In our fifth SciArt Profile we meet Sofia Araújo, a Professor in the University of Barcelona.
Where are you originally from, where do you work now, and what do you work on now?
I am originally from Portugal. I took my Ph.D. in the UK and now, after a postdoc and a career development award at the IBMB-CSIC and IRB Barcelona, I am a Professor at the Department of Genetics Microbiology and Statistics and the Institute of Biomedicine at the University of Barcelona (http://www.ub.edu/ibub/research-group/sofia-araujo/), where I run a research lab on the genetics of cell behaviour during development. In my research group, we work on the cell biology of development, more specifically on how single-cells branch.
Where you always going to be a scientist?
Science has always been a very important part of my life. I knew from early on that I wanted to be a researcher and the real problem has always been on what to focus on, since I get excited about many things and like to follow the lead from whatever interesting results we have in the lab.
And what about art – have you always enjoyed it?
Art, like science, has always been an important part of my life, since I was a child. I remember spending long hours drawing and painting and finding it a great way to express myself. I got extra help from my mum, a secondary school arts teacher, which made things easier whenever I wanted to try a new technique! Unfortunately, it is art that mainly suffers from when I don’t have enough time, so it always has had its ups and downs. However, I do need it as a balance in my life, so I always end up finding the time to do it! I am mainly a drawer and a painter, but I have also done some pottery and woodwork and, of course, the good old embroidery.
Who are your artistic influences?
I like art and I enjoy the works of many artists, but I cannot say I have an artistic influence. Because I like drawing and painting nature, animals and scientific images, I do like the influence of artists like Henry Rousseau, Vincent Van Gogh, Marianne North and of course, Ramon y Cajal!
How do you make your art?
Nowadays, I only use charcoal, watercolour and oil. And lately, I have been mainly working with oil on canvas. Approaches vary depending on which painting I work on. If I am painting a dinosaur for my kids, I search for good images on the internet. Sometimes, I paint landscapes from my own photos. Or I draw and paint cells and tissues from our own confocal images.
Does your art influence your science at all, or are they separate worlds?
They are both part of my life, so they do influence each other, of course. But I cannot pinpoint if painting has ever made me compose my microscopy photographs in any special way. I think it is more like my science has influenced my art, since I started painting confocal microscopy images with oil on canvases!
What are you thinking of working on next?
I will certainly continue painting confocal images and animals, intercalated with other types of images, like landscapes, whatever inspires me as I go along. I only wish I had more time to experiment with new techniques and ways of painting!
Neurons – Oil on canvas
Tracheal Terminal Cell – Oil on canvas
Leziria (Portuguese landscape) – Oil on canvas
Torre de Belem – charcoal on paper
T-Rex – Oil on canvas
Gallery of Sofia’s pieces (click for full size image & caption)
We’re looking for new people to feature in this series throughout the year – whatever kind of art you do, from sculpture to embroidery to music to drawing, if you want to share it with the community just email thenode@biologists.com (nominations are also welcome!).
In the context of an ERC funded project, the laboratory of Dr. Bomont (NeuroMyoGene institute, Lyon, France) is recruiting several fellows.
We are seeking highly motivated candidates for neuronal cytoskeleton, to work on a project aiming at fueling innovation in fundamental neurobiology and therapeutic development.
This project is multidisciplinary and will be conducted in an enthusiastic lab fascinated about the biology of the cytoskeleton, together with collaborators expert in mathematics and biophysics. If you are passionate about pushing the frontiers of developmental neurobiology using live microscopy & OMICS in zebrafish, this project is for you!
The group of Prof. Dr. T. Vogel at the Institute for Anatomy and Cell Biology, Department Molecular Embryology, University of Freiburg is looking for a highly motivated Postdoc. One research focus of Prof. Vogel´s group lies on epigenetic mechanisms. In particular, we study histone modifications in stem cell specification during neurodevelopment and in CNS disease (Ferrari et al, Nat Comm, 2020, Gray de Cristoforis et al, Mol Brain, 2020, Franz et al, NAR, 2019, Bovio et al, Mol Neuro, 2018, Grassi et al, Cerebral Cortex, 2017, Roidl et al, Stem Cells, 2016). We are looking for a postdoctoral researcher to integrate into the current research projects of the lab. These focus lies on the role of transcriptional regulation through histone modifications with regard to interneuron specification and/or on hippocampus development. As a surplus the group gives possibility to teach macro- and microscopic anatomy in German language. Starting date: from now on.
You are convincing through
a strong background in biochemistry, biology, molecular medicine, medicine or equivalent, as well as an outstanding PhD or MD,
documented experience in techniques of cell biology, protein biochemistry and molecular biology, applied to understand the development or function of the central nervous system,
experience with bioinformatical analyses of large data sets and next-generation-sequencing, in live cell microscopy, or electroporation techniques,
very good communication skills in English,
enthusiasm for science, strong motivation, the ability to learn new techniques and to work synergistically in a team,
motivation to teach medical students in Anatomy.
We are offering
to work on high topical research projects with different techniques in a collaborative setting,
an international work atmosphere,
a scheme towards academic qualification and education in teaching and research.
Employment will be temporary.
Please send applications including the usual documentation (CV, degrees, a minimum of 2 references, short letter of motivation for application to the lab, list of publication) via email until March 15th to:
We offer one fully funded postdoctoral position up to five years in the Laboratory of Genome Integrity located at the National Institutes of Health (NIH, Bethesda, MD). NIH is the largest biomedical research agency in the world, fosters world-renowned researchers and provides access to state-of-the art innovative technologies and scientific resources.
Our laboratory uses human and mouse embryonic stem cells (ESCs) as well as mouse embryos to understand the molecular mechanisms underlying cell fate decisions. The applicant should have or about to have a PhD in Developmental Biology, Genetics or similar, and must have demonstrated expertise on molecular biology/mammalian cell culture (preferably in embryonic stem cells). Knowledge in mouse embryology, single-cell RNAseq, chromatin architecture and/or next generation sequencing technologies will be considered as an advantage.
The applicant will be involved in a very exciting project investigating the relation between cell plasticity/totipotency and chromatin architecture (see our last publication about this topic, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.20.423692). We seek a highly motivated, creative individual, eager to learn and develop new technologies and complex cell systems based on live cell/embryo imaging, single-cell technologies and CRISPR-based editing interested in understanding how a single cell can develop into a complex multicellular organism in vitro and in vivo.
Please send a brief cover letter, CV and three reference letters via e-mail to:
Vega-Sendino, et al (2021) The ETS Transcription Factor ERF controls the exit from the naïve pluripotent state. BioRxiv, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.01.429223.
The ELISIR program provides a stellar fresh PhD graduate the possibility to head a small team of scientists without going through a traditional post-doc, much in the spirit of analogous programs at MIT, Harvard or UCSF, to name but a few. This is a non-tenured position that can be held up to five years.
Within the context of the DFG research unit “Morphodynamics of Plants” (FOR2581) a Ph.D. position is available in the lab of Prof. Kay Schneitz, Dept. of Plant Developmental Biology, Technical University of Munich in Freising/Germany.
The research unit “Morphodynamics of Plants” is a multi-disciplinary consortium of nine groups (biologists, physicists, computer scientists) located in Munich/Freising, Heidelberg, and Cologne that want to understand how plants shape their organs. In the past the Schneitz lab contributed to the machine learning-based digital image analysis pipeline “PlantSeg” [1]. Using PlantSeg the lab succeeded in creating a digital 3D atlas of ovule development in Arabidopsis thaliana with cellular resolution [2]. The ovule is the predecessor of the seed and the major female reproductive organ in higher plants. Its extreme curvature represents a particularly fascinating morphogenetic process.
The successful candidate will take advantage of the digital 3D atlas of ovule development and combine genetic, cell biological and computational approaches to understand the genetic, cellular and mechanic basis of integument morphogenesis and ovule curvature. Starting date is June 2021 but is negotiable. Funding is at the usual TV-L E13/2 level.
