Publications

The idea of the interaction between genes and environment in the formation of traits is an important component of genetic literacy, because it explains the plastic nature of phenotypes. However, most studies in genetics education characterize challenges in understanding and reasoning about genetic phenomena that do not involve modulation by the environment. Therefore, we do not know enough to inform the development of effective instructional materials that address the influences of environmental factors on genes and traits, that is, phenotypic plasticity. The current study explores college students understanding of phenotypic plasticity. We interviewed biological sciences undergraduates who are at different stages of their undergraduate studies and asked them to explain several phenomena that involved phenotypic plasticity. Analysis of the interviews revealed two types of mechanistic accounts: one type described the interaction as involving the environment directly acting on a passive organism; while the other described the interaction as mediated by a sensing-and-responding mechanism. While both accounts are plausible, the second account is critical for reasoning about phenotypic plasticity. We also found that contextual features of the phenomena may affect the type of account generated. Based on these findings, we recommend focusing instruction on the ways in which organisms sense and respond.

Mechanisms are central in scientific explanations. However, developing mechanistic explanations is difficult for students especially in domains in which mechanisms involve abstract components and functions, such as genetics. One of the core components of genetic mechanisms are proteins and their functions. Students struggle to reason about the role of proteins while learning genetics and show limited ability to provide mechanistic explanations of genetic phenomena. In genetics education there are currently two competing theoretical frameworks regarding what domain-specific knowledge about proteins is important for reasoning about genetic mechanisms. One framework assumes knowledge about specific protein functions in the body, a tool kit of functions; the other framework assumes more abstracted knowledge about protein interactions that are common to all protein functions. These frameworks implicate different instructional frameworks: One offers to provide concrete examples of protein functions while the other offers a more general description of protein activity. Our aim in this study was to ascertain the ways in which students' reasoning about proteins' role in genetic phenomena (both familiar and novel) relates to the two theoretical frameworks. Toward this end we engaged 7th grade students in learning about proteins functions in the mechanisms underlying genetic traits using an online simulation environment that embodied key aspects of both frameworks. We analyzed students' responses to the final test questions in which they were asked to generatively reason about the underlying mechanisms of two novel genetic traits. Our findings suggest that students use proteins in their explanations mainly when they can explain the protein function and that knowledge about a few specific functions is insufficient to support conceptualization of new functions. Moreover, knowledge of general protein activities common to most functions is also insufficient. We suggest a new combined approach to supporting students' understanding of proteins' role in genetic mechanisms.

Previous studies have shown that students often ignore molecular mechanisms when describing genetic phenomena. Specifically, students tend to directly link genes to their encoded traits, ignoring the role of proteins as mediators in this process. We tested the ability of 10th grade students to connect genes to traits through proteins, using concept maps and reasoning questions. The context of this study was a computational learning environment developed specifically to foster this ability. This environment presents proteins as the mechanism-mediating genetic phenomena. We found that students' ability to connect genes, proteins, and traits, or to reason using this connection, was initially poor. However, significant improvement was obtained when using the learning environment. Our results suggest that visual representations of proteins' functions in the context of a specific trait contributed to this improvement. One significant aspect of these results is the indication that 10th graders are capable of accurately describing genetic phenomena and their underlying mechanisms, a task that has been shown to raise difficulties, even in higher grades of high school.

Patterning by morphogen gradients relies on the capacity to generate reproducible distribution profiles. Morphogen spread depends on kinetic parameters, including diffusion and degradation rates, which vary between embryos, raising the question of how variability is controlled. We examined this in the context of Toll-dependent dorsoventral (DV) patterning of the Drosophila embryo. We find that low embryo-to-embryo variability in DV patterning relies on wntD, a Toll-target gene expressed initially at the posterior pole. WntD protein is secreted and disperses in the extracellular milieu, associates with its receptor Frizzled4, and inhibits the Toll pathway by blocking the Toll extracellular domain. Mathematical modeling predicts that WntD accumulates until the Toll gradient narrows to its desired spread, and we support this feedback experimentally. This circuit exemplifies a broadly applicable induction-contraction mechanism, which reduces patterning variability through a restricted morphogen-dependent expression of a secreted diffusible inhibitor.

Morphogen gradients are used to pattern a field of cells according to variations in the concentration of a signaling molecule. Typically, the morphogen emanates from a confined group of cells. During early embryogenesis, however, the ability to define a restricted source for morphogen production is limited. Thus, various early patterning systems rely on a broadly expressed morphogen that generates an activation gradient within its expression domain. Computational and experimental work has shed light on how a sharp and robust gradient can be established under those situations, leading to a mechanism termed 'morphogen shuttling'. This mechanism relies on an extracellular shuttling molecule that forms an inert, highly diffusible complex with the morphogen. Morphogen release from the complex following cleavage of the shuttling molecule by an extracellular protease leads to the accumulation of free ligand at the center of its expression domain and a graded activation of the developmental pathway that decreases significantly even within the morphogen-expression domain.

Morphogen gradients pattern tissues and organs during development. When morphogen production is spatially restricted, diffusion and degradation are sufficient to generate sharp concentration gradients. It is less clear how sharp gradients can arise within the source of a broadly expressed morphogen. A recent solution relies on localized production of an inhibitor outside the domain of morphogen production, which effectively redistributes (shuttles) and concentrates the morphogen within its expression domain. Here, we study how a sharp gradient is established without a localized inhibitor, focusing on early dorsoventral patterning of the Drosophila embryo, where an active ligand and its inhibitor are concomitantly generated in a broad ventral domain. Using theory and experiments, we show that a sharp Toll activation gradient is produced through "self-organized shuttling," which dynamically relocalizes inhibitor production to lateral regions, followed by inhibitor-dependent ventral shuttling of the activating ligand Spätzle. Shuttling may represent a general paradigm for patterning early embryos. PaperFlick: