Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Vol 9 No 6 February 2010
In this Issue FEATURES Biological Physics Frontiers at MPS/NSF: Insights from Dr. Denise Caldwell ………….……… 2
The Physics of Living Systems NSF Perspectives from Drs. Blagoev & Shukla …… 6
DBP ANNOUNCEMENTS Applications open for 2011 Award for Outstanding Doctoral Thesis – Research in Biological Physics … 9
PRL HIGHLIGHTS …………..…..…………..………..….…… 11
PRE HIGHLIGHTS ……………...…..……………..……...….. 15
Employment Opportunities ………….………..…..…… 18 (Faculty Recruitments and Post-Doctoral Fellowships)… Conference/Meetings Announcements …..……….…. 20
DIVISION OF BIOLOGICALPHYSICS EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE
Chair Stephen Quake
Chair-ElectHerbert Levine
Vice-ChairAihua Xie
Secretary/Treasurer Thomas Nordlund
Past Chair James Glazier
Division CouncillorMark Reeves
Members-at-Large:John Milton
Daniel [email protected]
Phil [email protected]
Newsletter EditorSonya Bahar
Assistant EditorChristopher Smith
THE BIOLOGICAL PHYSICISTThe Newsletter of the Division of Biological Physics of the American Physical Society
This issue brings you the first of manyinterviews with some of the key players in federalfunding of biological physics research initiatives. Andof course, all the usual suspects – PRE & PRLHighlights, job ads, & conference announcements.
Finally, after editing The Biological Physicistsince June 2001 (!!) it is time for one of us (SB) to bidadieu. When politicians step down, they cite the desireto spend more time with family. In my case, I plan tospend more time with my graduate students. See youat future March Meetings! Please join me inwelcoming the new Editor, Chris Smith.
– SB & CS
2
Denise Caldwell, PhD, is the deputy director for thePhysics Division of the Directorate of Mathematicaland Physical Sciences (MPS) at the NationalScience Foundation (NSF). She is also the
Program Director for thePhysics FrontiersCenters (PFC) program,that includes two
biological physics PFC’s: the Center for TheoreticalBiological Physics at the University of California,San Diego and the Center for the Physics of LivingCells at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The editors had a chat with Dr.Caldwell on her perspectives related to current andfuture biological physics research initiatives at NSF.A summary of that conversation is presented here.
Dr. Caldwell has a PhD in Physics from ColumbiaUniversity for research in atomic photoionization.After postdoctoral work at Bielefeld University(Germany), she accepted a faculty position at YaleUniversity. Six years later, she joined the faculty ofthe University of Central Florida, where shebecame full professor. In 1995, she accepted aposition at NSF as a rotator program director,where she helped manage the Optical Sciences
and Engineering initiative as part of the atomic,molecular, optical, and plasma physics (AMOP)
program within MPS. Thenin 1998, she was offered apermanent NSF position asprogram director for AMOP.In 2001, she assumedresponsibility for developinga new Physics program, thePhysics Frontiers Centers.Over the course of the nextfew years, Denise and her
counterparts at NSF found that more physicistswere engaging in research that was linked tobiological processes. This was particularly true forjunior and mid-career scientists, who weretransitioning to the discipline of “biological physics”.The Physics Division, and indeed the MPSDirectorate as a whole, realized this represented asignificant new research thrust for the community;thus they began to fund research proposalsspecifically at the physical-life sciences interface.The irony is that this new research area developedso quickly that the Physics Division did not have adedicated funding source. So physics programofficers got very creative and were able to seed
Biological Physics Frontiers at NSF:Insights from Dr. Denise Caldwell
Deputy Director, Physics/MPSChristopher M. Smith
Federal Funding Opportunities and Perspectives on BiologicalPhysics Research - A Series of TBP Features
Over the course of the next few issues of the Newsletter, we will be bringing you interviews with programdirectors at major federal funding agencies that oversee programs directly and/or indirectly involved inbiological physics research.
In this issue, we will start with a summary of a conversation with Dr. Denise Caldwell, Deputy Director of thePhysics Division, MPS/NSF, and interviews with Drs. Krastan Blagoev (Physics of Living Systems program,Physics Division, MPS Directorate) and Kamal Shukla (Biomolecular Systems Cluster program, Division ofMolecular and Cellular Biosciences, BIO Directorate) at NSF, who oversee Biological Physics initiatives.
3
these initial “biological physics” activities under avariety of Physics programs. The successes of theinitial funded research awards led to thedevelopment of a concerted biological physicsresearch program in 2005. In 2007 Dr. KrastanBlagoev joined the Physics division as programdirector for the program. Over the course of thenext few years, the breath of“biological physics” researchgrew significantly. The fieldwas largely “ill-defined andunfocused” in terms of whatthe Physics Division funds. Inresponse, the biologicalphysics program was redefinedand refocused, resulting in thereplacement of that program by the Physics ofLiving Systems (PoLS) program in 2008. Under thedirection of Dr. Blagoev, the PoLS program hasgrown considerably with program funding almostdoubling (to $6M) and the number of fundedawards tripling (to 25) in 2009. Although the PoLSprogram represents a significant new thrust for thePhysics Division, the recognition andacknowledgement of biological physics within NSFwas initially codified by the funding of the firstbiological physics PFC, CTBP, in 2002. Thenanother PFC in biological physics, CPLC, wassubsequently funded in 2008.
The genesisof the CPLCPFC residesin the opencompetitionelement of the PFC program(http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5305). Currently there are nine PFC’s(http://www.nsf.gov/mps/phy/facilities.jsp), fundedfor 5 year periods. Every three years, there is anopen competition in which any new institution cansubmit a PFC proposal. Existing PFC’s are requiredto participate in this competition to continue fundingpast their initial 5 years. There is no guarantee ofcontinued funding for current PFC’s submitting arenewal. All proposals are reviewed for originality –“are the planned activities pushing the envelope inphysics research?” So current Centers essentiallymust re-invent themselves every 5 years. In the lastPFC competition (2008) approximately 20% of allproposals were for PFC’s focusing on some aspectof biological physics. For those who want to submita PFC proposal for the 2011 competition; pre-proposals are due August 2010, and if you are
invited to submit a full proposal, it will be due inJanuary 2011.
Successful proposals are the product of a novelresearch idea and a well articulated researchproposal. A successful proposal writer will need tounderstand what the program officers and theexternal reviewers are looking for when they reviewtheir proposal. Generally, this insight is gained aftermany years of experience, failures and successes,in proposal writing. According to Dr, Caldwell,junior investigators can gain such first-handknowledge and experience in the grant reviewprocesses by becoming a part of that process. Sherecommends that junior investigators seek outprograms within NSF that best match theirparticular research area, then contact the programofficer. Send her/him an email introducing yourself,including perhaps an abbreviated curriculum vitae,and ask that you be considered for proposal reviewor panel service. In terms of gaining significantinsight, panel service is best. In a panel, youengage in active discussions with peers on themerits of proposals; strengths and weaknesses,innovation, etc., and you also gain invaluableexposure on how colleagues (potential reviewers ofyour proposals) approach the review process; whatthey think is important, what is mundane, etc. in aproposal. Panels are also an excellent mechanismto expand your professional network of colleagues.Becoming involved in the review process willdefinitely advance your proposal writing skills.
On the subject of writing and submitting proposals,according to Dr. Caldwell, amongst the three mostimportant things you can do are: i) research the appropriate NSF program andcontact the program officer. ii) read the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG),including updates. iii) have someone else read/review your proposalprior to submission.If you feel you have a great research idea, searchfor an appropriate program within NSF. If you are aphysicist, the best program may not always be inthe Physics Division, so thoroughly check allfunding opportunities throughout the various NSFdirectorates. This can easily be done through anawards search on the NSF web page athttp://www.nsf.gov. Once you have identified whatyou feel is a good program match, contact theprogram officer. Email or call her/him to discussyour research idea. In many cases, the programofficer may provide general advice about NSFprocedures, and details about a program or thegoals of a solicitation, that you can use to help you
4
better formulate your proposal, The program officermay also suggest multiple funding streams. Asmuch of our modern research has becomeinterdisciplinary in nature, so has NSF funding. It isnot uncommon today for innovative researchproposals to be funded from disparate NSFdivisions and directorates, e.g., a research idea inbiological physics may be funded by physics(MPS/PHY) and molecular biophysics (BIO)programs. In fact, most NSF directorates workclosely together today, especially with regard tofunding research projects at interdisciplinaryinterfaces.
A program officer will likely discuss additional andalternative funding opportunities, provided youcontact them. This is insight you will not get from awritten proposal solicitation document. Otherpositive aspects of the conversation are; you’lldevelop a rapport with someone at NSF, and theywill become aware that you are interested in andwill likely be submitting a proposal.
Often, researchers willread the “Request forProposal” (RFP), butnot the NSF GrantProposal Guide (GPG).Dr. Caldwell highlyrecommends that youread the GrantProposal Guide (GPG),including the latestupdates. This isespecially true if youare new to writing
proposals; and if you are an experienced proposalwriter, the updates can be critical. For example,proposals submitted after April 2009 that do notspecifically address how postdoctoral fellows will bementored will not be reviewed. (Incidentally, thecurrent GPG (NSF 10-1;http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg) was issued October 2009 and iseffective January 4, 2010.) Ensuring that yourproposal is in the correct format is also important,especially for multi-investigator proposals. Properformatting can convey consistency in a proposal,e.g., “if a team of investigators can’t work togetherto ensure proper formatting of the seeminglyinsignificant elements of their proposal, it doesn’tspeak well for their ability to work together oncomplex issues, e.g., the research!”
For beginning writers, Dr. Caldwell cannot stressenough the importance of having someone else
read your proposal. This person, a colleague, neednot be someone who is intimately versed in yourresearch area, but they should have experiencewriting or reviewing proposals. Your “personal”reviewer needn’t necessarily focus on the contentof the proposal, but on how the proposal reads. Didyou state your research question clearly? Did youarticulate concisely your approach to addressingthe research question? If someone outside of yourimmediate research area can understand your“message”, then there is a better chance that allyour reviewers will also see your message and rateyour proposal favorably.
The proposal review process; once submitted, yourproposal is evaluated for formatting (page limits,etc.), critical elements, e.g., scientific merit andbroader impacts statements, and completeness. Ifany of the critical elements are missing and/orformatting is such that it is difficult to read, theproposal may be summarily rejected. Properlyformatted proposals are then forwarded to theprogram officer. S/he will subsequently send yourproposal out for independent review by 3-4scientists in the field, and/or assemble a panel ofreviewers (who meet at one site for 2-3 days toreview, discuss proposals) to evaluate yourproposal in concert with as many as possibly 100other proposals submitted to the same program.The reviewers (independent or panel) will thendocument the merits (or lack thereof) of yourproposal and make recommendations as to thepriority for funding among the proposals that arebeing reviewed by the panel. These reviewerrecommendations are then studied by the programofficer, who subsequently relies on and uses thereviewer comments in order to select those projectsthat are most deserving of funding. S/he thensubmits a written document to the Division Directorjustifying funding for each selected project. It is theDivision Director who has final funding authority.The program officer has flexibility in the projectss/he recommends for funding, but they alsoshoulder tremendous responsibility. The quality oftheir portfolios best serves the community and thetaxpayer when they pick research ideas(proposals!) that will be very successful.
Regardingresearchsuccesses; ifyou have anaward, it is veryimportant that you submit to your program officerannual research highlights; this is in addition tothe annual progress report that you submit to NSF
5
(through FastLane). Your research highlight istypically a one-page summary (with colorful images,tables, figures, etc.) outlining the purpose of yourresearch and the significance of your findings inlayman’s terms. Your research highlight is thepublic face of your research and what NSFaccomplishes. So some good advice: “help yourprogram officer and NSF with engaging andmeaningful highlights”.
In closing, Dr. Caldwell would like us to keep inmind that although the NSF is one of our majorfederal agencies with an inherent bureaucracy;program directors and officers are all scientists –whose goal is to advance the cause and frontiers ofscience. In this vein, they want to assistresearchers in the trenches. But they cannot assistyou unless you contact them and engage inconversation. This is not to say that they fundeverything that comes down the pipeline. They arevery selective, and they rely on your peers to helpthem decide on innovative, promising researchprojects. And although you may have a greatresearch idea, it usually takes mentoring, advice,input and feedback from colleagues to transformyour idea into an innovative, promising researchproposal. So take advantage of all the supportresources available to you at your home institutionand at NSF.
Images (above & below) from the “Bacteria Art”Gallery of Prof Eshel Ben Jacob (Tel AvivUniversity, Israel.http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/image-flow.html
6
The program in Biological Physics at NSF wasrecently renamed "Physics of Living Systems".What is the motivation behind the namechange? How would you define the focus shiftthat correlated with the name change? Or wasthe name changed to fit with a focus that was"already there"? Have you seen a difference inthe type of submissions over the past few yearsas a result in the transition?
Krastan Blagoev: The main motivation to changethe name from Biological Physics to Physics ofLiving Systems was to avoid substantial overlapthat Biological Physics program had with thealready existing Molecular Biophysics Program inthe Division of Molecular and Cellar Biosciences(MCB) in the Biological Sciences directorate.Physics of Living Systems Program focuses onquestions at cellular and higher levels whereas thefocus of Molecular Biophysics program is at theMolecular level. These two programs now actsynergistically and cover broader areas biologicalquestions.
How does the PoLS program relate to other NSFprograms, such as Mathematical Biology andMolecular Biophysics? What types of proposalsmight typically fall into a grey area betweenthese different categories?
Krastan Blagoev: There is little overlap betweenPoLS and Mathematical Biology. One of therequirements of Mathematical Biology program isthat the proposals need to bring some newmathematics. Phenomenological approachesstrongly rooted in experiment do particularly well inPoLS. This naturally separates the two programs,but we work closely with Mary Ann Horn inmathematics on program development and wediscuss proposals that are overlapping. Interactionbetween PoLS and Molecular Biophysics and moregenerally MCB is strong. Many PoLS proposalsaddress problems in molecular cell biology andnaturally we discuss them for joint funding. Trendsin the biological physics field are jointly discussedall the time and proposals of mutual interest areshared for joint consideration. The grey area ispopulated by proposals that bridge in vitro and invivo studies.
Could you describe how NSF handles proposalsin a "grey area"? Could you walk us through theprocess of what happens when a veryinterdisciplinary proposal comes in the door --one that is potentially very good, but hard tocategorize?
Krastan Blagoev: For proposals that are highlyinterdisciplinary and are hard to classify, we try toidentify a program at NSF that might be focused onthe proposed research. Then we get in touch withthe corresponding Program Director and discusspossible sharing. Sometimes such proposals arereviewed by two independent panels. In previousyears, we had a joint MPS/MCB panel to discuss
The Physics of Living SystemsPerspectives on Biological Physics research initiatives from
Dr. Kratan Blagoev(Program Director, Physics of Living Systems program, PHY Division, MPS/NSF)
Dr. Kamal Shukla(Program Director, Molecular Biophysics, MCB Division, BIO/NSF)
Sonya Bahar
7
interdisciplinary CAREER proposals. Last year, wedecided to include all interdisciplinary proposalsthat are at the interface between PoLS and MCBand a new joint Physics/MCB panel discussedapproximately 50 proposals that were at theinterface. These were CAREER as well as regularproposals. We plan to continue this year with thesame joint panel. In addition PoLS has a secondpanel to discuss the rest of the proposals.
In some cases a proposal may not be appropriateto NSF at all. This is usually the case withproposals that are motivated by biomedicalapplications targeting a specific disease. In suchcases, we discuss with the PI and advise them towithdraw their proposal and resubmit to anappropriate agency. In some cases, we return theproposal without review, because it is notresponsive to the program
Kamal Shukla: Current trend is towardinterdisciplinary proposals, both in scientificquestions and tools to address them. In recentyears, we have been receiving manyinterdisciplinary proposals that address broadquestions, from molecular to higher levels, using avariety of theoretical and experimental approaches.NSF is in unique position to handle such proposals.We use both mail reviews that are from scientistsworking directly in these areas and panel reviews.Although it is hard to assemble a panel that willhave expertise on all aspects of proposals, thecombination of mail reviews and panel works quitewell.
The economic downturn has had a significantimpact throughout the country. How has itaffected NSF in general, and interdisciplinaryscientific programs at NSF in particular?
Krastan Blagoev: Well, so far we have been luckythat the current administration recognizes thateconomic growth is tied to science discovery andtechnological innovation and NSF has hadsubstantial increase in budget. Last year, forexample, PoLS had an additional $4.5 million fromthe recovery act. The Physics Division recognizesthe importance of PoLS and added an additional $1million to the base of the program. So last year theprogram’s base was close to six million and Iexpect this year to be close to seven million. Wethink everyone recognizes the importance ofinterdisciplinary research and is supportive and wehope that this trend will continue in the future.
