Advertisement

Autophagy pp 729-738 | Cite as

Interactive Autophagy: Monitoring a Novel Form of Selective Autophagy by Macroscopic Observations

  • Jana Petri
  • Roland L. KnorrEmail author
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1880)

Abstract

Traditional lectures and cookbook laboratory exercises are today’s standard tools in scientific teaching and learning. However, these conventional methods are suboptimal. Combining active learning techniques with physical experiences can improve educational success significantly. Still, hands-on material which supports active and physical teaching concepts is rare. Here, we introduce an interactive, performance-based method.

As an example, we studied autophagosome formation. We observed assembly of the phagophore by membrane fusion, cargo isolation by bending the phagophore and membrane scission. We extracted characteristic time scales of autophagosome formation. Moreover, we observed capturing the autophagic cargo within a single membrane for the first time. In this chapter, we provide an easy tool to engage participants in the process of scientific perception. We are convinced that “hands-on” experiments and interactive analyses will encourage students to participate more actively in classes and thus, will improve learning. Moreover, we anticipate that the approach enhances translation of scientific concepts between different fields by providing scientists with a fresh view on, e.g., membrane-bound processes and can improve communication of science to the public.

Key words

Autophagy Degradation Selective Membrane Bending Remodeling Fusion Scission Active learning Yoshinori Ohsumi Dance Performance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Alexander May (Institute of Innovative Research/Tokyo Institute of Technology) for translations, cultural advice, and technical assistance. We further thank Yoshinori Ohsumi, Hitoshi Nakatogawa, and Nobuo Noda (Institute of Innovative Research/Tokyo Institute of Technology and Microbial Chemistry Research Foundation/Institute of Microbial Chemistry) and their lab members for strong support and participation in the experiment. We specifically thank Yoko Hara for motivation of the participants. We also thank Reinhard Lipowsky (MPI-CI) for institutional and financial support, and Ben Wiggins (University of Washington) and Constance Scharff (FU Berlin) for critical reading and discussion of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Fischer CN (2011) Changing the science education paradigm: from teaching facts to engaging the intellect: Science Education Colloquia Series, Spring 2011. Yale J Biol Med 84:247–251PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Handelsman J et al (2004) Scientific teaching. Science 304:521–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Knight JK, Wood WB (2005) Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol Educ 4:298–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowen CW (2000) A quantitative literature review of cooperative learning effects on high school and college chemistry achievement. J Chem Educ Easton 77:116–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bradforth SE et al (2015) University learning: improve undergraduate science education. Nat News 523:282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freeman S et al (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:8410–8415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graham MJ, Frederick J, Byars-Winston A, Hunter A-B, Handelsman J (2013) Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science 341:1455–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haak DC, HilleRisLambers J, Pitre E, Freeman S (2011) Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science 332:1213–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kontra C, Lyons DJ, Fischer SM, Beilock SL (2015) Physical experience enhances science learning. Psychol Sci 26:737–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lorenzo M, Crouch CH, Mazur E (2006) Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. Am J Phys 74:118–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coil D, Wenderoth MP, Cunningham M, Dirks C (2010) Teaching the process of science: faculty perceptions and an effective methodology. CBE-Life Sci Educ 9:524–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rezende-Filho FM, da Fonseca LJS, Nunes-Souza V, Guedes da SG, Rabelo LA (2014) A student-centered approach for developing active learning: the construction of physical models as a teaching tool in medical physiology. BMC Med Educ 14:189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mizushima N, Yoshimori T, Ohsumi Y (2011) The role of Atg proteins in autophagosome formation. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 27:107–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Noda NN, Inagaki F (2015) Mechanisms of autophagy. Annu Rev Biophys 44:101–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knorr RL, Mizushima N, Dimova R (2017) Fusion and scission of membranes: ubiquitous topological transformations in cells. Traffic 18:758–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Knorr RL, Lipowsky R, Dimova R (2015) Autophagosome closure requires membrane scission. Autophagy 11:2134–2137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Knorr RL, Dimova R, Lipowsky R (2012) Curvature of double-membrane organelles generated by changes in membrane size and composition. PLoS One 7:e32753CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal BehaviorFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Theory and Bio-SystemsMax Planck Institute of Colloids and InterfacesPotsdamGermany
  3. 3.Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Graduate School and Faculty of MedicineThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations