FEBS Network

What patient records can teach us about discovery

Mohamed Esmat — Thu, 18 Jun 2026 09:53:19 +0100

Attending a recent webinar organized by the Kenya Society of Haematology and Oncology (KESHO) on “From Data to Discovery: Leveraging Registries and Clinical Insights to Advance Research” made me reflect on something I had not previously considered deeply: the possibility that a significant part of medical research may already be embedded within routine clinical practice.

As a researcher in cancer biology and immunology, I have usually associated scientific discovery with laboratory-based experiments, molecular techniques, and structured clinical trials. Research, in my mind, often felt like something that happens after clinical data is collected and processed in a formal way. However, the discussion challenged this assumption and made me reconsider where research actually begins.

What stayed with me most was the realization that everyday clinical documentation is not just administrative work. It is a continuous record of patient journeys—symptoms, diagnoses, treatment decisions, and outcomes—that, when viewed collectively, can reveal meaningful patterns. This made me think differently about something I had previously taken for granted: the clinical record as a static document rather than a dynamic source of knowledge.

One of my key takeaways was the idea that a large amount of potentially valuable healthcare data remains underused. In many settings, this information exists in fragmented systems, paper files, or unstructured digital notes. While these records are essential for patient care, they are often not easily accessible for analysis or research purposes. Reflecting on this, I began to appreciate how much scientific potential might remain hidden simply because data are not organized in a research-ready format.

A simple example helped me internalize this idea. Consider a clinician documenting multiple cases of the same cancer type. Each patient record contains important clinical details relevant to individual care. However, when these records are considered together, they may reveal broader patterns—such as differences in treatment response, variations in disease presentation, or trends in outcomes over time. What struck me here is that the information needed to generate such insights already exists; what is missing is the ability to systematically connect and analyze it.

This naturally led me to think more about cancer registries and their role in structuring clinical information. My understanding of registries before was somewhat superficial, but I now see them as essential tools that bridge the gap between routine care and research. They transform scattered clinical information into organized datasets that can be used for surveillance, analysis, and evidence generation. This structured approach allows researchers to move from isolated observations to population-level insights.

Another reflection that stayed with me is how often research questions originate not from planned experiments, but from simple clinical observations. A clinician might notice that a disease appears to be affecting younger patients than expected, or that a particular treatment seems to produce different outcomes in similar cases. Initially, these are just impressions formed during routine practice. However, with proper data and structure, such observations can evolve into meaningful research questions.

This perspective made me rethink the role of routine clinical practice itself. Instead of seeing it as separate from research, I now see it as a continuous source of observations that can guide scientific inquiry. The boundary between “clinical work” and “research work” feels less rigid than I previously assumed.

At the same time, I also became more aware of the challenges involved in using routine clinical data effectively. One of the most important issues is data quality. Missing information, inconsistent documentation practices, and lack of standardization can significantly limit the usefulness of clinical records for research purposes. I realized that generating knowledge from clinical data is not only a technical challenge but also a cultural and organizational one.

Another important insight for me was the role of collaboration. Effective use of clinical data requires interaction between clinicians, researchers, and data specialists. Clinicians provide context and firsthand knowledge of patient care, while researchers contribute analytical and methodological expertise. Thinking about this, I realized that meaningful research is rarely an individual effort—it is usually the result of multiple perspectives working together.

I also found myself reflecting on the ethical dimension of using clinical data. Even when data have strong research potential, patient privacy and trust remain fundamental. Any attempt to use clinical records for research must be guided by ethical approval processes, proper de-identification, and responsible data governance. This balance between knowledge generation and ethical responsibility is essential for sustainable research practice.

Overall, this experience changed the way I think about clinical data. I no longer see patient records only as documentation tools, but also as potential starting points for discovery. Not every clinical record will lead to a research breakthrough, but the possibility exists when data are properly structured and thoughtfully analyzed.

For early-career researchers like myself, this perspective is particularly encouraging. It suggests that meaningful research does not always require immediate access to advanced technologies or large datasets. Sometimes, it begins with careful observation of routine clinical practice and the ability to ask the right questions from what is already available.

What I took away most strongly is the idea that discovery is not always separate from clinical work. In many cases, it is embedded within it—waiting to be recognized, structured, and explored.

