Mellon Institute Research Articles

Should COVID-19 take advice from rheumatologists?

Should COVID-19 take advice from rheumatologists?

Martin Goldstein

Martin Goldstein

Henryk (Heini) Eisenberg (1921–2009): From polymer chemistry to halophilic enzymes to chromatin and back

Henryk (Heini) Eisenberg (1921–2009): From polymer chemistry to halophilic enzymes to chromatin and back

A HALF-CENTURY OF CYCLOHEPTATRIENYLMETAL CHEMISTRY: EXPERIMENT AND THEORY

Bruce King joined Gordon Stone's research group at Harvard University in 1957 and initiated his research on synthetic transition metal organometallic chemistry. The work that he presented at the Stone Symposium evolved during more than a half-century from his 1959 discovery of the sandwich compound (η5-C5H5)V(η7-C7H7) while a student in Gordon Stone's Harvard laboratory. After leaving Gordon's research group Bruce King continued synthetic studies on cycloheptatrienylmetal compounds. This led to the discovery of the first trihapto derivatives (η5-C5H5)Mo(CO)2(η3-C7H7) and (η3-C7H7)Co(CO)3, while working at the Mellon Institute (now Carnegie-Mellon University) in the 1960s. Bruce King then continued work in synthetic inorganic and organometallic chemistry and related experimental work at the University of Georgia until the late 1990s, when he closed down his experimental (“wet chemistry”) laboratory to concentrate on theoretical and mathematical chemistry. At that time he initiated collaborative work in various areas of computational inorganic and organometallic chemistry, including density functional theory studies of cycloheptatrienylmetal derivatives related to some of his early synthetic successes noted above. Bruce King's work in computational inorganic chemistry evolved and expanded greatly in collaboration with groups at several Chinese universities and he now holds several adjunct academic appointments in China. The computational part of the research presented here is in collaboration with Prof. Hongyan Wang at Southwest Jiaotong University in Chengdu, China, and Prof. Xuejin Feng at Jiangnan University in Wuxi, China.

SNARE‐mediated homotypic fusion in Golgi apparatus ribbon formation

The ribbon‐like structure of the Golgi apparatus is thought to be the end result of homotypic fusion of cisternal membranes of ministacks, which are pre‐Golgi intermediate structures. Organization of ministack compartments for fusion is facilitated in part by the protein GRASP65 that links homotypic compartments of the ministacks and brings them into close contact. This process is called tethering. However, the Grasp65 protein alone is not sufficient to facilitate membrane fusion. Once the membranous compartments of the ministacks are in close proximity, a different set of proteins is believed to fuse the membranes into one continuous, ribbon‐like structure. The identity of these proteins is currently unknown. Soluble NSF attachment receptor (SNARE) proteins mediate membrane fusion in eukaryotic cells. A number of different SNARE proteins have been identified in Golgi membranes including Syntaxin 5, hBet1, Sec22, and Membrin. We believe that these four SNARE proteins along with GRASP 65 are sufficient to drive homotypic membrane fusion, possibly bringing about the fusion step that is required for Golgi ribbon formation. To test this hypothesis, I utilized a non‐Golgi membranous structure to model the activity of the proteins. Mitochondrial outer membranes provide an accessible model membrane to use in this case. I constructed plasmids that target the suspected Golgi SNAREs to the mitochondrial outer membrane. I then expressed these plasmids in HeLa cells along with GRASP 65 and assayed for membrane fusion using Fluorescence Recovery After Photobleaching (FRAP). As a result of my efforts, we are well on our way to determining the role of Golgi SNAREs in membrane fusion. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation's Research Opportunities for Undergraduates Program and the Mellon Institute of Carnegie Mellon University.

Paul Christian Lauterbur

Paul Christian Lauterbur

Paul C. Lauterbur, 77, dies; won Nobel Prize for M.R.I.

Paul C. Lauterbur, 77, dies; won Nobel Prize for M.R.I.

Saturo Masamune (1928–2003): Natural Products and Small Rings

Satoru Masamune died on November 9, 2003 at the age of 75 from complications following a cardiac arrest. Born in Fukuoka (Japan), he completed his science degree in 1952 at Tohoku University under the guidance of Tetsuo Nozoe. He completed his PhD in 1957 at the University of California, Berkeley (USA), under the supervision of Henry Rapoport, as one of the first Fulbright Fellows. He went as a postdoctoral fellow to Eugene van Tamelen at the University of Wisconsin (1956 – 1959), and then took up positions first at the Mellon Institute (1960 – 1964), and then at the University of Alberta (1964 – 78), before moving to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1978, where he became the Arthur C. Cope Professor in 1991. Masamune received the Award for Creative Work in Synthetic Organic Chemistry of the American Chemical Society in 1978 and the A. C. Cope Scholar Award in 1987. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a Centenary Scholar of the Chemical Society in London (1980), and he received the Fujiwara Award in 1997. He retired in 2000 but continued to visit his MIT office nearly every day until his death. The breadth of Masamune<s interests and accomplishments is extraordinary. His selection of research projects was always guided by what he identified as the most important problems of the day, even if that might require him to abandon his current comfortable and familiar sphere of research in which he had perhaps already established his preeminence. He made significant contributions to two broad fields, the synthesis of natural products and the chemistry of small ring systems. Masamune<s research interests spanned topics ranging from the synthesis of organic and organometallic compounds to the chemistry of theoretically interesting molecules, and later included catalytic antibodies, enzyme-catalyzed reactions, and polymer gels. When he visited Columbia University in the late 1970s, his interests overlapped with those of Ron Breslow, Tom Katz, Gilbert Stork, and Nick Turro; Koji Nakanishi was the only one whose research interests did not overlap with those of Masamune. Masamune is best known for his work on methods for the synthesis of naturally occurring substances, particularly compounds with biological activity. He attracted the attention of the chemical community early in his career when he published three consecutive singleauthor communications in JACS in 1964 on the synthesis of the complex polycyclic diterpene alkaloids kaurene, garryine, and atisine. [1] He reported these results as an invited speaker at the 3rd IUPAC Symposium onNatural Products Chemistry in Kyoto in 1964, which was attended by 1500 scientists. This probably triggered his invitation by Ray Lemieux to join the faculty of the University of Alberta. Masamune pioneered the development of a general strategy known as “double asymmetric synthesis”,[2] which in the 1980s and 1990s revolutionized the ability of chemists to prepare certain classes of molecules with complex threedimensional structures. He and his students demonstrated the power of this strategy in syntheses of a number of organic compounds with high structural complexity. Particularly significant were his landmark syntheses of several important macrolide antibiotics and carbohydrates, including the l-hexoses as mirror-image isomers of the naturally occuring sugars.[3] His contributions to chemistry also include the first syntheses of a number of unusual and theoretically important nonnatural compounds, whose high degree of strain and instability had defeated previous synthetic efforts. Especially significant was his work on the synthesis of cyclobutadiene,[4] [10]-annulenes, and small ring compounds of Si, Ge, and Sn. Masamune was a constant source of off-beat humor, which came from his uniquely honest and candid nature. On the other hand, he often could not comprehend common humor, reflecting his purist personality. According to his wife Takako he was not known for, or was incapable of helping with chores around the house. However, he was a truly warm, loving, devoted husband, and an emotional pillar. He was extremely bright, always did his best, and had an unusually unspoiled personality. He had a great passion for classical music, especially for Beethoven, and had been an excellent pianist since his youth. He regularly attended concerts of the Boston Symphony Orchestra and was a close friend of the conductor Seiji Ozawa. He also avidly followed baseball and sumo wrestling. We will all miss this smiling person, who was always willing to help. He is survived by his wife and two children.

