ASU Scholarship Showcase

Swinging arms are a key functional component of multistep catalytic transformations in many naturally occurring multi-enzyme complexes. This arm is typically a prosthetic chemical group that is covalently attached to the enzyme complex via a flexible linker, allowing the direct transfer of substrate molecules between multiple active sites within the complex. Mimicking this method of substrate channelling outside the cellular environment requires precise control over the spatial parameters of the individual components within the assembled complex. DNA nanostructures can be used to organize functional molecules with nanoscale precision and can also provide nanomechanical control. Until now, protein–DNA assemblies have been used to organize cascades of enzymatic reactions by controlling the relative distance and orientation of enzymatic components or by facilitating the interface between enzymes/cofactors and electrode surfaces. Here, we show that a DNA nanostructure can be used to create a multi-enzyme complex in which an artificial swinging arm facilitates hydride transfer between two coupled dehydrogenases. By exploiting the programmability of DNA nanostructures, key parameters including position, stoichiometry and inter-enzyme distance can be manipulated for optimal activity.

Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education outlined five core concepts intended to guide undergraduate biology education: 1) evolution; 2) structure and function; 3) information flow, exchange, and storage; 4) pathways and transformations of energy and matter; and 5) systems. We have taken these general recommendations and created a Vision and Change BioCore Guide—a set of general principles and specific statements that expand upon the core concepts, creating a framework that biology departments can use to align with the goals of Vision and Change. We used a grassroots approach to generate the BioCore Guide, beginning with faculty ideas as the basis for an iterative process that incorporated feedback from more than 240 biologists and biology educators at a diverse range of academic institutions throughout the United States. The final validation step in this process demonstrated strong national consensus, with more than 90% of respondents agreeing with the importance and scientific accuracy of the statements. It is our hope that the BioCore Guide will serve as an agent of change for biology departments as we move toward transforming undergraduate biology education.

The Writing Pal (W-Pal) is an intelligent tutoring system (ITS) designed to provide students with explicit writing strategy instruction and practice. W-Pal includes a suite of educational games developed to increase writing engagement and provide opportunities to practice writing strategies. In this study, first (L1) (n = 26) and second (L2) language (n = 16) students interacted with W-Pal over eight sessions. We collected students’ daily self- reports of engagement, motivation, and perceptions of performance, as well as their reported game attitudes (difficulty, helpfulness for learning, and enjoyment). Results indicated that, for all students, interactions with W-Pal led to increases in writing performance and more positive attitudes towards the system (engagement, motivation, and perceived performance). For L1 students, game difficulty was a significant predictor of boredom; however, for the L2 students, game enjoyment predicted both their motivation and perceived writing improvement. Notably, the L2 students’ game ratings accounted for more variance in these daily reports than did the ratings of L1 students. This study suggests that L1 and L2 students experience similar benefits offered by game-based strategy practice in an ITS. Further, the link between game attitudes and overall daily perceptions of training may be stronger for L2 students than L1 students.

Although gender gaps have been a major concern in male-dominated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines such as physics and engineering, the numerical dominance of female students in biology has supported the assumption that gender disparities do not exist at the undergraduate level in life sciences. Using data from 23 large introductory biology classes for majors, we examine two measures of gender disparity in biology: academic achievement and participation in whole-class discussions. We found that females consistently underperform on exams compared with males with similar overall college grade point averages. In addition, although females on average represent 60% of the students in these courses, their voices make up less than 40% of those heard responding to instructor-posed questions to the class, one of the most common ways of engaging students in large lectures. Based on these data, we propose that, despite numerical dominance of females, gender disparities remain an issue in introductory biology classrooms. For student retention and achievement in biology to be truly merit based, we need to develop strategies to equalize the opportunities for students of different genders to practice the skills they need to excel.

While expert groups often make recommendations on a range of non-controversial as well as controversial issues, little is known about how the level of expert consensus-the level of expert agreement-influences perceptions of the recommendations. This research illustrates that for non-controversial issues expert groups that exhibit high levels of agreement are more persuasive than expert groups that exhibit low levels of agreement. This effect is mediated by the perceived entitativity-the perceived cohesiveness or unification of the group-of the expert group. But for controversial issues, this effect is moderated by the perceivers' implicit assumptions about the group composition. When perceivers are provided no information about a group supporting the Affordable Care Act-a highly controversial piece of U.S. legislation that is divided by political party throughout the country-higher levels of agreement are less persuasive than lower levels of agreement because participants assume there were more democrats and fewer republicans in the group. But when explicitly told that the group was half republicans and half democrats, higher levels of agreement are more persuasive.