Where do you see the various interdisciplinaryprograms at NSF heading over the next five toten years?
Krastan Blagoev: We think interdisciplinaryresearch has a bright future, because itsimportance is recognized at all levels at NSF. Westrongly believe that the community shoulddetermine the future directions and our programsshould reflect and respond to the trends in thecommunity.
Kamal Shukla: I agree with Krastan that futureresearch will be increasingly interdisciplinary andnew integrative disciplines will emerge from suchendeavors. I also strongly believe that scientificcommunity should be the gatekeeper for the futuredirection of science.
What role have the Physics Frontiers Centersplayed in the development of interdisciplinarysciences over the past years? What role do yousee for Physics Frontiers Centers in the futuregrowth of interdisciplinary science?
Krastan Blagoev: We think that Denise Caldwellhas done a tremendous job with the PFC program.The centers at UCSD and UIUC, which were jointlysupported by MPS and Biology Directorates, arelaying the foundations of quantitative biology andare serving as International Centers forinterdisciplinary research. They are also involved ineducating the next generation of scientists.
Kamal Shukla: Two Physics Frontier centers, atthe interface of Physics and Biology, are excellentdemonstrations of interaction between physics andbiology directorates at NSF and also for the supportof interdisciplinary research. Both scientificcommunities will benefit from these activities.
What steps do you see NSF taking to encouragedirect collaboration between biologists andphysicists?
Krastan Blagoev: A number of initiatives are underdevelopment and if these initiatives are successfulwe could see a substantial increase of funding forinterdisciplinary research. One open questionpertains to the most optimal mechanism for fundinginterdisciplinary research. Last year, Pat Dennis(MCB) and I co-chaired an international US/UKSandpit on Synthetic Biology. A number ofscientists were invited for a week to developinnovative projects. Many of them were funded atthe end of the sandpit. This was a new mechanism
8
at NSF and others are also possible. So NSF isexploring different ways to stimulateinterdisciplinary collaborations.
Kamal Shukla: Two recently funded PhysicsFrontier Centers at the interface of biology andphysics amply demonstrate the NSF’s commitmentto support interdisciplinary research. As mentionedabove by Krastan, this trend will continue.
When The Biological Physicist spoke with youtwo years ago (April 2008 issue), we asked youabout your advice for interdisciplinary scientistattempting to fund new laboratories. Wouldyour advice be any different today, based onchanges in interdisciplinary research itself, orbased on the different economic situation weface today?
Krastan Blagoev: My advice for these scientists isto identify as many sources of funding as possible.In addition, there is the Major ResearchInstrumentation (MRI) program in MPS, which canbe a source for laboratory funding.
Kamal Shukla: As we noted above, the future forinterdisciplinary research is bright. We cannotprosper economically unless our scientific endeavorremains at the forefront. The way things are,science is becoming more interdisciplinary and Iagree with Krastan that scientists should explore allpossible avenues to support their interdisciplinaryresearch.
Food for Thought!– Recent research fundingand publications data from the NSF Scienceand Engineering Indicators: 2010 report.
9
BackgroundAt this year’s March Meeting, the first DBPOutstanding Doctoral Thesis awards will bepresented. The competition is now open fornext year’s awards!
DescriptionTo recognize doctoral thesis research ofoutstanding quality and achievement in anyarea of experimental, computational,engineering, or theoretical Biological Physics,broadly construed, and to encourage effectivewritten and oral presentation of researchresults, the Division of Biological Physics willpresent an award, to be given annually,consisting of $1,500, a certificate citing thecontribution made by the Awardee, and a $500travel allowance ($1000 international) and feewaiver to attend the subsequent March meetingand to present an invited talk based on thethesis work or an extension of that work.Award and travel monies will be presentedfollowing the talk. The two runners-up willreceive certificates of merit citing theircontributions.
Establishment & SupportThe award was established in 2009 by theDivision of Biological Physics and issponsored by members and friends of theDivision of Biological Physics.
Rules & EligibilityDoctoral students at any university in theUnited States or abroad who have passed theirthesis defense for the Ph.D. in any areas ofexperimental, computational, engineering, ortheoretical Biological Physics, broadlyconstrued, any time from October 1st two yearsbefore the year in which the award is to bepresented until September 30th in the yearbefore the award is to be presented, are eligiblefor the award, except for those whose thesisadvisors serve on the current SelectionCommittee. To recognize the fundamentallyinterdisciplinary nature of biological physics,the applicant, advisor and degree awarded neednot be in Physics, but may also be in anyappropriate related area, including, but notlimited to, Biomedical Engineering, AppliedMathematics, Applied Physics or BiologicalPhysics, Biophysics, Biology, Mathematics,Biochemistry, Chemistry or ChemicalEngineering. In the event that the Committeejudges no submitted theses to be of sufficientquality, the Committee may elect not to presentthe award.
Nomination & SelectionProcessNominations must be received by the Chair ofthe 2009 Biological Physics Thesis AwardSelection Committee prior to the deadline fornominations: the first Monday in October
DBP ANNOUNCEMENTAward for Outstanding Doctoral Thesis
Research in Biological PhysicsBackgroundBiological Physics is one of the most rapidly growing, exciting and interdisciplinary branches ofcontemporary physics. To encourage the healthy development of this field, the Division ofBiological Physics has established an annual award for Outstanding Doctoral Thesis Research inBiological Physics.
DescriptionTo recognize doctoral thesis research of outstanding quality and achievement in any area ofexperimental, computational, engineering, or theoretical Biological Physics, broadly construed,and to encourage effective written and oral presentation of research results, the Division ofBiological Physics will present an award, to be given annually, consisting of $1,500, a certificateciting the contribution made by the Awardee, and a $500 travel allowance ($1000 international)and fee waiver to attend the subsequent March meeting and to present an invited talk based on thethesis work or an extension of that work. Award and travel monies will be presented following thetalk. The two runners-up will receive certificates of merit citing their contributions.
Establishment & SupportThe award was established in 2009 by the Division of Biological Physics and is sponsored bymembers and friends of the Division of Biological Physics.
Rules & EligibilityDoctoral students at any university in the United States or abroad who have passed their thesisdefense for the Ph.D. in any areas of experimental, computational, engineering, or theoreticalBiological Physics, broadly construed, any time from October 1st two years before the year inwhich the award is to be presented until September 30th in the year before the award is to bepresented, are eligible for the award, except for those whose thesis advisors serve on the currentSelection Committee. To recognize the fundamentally interdisciplinary nature of biologicalphysics, the applicant, advisor and degree awarded need not be in Physics, but may also be in anyappropriate related area, including, but not limited to, Biomedical Engineering, AppliedMathematics, Applied Physics or Biological Physics, Biophysics, Biology, Mathematics,Biochemistry, Chemistry or Chemical Engineering. In the event that the Committee judges nosubmitted theses to be of sufficient quality, the Committee may elect not to present the award.
Nomination & Selection ProcessNominations must be received by the Chair of the 2009 Biological Physics Thesis AwardSelection Committee prior to the deadline for nominations: the first Monday in October eachyear (October 5th, 2009). Nominations must be submitted as a single PDF file to the Chair of theSelection Committee in an email attachment.The nomination process is initiated by the thesis advisor. The nomination package consists of thefollowing materials:
10
each year (October 4th, 2010). Nominationsmust be submitted as a single PDF file to theChair of the Selection Committee in an emailattachment.The nomination process is initiated by thethesis advisor. The nomination packageconsists of the following materials:
1. A letter from the thesis advisor citing thespecific contributions of the nomineeand the significance of thosecontributions.
2. A letter from the department chair and/orrelevant program director certifyingthe date of the thesis defense.
3. Two letters seconding the nomination.
4. A manuscript prepared by the nomineedescribing the thesis research; themanuscript may not exceed 1,500words (excluding figures andreferences).
5. An abstract prepared by the nomineesuitable for publication in theBulletin of the American PhysicalSociety; the abstract may not exceed1,300 characters. The name of the
thesis supervisor and the institutionshould be indicated in a footnote.
6. A full curriculum vitae of the nomineeincluding a publication list.
Nominations are limited to one per year pernominator. Writers of seconding letters mayonly submit one seconding letter per year.
