This is a 3 credit course and the Prerequisites are BioNB 222 or with permission of the instructor. S/U grades optional.
The course focuses on ion channels, the primary proteins generating cellular electrical signal function in nerve cells and other excitable cells (e.g., muscle, heart, glands). The latest electrophysiological and molecular genetic experiments are reviewed. Diversity of electrophysiology deriving from channel structure and expression patterns is considered in the contexts of behavior and behavioral plasticity (learning), neural development, and channel evolution. Course format includes written and oral presentations, reviewing scientific literature in selected areas, and proposing new experiments.
Prof. McCobb's
homepage
Materials linked to this site
will be in pdf format. If you do not have Acrobat Reader click
the icon to download it 
You will need to send email to Professor McCobb and
the rest of the class at times throughout the semester. In order
to make it easier click on the "Send Email" link to
the left and it will automatically address it to everyone necessary.
When sending your email,
please use 425 in the subject of the message!
Reading Material
We will have no
required textbook for the course. Books available for Reference
include: Ion Channels: Molecules in Action (Aidley and
Stanfield), Ion Channels of Excitable Membranes (B. Hille)
and Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology (C. Hamond) and
others on request. Good recent review articles will be mentioned
in class. Primary presentation papers are to be read before presentations,
by non-presenters as well as presenters.
Group Presentations
Each person will
lead one group presentation, and participate as secondary support
in two others. Presentations will have three dimensions: past,
present and future. The "past" (i.e. background) should
encompass historical context and general knowledge relevant to
the focal paper, and should develop the broader significance of
the experiments to be presented. The "present" will
describe the specific objectives, methods and results of the focal
paper and related results from five or more other papers
that make the story more interesting. The "future" will
evaluate the results and their implications, and suggest directions
for future work that will improve upon or extend our knowledge
in the area. Ideas for innovative application of cutting edge
technologies are called for here. Group presentations with whatever
discussion you manage to evoke will consume the 75 minute period.
E-Mail Commentaries
Following each
group presentation, non-presenters will write two paragraphs of
commentary: 1) evaluating the science presented, including specific
results, and suggesting follow-up experiments relating to the
presentation; 2) constructive criticism of the presentation. You
should point out two positive things about the presentation for
every one suggested improvement. All commentaries are intended
to be informal and opinionated, but not unintelligent or destructive.
Commentaries will be e-mailed to all members of the class, including
the instructor, by 24 hours prior to the next class after the
presentation. Please type your commentaries directly into the
e-mail message, do not send them as an attachment. These messages
will be graded at the end of the semester, but must be submitted
on schedule, and may serve as the basis for brief discussion in
the following class.
Review and Proposal
Each student will
choose a research focus for her/his own (imaginary) lab, and attempt
to get a review article published and get the lab funded. Work
in this focal area will thus involve two separate but very related
assignments. The first is a written Review Article covering
the subject area, with a general justification for research in
this area. The point is to inform and motivate your reviewers
(and US taxpayers) to fund this type of research. Your research
objectives need only be stated in general terms in this paper.
The first draft of the review will be due on Tuesday, February
27th. Two selected peers will review the draft and consult with
you orally, and after revisions the final version will be due
on March 27th. The text section must be at least 8 double-spaced
pages in length. Written editorial (peer) appraisals (format provided)
of the final version will be due on April 10th.
The second written assignment is the main body of the Grant Proposal. (Note that the Review Article replaces the "background and significance" section that would ordinarily be in such a proposal.) You will write an abstract of the proposal, followed by a very brief description of your specific objectives. This will be followed by a section justifying the choice of system and experimental design. Only aspects of methods critical to success will be detailed. The final section will discuss anticipated outcomes and follow-up strategies, ending on the long-range view. The proposal will be 8 double-spaced pages in length. On April 12th you should come prepared to describe your objectives to your peer review panel and get feedback. On April 26th you will give your peers a written draft, fodder for the final consultation on May 1st. The finished proposal will be due on 5/4, and written evaluations of proposals (format provided), will be handed in on 5/6. The final exam will consist of reading all the reviews and proposals and rank ordering them for funding priority, briefly describing your rationale for the order.
Peer Review
All students will
participate as peer reviewers of two other students' work. Oral
consultations will follow formats to be provided, but are intended
to be informal and mutually educational. Thus in addition to the
reviewers giving feedback, consultations will provided an opportunity
for the reviewee to educate the reviewers in his/her subject area.
Written evaluations will demonstrate familiarity with the subject
of the review or proposal, and evaluative judgment. Their influence
on the grades I assign will reflect the extent to which they are
informed and well-reasoned (in my view). The written evaluations
themselves will be graded. Final rank ordering and individual
discussions with me will not be graded but are mandatory.
Grading
Fundamentals of
electrophysiology quiz 4%
E-mail commentaries (10 total) 10%
Oral presentations (leader)
10%
(secondary #1) 6%
(secondary #2) 6%
Review Article 16%
Grant Proposal 16%
Class Participation 20%
Written Peer evaluations (4*2 %) 8%
Comprehensive quiz 4%
For a total of 100%
Because this is an upper level course with a small enrollment, grading will not follow a curve; all students are likely to get an A or B. Students are expected to pick a focal area of genuine interest and learn something about it. Class participation is of major importance; the class will be much more interactive than introductory classes. Though there are lots of opportunities for feedback and peer-evaluation; positive and constructive feedback will be the goal. All peer evaluations will be filtered through me before final grading.
Assignments
Due Thursday, 1/23/03
Identify a short, recent review paper that deals with ion channels and a subject of interest to you. Read the paper, come to class prepared to discuss briefly:
1) what you got out of it
2) what you did not understand from it
3) why you think the subject is of interest to the class, i.e. why you think the class should read it or material on a similar topic.