We are looking for a highly motivated scientist trained in molecular and cell biology and/or biophysics with a strong interest in interdisciplinary work at the interface of bioinformatics, advanced confocal microscopy, image processing, 3D computer visualization, modelling, and cell and developmental genetics. The person should have good problem-solving skills and be able to work independently. Fluency in English is a must. Computer affinity is a must. Programming skills (Python, R) are a plus. Applicants must have a University degree equivalent to a German MSc degree.
References:
[1] Wolny et al. (2020) Accurate and versatile 3D segmentation of plant tissues at cellular resolution. eLife 9: e57613.
[2] Vijayan, Tofanelli et al. (2021) A digital 3D reference atlas reveals cellular growth patterns shaping the Arabidopsis ovule. eLife 10: e63262.
The regenerative biologist Richard Goss wrote a half century ago: ‘If there were no regeneration, there would be no life. If everything regenerated, there would be no death. All organisms exist between these two themes.’ (Goss, 1969). Tissue regeneration is on display in natural phenomena known to most professional and lay biologists, such as the renewal of tails dropped by lizards to distract predators, or the reproductive fission of flatworms that creates a new head and tail and turns one animal into two. Humans are often casually referred to in the literature or in discussion as unable to regenerate. However, tissues like liver, blood, skeletal muscle and intestinal epithelia possess tremendous regenerative potential. Other tissues such as pancreas, heart, brain and kidney lie lower on this spectrum. With regenerative capacity described as shades of gray rather than black or white, virtually all tissues have some low or latent regenerative capacity that might be stimulated by experimental or therapeutic manipulation.
The field of regeneration has been intertwined with developmental biology from its onset, so to consider tissue regeneration as nothing other than central to developmental biology undervalues both disciplines. Viewed through a regenerative biologist’s lens, fertilization triggers the most spectacular regenerative event of all – the growth and morphogenesis of an entire organism from a single cell – and the terms ‘regeneration’ and ‘reproduction’ were once used interchangeably by biologists. A rich history of luminary scientists who shaped biology in multiple ways over their careers included regeneration as a topic of their investigations. Thus, any student who readies themself with scissors or scalpel today against worm, fish, frog or salamander will be repeating an exercise from centuries ago. René-Antoine Ferchault de Reaumur described experiments examining appendage regeneration in crayfish in 1712 (Reaumur, 1712), building on observations of Jean-Baptiste Du Tertre decades before and contributing with others to debates on predestination, the existence of miniaturized tissue reserves or germs, and the nature of the soul. A founding father of laboratory animal model systems, Abraham Trembley brought hydra from the field into his university in the early and mid-18th century to bisect and disorganize (Trembley, 1744). Vertebrate regeneration fell under the magnifying glass of Lazzaro Spallanzani who, in the 1760s, described regeneration not only in snails and worms, but also in amphibians, most notably salamanders – cementing limb regeneration in newts and axolotls in the pantheon of regenerative events (Spallanzani, 1769). At the turn of the 20th century, Thomas Hunt Morgan explored regeneration in a host of creatures from flatworms to killifish. Descriptions of his experiments and those of others, showcased in his classic Regeneration, were profoundly thoughtful and rigorous, challenging controversial views on the extent to which regeneration is a product of adaptation (Morgan, 1901).
Over the past two decades, regenerative biology has grown exponentially as a field, making this an exciting time indeed. Transgenesis and knockout technologies for mice applied initially to fields of embryology, immunology, cancer and neuroscience found a willing partner in regeneration. Key regulators of events such as skeletal muscle regeneration, liver regeneration and axon regeneration began to emerge, and source cells for regeneration in many tissues were implicated by genetic lineage tracing. The past decade has seen the use of these techniques, most recently accompanied by genome editing, perfuse additional model systems, many of which have been reinvigorated from the classic era.
This is a crude and filtered representation of a great history, but we are supremely fortunate today to have available dozens of animal model systems and injury contexts, and methodologies some of us could not have dreamed of two decades ago. Lineage-tracing experiments, complemented by molecular trajectories inferred from single-cell RNA-sequencing, have rooted out cellular subpopulations and states, and enable conclusions on developmental plasticity during regeneration. New imaging platforms and cell tracking software facilitate direct visualization and quantification of cell behaviors in live regenerating tissues, either in accessible surface tissues or by intravital imaging to probe internal tissues. CRISPR-Cas9-based tools have brought genetics to the masses, facilitating mutant creation and analysis in familiar species and those new on the scene. Induced pluripotent stem cells can be used to generate ex vivo regeneration models for human tissues, or can be a source of resident stem cells for engineering applications such as skin or corneal therapy.