TimelineSeptember 30th—Deadline for thesis defensesfor consideration by the Selection Committee.First Monday in October (October 4th,2010)—Deadline for nominations.November 10th—Selection of Awardee andrunners up.November 17th—Notification of Awardee andinvitation to March Meeting.December 2nd—Deadline for acceptance ofinvitation by Awardee.March Meeting—Awarding of Prize.
For the 2010/2011 Award, Nominationsmust be sent to:Chair: Prof. Stephen Quake
11
Soft Matter, Biological, &Inter-disciplinary Physics Articles fromPhysical Review Letters
4 December 2009Volume 103, Number 23, Articles (23xxxx)http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PRLTAO&Volume=103&Issue=23
Phase Diagram of Janus ParticlesFrancesco Sciortino, Achille Giacometti, andGiorgio PastorePublished 30 November 2009 // 237801
Chiral Selection by Interfacial Shearing of Self-Assembled Achiral MoleculesNúria Petit-Garrido, Jordi Ignés-Mullol, JosepClaret, and Francesc SaguésPublished 30 November 2009 // 237802
Large Flow Birefringence of Nematogenic Bent-Core Liquid CrystalsC. Bailey, K. Fodor-Csorba, R. Verduzco, J. T.Gleeson, S. Sprunt, and A. JákliPublished 4 December 2009 // 237803
Booming Dune InstabilityB. Andreotti and L. BonneauPublished 1 December 2009 // 238001
Three-Dimensional Characterization of ActiveMembrane Waves on Living CellsChien-Hong Chen, Feng-Ching Tsai, Chun-ChiehWang, and Chau-Hwang LeePublished 30 November 2009 // 238101
Cooperativity and Frustration in Protein-Mediated Parallel Actin BundlesHomin Shin, Kirstin R. Purdy Drew, James R.Bartles, Gerard C. L. Wong, and Gregory M.GrasonPublished 30 November 2009 // 238102
Intrinsic Contact Angle of Aqueous Phases atMembranes and VesiclesHalim Kusumaatmaja, Yanhong Li, RumianaDimova, and Reinhard LipowskyPublished 2 December 2009 // 238103
Origin of Power Laws for Reactions at MetalSurfaces Mediated by Hot ElectronsThomas Olsen and Jakob SchiøtzPublished 30 November 2009 // 238301
Concerted Hydrogen-Bond Dynamics in theTransport Mechanism of the Hydrated Proton: AFirst-Principles Molecular Dynamics StudyTimothy C. Berkelbach, Hee-Seung Lee, and MarkE. TuckermanPublished 30 November 2009 // 238302
Shape-Induced Dispersion of Colloids inAnisotropic FluidsF. Mondiot, S. Prathap Chandran, O. Mondain-Monval, and J.-C. LoudetPublished 4 December 2009 // 238303
Granger Causality and Transfer Entropy AreEquivalent for Gaussian VariablesLionel Barnett, Adam B. Barrett, and Anil K. SethPublished 4 December 2009 // 238701
11 December 2009Volume 103, Number 24, Articles (24xxxx)http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PRLTAO&Volume=103&Issue=24
Reduced Interfacial Entanglement DensityAffects the Boundary Conditions of PolymerFlowO. Bäumchen, R. Fetzer, and K. JacobsPublished 8 December 2009 // 247801
Topological Phonon Modes and Their Role inDynamic Instability of MicrotubulesEmil Prodan and Camelia ProdanPublished 7 December 2009 // 248101
Modeling Torque Versus Speed, Shot Noise,and Rotational Diffusion of the BacterialFlagellar MotorThierry Mora, Howard Yu, and Ned S. WingreenPublished 8 December 2009 // 248102
Dynamics of Vesicle Unbinding underAxisymmetric FlowSunita Chatkaew, Marc Georgelin, Marc Jaeger,and Marc LeonettiPublished 8 December 2009 // 248103
PRL HIGHLIGHTS
12
Nonequilibrium 1/f Noise in RectifyingNanoporesMatthew R. Powell, Ivan Vlassiouk, Craig Martens,and Zuzanna S. SiwyPublished 9 December 2009 // 248104
Coding of Information in Limit Cycle OscillatorsJan-Hendrik Schleimer and Martin StemmlerPublished 9 December 2009 // 248105
Statistical Properties of MetastableIntermediates in DNA UnzippingJ. M. Huguet, N. Forns, and F. RitortPublished 10 December 2009 // 248106
Self-Organized Criticality in ShearedSuspensionsL. Corté, S. J. Gerbode, W. Man, and D. J. PinePublished 7 December 2009 // 248301
Competition between Shear Banding and WallSlip in Wormlike MicellesM. Paul Lettinga and Sébastien MannevillePublished 8 December 2009 // 248302
Hydrodynamic Mobility of an Optically TrappedColloidal Particle near Fluid-Fluid InterfacesG. M. Wang, R. Prabhakar, and E. M. SevickPublished 8 December 2009 // 248303
Stringlike Clusters and Cooperative InterlayerPermeation in Smectic Liquid Crystals Formedby Colloidal RodsAlessandro Patti, Djamel El Masri, René van Roij,and Marjolein DijkstraPublished 9 December 2009 // 248304
Structural Relaxation of a Gel Modeled by ThreeBody InteractionsShibu Saw, Niels L. Ellegaard, Walter Kob, andSrikanth SastryPublished 11 December 2009 // 248305
Computing with Noise: Phase Transitions inBoolean FormulasAlexander Mozeika, David Saad, and JackRaymondPublished 11 December 2009 // 248701
18 December 2009Volume 103, Number 25, Articles (25xxxx)http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PRLTAO&Volume=103&Issue=25
Two-Step Mechanism of Rotational Relaxationin Lamellar Phases of Rods: Accelerating Effect
of the Addition of SpheresGiorgio Cinacchi and Luca De GaetaniPublished 14 December 2009 // 257801
Ions at the Air-Water Interface: An End to aHundred-Year-Old Mystery?Yan Levin, Alexandre P. dos Santos, andAlexandre DiehlPublished 17 December 2009 // 257802
Liquid Crystal Director Dynamics Imaged UsingTwo-Photon Fluorescence Microscopy withRemote FocusingP. S. Salter, G. Carbone, E. J. Botcherby, T.Wilson, S. J. Elston, and E. P. RaynesPublished 18 December 2009 // 257803
Helical Nanofilaments and the High ChiralityLimit of Smectics AElisabetta A. Matsumoto, Gareth P. Alexander, andRandall D. KamienPublished 18 December 2009 // 257804
Role of Spatial Averaging in the Precision ofGene Expression PatternsThorsten Erdmann, Martin Howard, and Pieter Reinten WoldePublished 17 December 2009 // 258101
Experimental Realization of Biaxial LiquidCrystal Phases in Colloidal Dispersions ofBoardlike ParticlesE. van den Pol, A. V. Petukhov, D. M. E. Thies-Weesie, D. V. Byelov, and G. J. VroegePublished 17 December 2009 // 258301
Scaling of the Space-Time Correlation Functionof Particle Currents in a Suspension of Hard-Sphere-Like Particles: Exposing When theMotion of Particles is BrownianW. van Megen, V. A. Martinez, and G. BryantPublished 17 December 2009 // 258302
31 December 2009Volume 103, Number 26, Articles (26xxxx)http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PRLTAO&Volume=103&Issue=26
! S!e!l!f!-!C!o!n!n!e!c!t!e!d! !3!D! !A!r!c!h!i!t!e!c!t!u!r!e! !o!f! !M!i!c!r!o!w!i!r!e!s!!J!e!a!n!-!B!a!p!t!i!s!t!e! !F!l!e!u!r!y!,! !D!a!v!i!d! !P!i!r!e!s!,! !a!n!d! !Y!v!e!s!!G!a!l!e!r!n!e!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !3!0! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! !// !6!7!8!0!1!
!
