Visitor of the Week: Miguel Berbeira Santana

Meet Miguel Berbeira Santana of the University of Oxford (United Kingdom)! The first-year PhD student in Elena Seiradake’s lab within the Department of Biochemistry where they use Structural Biology and Cell Biology to understand how some proteins function in different contexts such as brain development or cancer. Miguel is with us for his first CSHL meeting -- Molecular Mechanisms of Neuronal Connectivity – where he presented a talk titled “A combinatorial code in brain development- What do we know about Latrophilin, FLRT, Unc5 and Teneurin in cortical development?” This is his first oral presentation at an international conference and “it went pretty well. [He] received extremely good questions [and] despite being super nervous, [Miguel] enjoyed the experience and…would gladly repeat it.”

Tell us about your research.
My research focuses mainly on elucidating how brain receptors, such as Teneurin or Latrophilin, interact with each other in a myriad of ways to direct brain development and neuronal connectivity. We use X-ray crystallography to determine their atomic structure and how they bind, and then use the information acquired to guide our cell-based studies. We go all the way from the atomic arrangement of the proteins to their function in the brain.

How did you decide to focus on this area/project?
During my undergrad years I became more and more interested in how the brain functions in health and disease. But something that I always found fascinating was how neurons know to make millions of connections at the same time without getting confused. Neurons use cell adhesion and guidance receptors to make these connections. As they only have a small repertoire of molecules that specify the connections, there has to be something else that helps. Recent studies point out that there is indeed a combinatorial code, in which several features of the proteins help them to create a high number of possible combinations with just those molecules. I find this amazing, as if neurons were intelligent themselves!

What and/or who is the inspiration behind your scientific journey?
I always wanted to be a historian and never thought of science as a suitable career for me and in fact, dreaded math and science. But in high school I had two splendid teachers who -- I will never forget and I will always thank -- taught me Biology and Math with such passion and so well, that I decided to give the subjects another chance the next year. One year became three and, later on, I went to University to study Biomedical Sciences; and today I am in the process of becoming a scientist. Who would have thought! Though I have to say that I have not yet given up on a degree in History!

What impact do you hope to make through your work and where do you see yourself in five years?
I do hope that my research helps to unveil some of the mysteries that surround brain development and synapse formation. If we are able to understand how these processes work in their basic form, we might be able to then tackle some of the diseases that affect them. I will be really happy for the day we know how such the brain develops from a few cells to the majestic structure that is when fully developed. But I would say there is still a long way ahead of us, if I am to be realistic.

Where do you see yourself in five years?
In five years, I would love to see myself happily doing a postdoc in a lab that also studies proteins related to the brain in health and disease. Perhaps having to do with Alzheimer´s disease (AD) or any other neurodegenerative disease. I have done some AD research previously and enjoyed it a lot, and would love to apply all that I am learning in my PhD to that field!

What do you love the most about being a researcher?
First and foremost, I would say doing experiments in the lab. Who does not like to do experiments?! The process of focusing on an experiment and forgetting about everything else is one that I find relaxing. I really love preparing protocols and I get excited when I have new ones to learn. Also, I enjoy thinking about the results and trying to make something coherent out of them. I always say that experiments are in a way pretty similar to cooking and doing a puzzle! Lastly, I like being exposed to new knowledge, and having to update my knowledge every single day is what makes this process much more enjoyable and intellectually fulfilling.

What drew you to attend this meeting?
I have heard of it extensively in the past and everyone always highlighted its quality. Those I know who have attended always talk about the fantastic research presented and I wanted to take part in it myself. As we had some data to present, we jumped at the opportunity and sent an abstract. Not all neurobiology conferences have a dedicated session to Structural Biology research, and it is greatly appreciated that this does.

What is your key takeaway from the Meeting; and how do you plan to apply it to your work?
During the conference, I could not stop thinking about the enormous amount of different techniques and fields that were being presented. Due to the complexity of what we are studying we need different points of view and ways to tackle them -- even when we are trying to solve a specific set of questions. Moreover, we do not have the time, resources or background knowledge to try to do everything by ourselves! So, the main takeaway would be to collaborate with other scientists because we all need each other to advance science!

What feedback or advice would you share with someone considering to participate in this meeting?
We are all here to discuss new scientific discoveries. Do not be shy and ask all the questions that you want -- people are super nice, and they will be grateful that you are interested in their work -- and in the virtual meeting format as this was, this is even easier to do because you just have to drop a message or email. Also, try to give yourself some time to go through all the posters and contact the presenters. And do not forget to stretch and drink water from time to time, you do need to rest from being in front of a computer!

What’s the most memorable thing that happened during the Meeting?
I found the quality of the speaker and poster selection and the smoothness of the talks’ virtual presentation to be fascinatingly fantastic. . The NIH Brain initiative talk by John Ngai was extremely interesting and noteworthy as well. And on a more personal level, I will never forget the moment I finished giving my talk! It was a great opportunity to discuss our work in front of a large panel of neurobiologists (and other scientists) and exchange ideas with them.

Thank you to Miguel 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.

Visitor of the Week: Danielle Roush

Meet Danielle Roush of the University of North Dakota! Danielle is a Ph.D. student in Dr. Turk Rhen’s lab, and she just took part in her first meeting at CSHL: Translational Control. Danielle will “return” for the Germ Cells virtual meeting later this month.

Tell us about your research.
My dissertation research focuses on the population and evolutionary genomics of temperature-dependent sex determination (TSD) using the common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) as a model.

How did you decide to focus on this area/project?
My interest in sex determination started with an undergraduate research project, while genetics and genomics were favorite topics of mine from the first time I learned about them. I like that genomics allows me to approach the mechanisms of sex determination from a broad perspective.

What and/or who is the inspiration behind your scientific journey?
I have wanted to be a scientist for as long as I can remember. I was fascinated by my early biology classes and the idea that there is always more to know. I value the ability to continue learning at every stage of my career, and scientific research offers endless opportunities to do so. Every discovery leads to more questions. I am also excited by the opportunity to contribute to the ever-growing body of scientific knowledge. I like the idea that sharing research might benefit multiple projects in unexpected ways.  

What impact do you hope to make through your work?
I am hoping to add to the understanding of the mechanisms of TSD and the processes involved in sex determination in general.

What do you love most about being a researcher?
I love learning new things. Being a researcher lets me explore the process of learning, figuring out which questions to ask, which problems need solving. I like the flexibility of being able to alter one’s research path as questions (or interests!) change.

What drew you to attend this meeting?
I really appreciated the breadth of material covered in the sessions, and the wide variety of researchers presenting even within each session. While my work focuses primarily on genomics, this meeting offered a great opportunity for me to learn about a range of topics related to translational control, and I always appreciate the chance to learn about systems that relate to and play a role in my research.

What is your key takeaway from the Meeting; and how do you plan to apply it to your work?
The meeting reinforced the importance of interdisciplinary research and really highlighted the need to continue using an interdisciplinary approach to my research.

What feedback or advice would you share with someone considering to participate in this meeting?
In addition to presentations and posters directly related to your work, seek out those that might only be tangentially related, or even those that seem unrelated but interesting. Take notes so you can look up interesting topics or methods, and don’t be afraid to ask questions.

What’s the most memorable thing that happened during the Meeting?
This was my first virtual meeting, and I really appreciated how the remote presentation was handled. The chairs were patient and helpful and did a very good job of contextualizing the panels and speakers. The speakers themselves handled the remote format very well (time zones, technical difficulties) and still conveyed their passion and excitement for their work. It was a pleasure to take part in a meeting that was so welcoming and enthusiastic.  

Thank you to Danielle 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.

Image provided by Danielle Roush

Visitor of the Week: Thaysa Tagliaferri

Meet Thaysa Tagliaferri of the Federal University of Viçosa (Brazil)! Thaysa is a postdoctoral fellow in Prof. Tiago Mendes’ lab within the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. She is taking part in the 2020 Genome Engineering: CRISPR Frontiers virtual meeting during which she virtually presented a poster entitled “CRISPR-Cas9 antimicrobial―Resistance reversal potential in challenging conditions.” This is Thaysa’s first CSHL meeting and though “so much information is available and being able to access them from your couch at home was very convenient, [she misses] the personal contact of in-person events.”