William Wilson Mullins

William Wilson Mullins

Engineers, Businessmen, and the Academy: The Beginnings of Sponsored Research at the University of Michigan

Engineers, Businessmen, and the Academy: The Beginnings of Sponsored Research at the University of Michigan JOHN W . SERVOS The Department of Engineering Research of the University of Michigan opened for business in October 1920, lacking a regular faculty, courses, students, or building. Its budget, just a promise of $10,000 a year from the university, was modest even in those days of ten-cent meals. It did have plenty of supervision—from a depart­ ment head, an administrative committee composed of the dean of engineering and the heads of all other engineering departments, an advisory board of one hundred Michigan businessmen, and the university’s vigilant president and regents, a group that, while over­ seeing a large and complex university, retainedjurisdiction over the new department’s policies and much of its month-to-month busi­ ness. Today we might call this department an office of sponsored re­ search. It was set up to undertake investigations for cost-paying cli­ ents, both business firms and government agencies. Topics would be specified by the sponsor, staffwould be supplied by the university, and any intellectual property that resulted would be distributed by prearranged agreement. In 1920, however, the convenient term “sponsored research” was not in common use, and the very idea that a university should undertake investigations for business firms on a regular basis was sufficiently novel to excite controversy. The uncertainties connected with bringing a university, especially a state university, into an open partnership with private interests helps ex­ plain the complexity of the new department’s superstructure. All Dr. Servos is professor of history at Amherst College. He thanks Hugh Hawkins, Larry Owens, Stuart W. Leslie, and a Technology and Culture referee for useful sugges­ tions on an earlier draft of this article. The staff of the Bentley Historical Library at the University of Michigan provided expert and friendly guidance to its large archival holdings. Work at the Bentley Library was supported by grant DIR-8922464 from the National Science Foundation.© 1996 by the Society for the History of Technology. All rights reserved. 0040-165X/96/3704-002$01.00 721 722 John W. Servos parties—engineers, regents, businessmen—saw opportunities and risks; all wanted some role in governance, at least at the outset. Novel as it was, precedents for such an enterprise could be found both at Ann Arbor and elsewhere. Many professors, especially in en­ gineering, were active consultants to private industry, although uni­ versities seldom had a direct role in these relationships. Most statesupported universities, Michigan included, undertook research for government bureaus from time to time, and some had institutions for such purposes, most commonly agricultural experiment stations. During the preceding decade, a number ofuniversities created agen­ cies similar to the Department of Engineering Research. Massachu­ setts Institute of Technology (MIT), anxious to pay for a new cam­ pus, was aggressively soliciting business contracts through its Research Laboratory of Applied Chemistry and Technology Plan. The University of Pittsburgh, striving to enter the ranks of research universities, had collaborated with Pittsburgh’s leading bankers in building the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research. In addition, about two dozen state universities had begun engineering experi­ ment stations, although most were small and dependent on state governments rather than the private sector for income.1 Despite differences in scale, structure, and clientele, these agen­ cies were all intended to bridge the worlds of academe and practical affairs. They proliferated in a booming market for research services during World War I. The refining of petroleum, the manufacture of fine chemicals and optical glass, the high-pressure synthesis of ammonia and other substances, the manufacture of internal com­ bustion engines and automobile parts, the production of electrical equipment, the industrialization ofagriculture—all called for exper­ tise in depth, not just one or two innovators with bright ideas, but legions of chemists, metallurgists, and engineers. Even large corpo­ rations with increasingly elaborate laboratories could not be entirely self-sufficient in research and engineering. Firms both large and 1 See Roger L. Geiger, To Advance Knowledge: The Growth ofAmerican Research Univer­ sities, 1900-1940 (New York, 1986), for a general survey of the funding ofAmerican research universities. For accounts of specific institutions, seeJohn W. Servos, “The...

