Meet Timothy Licknack of Arizona State University! Tim is a member of Michael Lynch’s lab within the Biodesign Center for Mechanisms of Evolution. Over the past few days, he joined an international cohort for our virtual Proteomics course -- the first CSHL course for the graduate research assistant. 

Tell us about your research.
My research is broad ranging into the evolution and physiology of Paramecium, which is a genus of single-celled eukaryotes with some unique properties that make it ideal for evolutionary and cell-biological studies. I have focused on gene expression at the level of transcription initiation and am moving into the world of proteomics to look at how the proteome localizes into distinct subcellular compartments and how it’s remodeled in various growth and temperature conditions.

How did you decide to focus on this area/project?
My projects have all been natural byproducts of the people around me; almost all resulted from chance conversations with lab mates and colleagues with shared interests. My PI has given me a lot of leeway to mold my projects in whatever direction gives me the best chance to produce useful and interesting data. 

What and/or who is the inspiration behind your scientific journey?
I can’t really say that I have a scientific or personal inspiration that has affected my research path in any meaningful way. I can only say that a consistent person who has shown me unconditional support has been my mom, who might not understand what I do, but she tries hard to express how proud she is of my journey, even when I myself don’t agree with her assessment. 

What impact do you hope to make through your work?
I really hope to make a meaningful contribution to the scientific community at the level of my nascent field of Evolutionary Cell Biology and more broadly in my Paramecium and Ciliate Genetics/Genomes community. I don’t think my work will be groundbreaking, but I think my data will help researchers to better understand the generality and universality of cell biological features. I’d like my Ph.D. to result in a comprehensive analysis of gene expression across Paramecium at the mRNA and protein levels that can be coupled with rigorous evolutionary studies to understand the forces that shape phenotypic variation. 

Where do you see yourself in five years?
Like most new Ph.D. students, I had grand plans to publish heavily, get a great postdoc, and start a lab centered around solving the questions that most interest me. Recently, I’ve become less committed to this route and don’t really even imagine doing a postdoc, unless a really perfect opportunity presents itself. My exact route will play itself out over the next year or so, but I’d really like to work in biotech or in biosecurity. I think I bring a unique background that might make me well-positioned to examine phenomena in different contexts than are currently predominant. 

What do you love most about being a researcher?
I really love the research environment most of all. I joined my lab in part to have at least 5 years dedicated to picking my PI’s brain on diverse topics. The community of researchers in my lab and center have really driven my understanding of topics previously foreign to me. I think my understanding of biological systems is richer because of those interactions. I do love when experiments work, but it’s the people and connections that provide the most obvious benefits to my everyday life.

What drew you to apply to this course? I think there’s no substitute to learning directly from experts. I’m new to proteomics, and I have an excellent colleague with whom I communicate frequently about mass spectrometry inquiries, but I have not received direct training on the ins and outs of this process, its limitations, and its possibilities. I want to know the standard methods and the conditions under which one might deviate from those. I want the tools to better think like a mass spectrometrist, and I hope that is reflected in the quality of data I manage to produce.

What is your key takeaway from the Course; and how do you plan to apply it to your work?
My key takeaway is that this process is filled with uncertainty at every level, and in some cases that uncertainty can propagate downstream, such that biological interpretation must only be done when the appropriate conditions are met. In terms of application, I think this will manifest itself in how I perform my pre-LC/MS steps via a consistent sample prep and in how I order multiple samples to reduce technical variation confounding biological variation.  

What feedback or advice would you share with someone considering to participate in this course?
I came into this course with a pretty specific project in mind and interpreted all the lectures through that lens. I wish that I had prepared more questions in advance, so that I could check them off and bring them up when appropriate. The condensed nature of this course made things a bit trickier, but I think it would be a good general rule to know what you want out of this experience before beginning. There’s a lot of information, and it’s very easy to get lost. A specific project and specific goals can help orient you through this maze. 

Anyone considering attending a CSHL course should consider how their research projects might be advanced from the lectures and activities provided in the course. They’ll need to understand just how packed these lectures are with information and come prepared to absorb as much of that as possible. They should come in with specific goals in mind and specific topics that they want to clarify. They will also want to find a quiet place in their house or office where they can really focus, because even a moment of relaxed attention can displace you for the entire lecture. I highly recommend attendance for anyone who doesn’t have access to experts in their field of study or who do and want to see another perspective. 

What’s the most memorable thing that happened during the Course?
I love history, both in general and with respect to scientific disciplines. I always like to start off talks by going back to the roots of a topic, finding the first person to do this or the inventor of that. So my most memorable experiences usually involved Daryl Pappin bringing that perspective into each lecture through his pointed comments. Whenever a seemingly random topic appeared on the slide, the lecturer usually did a great job to explain it, but Daryl had a knack for connecting that topic to some other topic previously discussed, typically through shared authorships or academic connections. That way of thinking really helps me understand the genesis of a field and its methodology, so I noted names, connections, and collaborations whenever possible.

Due to the pandemic, this course was transformed into a virtual course -- what do you think of the virtual format?
I would not have been able to attend this course had it not been virtual. Putting this material online was a great idea and surely made it far more accessible to many more researchers. In terms of execution, I think it went about as well as most Zoom meetings we’ve all had over the last few months. Minor technical difficulties, but the information was still there.

Thank you to Tim for being this week's featured visitor. To meet other featured researchers - and discover the wide range of science that takes part in a CSHL meeting or course - go here.