BCMB30003: Molecular Aspects of Cell Biology

Written assessment (15%), 2x MSTs (7.5% each), and an exam (70%)

This subject is mainly taken by Cell and Dev Bio or Biochem majors, although you do get a few other people from other life science majors. Each lecturer takes roughly one topic, as follows:

• Protein Targeting in Eukaryotic Cells (Paul Gleeson)
• Protein Secretion, Endocytosis and Cytoplasmic Trafficking (Paul Gleeson and Jose Villadangos)
• Cell Adhesion, Migration and Shape (Ian van Driel, and then later in the semester by Heung-Chin Cheng)
• Stress Signalling in Eukaryotic Cells (Marie Bogoyevitch)
• Protein Translocation in Mitochondria (Diana Stojanovski)

Each lecturer has around 3-4 lectures each, and most have an associated tutorial on the Friday in/after their topic. However, if you've done the maths, you can see that we end up with less lectures (around 26) than the advertised 36 (12 x 3lectures/week). This is due to a few factors.

The first few lectures are on nuclear import/export, which isn't assessed in the exam but instead is the topic of the written assignment. There's also a few lectures in week 5 that go over the general concepts, etc, once the papers have been given. I found it odd that the first lectures were dedicated to the topic when we didn't even have the papers yet. I also felt that the amount of lecture time dedicated to the assignment was really unnecessary. It wasn't difficult at all, and having that much time dedicated (I think it was 4 lectures total?) was overkill.

To explain, the written assignment was to answer two questions that accompanied a paper. The first would be a general question on nuclear import/export that the paper had dealt with (e.g. explain how the NLS is recognised, or discuss how proteins move from the cytoplasm to the nucleus), and the second would be to explain the results of a particular figure within the paper (e.g. a GST pull-down assay, or IP assay). The first had to be done with references to literature, and since it's just a general overview of a topic it wasn't hard. The second question would be split up into several questions that needed to be answered (hint: these make good subheadings). Hell, I didn't even read the paper past the figure, which was on the third page. It is extremely straightforward.

(But really, I shouldn't complain because less lectures dedicated to examinable content = less memorisation to do, I guess?)

Most of the lecturers know their stuff and are really great. I had a real issue with Heung-Chin Cheng's lectures - they were really dry and full of messy diagrams. Once I managed to listen to it all and understand the content (which took a lot longer than it should have), what he is teaching isn't really that difficult, it's just that it's not presented in the best way. I strongly suggest that you do further reading to really understand the topic. Sitting in the lecture once won't be enough to get it into your head.

The MSTs covered two topics each (Cheng's and Stojanovski's weren't covered by MSTs). Each topic in the MST had 5 MCQs and one written question (for 10 marks). So, in one MST there were 10 MCQs and two written, for 30 marks total. I guess it may be because I've been used to MSTs that were a few pages long, but I disliked that it was so short, and that so much was riding on the long-answer questions (and some of them were a bit dubious).

For the exam, each lecturer had one 30-mark section. They were all short or long answer (although Marie, the coordinator, has stated that at some point they will probably introduce MCQs). Each section had one question that had to be done (15 marks), and then a choice out of two other questions, also 15 marks.

But really, for all the flaws I'm saying, it really was a great subject (hence the 4/5 score). The topics were interesting, and for the most part they were delivered really well.

Yes, with screen capture (for lectures and tutes).

A/Prof Marie Bogoyevitch, Prof Paul Gleeson, Prof Jose Villadangos, Prof Ian van Driel, A/Prof Heung-Chin Cheng, Dr Diana Stojanovski

There were two copies of the MSTs from the last two years (so 4 total), and exams from the last 2 years (however, some of the lecturers had only joined in 2013, so only papers from then will give a true feel of the examination).

4/5

Alberts' Molecular Biology of the Cell is the prescribed textbook. I recommend it if you're majoring in the area as it's the main textbook that Unimelb uses for cell biology and really does a good job, but if this subject is an elective then don't bother buying it. The lectures slides are sufficient.

3x 1hr lectures and 1x 1hr tutorial each week.

Sem 1, 2014

TBA