Meeting report: Society for Developmental Biology 83rd annual meeting

The 83rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Developmental Biology (SDB) (https://www.sdbonline.org/2024mtg) was held in Atlanta, where the Japanese Society of Developmental Biologists (JSDB) participated as the guest society. To promote societal interactions, three researchers from Japan and gave invited talks in the SDB meeting as representatives of JSDB. On the other hand, four researchers from SDB gave invited talks and also participated in the Diversity Committee's Luncheon Seminar that I organized in the JSDB meeting (https://pub.confit.atlas.jp/en/event/jsdb2024). These scientific exchanges are aimed at fostering collaboration between developmental biologists in the United States and Japan and promoting mutual research advancements. The hope is that these initiatives will continue to build a long-term cooperative framework between both parties. Notably, this year, SDB President Dr. Ken Cho attended the JSDB meeting in Kyoto and played a significant role in facilitating our visit, underscoring the importance of mutual exchange.

I had the privilege of attending the Society for Developmental Biology (SDB) Annual Meeting for the first time in 2024. The 2024 SDB Annual Meeting took place at the Signia by Hilton, a newly opened venue in downtown Atlanta, Georgia (Figure 1). The hotel location offers excellent access to key landmarks such as the Mercedes-Benz Stadium and the Georgia World Congress Center. The city of Atlanta, with a population of approximately 500,000 as of 2022, is one of the major urban centers of the southern United States and is notable for hosting the 1996 Summer Olympics for our generations. The hotel provided an ideal setting for networking and engaging with colleagues, which complemented the productive scientific sessions held throughout the meeting.

The SDB meeting delivered a broad range of topics in developmental biology, and the sessions offered excellent opportunities for exchanging ideas and discussing the latest research advances. As a participant, I found the meeting to be highly valuable for staying updated with cutting-edge discoveries and methodologies, as well as for establishing new collaborations within the developmental biology community.

The scheduling format included a Presidential Symposium in the evening of day 1, with concurrent sessions and symposia in the morning, and plenary sessions after dinner. The invited speakers delivered outstanding presentations, both in terms of research content and presentation skills. The presentation by Dr. Zeba Wunderlich and her team from Boston University explored the functional significance of shadow enhancers, a critical yet enigmatic element in gene regulation. Using Drosophila embryos, they demonstrated how shadow enhancers, which bind distinct sets of transcription factors, ensure robust gene expression even under stress conditions. A particularly surprising finding came from their experiments with “squish” enhancers, where the endogenous DNA between shadow enhancers was eliminated. The results suggested that the spatial separation between enhancers is not essential for their function. This discovery prompts a reevaluation of the necessity for distributed enhancer configurations in the genome. In the same session, particularly memorable was Dr. Mike Levine of Princeton University, a well-known researcher in my field. His talk, as always, was engaging, involving the audience with humor, making it a truly enjoyable experience. Humor, in fact, was a common feature in many presentations, which is typical of Western conferences and something I feel is worth emulating. He presented an in-depth look at the regulatory architecture of long-range enhancer-promoter interactions in Drosophila. His team's work highlighted the critical role of boundary and tethering elements in the precise activation of segmentation and Hox genes during embryogenesis. The talk then transitioned to findings from the brain, where the researchers identified hundreds of regulatory loops. With regard to experimental techniques, the study employed relatively new methods such as the Micro-C XL assay, along with extensive use of bioinformatics, marking a significant advancement from traditional enhancer analysis approaches. As I may touch on in other sections, the integration of computational science and informatics has greatly accelerated progress in biology. By actively adopting these novel technologies and ideas, Mike's work, despite his consistent focus on transcription and enhancer analysis, always seems to be positioned with a fresh vision. On the other hand, many of today's cutting-edge technologies involve large-scale data analysis, which in turn require substantial funding. Consequently, with the current standard levels of grants in our country, it is becoming increasingly difficult to incorporate these new technologies extensively.

I had the opportunity to present in one of the concurrent sessions, titled “Evolutionary Conservation, Divergence, and Regulatory Network,” which covered a wide range of topics, from the organisms studied to the methods used and the evolutionary phenomena targeted. I presented about the light-regulated digestive function in sea urchin larvae, while other speakers discussed topics such as the dynamics of enhancer activity during the maternal–zygotic transition and evolutionary insights drawn from the developmental similarities between outer ear and gill formation. Among the many fascinating talks, I found Dr. Armin Moczek's presentation on the acquisition and evolution of horn morphology in beetles particularly intriguing. In the talk, Dr. Moczek presented fascinating insights into the evolutionary origins and developmental mechanisms of beetle horns, which have become a powerful model system in evolutionary developmental biology. What I found particularly interesting was the contrast between the horns developing from the first thoracic segment and those from the posterior head. While both types of horns serve a similar function in male combat, their genetic and developmental underpinnings are quite different. Thoracic horns are derived from partial wing serial homologs and are controlled by a conserved and ancient gene regulatory network (GRN), which was intriguing because it highlights how deep evolutionary pathways can shape novel traits. On the other hand, head horns develop through localized over-proliferation of head sclerites without the guidance of a specific GRN, showing a completely different developmental strategy. Another point that caught my attention was the fact that despite these differing evolutionary origins and initiation mechanisms, both types of horns share similar regulatory mechanisms for diversity, such as sex- or nutrition-responsive growth. This suggests that while novel traits such as these horns can evolve through different developmental pathways, they may converge on similar genetic mechanisms to facilitate their diversification. This aspect of the talk really emphasized how evolutionary novelties can arise and diversify in different ways, which has broad implications beyond beetles.

The other sessions spanned a wide range of topics, from fundamental developmental biology in areas such as “Morphogenesis and Pattern Formation” to discussions on developmental biology in the context of disease, as well as synthetic biology aimed at engineering developmental processes. A significant portion of the research presented utilized well-established model organisms. As I mentioned earlier, incorporating new technologies to further one's original research interests can be challenging when working with non-model organisms due to difficulties in breeding or establishing new systems, making model organisms the more practical first choice for many. However, as someone working with non-model organisms, I felt somewhat disheartened. It seems that a model-centric approach, rather than focusing on phenomena, is becoming increasingly prevalent among the younger generation in developmental biology, which leaves me with a sense of concern. Although there were several presentations using non-model organisms during the poster sessions, I noticed that studies on plants were particularly scarce overall.

The talk sessions were held in the Triumph Ballroom, located on the second floor of the hotel, a vast space of 37,080 square feet partitioned into several sections. The spacious rooms with high ceilings provided an open and relaxed atmosphere for each session. However, due to the size of the rooms, two screens were placed side by side for presentations, which often caused issues for speakers using laser pointers and PowerPoint presentations, as they could only direct their attention to one screen at a time. Depending on the seating position, it was sometimes unclear which part of the presentation the speaker was referring to. This is an area where improvements could be made from the perspectives of the organizers, speakers, and audience members, to avoid missing valuable insights. Such issues can arise at any conference, and I hope to address this point in future JSDB meetings. Additionally, the partition walls were less soundproof than fixed walls, and attendees seated near the edges of the rooms could occasionally hear voices from adjacent sessions, which made it difficult to concentrate.

As a speaker, I found it beneficial that the number of concurrent sessions was relatively low, allowing a larger audience to attend each session. This structure is similar to JSDB meetings, and I believe it is a well-designed approach. While it is understandable that some conferences must run many parallel sessions due to space constraints, even with just two or three concurrent sessions, it was disappointing to miss certain talks due to overlaps. Fewer concurrent sessions would be ideal to maximize attendance at each presentation. Speakers were required to visit the computer room beforehand to upload their slides into the conference system. I was impressed by how efficient the system was. By simply copying the PowerPoint file to a USB flash drive and connecting it to the provided PC, the system would ask if you were using Mac or Windows, then allow you to search for your name and presentation title. After uploading, all presentations in that session room were automatically queued in the correct order for playback. This fully automated system eliminated the need for on-site engineers and prevented technical issues from speakers fumbling with their own devices. Although there is a minimal risk of information leakage when handing over files, the system was extremely practical. I believe this type of system could greatly reduce the burden on conference staff and should be adopted more widely.

The poster sessions were divided into three groups, with each group using the same room and poster boards on different days. This arrangement made the process of putting up and taking down posters feel somewhat rushed. Although each day allowed around 3 hr for the poster session, it was impossible to see everything within the allotted time. At conferences where posters are left up for a longer period, attendees can use breaks or meal times to view posters they missed during the official session. Unfortunately, this was not feasible with the setup at this meeting. Balancing the large number of presenters with limited room space is undoubtedly a challenge, but this experience made it clear that leaving posters up for longer periods is beneficial. There were several posters that I missed completely, and once they were taken down, I had no access to them. Moreover, without knowing the presenter's identity, I couldn't obtain any more information beyond the abstract.

I also realized the importance of keeping presentations concise. Some presenters tended to talk at length, which made it difficult to visit as many posters as I would have liked. In future meetings, including JSDB, I believe presenters should practice delivering their key points in a more compact form, perhaps within 2 or 3 min. A short, impactful explanation can pique the audience's interest, followed by a longer discussion for those who want to dive deeper. Additionally, I noticed that the best posters often used more images and fewer words, which allowed attendees to absorb the content quickly. Whether in English or Japanese, and whether it is a talk or a poster, reducing text and emphasizing visuals, complemented by the presenter's spoken explanation, seems to be the most effective approach.

One of the interesting aspects of this year's SDB meeting was the wide range of small sessions. Although I did not personally attend them, there were sessions aimed at students and/or trainees, as well as dedicated sessions with funding agencies. Additionally, there were workshops covering various themes. These initiatives strike a great balance between focusing on the core goal of the conference—research—while also educating and supporting the future generation of developmental biologists, including students and early career researchers.

One session I found particularly engaging as a participant was the SDB Town Hall held on the final day. This meeting allowed the organizers/committees of the SDB and participants to openly exchange views on both the current and future SDB itself and meetings. I recall a similar initiative from a previous JSDB meeting, but in Japan, there is often a reserved atmosphere that makes it difficult to engage in open debate. In contrast, this type of format allowed everyone—whether a senior researcher, a big name, or a student—to voice their opinions equally. This inclusive environment highlighted one of the strengths of American scientific culture.

It was noteworthy, however, that the number of participants from Japan at this year's SDB meeting was quite small. This trend is not limited to the SDB; I have observed a similar lack of representation from Japan at other North American conferences as well. While the ability to attend virtually or watch on-demand sessions, combined with the difficulties of funding travel during the current weak yen, likely contributed to the low attendance, I believe it is still crucial for Japanese developmental biologists to participate in person. Engaging in face-to-face discussions at international conferences is just as important as publishing high-quality papers for maintaining Japan's presence in the global developmental biology community. Therefore, I strongly encourage both young researchers and senior scientists to attend international meetings more actively.

I also hope that Japan's scientific community, including governmental agencies, will create funding systems that make it easier for researchers to participate in such conferences abroad.

I declare no conflict of interests.