Synthesis of Branched and Hyperbranched Polystyrenes

ADVERTISEMENT RETURN TO ISSUEPREVCommunication to the...Communication to the EditorNEXTSynthesis of Branched and Hyperbranched PolystyrenesScott G. Gaynor, Shane Edelman, and Krzysztof MatyjaszewskiView Author Information Department of Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon University, Mellon Institute, 4400 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213Cite this: Macromolecules 1996, 29, 3, 1079–1081Publication Date (Web):January 29, 1996Publication History Received14 September 1995Revised27 November 1995Published online29 January 1996Published inissue 1 January 1996https://doi.org/10.1021/ma9513877Copyright © 1996 American Chemical SocietyRIGHTS & PERMISSIONSArticle Views2823Altmetric-Citations426LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICSArticle Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Share Add toView InAdd Full Text with ReferenceAdd Description ExportRISCitationCitation and abstractCitation and referencesMore Options Share onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InReddit Read OnlinePDF (190 KB) Get e-AlertsSUBJECTS:Aromatic compounds,Hydrocarbons,Monomers,Polymers,Radical polymerization Get e-Alerts

Changing Partners: The Mellon Institute, Private Industry, and the Federal Patron

Changing Partners: The Mellon Institute, Private Industry, and the Federal Patron JOHN W. SERVOS In 1966, when plans were announced for the merger of the Mellon Institute and Carnegie Institute of Technology, architects of the merger forecast that “two plus two would equal five.” By joining the Mellon Institute’s facilities, endowment, and traditions of postdoctoral research to the faculty, plant, and graduate programs of neighboring Carnegie Tech, an institution would be created that would make Pittsburgh as famous for science as for steel and thereby restore that city to the forefront of technological innovation. Federal research dollars, at­ tracted by powerful science departments, would underwrite this renais­ sance. Predictably, publicists looked east and west to define the new Carnegie-Mellon University; it would soon be ready, wrote one editor, “to move into the Olympics of technical education with schools like Massachusetts Institute of Technology and California Institute of Tech­ nology.”1 The official rhetoric exemplified two assumptions shared by many scientists and science administrators in the postwar era: new technologies often flow from scientific research that is free of practical goals, and federal money is instrumental to scientific, institutional, and civic development. These assumptions were not shared by the founders of the Mellon Institute. Conceived on the eve ofWorld War I, the Mellon Institute had, during its first forty years, embodied many of the values of the generation that had made Pittsburgh a 20th-century workshop of the world. Although housed in a magnificently appointed and manycolumned temple, the Mellon Institute had been built, not to celebrate Dr. Servos is professor of history at Amherst College. He thanks Hugh Hawkins, John Carson, Robert Kohler, Joel Tarr, David Hounshell, William C. Summers, Gary Thomas, William M. Kaufman, and Guy Berry for comments on earlier versions of this article and Gabrielle Michalek and Rebecca Abromitis for their help at the archives of Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh. Work on this project was facilitated by grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities Travel to Collections Program and the National Science Foundation (grant BIR-8922464). 1Pittsburgh Press, September 16, 1966, p. 22. See also “Carnegie University: New Institu­ tion Emerging in Pittsburgh,” Science 155 (1967): 673-76.© 1994 by the Society for the History of Technology. All rights reserved. 0040-165X/94/3502-0005$01.00 221 222 John W. Servos disinterested research, but to solve the immediate problems of industry. It had valued patents over publications and product improvements over citations in scientific journals. Financed by the bankers who had underwritten Pittsburgh’s expansion, it was run by trustees and manag­ ers who believed in a kind of science that could both serve private enterprise and support itself by doing so. Although the name of the Mellon Institute survived the merger with Carnegie Tech, the institute’s program and values did not. Its dissolu­ tion, however, did not commence in 1966; rather, the decision to join the Mellon Institute to Carnegie Tech came at the end of more than a decade of erosion and soul-searching. This article traces the decline of the Mellon Institute during the postwar era. The story is worth recounting, not only because the institute was an important and influential experiment in the organization of industrial research, but also because its history affords us entry into debates that affected more than one institution in the postwar years: debates between proponents of applied research and basic research and between strategists who looked to government for the resources to finance science and those who looked to corporations. Most important, the history of the Mellon Institute offers us another perspective on the sea change that affected science and its institutions in postwar America. It has become a truism to say that federal patronage transformed the practice of science in the United States during and after World War II. Massive federal outlays for research and science education altered the expectations of scientists, the nature of their equipment, and the scale and character of their institutions. Recent historical scholarship has begun to give us some appreciation of the dimensions and significance of this revolution.2 As yet, however, we possess few studies of how scientific institutions that were built...

