In which I wade through the fringes of textbook fact

I’ve recently turned in a commissioned review article about the role of the actin cytoskeleton in cell shape. I’m an old hand at reviews, but this was something special: a ‘Cell Science at a Glance’ poster for the Journal of Cell Science. In this nifty piece of front matter, the words are secondary: what authors are asked is to conceptualize their topic in the form of a large poster of visual art (four times the size of a journal page) which will be redrawn by a professional artist into a full-color piece, folded as an inset into the print issue and available as a PowerPoint slide online. And it must stand alone, with the accompanying 1,500 or so words of text serving as a mere bonus.


A room with a mess The edges of truth are seldom tidy

Now, I am a wordsmith primarily, and after so many years of practice, there are very few gigs that cause me undue trouble. I’ve never suffered from writer’s block, and the 1,500 words were duly researched, executed, polished and EndNoted in about seven days.

But the sketch was another story. I was raised by artists, so I’ve always done a bit of drawing; when I was an undergraduate on financial aid, I even helped bankroll my education by doing graphic design for the college. But how can you actually draw the role of actin in cell shape? And then, once you decide on your conceptual framework, what goes in and what goes out? Biology, after all, is a nightmare of reductionism, its various elements going on relentlessly in all directions; every protein is touched by dozens of others, and so on, ad infinitum. One has to somehow incorporate three dimensions, and a dynamic temporal aspect too. I also wanted to compare yeast to higher metazoans, so there was that facet to depict as well.

But there is an even more interesting problem here, as I was soon to find out. In words, you can deal fairly easily with controversial or unknown elements of a topic. You can present caveats and conflicting viewpoints, and attempt to synthesize some sort of consensus. But a drawing is absolute: something is either depicted, or it isn’t. And as I started to flesh out all the details of my drawing, I kept finding myself stumbling into grey areas. Were these particular filaments catalyzed by formins or Arps? Scouring the literature, I could see that one vociferous camp claimed the former, and another, the latter. No sooner had I dispatched one ambiguity that the next would arise: which signalling cascade was truly upstream of this particular protrusion? Looking into it, I found that the jury is still out, and entire review articles had been written about something that I was trying to reduce to a one-centimeter squiggle of graphite.

In the end, I just did my best. It turned out to be very soothing, sitting in a quiet room with a pile of colored pencils and a very large eraser – a far cry from normal lab life. And now, I am hoping that the chosen peer reviewers are not so embroiled in such a fervent battle over the genesis of bulge X or protrusion Y that they fail to appreciate what it takes to generalize in art.

About Jennifer Rohn

Scientist, novelist, rock chick
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to In which I wade through the fringes of textbook fact

  1. Richard P. Grant says:

    When reviewing actin’s action
    one can’t please every faction.

  2. Scott Keir says:

    Are there no ends to your talents, Dr J?
    Great idea though! I look forward to seeing the finished results.

  3. Richard P. Grant says:

    Are there no ends
    only pointed ones.
    (Cytoskeleton in-joke)

  4. Jennifer Rohn says:

    I wonder if it will be difficult working with the artist, trying to come to consensus. Form before function?

  5. Jennifer Rohn says:

    That’s enough of your barbed commentary, Grant.
    (ditto)

  6. Richard P. Grant says:

    you don’t appreciate my waspish wit?

  7. Bora Zivkovic says:

    Oh, come on, let’s preserve the tensegrity of this comment thread!

  8. Eva Amsen says:

    COOL! I love drawing and making figures of things. Once it’s doen , can you show the intermediate stages?

  9. Jennifer Rohn says:

    Bora: don’t get too ruffled.
    Eva, I do have some close-up sketches, but was a bit shy to show them!

  10. Henry Gee says:

    Tolkien wrote to one of his sons to say that he’d spent his day tidying up his office. A messy office, he said, is a sign of a scholar at work, what he called ‘philological preocupation’. But Tolkien was also a dab hand with a paintbrush…

  11. Jennifer Rohn says:

    I can’t work in mess. Actually that big white table was rather organized, somewhere deep down — every pile of papers and sketches corresponding to a particular protrusion.
    Goodness, there’s a woodpecker at our feeder. This storm has brought out a lovely array of birds.

  12. Heather Etchevers says:

    Eva: and here I thought you meant GFAP and vimentin…

  13. Jennifer Rohn says:

    Oh dear.

  14. Maxine Clarke says:

    Oooh – barbed and ruffled got taken before I got here. I’ll just go and slime mould off.
    But I would love to see the finished version (which of course will sail through peer review) – will you post a link when it is out, Jenny?
    Off to decorate, now. (Did anyone get that one yet?)

  15. Jennifer Rohn says:

    Ha ha ha. Next to your wit, Maxine, the rest of us are just treadmilling.

  16. Richard Wintle says:

    I tried and tried to come up with something witty to say here using ‘tight junctions’, but I’ve given up.
    So: let me just observe that you have a very nice table.
    most.useless.comment.ever

  17. Maxine Clarke says:

    Er…not! (my wit) But you are very kind, Jenny. I lumber, am definitely not leading edge in comparsion with the Nature Network sparklers, if that isn’t to open the door to a “clique alert”.

  18. Jennifer Rohn says:

    Pshaw. Your filopodia extend before all of us.
    Richard: Ikea, believe it or not. From the more exclusive, “what the heck, we’ll assemble it for you” collection. White enamel turns out not to be very practical, but I do love it.