13
R!a!n!d!o!m! !M!a!t!r!i!x! !A!p!p!r!o!a!c!h! !t!o! !C!o!l!l!e!c!t!i!v!e! !B!e!h!a!v!i!o!r!!a!n!d! !B!u!l!k! !U!n!i!v!e!r!s!a!l!i!t!y! !i!n! !P!r!o!t!e!i!n! !D!y!n!a!m!i!c!s!!R!a!f!f!a!e!l!l!o! !P!o!t!e!s!t!i!o!,! !F!a!b!i!o! !C!a!c!c!i!o!l!i!,! !a!n!d! !P!i!e!r!p!a!o!l!o!!V!i!v!o!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !2!9! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! !// 2!6!8!1!0!1
!B!i!o!l!o!g!i!c!a!l! !P!r!o!t!o!n! !P!u!m!p!i!n!g! !i!n! !a!n! !O!s!c!i!l!l!a!t!i!n!g!!E!l!e!c!t!r!i!c! !F!i!e!l!d!!Y!o!u!n!g! !C!.! !K!i!m!,! !L!e!o!n! !A!.! !F!u!r!c!h!t!g!o!t!t!,! !a!n!d! !G!e!r!h!a!r!d!!H!u!m!m!e!r!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !2!9! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! // !2!6!8!1!0!2
!J!a!m!m!i!n!g! !P!r!o!t!e!i!n!s! !w!i!t!h! !S!l!i!p!k!n!o!t!s! !a!n!d! !T!h!e!i!r! !F!r!e!e!!E!n!e!r!g!y! !L!a!n!d!s!c!a!p!e!!J!o!a!n!n!a! !I!.! !S!ul!k!o!w!s!k!a!,! !P!i!o!t!r! !S!ul!k!o!w!s!k!a!,! !a!n!d! !J!o!s!é !N!.!!O!n!u!c!h!i!c!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !2!9! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! //2!6!8!1!0!3!
8 January 2010Volume 104, Number 1, Articles (1xxxx)http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PRLTAO&Volume=104&Issue=1
!!N!o!v!e!l! !D!e!f!e!c!t! !S!t!r!u!c!t!u!r!e!s! !i!n! !a! !S!t!r!o!n!g!l!y! !C!o!n!f!i!n!e!d!!L!i!q!u!i!d!-!C!r!y!s!t!a!l!l!i!n!e! !B!l!u!e! !P!h!a!s!e!!J!u!n!-!i!c!h!i! !F!u!k!u!d!a! !a!n!d! !S!l!o!b!o!d!a!n! Z!u!m!e!r!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !4! !J!a!n!u!a!r!y! !2!0!1!0! // 0!1!7!8!0!1!
!H!i!d!d!e!n! !S!l!o!w! !D!y!n!a!m!i!c!s! !i!n! !W!a!t!e!r!!H!e!l!e!n! !J!a!n!s!s!o!n!,! !R!i!k!a!r!d! !B!e!r!g!m!a!n!,! !a!n!d! !J!a!n! !S!w!e!n!s!o!n!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !8! !J!a!n!u!a!r!y! !2!0!1!0! !// 0!1!7!8!0!2
!M!i!c!r!o!t!u!b!u!l!e! !E!l!a!s!t!i!c!i!t!y!:! !C!o!n!n!e!c!t!i!n!g! !A!l!l!-!A!t!o!m!!S!i!m!u!l!a!t!i!o!n!s! !w!i!t!h! !C!o!n!t!i!n!u!u!m! !M!e!c!h!a!n!i!c!s!!D!a!v!i!d! !S!e!p!t! !a!n!d! !F!r!e!d! !C!.! !M!a!c!K!i!n!t!o!s!h!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !4! !J!a!n!u!a!r!y! !2!0!1!0! !// 0!1!8!1!0!1!
!I!n!t!r!i!n!s!i!c! !E!l!e!c!t!r!i!c!a!l! !a!n!d! !T!h!e!r!m!a!l! !P!r!o!p!e!r!t!i!e!s! !f!r!o!m!!S!i!n!g!l!e! !C!r!y!s!t!a!l!s! !o!f! !N!a!2!4!S!i!1!3!6!!M!.! !B!e!e!k!m!a!n!,! !W!.! !S!c!h!n!e!l!l!e!,! !H!.! !B!o!r!r!m!a!n!n!,! !M!.!!B!a!i!t!i!n!g!e!r!,! !Y!u!.! !G!r!i!n!,! !a!n!d! !G!.! !S!.! !N!o!l!a!s!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !8! !J!a!n!u!a!r!y! !2!0!1!0! // 0!1!8!3!0!1!
!T!o!w!a!r!d!s! !D!e!s!i!g!n! !P!r!i!n!c!i!p!l!e!s! !f!o!r! !O!p!t!i!m!a!l!!T!r!a!n!s!p!o!r!t! !N!e!t!w!o!r!k!s!!G!.! !L!i!,! !S!.! !D!.! !S!.! !R!e!i!s!,! !A!.! !A!.! !M!o!r!e!i!r!a!,! !S!.! !H!a!v!l!i!n!,! !H!.! !E!.!!S!t!a!n!l!e!y!,! !a!n!d! !J!.! !S!.! !A!n!d!r!a!d!e!,! !J!r!.!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !6! !J!a!n!u!a!r!y! !2!0!1!0! // 0!1!8!7!0!1!
15 January 2010Volume 104, Number 2, Articles (2xxxx)http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PRLTAO&Volume=104&Issue=2
Discovery of a Novel Smectic-C* Liquid-CrystalPhase with Six-Layer PeriodicityShun Wang, LiDong Pan, R. Pindak, Z. Q. Liu, H.T. Nguyen, and C. C. Huang
Published 13 January 2010 // 027801
Non-Newtonian Granular Hydrodynamics. WhatDo the Inelastic Simple Shear Flow and theElastic Fourier Flow Have in Common?Francisco Vega Reyes, Andrés Santos, andVicente GarzóPublished 13 January 2010 // 028001
Electronic Excitations Generated by theDeposition of Mg on Mg FilmsU. Hagemann, D. Krix, and H. NienhausPublished 14 January 2010 // 028301
Multidimensional Optical Fractionation ofColloidal Particles with Holographic VerificationKe Xiao and David G. GrierPublished 15 January 2010 // 028302
22 January 2010Volume 104, Number 3, Articles (3xxxx)http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PRLTAO&Volume=104&Issue=3
Onset of Convection in Strongly ShakenGranular MatterPeter Eshuis, Devaraj van der Meer, MeheboobAlam, Henk Jan van Gerner, Ko van der Weele,and Detlef LohsePublished 22 January 2010 // 038001
Viscoelastic Fluid Response Can Increase theSpeed and Efficiency of a Free SwimmerJoseph Teran, Lisa Fauci, and Michael ShelleyPublished 19 January 2010 // 038101
Simple Model for the Mechanics of Spider WebsYuko Aoyanagi and Ko OkumuraPublished 20 January 2010 // 038102
Distinguishing Direct from Indirect Interactionsin Oscillatory Networks with Multiple TimeScalesJakob Nawrath, M. Carmen Romano, Marco Thiel,István Z. Kiss, Mahesh Wickramasinghe, JensTimmer, Jürgen Kurths, and Björn SchelterPublished 21 January 2010 // 038701
29 January 2009Volume 104, Number 4, Articles (4xxxx)http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PRLTAO&Volume=104&Issue=4
!L!o!c!a!l!i!z!e!d! !R!a!y!l!e!i!g!h! !I!n!s!t!a!b!i!l!i!t!y! !i!n! !E!v!a!p!o!r!a!t!i!o!n!!F!r!o!n!t!s!!H!a!i!m! !D!i!a!m!a!n!t! !a!n!d! !O!d!e!d! !A!g!a!m!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !2!9! !J!a!n!u!a!r!y! !2!0!1!0! // !0!4!7!8!0!1
14
!M!e!c!h!a!n!i!s!m! !o!f! !M!o!l!e!c!u!l!a!r! !E!x!c!h!a!n!g!e! !i!n! !D!i!b!l!o!c!k!!C!o!p!o!l!y!m!e!r! !M!i!c!e!l!l!e!s!:! !H!y!p!e!r!s!e!n!s!i!t!i!v!i!t!y! !t!o! !C!o!r!e!!C!h!a!i!n! !L!e!n!g!t!h!!S!o!o!-!H!y!u!n!g! !C!h!o!i!,! !T!i!m!o!t!h!y! !P!.! !L!o!d!g!e!,! !a!n!d! !F!r!a!n!k! !S!.!!B!a!t!e!s!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !2!9! !J!a!n!u!a!r!y! !2!0!1!0! !// 0!4!7!8!0!2!
!S!i!n!g!l!e!-!M!o!l!e!c!u!l!e! !R!u!p!t!u!r!e! !D!y!n!a!m!i!c!s! !o!n!!M!u!l!t!i!d!i!m!e!n!s!i!o!n!a!l! !L!a!n!d!s!c!a!p!e!s!!Y!o!h!i!c!h!i! !S!u!z!u!k!i! !a!n!d! !O!l!g!a! !K!.! !D!u!d!k!o!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !2!5! !J!a!n!u!a!r!y! !2!0!1!0! !// 0!4!8!1!0!1!