Tell us about your research.
My research focuses on the development of an efficient sequence-specific antimicrobial using the gene editing tool CRISPR-Cas9. We evaluate and optimize CRISPR-Cas9 performance when targeting high-copy number vectors and when employed in clinical bacterial isolates.

How did you decide to focus on this area/project?
I have been working with antimicrobial resistance pathogens since my MSc. During that time, I attended the iGEM competition where CRISPR-Cas was a hot topic. This opportunity inspired me to connect this technology with my supervisor’s research line (antimicrobial resistance). Even with no previous experience with CRISPR-Cas, we challenged ourselves in learning more about this promising field and this eventually became my PhD topic. We were hopeful to contribute to alternative treatments in view of antimicrobial resistance sharply increasing levels. Figuring out how CRISPR-Cas behaves in challenging conditions paves the way for better understanding its impact in a hypothetical clinical scenario.

What and/or who is the inspiration behind your scientific journey?
I’ve always been a curious individual, and my curiosity has always led me to seek answers and acquire new knowledge. To me, this is the core of science, being able to minutely understand how the world works and to be able to contribute to the development of society throughout the journey. My family has also served as a great personal inspiration. All the effort they’ve put into my education helped me get where I am today.

What impact do you hope to make through your work?
Antimicrobial resistance is a public health problem leading to millions of deaths every year worldwide. I hope my work progresses CRISPR-Cas against this fight. This means raising new research questions in the field, and stimulating new researchers to join such an important and fascinating area and help us achieving results that will ultimately benefit humans.

What do you love most about being a researcher?
I love the multifaceted aspect of science: bench work, experimental design, results analysis, writing, drawing, oral presentations, teaching, scientific communication and so many other different areas we can explore! All of the above make it impossible to find science boring and they allow us to test new hypothesis that could significantly contribute to societal development.

What drew you to attend this meeting?
I’m really fascinated about the versatility of CRISPR-Cas techniques and the avenues it has opened in science. This meeting is a great opportunity to stay up-to-date with recent developments in the field and its application in different areas, including against COVID-19.

What is your key takeaway from the Meeting; and how do you plan to apply it to your work?
The extraordinarily fast pace in which CRISPR-Cas develops, and the fact that there is still so much to explore! I became inspired by different methodological strategies that I’m definitely going to try and implement in my future projects.

What feedback or advice would you share with someone considering to participate in this meeting?
The organization team has done an amazing job to minimize the drawbacks that an online conference may cause. Several communication channels were created, meetings with the speakers were carried out, and all posters were made available. This was such a great event! My advice is this: get familiar with all tools they offer, and you will be able to extract and enjoy the most out of it.

What’s the most memorable thing that happened during the Meeting?
If I may cite two memorable moments, I would first highlight the tribute to Rosalind Franklin, which acknowledged her groundbreaking contribution to science and to genome editing. The panel discussion around the COVID-19 also deserves mention as it included CRISPR-Cas based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-19 detection and the importance of massive testing for containing the virus spread, which was incredibly relevant given our current situation.

Thank you to Thaysa 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.

Image provided by Thaysa Tagliaferri

Visitor of the Week: Jemma Dunn

Meet Jemma Dunn of the University of Plymouth (United Kingdom)! Jemma is a postdoctoral researcher in Oliver Hanemann’s lab, as well as a participant in the 2020 Mechanisms & Models of Cancer virtual meeting. She presented a poster entitled, “Integrated transcriptome-proteome profiling of meningioma” and has this to say of her virtual poster presentation experience:

As the meeting was virtual, I was really impressed at the ease of still being able to provide a poster and how this was coordinated by the meeting organizers. I would go as far as to say it was more useful to be able to view all posters online and search for research you are interested in much quicker than walking around many poster stands! It was also great to be able to still talk directly with the author of a poster if you wished through the Slack platform and for other participants to contact me with questions about my poster.     

Tell us about your research.
My research focusses on providing a deeper insight into the molecular characterization of meningioma, the most common primary intracranial tumor, by exploring expression patterns at both the transcript and protein level using an integrated omics approach. Following this, we have highlighted molecular candidates with potential as therapeutic targets or biomarkers of these tumors and are in the process of functionally validating these.

How did you decide to focus on this area/project?
At present, there are still no effective pharmacological interventions for meningioma and following surgical resection, the most aggressive form of this tumor, WHO grade III, are prone to recurrence and remain therapeutically challenging. Thus, we wanted to build upon previous omics studies and for the first time, investigate the transcriptome-proteome profile of grade III meningioma compared to slow-growing grade I meningioma. In this way, we were able to identify expression patterns across two molecular levels and elucidate potential therapeutic targets or biomarkers that may provide future benefit for grade III diagnosed meningioma patients.

What and/or who is the inspiration behind your scientific journey?
I initially pursued a PhD and scientific career as I enjoyed unravelling the molecular mechanisms leading to a specific pathological state. However, throughout my PhD and continued research I am most inspired when I speak to the public during our lab tours. This is when I remember the end goal of our work and why it is so paramount. If the research we are undertaking will in some way, small or large, eventually travel from bench to bedside and benefit the patient then we have achieved our objectives. 

What impact do you hope to make through your work?
I hope the research we are undertaking in meningioma here, at University of Plymouth, will contribute to the comprehensive multi-omics overview of these tumors, and ultimately, aid in providing effective patient diagnosis and treatment.

What do you love most about being a researcher?
I really enjoy the challenge of attempting to discover what is happening on the molecular level in order to unpick the changes leading to a pathological state, almost like finding the missing pieces to a puzzle. However, as well as the experimental side, which may or may not always go to plan, the interactions within the research environment I work are also a large contributor as to why I love being a researcher. To be able to discuss hypotheses, successful and failed experiments, as well as expand my knowledge of different fields daily through communicating with colleagues is truly invaluable to my own progression.

What drew you to attend this meeting?
As research is constantly changing and advancing so quickly, with ever expanding fields alongside new or improved techniques to investigate them, I believe it is imperative to attend meetings such as this one to broaden your knowledge outside of your current research. My research is now moving towards cancer metabolism, an area I have not delved into previously. I am thus interested to learn of current research in this field from the scientists themselves through their talks and hopefully take away some ideas that I could apply to my own research. 

What is your key takeaway from the Meeting; and how do you plan to apply it to your work?
My key takeaway is that in order to continue progressing and move ever closer to translatable treatment for the patient, collaboration between scientists is vital. Through collaboration and shared ideas, techniques and sample numbers can be optimized to provide the strongest overview of a pathological state, ultimately allowing us to better guide diagnoses and treatments. I always come away from these meetings in awe of the progress other participants have achieved in answering their hypotheses. Indeed, it is often the case these projects have included multiple collaborators, and this is what I will plan to apply to my own projects to progress my research more effectively.

What feedback or advice would you share with someone considering to participate in this meeting?
I would advise future meeting participants to really take advantage of the broad range of research areas within cancer that you will be exposed to during this meeting. I come from a proteomics background and to be able to learn about ongoing research from areas of cancer metabolism, epigenetics and stem cells to name just a few was a brilliant experience. However, I would suggest that it can become overwhelming with the expanse of data the talks will present but try to remember that this is often years of work shrunken into a 20-minute talk. I had to keep this in mind as a postdoc just starting out, so as not to feel dejected about my own progress!

What’s the most memorable thing that happened during the Meeting?
As the meeting had to adapt to being virtual it is obviously not exactly the same as being able to interact with participants in person. However, it was still great to see all of the speakers and get the chance to interact with them in different sessions, even if virtually! The talks really did make you feel like you were in a physical room and the questions and answer section helped me further understand aspects of the research being presented.

Thank you to Jemma 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.

Images provided by Jemma Dunn

Visitor of the Week: Timothy Licknack

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.