  19. Richard P. Grant says:

    Don’t stress, Maxine. We need a critical concentration of commenters. And to cap it off, is that a nucleus on Jenny’s table?

  20. Jennifer Rohn says:

    No, just some random organelles. And a cuppa.

  21. Richard P. Grant says:

    Pinocytosis?

  22. Henry Gee says:

    Bless you. And stop actin up.

  23. Eva Amsen says:

    “I do have some close-up sketches, but was a bit shy to show them!”
    If this had been about microtubuli instead of actin, I’d have said that I would be dynein to see them. Dynamin just doesn’t quite work.

  24. Richard P. Grant says:

    Vasp happening? Stop ‘arping on, do. You’re dedicated followers of fascin, just villin in for Jenny while she’s asleep. It’s scar-ing me. I might have to start severin some threads.
    We’ve gone too far down this RhoD. As a matter of FAK I can’t think of a pun for gelsolin so I’ll say toodle-PIP 2 for now. Time for a night Capz.

  25. Eva Amsen says:

    You’re really Rac-ing up the puns there.

  26. Richard Wintle says:

    Good lord. How long did it take you to come up with that comment?

  27. Jennifer Rohn says:

    Ena-f!

  28. Henry Gee says:

    I kinase taq any more.

  29. Richard P. Grant says:

    I’m not talin you again, Henry.

  30. Henry Gee says:

    pax pax pax?

  31. Jennifer Rohn says:

    I’m co-feelin’ fed up.

  32. Ralph Lasala says:

    Kraken me up. Your all Dribble-ing. But someone is Ran-ing very fast. I need a myc to relay the scores … half-time break … Cullin, hand over the popcorn please …

  33. Richard P. Grant says:

    Who let the bloody Drosophila geneticists in here?

  34. Henry Gee says:

    I blame bride of sevenless

  35. Eva Amsen says:

    Now don’t TRAIL off. Try to keep cadherin to actin.
    (…catenin?)

  36. Ralph Lasala says:

    The son of sevenless threw a roc and the gates were open. Plus, the cdk checkpoints were snare-ing. Is someone shouting sos? Keep the ball Rho-lling. Ras, where’s my soda?

  37. Maxine Clarke says:

    is that a nucleus on Jenny’s table?
    No, it’ just pleased to see you.
    Myo sin.

  38. Jennifer Rohn says:

    Oh, my God.
    Charging to 360…clear…

  39. Richard Wintle says:

    I Ced, stop it! I’m tired of jokes of this Ilk. It’s time I LEF this silly topic, before it makes me _CREB_by.
    Apparently, someone let the C. elegans people in, too.

  40. Richard Wintle says:

    Bloody italics tags.

  41. Jennifer Rohn says:

    Poor Richard: all a bit much for you, dear?
    Fly geneticists aren’t all fun and games. Try this:
    I wish that someone would tell all these punners to CG13897!
    See what I mean?

  42. Eva Amsen says:

    “CG13897”
    Before anyone else bothers to look it up in Flybase: “Its molecular function is described as DNA binding. The biological processes in which it is involved are not known.”
    Stupid flies.

  43. Jennifer Rohn says:

    I can assure that many uncharacterized human genes are equally annoying when it comes to their GO terms…

  44. Henry Gee says:

    Now I’m utterly FOXP2ed

  45. Richard Wintle says:

    I can assure that many uncharacterized human genes are equally annoying when it comes to their GO terms…
    Gak. I worked at one time on a “predicted gene of no homology to anything and no known function” known as Unigene Hs.70932.
    That Unigene ID has now been retired, in favour of the much-sexier Hs.658288.
    I’m also FOXed. Time to go for a nice order of Fushi Tarazu.

  46. Eva Amsen says:

    “Now I’m utterly FOXP2ed”
    Oh, SNAP25

  47. Heather Etchevers says:

    Now, now, keep your SOX on. I declare Eva the winner for her elegant use of the Rac.
    Try working with any gene that starts with LOC, Riken, MGC, TMEM or ZFP (_n’est-ce pas_, RG?). Sometimes when you know a little structure-wise, it is almost more misleading than when there’s nothing at all.
    Jenny, I admire you for looking at what happens in the cytoplasm. I dare not venture much out of the nucleus, myself; it’s a complex world out there.

  48. Richard P. Grant says:

    TMEM? Isn’t that a cell culture medium?

  49. Heather Etchevers says:

    That’s DMEM… TMEMs are generic transmembrane proteins about which one knows nothing else.

  50. Richard P. Grant says:

    So what’s a ZNF?

  51. Eva Amsen says:

    “I declare Eva the winner for her elegant use of the Rac.”
    Woohoo! I ROCK1!

  52. Richard Wintle says:

    LOC, Riken, MGC, TMEM or ZFP
    Argh. Add CYP and HLA to this list. Then take the list and bury it a loooooooooooong way away from me, please.
    I’m still giggling over “toodle-PIP2” (sorry, don’t have the sk1llz to make the subscript “2”).

  53. Maxine Clarke says:

    Are we zipping this up now, or has that one been done (can’t bear to go back and check!)

  54. Jennifer Rohn says:

    No, you’re good, Maxine.

  55. Henry Gee says:

    Now Maxine’s here we kinesin to molecular-moltor-related puns.

  56. Maxine Clarke says:

    I’m more of a myosin woman than kinesin – Henry – scroll back up a-ways. I perfer my lattices more structured 😉

  57. Ian Brooks says:

    What a cacophony

Comments are closed.