The current and next generations of regeneration scientists have many key questions to attack and goals to consider. Among these, to what extent do gene regulatory networks of regeneration overlap with those involved in initial development, growth or homeostasis of tissue? Why does wound healing trigger regeneration in some contexts but scarring in others, and what roles do inflammatory cells and fibroblasts play? How do we genome- and epigenome-edit for safe, effective regenerative therapies, and can regeneration programs be harnessed for particularly ambitious goals such as a functional blastema for mammalian limb stumps? What is altered during senescence to impact physiological regeneration and injury responses, and how are these targets best modulated to slow aging? And, as Morgan wondered, can we understand how and why regeneration has been retained or lost during evolution? Addressing questions like these will not only require the innovation of new tools and technologies, but continued inclusion of new animal species in which we study regenerative events.
Which takes us (finally) to the point of this editorial. When we started our laboratories, given the miniscule size of the community, talks on regeneration represented a small fraction of coverage in conferences centered on developmental biology, tissue disease or animal model systems. Poster presentations were sprinkled among various session themes, and we liked to joke that our regeneration talks were relegated to those necessary, end-of-conference sessions. Now, thanks to recognition and embrace of its re-emerging importance by major societies such as the Society for Developmental Biology, the International Society for Stem Cell Research and others, regeneration is a cornerstone and plenary topic of many meetings worldwide. Yet, no formal community for regenerative biologists exists – nor has one ever to our knowledge – and regular meetings are infrequent, every 2 or 4 years. We are thus pleased to launch the International Society for Regenerative Biology (ISRB) this year, to promote research and education in the field of regenerative biology (isrbio.org). This effort will formalize an inclusive and integrated community of scientists that studies all aspects of regeneration in invertebrate and vertebrate model organisms. The ISRB will support and enhance key existing meetings, while organizing its own main conference and virtual events such as webinars. Another function of the ISRB will be to convey the importance and impact of regeneration research to the greater scientific and lay communities, by highlighting regenerative biologists and their discoveries and through outreach activities and educational resources. It will promote regenerative biology by giving awards for discoveries and service, and by advocating for research and community funding. One of us (K.D.P.) will serve as Founding President, and the other (E.M.T.) will serve as President-Elect. Regular elections will fill positions for other Officers, and a diverse Board of Directors will advise and oversee operations.
We recognize that regenerative biologists have existing commitments with societies, and we emphasize that ISRB will complement and collaborate with these societies rather than compete with them. A primary role for the ISRB will be enabling cross-species comparisons to understand the commonalities and divergences in regenerative capacity and the mechanisms of regeneration – toward an integrative framework. We envisage the ISRB as the central society to promote and help achieve this next frontier for our field. Regular opportunities will be available for investigators using different models and injury contexts, but with the common goal of understanding how and why regeneration works, to share their discoveries and form new collaborations. Junior scientists will be a focus of the ISRB and will be provided with opportunities for interactions, visibility and career support.
Our first meeting will be virtual and concise, consisting of exciting scientific talks and an open community discussion on April 8-9, 2021 (isrbio.org). Some of these talks will be chosen from abstracts of unpublished work submitted by graduate students and postdoctoral researchers. We await our first in-person conference at a stimulating location in 2023, most likely to be hybrid with virtual features. We warmly and eagerly encourage you to join as a member, and, if you are a group leader, to encourage your group members to join. Participate in the launch meeting this April to see great science, and get involved! This has been a long time coming.
Acknowledgements
We thank A. Dickson, H. Roehl, K. Echeverri and S. Eming for comments on the manuscript.
References
Goss, R. J. (1969). Principles of Regeneration. New York: Academic Press.
Morgan, T. (1901). Regeneration. New York: Macmillan.
