Very possibly looking through the membrane diagrams is the most useful thing you could do. The dates are the story.

Take comfort in the fact that I really just want you to look at the featured topic in the January 1998 Science. Cell structure is emphasized there(1998). Five years later it is still a key topic.

*Frontiers in Cell Biology: 1998. Science. (A set of articles from this issue.) Please - peruse these. THey are worth reading thoroughly, but the titles, abstract/summaries (the first several and last several paragraphs) are a fairly quick read. There is far too much to insist that you include them in material that "might" be on a quiz. Yet, I know it is tempting to skip over anything not "required". You will benefit by the knowledge gained, even surface knowledge, because the mere existence of these articles in Science, in 1998, tells you something critical (this is why the nonsense about society and journal names keeps showing up on the quizzes. (Makes it hard to forget twenty years later.) We have not yet figured it out! All those texts with the tidy drawings are desperate guesses. There's so much to find out and so little time to invest in the hunt.

*Downing, K. and Nogales, E. 1998. (News article by Pennisi, E.) stucture of key cytoskeletal protein tubulin revealed. Science 279:176-177. February, 1998 - think about it. This is a basic component of the cell's structure and those in the field were surprized that someone managed to get a good image of its structure - finally.....

Hegde, R.; Mastrianni, J.; Scott; M. DeFea; K. Tremblay, P. ; Torchia; M. DeArmond; S. Prusiner, S.; and V. Lingappa. 1998. A transmembrane form of the prion protein in neurodegenerative disease. Science 279:827-834.

(One of the things that makes me nervous as I read an article of such significance which carries a ridiculous number of authors is - who really deserves the credit. While many contribute, it is likely that one, or two, actually make the "breakthrough". - Perhaps we should talk about this.) Just read the first and last paragraphs to get a sense of what the endoplasmic reticulum is and why it is so significant.

Clark, T. and L. Buehler. News article by Wu, C.) 1998. Peptide nanotube acts as tunnel for ions. Science News. 153:102. (I have a couple of subscription cards for this. If you can afford it, think of it as the "reqwuired text" for the course and buy it. You will be pleased with yourself twenty years from now as you continue to read it.)You read this one in class.

*Chappell, J.B. 1977. ATP. Carolina Tips XL(16):63-64. The role of ATP is central to the capacity of a living system to use energy. This is a very important paper. Do not let the source fool you. It has much to offer. (Actually, there are quite a few of the Carolina Tips that are unusually clear, brief, presentations of some relatively sophisticated concepts.) There are other energy-rich molecules. Avoid myopia. Why do you suppose so many of your prior textbooks include "osmosis" or "passive membrane transport" as a meaningful mechanism of materials passage in and out of cells.

Kuwayama, H.; Ecke, M., Gerisch, G. and P. Van Haastert. 1996. Protection against osmotic stress by cGMP-mediated myosin phosphorylation. Science 271:207-209. *At least read the first paragraphs. You really need to see the colored pictures in this article to appreciate the obviously significant role of myosin II and actin (without being an expert in the field). The authors are seeking structural explanations for the capacity of a cell to withstand osmotic stress., The surface and the internal structure work together (20:20 hindsight - naturally the parts work to help the whole survive!) This is the kind of work that followed our relatively new respect for the complexity of cell structure (membrane, internal filaments, chemical protections) - below.

Miyamoto, S; Akiyama, S. and K. Yamada. 1995. Synergistic roles for receptor occupancy and aggregation in integrin transmembrane function. Science 267:883-885. Another of the "Water revisited" genre. *Read the abstract, the first (long) paragraph, and the last two (conclusions). Read the rest if you can. This paper is a fine example of the state of understanding of cell membrane structure and function as of 1995. The fact that the authors tell us they "hypothesized" mechanisms for "normal transmembrane signal transduction" should give you a sense of how much we still do not know.

*Arehart-Treichel, J. 1975. The murky world of cell membrane receptors. Science News 108:110-111. The date does not limit the value of this particular paper. It offers an understandable picture of a field you will probably not enter, but one which you must respect if you hope to understand why dissolved materials in our natural waters can be such a threat. Membrane receptors are one of those mysterious items which have only recently become targets of study. They may provide many of the keys needed to explain the differential toxicities of various forms of chemicals to various forms of creatures, and why stuff makes such a big deal out of getting into a cell via membrane transport. This is, and has been, for several decades, a terrific (scientifically accurate and downright easy to follow) weekly newsletter. It costs about $40/yr. (1998). If you can afford it, it is worth it. It can keep you abreast of everyone else’s field.

Bengelsdorf, I. 1976. Cell membrane receptors. Bioscience 26:400-402.

Rothman, J. and L. Orci. 1996. Budding vesicles in living cells. Scientific American. (March) 70-75.

[Here’s a lesson for you - I forgot to write down the volume number of this and quite efficiently threw away the magazine (sorry).] For those of you who have never had occasion to read a basic bio. text this can offer an idea of the major structures inside a cell. Here they discuss moving materials around at the organelle level. When considering the movement of materials through membranes, it is the molecular level that we must observe. (And you thought of a cell as a sort of balloon filled with randomly distributed organelles and various liquids. These are the levels at which most environmental contaminants do their damage.

Wong, J.; Kuhl, T.; Israelachvili, J.; Mullah, N., and S. Zalipsky. 1997. Direct measurement of a tethered ligand-receptor interaction potential. Science 275:820-822. *Okay - just look at the pretty pics (but make sure you understand the captions!) The lock and key have taken on another dimension.

*Hofnung, M. 1995. An intelligent channel (and more). 1995. Science 267:473-474. Quite readable explanation of the current trends - do not take the word "passive" too literally. Assumptions that you, the reader, know perfectly well that passive diffusion has nothing to do with living membranes permits licensee to use words casually.

Schirmer, T.; Keller, T. Wang, Y., and J. Rosenbusch. 1995. Structural basis for sugar translocation through maltoporin channels at 3.1 Angstrom resolution. Science 267:512-514. (accompanies the above) Again, I am inordinately fond of the pictures. Make sure you understand what you are looking at.

*Zambryski, P. 1995. Plasmodesmata: Plant channels for molecules on the move. Science 270:1943-1944. These "channels" were even more readily assumed to be "passive" pathways around tissues. Turns out that even a channel through plant cell walls (not membranes-although they are also involved) can not be considered "passive".

Kelner, K. 1996. Ion channels: Opening the gate. Science 271:615. Everyone excepting the experts in the field knew we understood all there was to understand concerning sodium and potassium channels - until now.

*Anonymous. 1976. Cell receptors pinch-hit as enzymes. Science News 110:341.

Is it possible for a "cell receptor" to function as an enzyme? What is an enzyme? By the way, enzymes are not exactly the same as hormones. Do you know the difference? Sometimes it seems like splitting hairs - only sometimes.

Hopson, J. 1976. Bacterial blitz: Storming the Achilles pore. Science News 109:283.

Rubinstein, E. 1980. Diseases caused by impaired communication among cells. Scientific American. 242(3):102-121.

Read for thought genesis. Just see if you can pick up a short list of diseases. Quite a few mistakes are made without our help. Now, sprinkle a bit of PCB or a touch of Hg on the cell surface and think of the marvels of human intervention.

Miller, K. 1979. The photosynthetic membrane. Scientific American 241:102-113.

Just take a look at the diagram (p. 108) of the photosynthetic membrane (thylakoid). It is quite similar to the membrane models offered for other types of cells. A 1979 version is much too simple - but ---.