Member SpotlightsThe Integration of Proteomics with Plant Development Studies Mark Running, Ph.D. A Science Advisory Board member since 2002  Mark Running, Ph.D. Mark Running, PhD., is a Principal Investigator for the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, US. Running completed his undergraduate degree in Biology at Pomona College and received his Ph.D. from the California Institute of Technology in 1997. He completed his postdoctoral work at University of California, Berkeley before becoming a PI at Danforth in 2002. In addition to his lab research, he is also an adjunct assistant professor at Washington University, where he teaches a plant development course and participates in graduate student mentoring. Running is a current member of the American Society of Plant Biologists and enjoys music during his leisure time (listening, playing, and composition). In comparing music to science, Running says, "Musicians are influenced by other music they’ve heard, and constantly build on it in new and interesting ways. Sometimes something comes along that is truly innovative, a real breakthrough, that changes the entire scene. The same thing happens in science." Current Research Interests Throughout my career I have been interested in plant development, particularly its dynamism. In the case of animals, such as humans, the body plan is fixed (two arms, two legs, 10 fingers, 10 toes, etc.) and evident early on. However, when you look inside the seed of, say, Arabidopsis, you don’t see a miniature plant; you see a couple cotyledons, a single root, and a blob of cells in the middle. The activity of this collection of cells, called a meristem, is what is ultimately responsible for the body plan of the plant - the number of leaves, branches, and flowers, and the course of root development. The advantage of a dynamic growth plan is the ability to adapt to the environment - more branches when conditions merit, or earlier flowers if conditions are unfavorable. It’s always been interesting to me how each of us are composed of so many cells that all share the same DNA but can look so different from each other. This is the essence of developmental biology, to find out how cells become different from each other. Meristem cells are a great example of a blank slate, and when cells leave the meristem they differentiate rapidly, seemingly out of nowhere. It’s great to know that we are figuring out how the cells can do that. Has your occupation progressed as expected? Definitely not. To start with, I had no interest in plants when choosing a graduate school, and never took any coursework on plants. But when I arrived at Caltech, I saw the incredible, groundbreaking research that Elliot Meyerowitz was doing on flower development, taking advantage of a then-new genetic model plant system, Arabidopsis. I saw the opportunity to open up new fields and perform research that I could foresee being in Biology textbooks, instead of making incremental progress in other fields. What would you like to achieve with your research in the future? Like any scientist, I want to increase the body of knowledge, and leave my mark on the world. Since I’ve moved to my position here at the Danforth Center, I’ve also been much more aware of pursuing work that can more directly benefit society, given the importance of agriculture in the U.S. economy and the ballooning demand for food around the world. The following questions are specific to the integration of proteomics with plant development research: How do you apply the field of proteomics to your research? One of the main focuses of my lab is protein prenylation, a posttranslational modification that adds a lipid group to target proteins that increases their hydrophobicity, and aids in association of the protein to membranes. We know from studies of mutants in which prenylation is disrupted that prenylated proteins play a role in many important plant processes, including meristem function, flower development, drought tolerance, and plant hormone responses. Our goal is to use proteomics approaches to identify which proteins in the plant are prenylated, as well as the modification status of these proteins in prenylation-deficient backgrounds. We can also compare the proteomes of wild type and prenylation-deficient plants to see the effect of prenylation on protein abundance in various growth conditions. How effective is today's technology to conduct large-scale, high-throughput analyses for the investigation of low-abundance proteins? I think we may be close to being able to work with low abundance proteins from plants, given the increasing number of options for eliminating high abundance proteins and the increasing sensitivity of the detection software and instrumentation. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The major limitation of proteomic investigations today remains with the complexity of biological structures and physiological processes. I would disagree as a matter of philosophy. What others may view as a limitation, I view as a challenge and opportunity. To discuss proteomics, plant development and other topics with fellow Science Advisory Board members, please visit our community forum. Web Links Mark Running's Laboratory at the Danforth Center Publications Zeng, Q., Wang, X., and Running, M.P. (2007) Dual lipid modification of Arabidopsis thaliana Gγ-subunits is required for efficient plasma membrane targeting. Plant Physiology 143, 1119-31. Running, M. P., Lavy, M., Sternberg, H., Galichet, A., Gruissem, W., Hake, S., Ori, N., and Yalovsky, S. (2004). Enlarged meristems and delayed growth in plp mutants result from lack of CaaX prenyltransferases. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 7815-7820. ### << Previous Next >> [ View All Member Spotlights ] |
|