Reaumur, R. A. F. (1712). Sur les diverses reproductions qui se font dans les Écrevisses, les Omards, les Crabes, etc., et entr’autres sur celles de leurs jambes et de leurs écailles. Mem. Acad. Roy. Sci., 223–245.
Spallanzani, L. (1769). An Essay on Animal Reproductions. London: T. Becket and P. A. de Hondt.
Trembley, A. (1744). Memoires pour servir a l’histoire d’un genre de polypes d’eau douce a bras en forme de cornes. Leiden, The Netherlands: J. & H. Verbeek.
Hox genes instruct positional identity along the anterior-posterior axis of the animal body. A new paper in Development addresses the question of how similar Hox genes can define diverse cell fates, using mouse motor neurons as a model. To hear more about the work, we caught up with the paper’s two first authors, PhD students Milica Bulajić and Divyanshi Srivastava, and their respective supervisors Esteban Mazzoni (Associate Professor of Biology at New York University, USA) and Shaun Mahony (Assistant Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology at Penn State University, USA).
Milica, Divyanshi, Esteban and Shaun (clockwise from top L).
Esteban and Shaun, what questions are your labs trying to answer, and how did you come to collaborate on this project?
EM: To understand cell differentiation, we focus on investigating how transcription factors control transcription and establish long-lasting epigenetic memories. With this knowledge, we then aim to control cell fate at will for clinical applications.
SM: We develop machine learning applications to understand gene regulatory systems. We particularly focus on understanding how transcription factors find their binding sites and drive regulatory responses in dynamic contexts such as development.
EM & SM: We began collaborating as postdocs more than a decade ago when ChIP was emerging (back when it was ChIP-chip!), and there were few computational tools. Even back then, we collaborated at a distance, with EM in New York and SM in Boston. EM was developing cellular models to understand cell differentiation at scales and purity compatible with the technology, and SM was developing tools to analyse the data, extract meaningful information and generate hypotheses. This cycle has been going strong ever since: the analyses carried out in SM’s lab have proposed hypotheses about transcription factor selectivity that EM’s lab has tested, and the systems and technologies developed in EM’s lab have inspired many of the computational tools developed in SM’s lab.
Milica and Divyanshi – how did you come to work in the Mazzoni and Mahony labs, and what is the main drive behind your research?
MB: I finished my undergraduate studies in Molecular Biology at the University of Belgrade, Serbia, where I am from. I joined the PhD program at the Department of Biology at New York University in 2014. After spending my first year rotating in different labs, I joined the Mazzoni lab because I really liked the research and enjoyed my rotation project, which was Hox related. I knew that I wanted to continue working on Hox genes and felt supported by Esteban in choosing questions to work on.
DS: When I started my PhD at Penn State, I was keen to work on computational regulatory genomics. I am very excited by the potential of novel computational methods to elucidate complex biology. Therefore, the Mahony lab was a great fit, with Shaun’s expertise in computational biology and the Mazzoni lab’s exciting work on the regulatory biology of cellular differentiation!
How has your research been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic?
EM: Like most institutions, we closed down with two days’ notice. The situation really dawned on me when we turned off equipment for the first time since I opened the lab. However, the hiatus made us focus and plan, and execute the most informative experiments now that we are at 50% output. Thus, it has had a positive side effect.
MB: We were out of the lab for about 3 months so there were some experimental delays, but I’m very lucky that I didn’t lose any work, or need a long time to start things up again. I also had plenty of data to analyse and manuscript edits to incorporate so that has been keeping me busy.
SM: As a computational lab, we were fortunate that we could continue making progress when others lost access to their facilities. But it has still been challenging to adapt to remote research; we miss the conversations and spontaneous debugging sessions that drive computational research forward. As with many others, I’ve personally found it difficult to devote enough time to research while also dealing with remote elementary school and adapting my own courses to a remote format.
DS: COVID-19 has been challenging due to the remote nature of all computational work, but I was fortunate that we had continued access to computational resources, as well as a supportive lab environment, which made it easier to work through the more difficult days.
What was known about the relationship between Hox binding and chromatin accessibility prior to your work?