!F!e!m!t!o!n!e!w!t!o!n! !E!n!t!r!o!p!i!c! !F!o!r!c!e!s! !C!a!n! !C!o!n!t!r!o!l! !t!h!e!!F!o!r!m!a!t!i!o!n! !o!f! !P!r!o!t!e!i!n!-!M!e!d!i!a!t!e!d! !D!N!A! !L!o!o!p!s!!Y!i!h!-!F!a!n! !C!h!e!n!,! !J!.! !N!.! !M!i!l!s!t!e!i!n!,! !a!n!d! !J!e!n!s!-!C!h!r!i!s!t!i!a!n!!M!e!i!n!e!r!s!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !2!8! !J!a!n!u!a!r!y! !2!0!1!0! !// 0!4!8!3!0!1!!!R!e!d!u!n!d!a!n!c!y! !a!n!d! !E!r!r!o!r! !R!e!s!i!l!i!e!n!c!e! !i!n! !B!o!o!l!e!a!n!!N!e!t!w!o!r!k!s!!T!i!a!g!o! !P!.! !P!e!i!x!o!t!o!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !2!5! !J!a!n!u!a!r!y! !2!0!1!0! // 0!4!8!7!0!1!
!O!p!t!i!m!a!l! !F!o!r!m! !o!f! !B!r!a!n!c!h!i!n!g! !S!u!p!p!l!y! !a!n!d!!C!o!l!l!e!c!t!i!o!n! !N!e!t!w!o!r!k!s!!P!e!t!e!r! !S!h!e!r!i!d!a!n! !D!o!d!d!s!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !2!7! !J!a!n!u!a!r!y! !2!0!1!0! // 0!4!8!7!0!2!
!F!l!u!c!t!u!a!t!i!o!n!s! !a!n!d! !R!e!d!u!n!d!a!n!c!y! !i!n! !O!p!t!i!m!a!l!!T!r!a!n!s!p!o!r!t! !N!e!t!w!o!r!k!s!!F!r!a!n!c!i!s! !C!o!r!s!o!n!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !2!9! !J!a!n!u!a!r!y! !2!0!1!0! !// 0!4!8!7!0!3
!D!a!m!a!g!e! !a!n!d! !F!l!u!c!t!u!a!t!i!o!n!s! !I!n!d!u!c!e! !L!o!o!p!s! !i!n!!O!p!t!i!m!a!l! !T!r!a!n!s!p!o!r!t! !N!e!t!w!o!r!k!s!!E!l!e!n!i! !K!a!t!i!f!o!r!i!,! !G!e!r!g!e!l!y! !J!.! !S!zollosi!,! !a!n!d! !M!a!r!c!e!l!o! !O!.!!M!a!g!n!a!s!c!o!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !2!9! !J!a!n!u!a!r!y! !2!0!1!0! !// 0!4!8!7!0!4
15
Biological Physics Articles fromPhysical Review E
December 2009Volume 80, Number 6, Articles (06xxxx)http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PLEEE8&Volume=80&Issue=6
RAPID COMMUNICATIONS
Nonlinear dynamics of cell orientationS. A. Safran and Rumi DePublished 30 December 2009 // 060901(R)
ARTICLES
!S!t!o!c!h!a!s!t!i!c! !m!o!d!e!l! !o!f! !s!e!l!f!-!a!s!s!e!m!b!l!y! !o!f! !c!e!l!l!-!l!a!d!e!n!!h!y!d!r!o!g!e!l!s!!Z!h!e!n!y!u! !S!h!i!,! !N!a!n! !C!h!e!n!,! !Y!a!n!a!n! !D!u!,! !A!l!i!!K!h!a!d!e!m!h!o!s!s!e!i!n!i!,! !a!n!d! !M!a!r!k! !A!l!b!e!r!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !4! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! !// 0!6!1!9!0!1!
!A!g!g!r!e!g!a!t!i!o!n! !o!f! !c!h!e!m!o!t!a!c!t!i!c! !o!r!g!a!n!i!s!m!s! !i!n! !a!!d!i!f!f!e!r!e!n!t!i!a!l! !f!l!o!w!!J!a!v!i!e!r! ! Muñoz !-!G!a!r!c!Ì!a! !a!n!d! !Z!o!l!t!a!n! !N!e!u!f!e!l!d!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !4! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9 // 0!6!1!9!0!2!
!C!o!m!p!u!t!e!r! !s!i!m!u!l!a!t!i!o!n! !o!f! !w!o!u!n!d! !c!l!o!s!u!r!e! !i!n!!e!p!i!t!h!e!l!i!a!l! !t!i!s!s!u!e!s!:! !C!e!l!l - !b!a!s!a!l!-!l!a!m!i!n!a! !a!d!h!e!s!i!o!n!!T!a!t!s!u!z!o! !N!a!g!a!i! !a!n!d! !H!i!s!a!o! !H!o!n!d!a!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !9! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! // 0!6!1!9!0!3!
!B!a!s!e!-!p!a!i!r! !o!p!e!n!i!n!g! !a!n!d! !b!u!b!b!l!e! !t!r!a!n!s!p!o!r!t! !i!n! !a!!D!N!A! !d!o!u!b!l!e! !h!e!l!i!x! !i!n!d!u!c!e!d! !b!y! !a! !p!r!o!t!e!i!n! !m!o!l!e!c!u!l!e!!i!n! !a! !v!i!s!c!o!u!s! !m!e!d!i!u!m!!V!.! !V!a!s!u!m!a!t!h!i! !a!n!d! !M!.! !D!a!n!i!e!l!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !9! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! // 0!6!1!9!0!4!
!V!e!s!i!c!l!e!s! !u!n!d!e!r! !s!i!m!p!l!e! !s!h!e!a!r! !f!l!o!w!:! !E!l!u!c!i!d!a!t!i!n!g!!t!h!e! !r!o!l!e! !o!f! !r!e!l!e!v!a!n!t! !c!o!n!t!r!o!l! !p!a!r!a!m!e!t!e!r!s!!B!a!d!r! !K!a!o!u!i!,! !A!l!e!x!a!n!d!e!r! !F!a!r!u!t!i!n!,! !a!n!d! !C!h!a!o!u!q!i!!M!i!s!b!a!h!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !9! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! // 0!6!1!9!0!5!
!N!o!n!l!i!n!e!a!r! !b!r!e!a!t!h!i!n!g! !m!o!d!e!s! !a!t! !a! !d!e!f!e!c!t! !s!i!t!e! !i!n!!D!N!A!!C!i!p!r!i!a!n!-!I!o!n!ut! !D!u!d!u!i!a!la!,! !J!o!n!a!t!h!a!n! !A!.! !D!.! !W!a!t!t!i!s!,! !I!a!n!!L!.! !D!r!y!d!e!n!,! !a!n!d! !C!h!a!r!l!e!s! !A!.! !L!a!u!g!h!t!o!n!
!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !1!0! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9 // 0!6!1!9!0!6!
!C!r!i!t!i!c!a!l! !e!x!a!m!i!n!a!t!i!o!n! !o!f! !t!h!e! !i!n!h!e!r!e!n!t!-!s!t!r!u!c!t!u!r!e!-!l!a!n!d!s!c!a!p!e! !a!n!a!l!y!s!i!s! !o!f! !t!w!o!-!s!t!a!t!e! !f!o!l!d!i!n!g! !p!r!o!t!e!i!n!s!!J!o!h!a!n!n!e!s!-!G!e!e!r!t! !H!a!g!m!a!n!n!,! !N!a!o!k!o! !N!a!k!a!g!a!w!a!,! !a!n!d!!M!i!c!h!e!l! !P!e!y!r!a!r!d!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !1!1! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! // !0!6!1!9!0!7!
!P!h!o!t!o!n!i!c! !c!r!y!s!t!a!l! !f!i!b!e!r! !i!n! !t!h!e! !p!o!l!y!c!h!a!e!t!e! !w!o!r!m!!P!h!e!r!u!s!a! !s!p!.!!T!o!m!a!s!z! !M!.! !T!r!z!e!c!i!a!k! !a!n!d! !P!e!t!e!r! !V!u!k!u!s!i!c!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !1!4! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! // 0!6!1!9!0!8!