FEBS Junior Section presents Ali Burak Özkaya - PhD: Promise, Hope and Disillusionment

FEBS Junior Section — Wed, 17 Jun 2026 15:23:23 +0100

Resolution Revolution—FEBS Letters' Cryo-Electron Microscopy Special Issue

FEBS Letters — Tue, 16 Jun 2026 11:46:10 +0100

Cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) revolutionized structural biology by enabling high-resolution imaging of biomolecules in their native state. This free special issue edited by Panagiotis L. Kastritis features 8 review articles that highlight how cryo-EM is moving beyond static structure determination toward understanding the dynamics, assembly, regulation, evolution, and cellular context of biomolecular complexes, increasingly supported by advanced computational and AI-driven methods.

We invite you to read the full issue here, or view the individual articles at the links below:

Structural biology of ferritin nanocages. Eloise Mastrangelo, Flavio Di Pisa

AAA+ protein unfoldases—the Moirai of the proteome. Stavros Azinas, Marta Carroni

Structural diversity of pyruvate dehydrogenase complexes. Sarah N. Bothe, Rafal Zdanowicz

Mapping the evolution of mitochondrial complex I through structural variation. Dong-Woo Shin, Tingting Chen, James A. Letts

TOR signaling on membranes. Robbie Loewith, Lucas Tafur

Revealing the structure of land plant photosystem II: the journey from negative-stain EM to cryo-EM. Roman Kouřil

Towards better structural models from cryo-electron microscopy data with physics-based methods. Hande Boyaci Selcuk, Gabriella Reggiano, Jacob Robson-Tull, Lichirui Zhang, João P. G. L. M. Rodrigues

Exploring the potential of AlphaFold distograms for predicting binding-induced hinge motions. Büşra Savaş, Ayşe Berçin Barlas, Ezgi Karaca

Journal club on malaria study published in FEBS Letters - A Junior Ambassador activity

Vitória da Cunha Baptista — Tue, 16 Jun 2026 11:25:00 +0100

The event took place at the Cambridge Institute for Medical Research (University of Cambridge, UK), where Vitória was serving as a Visiting Researcher. The session, hosted in collaboration with Professor Julian Rayner’s group, gathered early-career and senior researchers to critically analyse an impactful malaria study recently published in FEBS Letters: “Plasmodium falciparum gametogenesis essential protein 1 (GEP1) is a transmission-blocking target”.

Group photo of the journal club participants. Photo credits: personal archive

The discussion highlighted the global significance of malaria research and the urgent need for new therapeutic strategies:

“Malaria threatens half of the world population every year, and the parasite has a unique ability to develop resistance to most antimalarial drugs introduced. As such, identifying new critical targets for disease control is of utmost importance”, - said one of the journal club participants.

The study explores the role of GEP1 in the parasite journey from a human host to a mosquito vector, a process known as gametogenesis, a crucial stage in malaria transmission. Reflecting on the findings, one participant noted:

“by showing the important role of GEP1 for parasite transmission, the authors identify a promising new candidate for transmission-blocking interventions”.

Dr. Vitória Baptista introducing FEBS Letters during the journal club. Credits: Personal archive

The event provided a rigorous environment for scientific exchange, encouraging participants to critically assess experimental design and debate findings while stimulating conversations around innovative methodologies that could be applied to their own research projects.

Additionally, Vitória introduced the FEBS Junior Section and FEBS Letters, underlining its rapid peer-review system and its non-profit structure supporting scientific initiatives.

About FEBS Letters

FEBS Letters is a leading journal for the rapid publication of high-quality research in the molecular biosciences. As a non-profit journal published on behalf of the Federation of European Biochemical Societies, its proceeds directly fund fellowships, travel grants and educational programs for the global scientific community.

Thinking like a Scientist, Part five: The Burden of Knowledge

Christian Frezza — Mon, 15 Jun 2026 10:39:19 +0100

In the previous article, which focused on how to "ask a scientific question", I suggested that scientists may find it harder today to identify good questions because so much already seems to have been discovered. This phenomenon, known as the "burden of knowledge", can be particularly discouraging for early-career researchers and students, but it likely affects most scientists today.

Benjamin Jones highlighted this issue, albeit in the context of economics rather than biology, almost twenty years ago, in this article. His argument can be summarised simply: as knowledge accumulates, each new generation of innovators faces a heavier educational burden. To cope, researchers must narrow their expertise, but that narrowing can reduce individual capacity and increase reliance on teamwork, with broader implications for innovation itself.

This dynamic clearly applies to the biological sciences. If one could once, for example, be an expert in "cell death" as a broad area, one must now navigate "ferroptosis", "apoptosis", "cuproptosis", "pyroptosis", "disulfidptosis", "necrosis", and probably several other forms I am forgetting. Training therefore becomes longer and more fragmented, requiring multiple forms of expertise to explore biology through an ever-growing set of technologies. Intriguingly, a recent paper in Science reports a decline in scientific disruption with academic age, suggesting that the burden of knowledge may indeed shape progress.

The same trend has also deepened our reliance on computational tools to make sense of the complexity we generate. In 2000, computational biology was still relatively niche; today, it is an integral part of modern research, and laboratories without computational expertise are at a clear disadvantage when it comes to interpreting complex datasets. AI now extends this shift even further. In 2026, it is rapidly becoming a practical aid for navigating science at this level of complexity.

The burden of knowledge is real, and it places particular pressure on junior researchers, who must adapt quickly to a changing landscape. How, then, can we stop that burden from becoming too heavy?

Although we cannot change the volume of literature being published overnight or ignore the growing body of knowledge, we can change how we engage with it. Here are some practical strategies for navigating modern science despite the burden of knowledge:

1. Develop a Lateral Thinking Strategy

We cannot escape the need to narrow our expertise, as Benjamin Jones argued, but we can manage it deliberately. I still believe that specialisation is necessary, even if there is now a tendency to shy away from it out of anxiety or fear of missing the next fashionable trend. When I first started in science, I could not understand how some groups could work on the same topic for decades; I dismissed that as “boring”. Later, I realised that truly complex problems cannot be addressed in just a handful of papers and then abandoned. Deep specialisation was not only necessary; it was intellectually rewarding. But specialisation should not become intellectual isolation. It needs to be paired with lateral thinking and active conversation with adjacent fields. That cross-fertilisation can create a powerful combination of depth and breadth. In short, strive for specialisation, because it remains an asset, but keep your mind open and challenge yourself through dialogue with other disciplines.

2. Read and Map the Controversies, Not Just the Data

As discussed in the previous article, reading is essential. To specialise effectively, deep knowledge is essential too. While encyclopaedic mastery is impossible, except perhaps for a very lucky few, we must learn to identify the boundaries of what is known. There are at least two ways to do this.

First, I usually suggest identifying the foundational papers of a field: the pillars on which its current paradigm rests. These landmark studies, often 10–30 years old, provide the conceptual scaffolding on which newer work is built. By understanding the original reasoning and experiments that shaped your field, you can more quickly judge which recent papers represent genuine advances and which are largely incremental variations.

Then look for what the field still disagrees on: the emerging anomalies. Older literature from adjacent fields can also help here; even work from 30 or 40 years ago may contain forgotten questions or approaches that cast current problems in a new light. By identifying debates, methodological limitations, and competing hypotheses, you can cut through the noise more effectively than by chasing consensus alone. Innovation often happens at the edges of knowledge, in what Lakatos would call the “protective belt” of science, so it is worth mapping controversies as carefully as established facts.

A practical complement to this is to avoid reading in isolation. A small reading group with a tightly defined focus, perhaps a specific controversy, a methodological approach, or an emerging technology, can turn literature review into a collaborative filtering process. Sharing the task of synthesis distributes the cognitive load and forces everyone to engage critically with the evidence. Reading and discussing papers with peers from other fields can also help you identify knowledge gaps, controversies, and novel ways of approaching problems.

3. Use AI as a Filter, Not a Crutch

It is becoming increasingly clear that large language models (LLMs) can be useful tools for navigating the scientific literature. Their strength lies, at least for now, in filtering, organising, and connecting large bodies of work across thousands of papers. By offloading part of this cognitive burden, scientists can reserve more of their attention for what these systems still handle poorly: judging the quality of evidence, recognising meaningful anomalies, and formulating genuinely original hypotheses.

Still, we should remain alert to an important distinction. There is a real difference between receiving a summary of the literature from an AI tool and constructing one for yourself. The gap between being given a synthesis and genuinely understanding the data and concepts that underlie it is substantial. If we want to become experts, we must internalise what we read and think it through critically. There is no real substitute for that.

There are also broader concerns about how LLM systems summarise papers and how reliable those summaries really are. As noted recently in Nature, these tools can accelerate parts of the process, but they still miss relevant studies, introduce distortions, and require careful human oversight. In short, use LLMs to reduce noise, but never to replace your own judgment.

The burden of knowledge is still yours to bear; LLMs merely help you carry it.

4. The Ultimate Defence: A Sharply Defined Question

Finally, we must remember the central lesson from the previous article. The burden of knowledge is only crushing if you are wandering aimlessly through the literature. A precise, sharply defined scientific question acts as a laser. If you have crafted a good question, you no longer need to worry about all 3,000 papers on Opa1; you only need to read the handful of papers directly related to the specific mechanism you are interrogating. A good question reduces the burden of knowledge from an insurmountable mountain to a manageable path.

Navigating modern science requires accepting that we can no longer know everything. By adapting our strategies, sharpening our questions, using new tools wisely, mapping the boundaries of our fields, and building intellectual communities around shared problems, we can still thrive within this complexity. In fact, one might even learn to enjoy the vast body of knowledge humanity has generated so far. Yet learning to cope with this burden individually leaves a larger and more troubling question unanswered. What is this burden doing to the scientific system as a whole? Have we simply learned to survive within a structure that suppresses true paradigm shifts? This epistemological blind spot is the subject of Part 6.

Career Skills - preparing your CV

Keith Elliott — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 22:29:33 +0100

Career skills session on CV preparation during the YSF

As I hope you have seen from the YSF programme, as part of the "Careers Skills” on Saturday 4th July I will be running a session on CV preparation. This will be a short introduction followed by practical exercises when you will be looking at some current job adverts to help you develop and target your CV - look out for another post just before the YSF for more information.

One-to-one CV discussions during the Congress

Perhaps more importantly, I will be offering to look at your curriculum vitae (CV or resumé) and to provide one-to-one discussion and advice. This will take place during the main Congress in Maastricht when I will be at the FEBS stand and will be available to spend about 15 minutes talking to you about your CV. If you wish to take advantage of this opportunity you should bring a copy of your CV with you to the YSF and Congress. A hard copy is helpful as I can write on it and give it back to you, but you can also email a pdf or Word file to keithelliott15@btinternet.com . I will be attending the whole of the YSF which gives me the opportunity to meet you and talk in an informal setting, helping me to get to know you.

Your CV should be relatively short – not more than two or three A4 sheets – although you may also include an appendix with details of your publications etc. It should provide all the relevant information required by a potential employer, listing the skills, experience and attributes you are able to offer - not just a list of your degrees and courses. As science is international the CV should ideally be written in English, although it may be possible to offer advice in a number of other languages if essential. As you may be aware, there are a number of websites to help you with your CV production but many are not aimed at scientists. The following is the one from the Careers Section at UK Biochemical Society that you might find useful: https://www.biochemistry.org/careers-and-education/careers/cvs-personal-statements-and-interviews/cvs/ Although it is obviously aimed primarily at students in the UK it gives some general advice and you may find it useful as a starting point.

If you wish to bring along a CV I will collect it at the YSF and make arrangements for the one-to-one meetings during the main Congress. Please do take up this opportunity - I have had discussions with over 600 YSF participants about their CVs at previous Congresses and the overwhelming response has been very positive, including a lot of feedback about how helpful it was when applying for posts after the YSF.

I look forward to meeting you in Wageningen (and Maastricht). If you have any questions beforehand please email me at keithelliott15@btinternet.com or by clicking on my name at the top of the post and I will see if I can help.

Regards.