MB, DS, SM, EM: When we planned these experiments, not much was known about their differential ability to bind inaccessible chromatin. Soon after that, in 2016, Robert White’s group described how some Drosophila Hox factors bind to chromatin. And then, around the time we were writing our paper last summer, a few relevant papers came out. The White group published a more extensive evaluation of all Drosophila Hox proteins showing that accessibility has a role in Hox selectivity, and out of all of the central and posterior Hox proteins, Abd-B stood out in having a higher ability to bind inaccessible sites. This was really interesting for two reasons: first, Hox proteins do have different abilities to bind to inaccessible chromatin; second, it primed our work – how do vertebrate posterior Hox genes (Hox9-13), all of which are fly Abd-B orthologues, behave? Coincidentally, Marie Kmita’s group published a preprint showing that Hox13 paralogs are required to open specific sites during limb development. Finally, Denis Duboule’s group showed similar results in genital development. Thus, the field was coming together.
Can you give us the key results of the paper in a paragraph?
MB, DS, SM, EM: We investigated the binding, transcriptional targets, sequence and chromatin preferences of seven different mammalian Hox proteins in a relevant cell type patterned by Hox genes. We discovered that the ability to engage with inaccessible sites is an important factor that drives Hox binding specificity. This ability seems to be driven by the DNA-binding domain and C-terminus. These results show that Hox specificity models should incorporate sequence preference, co-factor interactions and intrinsic abilities to bind inaccessible chromatin. We believe this can be extended to other homeobox genes (and perhaps other paralogous transcription factor groups) as a binding diversification strategy.
This piece of art was made by Dylan Iannitelli, a PhD student in the Mazzoni lab, from ChIP-seq data for Hox binding.
Where Hox proteins show high affinity for inaccessible chromatin, do you think they are acting as so-called ‘pioneer’ factors?
MB, DS, SM, EM: Our results and other studies show clearly that some Hox proteins play a role in ‘opening’ some regions of relatively inaccessible chromatin during differentiation. However, in the strict sense, the term ‘pioneer factor’ is reserved for those transcription factors that have been demonstrated to bind to DNA wrapped around nucleosomes, which subsequently evict nucleosomes. Our data is compatible with some posterior Hox proteins acting as pioneers, but it is now a good hypothesis to test.
What explains the different chromatin affinities – even among paralogs – of the various posterior Hox proteins?
MB, DS, SM, EM: We used multiple different approaches to characterize sequence preferences and found no evidence that sequence explains the different chromatin affinities. For example, we found no sequence preference differences between HOXC9 and HOXC10, or HOXC9 and the other HOX9 paralogs. Our results with the chimeras, made by swapping HOXC10 and HOXC13 DNA-binding domains, show that chromatin affinities seem to be controlled by the homeodomain and C-terminus. As shown with the bHLH family, the different homeodomains could engage the DNA-nucleosome complex in slightly different ways.
When doing the research, did you have any particular result or eureka moment that has stuck with you?
MB: I think for me, the most impactful thing was seeing the binding results for HOXC13, and finding that it binds to very inaccessible chromatin. Similarly, when I made the chimeric Hox proteins, seeing that this ability is controlled by the DNA-binding domain and C-terminus.
DS: For me, observing the difference in chromatin accessibility at HOXC9-only sites compared with other differentially bound Hox transcription factor sites was an exciting moment. And of course, the binding results for HOXC13 were striking.
Observing the difference in chromatin accessibility at HOXC9-only sites compared with other differentially bound Hox transcription factor sites was an exciting moment.
And what about the flipside: any moments of frustration or despair?
MB: Waiting for reviews during the publication process can be stressful. There are always ups and downs when writing a paper, but when it’s finally written and then accepted for publication, it’s a great feeling.
DS: It was challenging to design a differential binding strategy for multiple transcription factors. We took a long time to arrive at analyses that were robust and reproducible, and that could overcome biases related to technical and experimental noise.
What next for you two after this paper?
MB: I am writing another manuscript and scheduling my PhD defence for early 2021. I’m also in the process of looking and applying for jobs.