!L!e!n!g!t!h!-!d!e!p!e!n!d!e!n!t! !f!o!r!c!e! !c!h!a!r!a!c!t!e!r!i!s!t!i!c!s! !o!f!!c!o!i!l!e!d! !c!o!i!l!s!!S!a!r!a! !S!a!d!e!g!h!i! !a!n!d! !E!l!d!o!n! !E!m!b!e!r!l!y!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !1!4! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! !// 0!6!1!9!0!9!
!M!a!x!i!m!u!m!,! !m!i!n!i!m!u!m!,! !a!n!d! !o!p!t!i!m!a!l! !m!u!t!a!t!i!o!n! !r!a!t!e!s!!i!n! !d!y!n!a!m!i!c! !e!n!v!i!r!o!n!m!e!n!t!s!!M!a!r!k! !A!n!c!l!i!f!f! !a!n!d! !J!e!o!n!g!-!M!a!n! !P!a!r!k!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !1!5! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! // 0!6!1!9!1!0!
!D!i!s!o!r!d!e!r!e!d!,! !s!t!r!e!t!c!h!e!d!,! !a!n!d! !s!e!m!i!f!l!e!x!i!b!l!e!!b!i!o!p!o!l!y!m!e!r!s! !i!n! !t!w!o! !d!i!m!e!n!s!i!o!n!s!!Z!i!c!o!n!g! !Z!h!o!u! !a!n!d! !B!e!l!a! !J!o!o!s!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !1!7! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! // 0!6!1!9!1!1!
!E!l!a!s!t!i!c! !e!n!e!r!g!y! !o!f! !p!r!o!t!e!i!n!-!D!N!A! !c!h!i!m!e!r!a!s!!C!h!i!a!o!-!Y!u! !T!s!e!n!g!,! !A!n!d!r!e!w! !W!a!n!g!,! !G!i!o!v!a!n!n!i! !Z!o!c!c!h!i!,!!B!i!l!j!a!n!a! !R!o!l!i!h!,! !a!n!d! !A!l!e!x! !J!.! !L!e!v!i!n!e!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !1!7! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! // 0!6!1!9!1!2!
!F!i!n!i!t!e!-!t!e!m!p!e!r!a!t!u!r!e! !l!o!c!a!l! !p!r!o!t!e!i!n! !s!e!q!u!e!n!c!e!!a!l!i!g!n!m!e!n!t!:! !P!e!r!c!o!l!a!t!i!o!n! !a!n!d! !f!r!e!e!-!e!n!e!r!g!y!!d!i!s!t!r!i!b!u!t!i!o!n!!S!.! !W!o!l!f!s!h!e!i!m!e!r!,! !O!.! !M!e!l!c!h!e!r!t!,! !a!n!d! !A!.! !K!.! !H!a!r!t!m!a!n!n!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !1!7! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! // 0!6!1!9!1!3!
!S!p!o!n!t!a!n!e!o!u!s! !b!r!a!i!n! !a!c!t!i!v!i!t!y! !a!s! !a! !s!o!u!r!c!e! !o!f! !i!d!e!a!l!!1!/!f! !n!o!i!s!e!!P!a!o!l!o! !A!l!l!e!g!r!i!n!i!,! !D!a!n!i!l!o! !M!e!n!i!c!u!c!c!i!,! !R!e!m!o! !B!e!d!i!n!i!,!!L!e!o!n!e! !F!r!o!n!z!o!n!i!,! !A!n!g!e!l!o! !G!e!m!i!g!n!a!n!i!,! !P!a!o!l!o!!G!r!i!g!o!l!i!n!i!,! !B!r!u!c!e! !J!.! !W!e!s!t!,! !a!n!d! !P!a!o!l!o! !P!a!r!a!d!i!s!i!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !1!8! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! // 0!6!1!9!1!4
!E!f!f!e!c!t! !o!f! !c!o!r!r!e!l!a!t!e!d! !l!a!t!e!r!a!l! !g!e!n!i!c!u!l!a!t!e! !n!u!c!l!e!u!s!!f!i!r!i!n!g! !r!a!t!e!s! !o!n! !p!r!e!d!i!c!t!i!o!n!s! !f!o!r! !m!o!n!o!c!u!l!a!r! !e!y!e!!c!l!o!s!u!r!e! !v!e!r!s!u!s! !m!o!n!o!c!u!l!a!r! !r!e!t!i!n!a!l! !i!n!a!c!t!i!v!a!t!i!o!n!
PRE HIGHLIGHTS
16
!B!r!i!a!n! !S!.! !B!l!a!i!s!,! !L!e!o!n! !N! !C!o!o!p!e!r!,! !a!n!d! !H!a!r!e!l! !Z!.!!S!h!o!u!v!a!l!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !2!1! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! // 0!6!1!9!1!5 !!!M!a!x!i!m!u!m! !l!i!k!e!l!i!h!o!o!d! !e!s!t!i!m!a!t!i!o!n! !o!f! !p!r!o!t!e!i!n!!k!i!n!e!t!i!c! !p!a!r!a!m!e!t!e!r!s! !u!n!d!e!r! !w!e!a!k! !a!s!s!u!m!p!t!i!o!n!s!!f!r!o!m! !u!n!f!o!l!d!i!n!g! !f!o!r!c!e! !s!p!e!c!t!r!o!s!c!o!p!y! !e!x!p!e!r!i!m!e!n!t!s!!D!a!n!i!e!l! !A!i!o!a!n!e!i!,! !B!r!u!n!o! !S!a!m!o!r!Ï!,! !a!n!d! !M!a!r!c!o! !B!r!u!c!a!l!e!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !2!3! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! // !6!1!9!1!6!
!A!d!a!p!t!i!v!e! !s!e!l!f!-!o!r!g!a!n!i!z!a!t!i!o!n! !i!n! !a! !r!e!a!l!i!s!t!i!c! !n!e!u!r!a!l!!n!e!t!w!o!r!k! !m!o!d!e!l!!C!h!r!i!s!t!i!a!n! !M!e!i!s!e!l! !a!n!d! !T!h!i!l!o! !G!r!o!s!s!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !2!3! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9 // 0!6!1!9!1!7!
!E!f!f!e!c!t! !o!f! !h!y!d!r!o!g!e!n! !b!o!n!d! !n!e!t!w!o!r!k!s! !o!n! !t!h!e!!n!u!c!l!e!a!t!i!o!n! !m!e!c!h!a!n!i!s!m! !o!f! !p!r!o!t!e!i!n! !f!o!l!d!i!n!g!!Y!.! !S!.! !D!j!i!k!a!e!v! !a!n!d! !E!l!i! !R!u!c!k!e!n!s!t!e!i!n!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !2!9! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! // 0!6!1!9!1!8
!M!i!n!i!m!a!l! !m!o!d!e!l! !f!o!r! !s!y!n!c!h!r!o!n!i!z!a!t!i!o!n! !i!n!d!u!c!e!d! !b!y!!h!y!d!r!o!d!y!n!a!m!i!c! !i!n!t!e!r!a!c!t!i!o!n!s!!B!i!a!n! !Q!i!a!n!,! !H!o!n!g!y!u!a!n! !J!i!a!n!g!,! !D!a!v!i!d! !A!.! !G!a!g!n!o!n!,!!K!e!n!n!e!t!h! !S!.! !B!r!e!u!e!r!,! !a!n!d! !T!h!o!m!a!s! !R!.! !P!o!w!e!r!s!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !3!0! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! // 0!6!1!9!1!9!