Keith Elliott

Upcoming webinar: "New frontiers in biomaterials and cancer research"

The Meshwork — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 13:20:56 +0100

From biomimetic materials to cancer metabolism, this month's Meshwork webinar "New frontiers in biomaterials and cancer research" explores how advances in matrix biology are driving innovation across diverse areas of biomedical research. Our keynote speaker, Dr. Brooke Farrugia (University of Melbourne), will present her research on engineering biomimetic growth factor delivery systems, while Dr. Jessica Chitty (Tom Cox Lab, Garvan Institute of Medical Research) will discuss emerging strategies to target copper, extracellular matrix crosslinking, and metabolic vulnerabilities in pancreatic cancer. Chaired by the vice-president of Matrix Biology Society of Australia and New Zealand, Dr. Alex Smith (University of Queensland), this webinar will showcase cutting-edge research and highlight how understanding and manipulating the cellular microenvironment can lead to new therapeutic opportunities. Register now and join researchers from across the global matrix biology community.

Travel information for FEBS YSF 2026

Eva Danique Tunderman — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 12:53:49 +0100

Hello everyone!

As we look forward to welcoming you to Wageningen this year, we thought we'd share a few words about travel options. Please read on and let us know if you have any questions!

See you all soon,

Eva Tunderman
On behalf of the YSF-2026 Organising Committee

How to reach Fletcher Hotel-Restaurant De Wageningsche Berg

We anticipate that most participants will be flying to Amsterdam, Brussels, Düsseldorf, or Eindhoven. Below you can find easy guides on how to reach Wageningen from any of these cities:

From Amsterdam

Amsterdam is approximately 90 km northwest of Wageningen. The most convenient way to travel is by train and bus:

From Schiphol Airport, take a train to Ede-Wageningen Station (about 1 hour 20 minutes).
From Ede-Wageningen, take bus 303 to Wageningen (around 20 minutes).
Alternatively, you can drive, which takes about 1 hour.

From Eindhoven

Eindhoven is approximately 85 km south of Wageningen. The most convenient way to travel is by train and bus:

From Eindhoven Airport, take bus 401 to Eindhoven Centraal
Take a train from Eindhoven Centraal to Utrecht Centraal
Take a train to Ede-Wageningen Station.
From Ede-Wageningen, take bus 303 to Wageningen.
The total journey takes about 2.5 hours.
Alternatively, you can drive, which takes about 1 hour 15 minutes.

From Düsseldorf

Düsseldorf is roughly 150 km east of Wageningen. The most convenient way to travel is by train and bus:

From Düsseldorf Flughafen Terminal take a train to Düsseldorf Hauptbahnhof
Take a train from Düsseldorf Hauptbahnhof to Arnhem Centraal (or Utrecht Centraal).
Take a train to Ede-Wageningen Station.
From Ede-Wageningen, take bus 303 to Wageningen.
Alternatively, you can take bus 51 to Wageningen from Arnhem Centraal
The total journey takes about 2.5 to 3.5 hours.
Keep in mind that you might need to pre-book the ICE from Düsseldorf to the Netherlands since this is an international train

From Brussels

Brussels is about 200 km southwest of Wageningen. The most convenient way to travel is by train and bus:

From Brussels Airport-Zaventem take the EC to Breda
Take a train to Arnhem Centraal
From Arnhem Centraal transfer to a train to Ede-Wageningen Station.
From Ede-Wageningen, take bus 303 to Wageningen.
Alternatively, you can take bus 51 to Wageningen from Arnhem Centraal
The total journey takes around 3 to 4 hours.
Keep in mind that you might need to pre-book the EC from Brussels to the Netherlands since this is an international train

You can also find more information on the website: https://febscongress.org/ysf-venue-travel/

Apply now: Epigenetics for Educators

Alexandra Bezler — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 10:14:07 +0100

EMBL Virtual LearningLAB: Epigenetics for Educators

This autumn, the Science Education and Public Engagement (SEPE) team at EMBL, in partnership with Merck, invites secondary school science teachers and STEM educators to join a course that combines self-paced study with interactive sessions for participants to:

Discover current epigenetics research
Access ready-to-use classroom resources
Connect with EMBL scientists and peers worldwide
Earn a certificate upon completion (with a ~10-hour commitment over two weeks)

🎁 Bonus: Translated content and resources whenever possible.

Application deadline: 20 September 2026

More information: EMBL course page
Apply here: Application form

Empowering early-career researchers: FEBS Letters Best Poster Presentation Prize at the I Young Biochemist Meeting

Vitória da Cunha Baptista — Tue, 09 Jun 2026 11:10:46 +0100

The I Young Biochemist Meeting from the Portuguese Biochemical Society Junior Section (J-SPB) brought together early-career researchers from Portugal and abroad, providing a platform to share research, strengthen scientific CVs, and foster networking within the biochemical community.

Dr. Vitória Baptista introducing the FEBS Junior Section and
FEBS Letters. Photo credits: personal archive

As part of the Junior Ambassador Initiative with FEBS Press, Dr. Baptista delivered an engaging talk aimed at empowering young scientists. She introduced the FEBS Junior Section before showcasing FEBS Letters, with particular emphasis on its rapid peer-review process and non-profit publishing model.

Miguel Correia receiving the Best Poster Presentation Award sponsored by
FEBS Letters and delivered by Dr. Vitória Baptista, the Junior Ambassador
for FEBS Letters. Photo credits: personal archive

On the following day, Dr. Baptista had the honour of presenting the FEBS Letters Prize for Best Poster Presentation, an award intended to recognise outstanding scientific rigour and communication. The prize was awarded to Miguel Correia from i3S (Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde da Universidade do Porto), for his work entitled “Downregulation of Pfy1 Impairs Mitochondrial Homeostasis and Decreases Yeast Lifespan”.

About FEBS Letters

SEBBM Journal, issue nº 229: 'Phase Transitions in Biology'

Inmaculada Yruela — Tue, 09 Jun 2026 08:14:10 +0100

The SEBBM Journal is a channel for analysis, reflection and dissemination of scientific activity in Spain and of public and private research policies. Its origins date back to 1963 and it currently publishes thematic issues covering transversal research in the field of biochemistry and molecular biology. The articles are commissioned by the best specialists in the subject. Each issue also highlights the most relevant educational and scientific work of SEBBM members, as well as SEBBM news.

The current issue ‘Phase Transitions in Biology' (nº 229, June 2026) has been coordinated by Dr. Xavier Salvatella from IRBarcelona, Spain, and Inmaculada Yruela fron CSIC, Spain.

'Phase separation and its dynamics —fundamental concepts in physical chemistry— play an important role in the organization and activity of cells. In the cytoplasm, the nucleus, and the cell organelles, phases with varying degrees of density often coexist: ranging from a dense or viscous phase, in which intermolecular interactions are strong and the molecules are highly compacted, to a fluid phase, in which interactions are weaker and the molecular concentration is lower.

Phase transitions —involving lipids, proteins, RNA, DNA, and other molecules— respond to physical and chemical stimuli, and control and regulate cellular functions. Over the past twenty years, there has been a revolution in our understanding of the importance of phase transitions in biological processes. Liquid-liquid phase transitions (LLPTs) and the formation of molecular condensates that influence cellular activity itself, stress responses, or the onset of certain diseases have sparked great interest. Noteworthy is the role of ductile or intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs), which, together with other proteins or RNA and DNA molecules, play a central role in these transitions, in which the interacting molecules, their concentration, the multivalent interactions that occur, and post-translational modifications (i.e. phosphorylation) play a fundamental role.

Issue 229 of the SEBBM Journal contains four articles detailing advances in this field across different biological systems (bacteria, humans, plants), which have changed our understanding of cellular organisation and processes.

Rubén López Sánchez, David Pantoja Uceda and Douglas V. Laurents from IQF ’Blas Cabrera', CSIC, Madrid, Spain, highlight the importance of advances in biophysical and imaging techniques, in silico prediction algorithms and computational simulation in driving forward the study of phase transitions in complex biological systems. https://doi.org/10.18567/sebbmrev_229.202606.dc2

Xavier Salvatella from Institute for Research in Biomedicine (IRB), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology and ICREA, Barcelona, Spain, explains the unique properties and functions of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs), which enable them to play a role in RNA synthesis, modification, cleavage and splicing, as well as in the regulation of RNA translation and the formation of molecular condensates. This research has led to a better understanding of previously unknown aspects of their role in phase transitions within cells. https://doi.org/10.18567/sebbmrev_229.202606.dc3

Carla Garcia-Cabau from Institute for Research in Biomedicine (IRB) and The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Barcelona, Spain, explains as the CPEB4 protein, together with other proteins and RNA, forms structures resembling ‘liquid droplets’ and plays a role in the development of severe autism. The research also suggests potential therapeutic strategies based on the physical properties of molecular condensates when anomalous phase transitions occur. https://doi.org/10.18567/sebbmrev_229.202606.dc4

Emilio Gutiérrez Beltrán from IBVF, University of Sevilla-CSIC, Sevilla, Spain, describes the significant advances made in this field over the last ten years in plants, as well as the proteins that have been identified as playing a role in the regulation and nucleation of stress granules (SG), and the functions they perform. https://doi.org/10.18567/sebbmrev_229.202606.dc5.'