DS: I am working on developing computational approaches that can interpretably model transcription factor binding sites. I also plan to defend in early 2021, and pursue research-related positions after my PhD.
Where will this story take the Mahony and Mazzoni labs?
EM: For us, it has two logical future paths. First, gaining insights into Hox-dependent positional identity allows for the precise control of in vitro differentiated motor neuron positional fate. Second, it opened a new dimension within homeodomain transcription factor diversification. The small sequence preference variation was always hard to reconcile with their diverse functions. Now, we hypothesize that the ability to engage inaccessible sites provides an orthogonal mechanism for homeobox genes to diversify their binding and, thus, gene regulation.
SM: This project has really brought home the importance of pre-existing chromatin environments in determining transcription factor binding specificity during development. In a parallel project, Divyanshi has also developed neural networks that can interpret how sequence and pre-existing chromatin features predict the binding specificity of a transcription factor. So, the use of these types of approaches to understand how chromatin shapes transcription factor binding (and vice versa) will continue to be a big focus in our lab, especially in terms of being applied to understand the dynamic systems studied in Esteban’s lab.
Finally, let’s move outside the lab – what do you like to do in your spare time in New York and Pennsylvania?
MB: Going for long walks and hikes, and sitting in a park with a good book.
EM: I am an avid sailor, taking me beyond the lab, the city and the continent. Last October, I participated in a trans-Atlantic race.
DS: I like to go cycling, with the rolling hills of central Pennsylvania providing some lovely terrain.
SM: We’re very fortunate in central Pennsylvania to have lots of beautiful parks and trails, and that’s where my family and I like to spend our spare time.
In our fourth SciArt Profile we meet Priyanka Oberoi, an illustrator, artist and photographer whose work often features scientific themes.
Priyanka with a wall of her art.
Where are you originally from and what do you work on now?
Originally I am from India, and am an illustrator and photographer by profession. After spending five years studying art in the College of Art in New Delhi and National Institute of Design in Paldi I started my career as a staff photographer for the magazine ‘Sports Illustrated’ in New Delhi, India. From there I moved on to freelancing as an illustrator and photographer full time. This gave be creative freedom to explore and time to increase my skill set. Studio pottery and wall murals are some of the few skills that I added to my portfolio. I started making scientific illustrations 4 years ago in Germany and currently continue the same in Brussels with my husband and five month old baby boy.
When did science first come in to your life?
I studied science and math in school about fifteen years ago. Deriving physics equations and finding the square root from a hypotenuse taught me that I was better suited for something else. While being an artist was never a childhood dream, it definitely became so after school, and I feel extremely fortunate to have found my forte in art.
Science came back in my life when a few scientist friends asked for some drawings. What started with scientific illustrations for journal papers went on to posters and merchandise for conferences, journal covers, gifs explaining various scientific concepts, lab wall art and more. The scope of scientific communication has really caught my imagination.
Who are your artistic influences?
The impressionists with their bold and confident brush strokes have always left me in awe, and Monet, Manet, Van Gogh and Surat adorn my home walls. The Indian artist from Goa Mario Miranda is someone I look up to for inspiration for my pen and inks. The pop colours in Andy Warhol’s screen prints gives me confidence to go crazy with my colour palettes.
What do you think of the relationship between science and art?
I am not a scientist, but the process of creating art certainly has an impact on scientific process. With art, one needs to distil an idea into a single, coherent visual representation. For instance, when I work with client to create a cover art or graphical abstract, a lot of thought goes into which elements faithfully represent the finding, not just for the author’s peers but for the broader audience. This certainly helps streamline scientific thinking. In-fact, I would suggest scientists create graphical abstracts of their work or progress, as it would help with understanding the major focus of the work and improving the planning of experiments.
“With art, one needs to distil an idea into a single, coherent visual representation”
How do you make your art?
Pen and inks are my specialty when it comes to illustrations. While I make most of my scientific illustrations digitally the comfort of the simple pen and paper are undeniable.