Changing Partners: The Mellon Institute, Private Industry, and the Federal Patron

In 1966, when plans were announced for the merger of the Mellon Institute and Carnegie Institute of Technology, architects of the merger forecast that plus two would equal five. By joining the Mellon Institute's facilities, endowment, and traditions of postdoctoral research the faculty, plant, and graduate programs of neighboring Carnegie Tech, an institution would be created that would make Pittsburgh as famous for science as for steel and thereby restore that city the forefront of technological innovation. Federal research dollars, attracted by powerful science departments, would underwrite this renaissance. Predictably, publicists looked east and west define the new Carnegie-Mellon University; it would soon be ready, wrote one editor, to move into the Olympics of technical education with schools like Massachusetts Institute of Technology and California Institute of Technology.' The official rhetoric exemplified two assumptions shared by many scientists and science administrators in the postwar era: new technologies often flow from scientific research that is free of practical goals, and federal money is instrumental scientific, institutional, and civic development. These assumptions were not shared by the founders of the Mellon Institute. Conceived on the eve of World War I, the Mellon Institute had, during its first forty years, embodied many of the values of the generation that had made Pittsburgh a 20th-century workshop of the world. Although housed in a magnificently appointed and manycolumned temple, the Mellon Institute had been built, not celebrate

Up Close: Materials Research at Carnegie Mellon

Materials research is a long-standing tradition at Carnegie Mellon. Since its inception as Carnegie Technical Schools in 1906, the metallurgy program has flourished on the campus. Evolving from a single department involved in metals research formed in 1906, leading-edge, interdisciplinary materials research has grown considerably, with materials-related research now carried out in many departments. These include Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, Civil Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE), Mathematics, Mechanical Engineering, Physics, and Mellon Institute (an affiliate of the University), and, of course, Metallurgical Engineering and Materials Science (MEMS). It is beyond the scope of this article to cover every aspect of materials-related research at Carnegie Mellon. Consequently, we have decided to concentrate on materials and topics of particular interest to MRS members.The current research pertaining to materials at Carnegie Mellon can be broadly classified by material type into three categories: metals and alloys, polymers, and electronic and magnetic materials.The major thrust on research in metals and alloys is in MEMS. In addition, there are a number of complementary efforts in Chemical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering. For example, Prof. Sides of Chemical Engineering is evaluating electrolytic extraction of aluminum from its ores, while Professors Prinz, Sinclair, Steif, Swedlow, and Wright of Mechanical Engineering are examining the macroscopic flow behavior of metals and alloys and its relevance in manufacturing engineering. Prof. Prinz is also interested in vibratory compaction of metal powders, both from experimental and modeling points of view.

Toxicology of methyl isocyanate.

Since the 1984 tragedy in Bhopal, India, methyl isocyanate (MIC) has been studied extensively to provide data on its toxicity following short-term exposures to MIC vapor. The purpose of this article is to review the toxicologic studies on MIC which were conducted in laboratories under controlled and objective conditions. Human exposure data are, on occasion, discussed, but only for the purpose of comparing results of selected laboratory animal studies with clinical findings. In addition, results of unpublished MIC studies performed in the 1960s at Mellon Institute are presented to expand the toxicity data files and provide a better understanding of MIC’s mechanism of action. As will become evident, the relatively simple molecule of MIC has a complex mode of toxic action. Furthermore, there is no universal agreement on how MIC reacts with biological systems or, following in vivo exposure, which organ systems are affected and for what length of time.

