An online gathering about the latest on molecular membrane biology

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbc.2021.101237 Francesca Bottanelli*, Anne Spang, Chris Stefan, and Christian Ungermann From the Freie Universität Berlin, Institute of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Berlin, Germany; Bioczentrum, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; MRC Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Biology/Chemistry, Biochemistry and Center of Cellular Nanoanalytics (CellNanOs), Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany


A virtual meeting success story
How did it work? Maybe we start from the end. "This was the best online meeting I attended during the entire pandemic period" was one of the enthusiastic responses. Why? Because the social platform was as close as one can get to real-life social interactions, and the sessions worked almost perfectly for our needs. Two poster sessions with a total of some 50 posters flanked the talks on each day. Posters were accessible, presenters available, and it felt like being in a real meeting. Poster sessions were well attended and so busy that people had to wait, just like an in-person meeting. But since posters were available throughout the entire meeting, people were also able to view posters in their own spare time. The entire community was present, from PhD students to postdocs, young investigators, and established figures in the field. For the talks, we explicitly asked speakers to keep to their time to 10 min to allow for questions, asked the audience to write their questions into the chat and the chair to act as a mediator between questions and speaker. This made sessions dense, but also to the point. As all speakers kept to their time, and the chairs monitored their sessions so well, enough time was left for questions. We were impressed, how much science can be compressed in a short talk, and how excellent all speakers presented. The more exciting the talk, the earlier the questions appeared in the chat. As the chairs combined questions and condensed the information, the most important open issues were immediately addressed. Breaks were reserved to meetthe-speaker, and by the end of the day-or better the end of the meeting-many of us realized how long they had been sitting fixed in front of their screen without moving much. Throughout the meeting, 200-250 people were listening to the talks, more than 150 were present at the poster sessions. It was as good as it gets.

The science
We selected speakers based on their science and tried to balance the field and explicitly focused on postdocs and early career investigators. As the science of the talks was meant to be "off the record" and live, in the spirit of a Gordon Research Conference, we decided to just let the program speak for itself (see supporting information). the ER and the regulation of the human 9-subunit membrane protein insertase ER membrane protein complex (EMC) via the kinase WNK1 (2, 3). Antonio's TRAPPIII structure reveals insights into the mechanisms of Rab1 activation to regulate secretory trafficking (4). Ishier Raote (CRG, Spain) shared the latest about the function of TANGO1 in creating a tunnel at the ER for export of bulky cargo (5-7), including some exciting unpublished results about the role of liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) in the assembly of TANGO1 at ER exit sites. Sessions 2 and 3, focused on trafficking through the Golgi compartments and secretory pathway, included talks by Ivan Castello Serrano (University of Virginia, USA) about the importance of lipid rafts for export of transmembrane proteins from the Golgi network, and Anup Parchure (Yale University, USA) whose work suggests that secretory granule biogenesis at the TGN is facilitated by LLPS. Lauren Jackson (Vanderbilt University, USA) presented structural work shedding light on the regulation of post-Golgi cargo recycling in yeast via the ArfGAP Glo3 (8). Mara Duncan (University of Michigan, USA) presented some recent work from her lab where a human iPSC model system combined with proximity-based proteomics was used to identify trafficking machinery responsible for polarized trafficking (9). David Murray (University of Dundee, United Kingdom) presented exciting unpublished data about the functional characterization of the exocyst tethering complex and its cross talk with phosphoinositide signaling. The session was closed by Allison Zajac (University of Chicago, USA), whose latest preprint (10) highlights the role of Kinesin-3 and -1 motors in basolateral secretion in epithelial cells. The first day wrapped up with a session focused on mitochondria/peroxisomal membranes packed with excellent unpublished findings. Tim König (McGill University, Canada)'s work reveals the lipid and protein composition and the mechanisms of formation of mitochondrial-derived vesicles (MDVs). Joshua Pemberton (NICHD, USA) developed tools to alter the lipid composition of the outer mitochondrial membrane and showed that localized production of diacylglycerol altered mitochondrial morphology. Cansu Kuey (University of Warwick, United Kingdom) showed that acute redistribution of clathrin mediated endocytosis machinery on mitochondria is sufficient to drive the formation of clathrin-coated vesicles. Noa Dahan (Weizman Institute, Israel) talked about the importance of local mRNA translation for peroxisomal function.
The second day kicked off with a session on the endocytic pathway, in which Andreas Mayer (University of Lausanne, Switzerland) discussed his unpublished data on the regulation of membrane fission in the endolysosomal system by CROP, a novel complex consisting of Atg18 and the retromer complex. Staying on the membrane fission theme, Sho Suzuki (Cornell University, USA) revealed how the yeast Mvp1/SNX8 protein and the dynamin-like GTPase Vps1 drive fission and endosomal recycling. While Doris Höglinger (Biochemistry Center Heidelberg, Germany) discussed routes for cholesterol and sphingolipid transport, Florian Fröhlich (University of Osnabrück, Germany) presented his proteomic mapping of the endolysosomal system, which is available as a preprint (11). In the second session of the day, Kamalesh Kumari (Weizmann Institute, Israel) argued that mechanochemical sequestration and vesicle crumpling drive exocytosis while maintaining apical membrane homeostasis. On the theme of membrane compartmentalization, Kasey Day (University of Texas, USA) provided evidence that liquid-like protein droplets are important for endocytic vesicle formation, and Claudia Matthaeus (NIH, USA) discussed the role of lipid uptake in caveolae. Henning Arlt (Harvard University, USA) provided structural and mechanistic insights into lipid droplet biogenesis. Andrés Guillén-Samander (Yale University, USA) revealed how VPS13D together with Miro facilitates interorganelle contacts between ER and mitochondria and peroxisomes (12). These presentations were followed by two talks on ESCRT-III: Jiwei Liu (Rosalind Franklin Institute, UK) provided compelling evidence for the presence of ESCRT-III membrane remodelers in bacteria, while Joachim Moser von Filseck (University of Geneva, Switzerland) provided molecular details on ESCRT-III membrane remodeling in eukaryotes (13). The last three talks of the day were on autophagy. Tara Fisher (NIH, USA) started with a presentation on how STING induces LC3 lipidation (14). Rachel Ulferts (Francs Crick Institute, United Kingdom) then discussed the role of the V-ATPase in inflammation and autophagy. Finally, Florian Wilfling (Max-Planck-Institute for Biophysics, Germany) shared his data on intrinsic autophagy receptors and how they function in the disposal of macromolecular machines including stalled endocytic machinery (15).

The lessons
Virtual molecular membrane biology 2021 was a success mainly because junior scientists were given a platform to present their exciting (and unpublished!) research. Given that many talks at previous meetings were presented by established scientists, who are also one reason to attract others (and some would otherwise also not join the meeting if not invited), the online meeting could make sure that more junior researchers were allowed to present and make their presence to the scientific community.
In-person meetings mean frequent get-togethers on all occasions and time to talk and interact beyond listening to the talks. As scientists, we need this type of interaction to process what we learned and develop new ideas and directions. In an online format, travel, organization, and a week away from the lab and family are not happening, with all its pros and cons. Will such online meetings continue to work in the future? Or will we return to what we had before? We believe virtual gatherings cannot completely substitute for in-person meetings, but they can be a powerful way to keep the community connected outside of conference season. It definitely worked for us.
Supporting information-This article contains supporting information.