Be it a commissioned work of art or an idea that I want to bring to life, I always start with my little sketch book. I start by writing key words of a particular project, and if the client has any specific requirements then I note them down too, but if not I start with my favourite, a blank canvas. Then comes the mood board: this generates the basic feel of the artwork which includes the colour palette, sketch style, canvas shape and many such details. This gives the client an idea of the route I will take for the project. With these approvals I start with the artwork. Rough sketches start to adorn my sketch book. Some concepts take days to formulate while some just click instantly. These steps give me a clear passage into my final work of art.
I work on a variety of techniques. Sometimes if the requirement demands a painterly quality that I cannot achieve via digital platforms I go back to the traditional canvas or paper with high resolution scans. The bottom line is that the process is super intoxicating and so when one project comes to an end I cannot wait to begin the next!
What are you thinking of working on next?
I am currently working on a board game for the Deutsch museum in Munich – acompletely new challenge with its new set of rules.
Also filling up my sketch book pages is a self initiated project called ‘Danio & Rerio’. A weekly comic strip that I recently started on twitter that embarks on the adventures of two zebrafish and their stints with various fun science experiments.
Apart from commissioned works of art I conduct team building and exploratory workshops. One such workshop includes traditional wooden blocks that I got made in India. These wooden blocks are science themed with a twist used for block printing on bags, t-shirts and pretty much any surface. These workshops are open to any lab that want some reclamation time. This inexpensive activity is fun and refreshes all the members of a lab without planning a formal retreat. One set of workshops are going to be offered to an international school in Brussels for their extra curricular spring and possibly summer sessions.
Conference poster: Molecular origins of Life, Munich 2021
Conference poster: Molecular origins of Life, Munich 2020
Conference poster: Engineering Life from origins to organs, Dresden 2019
Scientific conference posters
Lab Wall Art: ‘Bottoms up life forms’. Commissioned by Dr James Saenz, B CUBE – Center for Molecular Bioengineering, Dresden
Danio & Rerio – My weekly comic strip based on two zebrafish and their adventures with various scientific and fun experiments (more of this can be seen on my twitter handle- PriyankaObero16)
Model Organism Illustrations- These are three of my best seller illustrations available on sale as prints on t-shirts, mugs, phone covers and more on Redbubble
Model Organism Illustrations- These are three of my best seller illustrations available on sale as prints on t-shirts, mugs, phone covers and more on Redbubble
Model Organism Illustrations- These are three of my best seller illustrations available on sale as prints on t-shirts, mugs, phone covers and more on Redbubble
Corona Mandala- I made this illustration in April 2020 during the lockdown when I was confined to the space in my home like the rest of the world, I could only see and hear Corona. Like a mandala it started as a small dot and spread to what feels never ending even today.
The joint CiM-IMPRS graduate program of the International Max Planck Research School – Molecular Biomedicine and Muenster’s Cells in Motion Interfaculty Centre offers positions to pursue PhD projects in the areas of biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics or computer science. We are looking for young scientists with a vivid interest in interdisciplinary projects to image cell dynamics from the subcellular to the patient level. PhD projects range from the analysis of basic cellular processes to clinical translation, from the application of novel biophysical approaches and the generation of mathematical models to the development of new imaging-related techniques and compounds.
Research areas:
Cell and Molecular Biology. Developmental and Stem Cell Biology
Vascular Biology. Immunology
Microbiology. Neurobiology
In vivo Imaging. High Resolution Optical Imaging
Biophysics. Chemical Biology
Label Chemistry. Mathematical Modelling
and more.
Applications for the PhD program can be submitted from 10 February to 4 April 2021. Projects start in October 2021 (earlier starts are possible if desired). Applications can only be submitted via our online system.
For online application and further information go to
www.cim-imprs.de.
We offer 16 fully financed PhD positions. More positions financed by work contracts may be offered depending on availability. Excellent scientific and transferable skills trainings, competitive work contracts or tax-free fellowships as well as support with administrative matters, accommodation, and visas are part of the program. There are no tuition fees. The program language is English. We invite applications from highly qualified and motivated students of any nationality from biological sciences, chemistry, mathematics, computer sciences and physics. Be part of CiM-IMPRS, a program run jointly by the University of Muenster and the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine.
(5 votes)
Loading...
(No Ratings Yet)
(7 votes)