Energy Conservation: The Debate Begins

Critics of the idea that gas and oil price decontrol will increase conservation and renewable resource investments argue that Reagan's plans are not corroborated by any studies. The debate centers on different perceptions of the role of government and the marketplace. Conservationists feel that Reagan should have abolished all subsidies for conventional and nuclear energy as well as lifting price controls, but they also argue for government intervention. Studies by the Solar Energy Research Institute, the National Audubon Society, the Mellon Institute, the Edison Electric Institute, and others project a different future than the Administration, but conservationists hope to see money shifted from other areas of the budget, such as nuclear power, for their projects. (DCK)

Cutting Energy Costs

A Mellon Institute study examines the Least-Cost Strategy to see how economic self-interest could have altered energy end uses if consumers had foreseen the high prices in time to take corrective action. Using end-use benefits as the framework instead of coupling consumption with economic activity, a broader range of competing options becomes available to improve energy efficiency. The least-cost strategy could have lowered consumer costs 17 percent by eliminating wasteful uses. This can be done by a combination of doing without some things, by managing energy requirements better, and by substituting systems that provide the same service at a lower consumption. Two case studies illustrate how a new mix in the energy services market could have developed in 1978 for the industrial, building, and transportation sectors. Many government policies are shown to have been counter-productive because they fail to maximize the number of competing elements. Policies that relate energy productivity to expanding opportunities are possible and should be encouraged. 4 references, 4 tables. (DCK)

Lightfast Soluble Colorants

The National Gallery of Art Research Project at the Mellon Institute has found the following soluble colorants to have outstanding fastness to light: Pilate Fast Bordeaux; Palatine Fast Orange; Luratin Supra Turquoise Blue; Irgacet Red; Plasto Orange; and Azosol Yellow. These colors will be used as standards against which other dyes can be tested and compared.

An Investigation of the Nitrile Oxide‐Isocyanate Rearrangement

Angewandte Chemie International Edition in EnglishVolume 9, Issue 8 p. 635-635 Communication An Investigation of the Nitrile Oxide-Isocyanate Rearrangement†‡ Prof. Dr. Christoph Grundmann, Prof. Dr. Christoph Grundmann Mellon Institute of Carnegie-Mellon University, 4400 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 (USA)Search for more papers by this authorDr. Peter Kochs, Corresponding Author Dr. Peter Kochs Mellon Institute of Carnegie-Mellon University, 4400 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 (USA)Mellon Institute of Carnegie-Mellon University, 4400 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 (USA)Search for more papers by this author Prof. Dr. Christoph Grundmann, Prof. Dr. Christoph Grundmann Mellon Institute of Carnegie-Mellon University, 4400 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 (USA)Search for more papers by this authorDr. Peter Kochs, Corresponding Author Dr. Peter Kochs Mellon Institute of Carnegie-Mellon University, 4400 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 (USA)Mellon Institute of Carnegie-Mellon University, 4400 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 (USA)Search for more papers by this author First published: August 1970 https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.197006351Citations: 14 † Nitrile Oxides, Part 14. – Part 13: C. Grundmann and S. K. Datta, J. org. Chem. 34, 2016 (1969). ‡ This work was supported in part by Grant CA 10747-04 of the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume9, Issue8August 1970Pages 635-635 RelatedInformation

Variation of refractive index of polystyrene with molecular weight: Effect on the determination of molecular weight distributions

AbstractSensitive refractive index measurements on solutions have indicated that the narrow molecular weight polystyrene samples prepared by the Mellon Institute method exhibit a small systematic molecular weight–refractive index dependence up to 300,000 and higher. This upper limit is higher than had previously been suggested. Sensible consistency is generally assumed above a few thousand molecular weight. The effect on this molecular weight–refractive index dependence on gel permeation chromatography and light‐scattering molecular weight measurements on polystyrene standards is illustrated.