!P!i!t!c!h!f!o!r!k! !a!n!d! !H!o!p!f! !b!i!f!u!r!c!a!t!i!o!n! !t!h!r!e!s!h!o!l!d!s! !i!n!!s!t!o!c!h!a!s!t!i!c! !e!q!u!a!t!i!o!n!s! !w!i!t!h! !d!e!l!a!y!e!d! !f!e!e!d!b!a!c!k!!M!a!t!h!i!e!u! !G!a!u!d!r!e!a!u!l!t!,! !F!r!a!n!!co!i!s!e! !L!e!p!i!n!e!,! !a!n!d! !J!o!r!g!e!!V!i!n!a!l!s!!P!u!b!l!i!s!h!e!d! !3!1! !D!e!c!e!m!b!e!r! !2!0!0!9! // 0!6!1!9!2!0
BRIEF REPORTS
Curvature and shape determination of growingbacteriaRanjan Mukhopadhyay and Ned S. WingreenPublished 17 December 2009 // 062901
Contrasting methods for symbolic analysis ofbiological regulatory networksRoy Wilds and Leon GlassPublished 29 December 2009 // 062902
January 2010Volume 81, Number 1, Articles (01xxxx)http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PLEEE8&Volume=81&Issue=1
RAPID COMMUNICATIONS
Wave-train-induced termination of weaklyanchored vortices in excitable mediaAlain Pumir, Sitabhra Sinha, S. Sridhar, MédéricArgentina, Marcel Hörning, Simonetta Filippi,
Christian Cherubini, Stefan Luther, and ValentinKrinskyPublished 11 January 2010 // 010901(R)
Unfolding times for proteins in a force clampStefano Luccioli, Alberto Imparato, SimonMitternacht, Anders Irbäck, and Alessandro TorciniPublished 29 January 2010 // 010902(R)
ARTICLES
Inelastic neutron scattering study of light-induced dynamics of a photosyntheticmembrane systemA. Furrer and A. StöckliPublished 5 January 2010 // 011901
Quasispecies theory for finite populationsJeong-Man Park, Enrique Muñoz, and Michael W.DeemPublished 6 January 2010 // 011902
Nonlinear diffusion and exclusion processeswith contact interactionsAnthony E. Fernando, Kerry A. Landman, andMatthew J. SimpsonPublished 11 January 2010 // 011903
Adhesion of cylindrical colloids to the surfaceof a membraneSergey Mkrtchyan, Christopher Ing, and Jeff Z. Y.ChenPublished 12 January 2010 // 011904
Hydrodynamics in curved membranes: Theeffect of geometry on particulate mobilityMark L. Henle and Alex J. LevinePublished 12 January 2010 // 011905
Decoherence dynamics of coherent electronicexcited states in the photosynthetic purplebacterium Rhodobacter sphaeroidesXian-Ting Liang, Wei-Min Zhang, and Yi-ZhongZhuoPublished 13 January 2010 // 011906
Mean-field theory of a plastic network ofintegrate-and-fire neuronsChun-Chung Chen and David JasnowPublished 13 January 2010 // 011907
Influence of nonequilibrium lipid transport,membrane compartmentalization, andmembrane proteins on the lateral organizationof the plasma membraneJun Fan, Maria Sammalkorpi, and Mikko Haataja
17
Published 14 January 2010 // 011908
Plasmid copy number noise in monoclonalpopulations of bacteriaJérôme Wong Ng, Didier Chatenay, Jérôme Robert,and Michael Guy PoirierPublished 14 January 2010 // 011909
Effect of the natural state of an elastic cellularmembrane on tank-treading and tumblingmotions of a single red blood cellKen-ichi Tsubota and Shigeo WadaPublished 20 January 2010 // 011910
Coupling regularizes individual units in noisypopulationsCheng Ly and G. Bard ErmentroutPublished 21 January 2010 // 011911
Effects of the promoter open complex formationon gene expression dynamicsAndre S. Ribeiro, Antti Häkkinen, HenrikMannerström, Jason Lloyd-Price, and Olli Yli-HarjaPublished 22 January 2010 // 011912
Flexible traffic control of the synfire-modetransmission by inhibitory modulation:Nonlinear noise reductionTakashi Shinozaki, Masato Okada, Alex D. Reyes,and Hideyuki CâteauPublished 22 January 2010 // 011913
Discrete, continuous, and stochastic models ofprotein sorting in the Golgi apparatusHaijun Gong, Yusong Guo, Adam Linstedt, andRussell SchwartzPublished 25 January 2010 // 011914
Off-site control of repolarization alternans incardiac fibersTrine Krogh-Madsen, Alain Karma, Mark L. Riccio,Peter N. Jordan, David J. Christini, and Robert F.Gilmour, Jr.Published 25 January 2010 // 011915
Time scales of spike-train correlation for neuraloscillators with common driveAndrea K. Barreiro, Eric Shea-Brown, and Evan L.ThiloPublished 27 January 2010 // 011916
Rate-synchrony relationship between input andoutput of spike trains in neuronal networksSentao Wang and Changsong ZhouPublished 28 January 2010 // 011917
Comparison of Langevin and Markov channelnoise models for neuronal signal generationB. Sengupta, S. B. Laughlin, and J. E. NivenPublished 29 January 2010 // 011918
Predicting the stochastic guiding of kinesin-driven microtubules in microfabricated tracks:A statistical-mechanics-based modelingapproachChih-Tin Lin, Edgar Meyhofer, and KatsuoKurabayashiPublished 29 January 2010 // 011919
BRIEF REPORTS
Breakdown of thermodynamic equilibrium forDNA hybridization in microarraysJ. Hooyberghs, M. Baiesi, A. Ferrantini, and E.CarlonPublished 13 January 2010 // 012901
18
Employment Opportunities
The Biocomplexity InstituteIndiana University, Bloomington
Multiple positions available:
Computational/Developmental Biology ScientistLanguage Development Specialist
Software DeveloperDevelopmental Biology-Cell Biology-Biochemistry Experimentalist
Send CV, research summary and 2 papers or projects, along with a brief statement ofrelevance of background to position applied for, to Prof. James A. Glazier,[email protected]. Please arrange to have three letters of reference sent separately.Searches will begin immediately and will continue until positions are filled. For moreinformation, please see www.bioocomplexity.indiana.edu and www.compucell3d.orgor contact Prof. Glazier by e-mail. Indiana University is an EOAAE.
19
The Bruno H. ZimmBiological Physics Postdoctoral Fellowship
The Center for Theoretical Biological Physics (CTBP) at the University of California, SanDiego invites applications for the Bruno H. Zimm Postdoctoral Fellowship
Applications are due November 15, 2010
For additional information and application instructions, visit:
http://ctbp.ucsd.edu/zimm_fellowship.html
CTBP is a consortium of researchers from UCSD, the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, and theUniversity of Michigan, involved in research on fundamental problems at the interface betweenphysics and biology. Research encompasses three synergy themes – Cellular Tectonics, thedynamic mesoscale structure of the intracellular milieu; Computational Approaches toIntracellular and Intercellular Communication, chemical-based reaction-diffusion governedcommunication across complex spaces; and Gene Regulatory Networks, genetic/signalingnetworks that exhibit specificity and robustness in the face of intrinsic stochasticity, and yet retainevolvability. The Zimm fellowship is for recent graduates who have demonstrated exceptionalresearch aptitude and are interested in pursuing more independent, semi-autonomous research thanis available in a traditional postdoctoral position. Zimm fellows will be expected to pursue intensiveresearch in any area of biological physics related to the CTBP research synergies.
CTBP Faculty include: Henry Abarbanel, Physics, UCSD Charles L. Brooks, III, U Michigan Olga Dudko, Physics, UCSD Michael Holst, Mathematics, UCSD Terence Hwa, Physics, UCSD Herbert Levine, Physics, UCSD Bo Li, Mathematics, UCSD J. Andrew McCammon, Chemistry, UCSD José Onuchic, Physics, UCSD Wouter-Jan Rappel, Physics, UCSD Terence Sejnowski, Salk Institute Tatyana Sharpee, Salk Institute Wei Wang, Chemistry, UCSD
For more information contact Christopher Smith, PhD., CTBP, Department of Physics, 9500 Gilman Drive, MC0374,University of California, San Diego, CA 92093, [email protected] (858) 534-8370
CTBP is a Physics Frontiers Center of the National Science Foundation
20
Conferences, Meetings, Workshops, Summer SchoolsIf you would like to post an announcement for a workshop or conference in this Newsletter,send your notice (text) or a PDF document (resized to a maximum size of 7 inches x 10inches) to the editors.
The APS March Meeting
March 15-19, 2010Oregon Convention CenterPortland, Oregon
http://www.aps.org/meetings/march/index.cfm
The Physics of EvolutionCenter for Theoretical Biological Physics
August 30 – September 3, 2010University of California San Diego
For Information and/or To Apply :http://ctbp.ucsd.edu/workshops/index.php?id=29
Deadline: June 15
CTBP is currently accepting applications for our annual Summer School/Workshop. Applications will be reviewed on orbefore June 15, and invitations sent no later than June 30. Invited applicants will be provided housing, meals, andregistration. Travel awards may be provided to graduate student and post-doctoral invitees. For additional information,contact: Christopher M. Smith, PhD, CTBP/UCSD, [email protected], 858-534-8370.
21
22
… and a very hearty
THANK YOUto our outgoing Newsletter Editor:
Dr. Sonya Bahar, PhDCenter for Neurodynamics
University of Missouri, St Louis
for her enduring efforts on our behalf for the past10 years.
