeneron Prize for Creative Innovation appeared first on MIT Department of Biology.