The issue is available at https://sebbm.es/revista/numeros/transiciones-de-fase-en-biologia/

Part of this post is a translation of text written in Spanish by Dr. Inmaculada Yruela from EEAD, CSIC, Spain and published on the SEBBM website on June, 2026.

Reference:

Yruela I. 2026. Transiciones de fase en biología. SEBBM 229. https://doi.org/10.18567/sebbmrev_229.202606.dc1

FEBS Junior Section presents Ali Burak Özkaya

FEBS Junior Section — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:22:18 +0100

Missed the event? You can watch the full recording below.

This talk is an activity from the FEBS Junior Section, an initiative set up by students and young researchers from some of the FEBS Constituent Societies. Each month members of the FEBS Junior Section organize an online event on either a research or a career topic. This talk is coordinated by the junior section of the Turkish Biochemical Society (TBS).

Speaker’s name and affiliation: Ali Burak Özkaya, İzmir Ekonomi Üniversitesi, İzmir, Türkiye
Title: PhD: Promise, Hope and Disillusionment
Date/Time (CET) of the talk: June 11th 2026, 17:00 CET

Participants will have the opportunity to stay for an after-talk hangout to have an informal chat with the speaker, members of the FEBS Junior Section, and other participants.

Abstract

The modern PhD was originally designed to train future academics through specialization, research apprenticeship, and supervised original research. However, doctoral education now exists within a very different reality characterized by mass expansion of PhD programs, unstable academic career structures, shrinking public funding, and increasing pressure for universities to prioritize measurable outputs such as grants, patents, industry partnerships, and translational research.

In this talk, I will critically examine the structural tensions of contemporary doctoral education in the life sciences, arguing that many current reform efforts attempt to adapt the PhD to changing economic and institutional pressures without fundamentally questioning its historically academic foundations. I will discuss specialization, trainee labor, career precarity, and the changing role of universities within increasingly competitive and market-oriented research environments.

The talk will also reflect on broader questions about the future of academia itself: what kinds of research, careers, and scientific institutions are likely to survive in the coming decades, and what may be lost in the process.

Biosketch

Dr. Ali Burak Özkaya is an Assistant Professor of Biochemistry at the İzmir University of Economics Faculty of Medicine, Türkiye, working at the intersection of biomedical research and higher education. Over the course of his career, he has worked as a researcher and educator in Türkiye, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Like many doctoral researchers, his early career was shaped by the assumption that academic progression was the natural outcome of PhD training. However, difficulties securing an academic position after graduation led him to spend several years in industrial R&D before eventually returning to academia. These experiences sparked his interest in the structural tensions of modern doctoral education, particularly the mismatch between traditional academic training models and contemporary career realities in the life sciences. His current educational work focuses on critical thinking, academic culture, impact of technology, and the broader institutional assumptions underlying scientific training and higher education.

Polyethylene glycol: an alternative for overcoming the impediments to malaria treatment

The FEBS Journal — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 15:16:38 +0100

Malaria remains one of the world’s most significant health challenges despite decades of effort in prevention and treatment. It’s primarily caused by infection with Plasmodium falciparum parasite. This parasite is transmitted through infected female Anopheles mosquito bites, causing over 280 million malaria cases according to the World Health Organisation 2025 report. In 2024, more than 600,000 malaria-related deaths were recorded globally, the most vulnerable being children under the age of 5.

One target in focus is an enzyme specific to the parasite, Falcipain-2 (FP2), that is essential for parasite survival and growth within the host organism, this enzyme allows the parasite to digest human hemoglobin. Although being parasite-specific makes it an attractive target, there is a contingency, it is highly similar to a class of human enzymes called cathepsins. Therefore, a deeper understanding of FP2 binding mechanisms is of profound importance for designing selective drugs.

PEG400 regulating the FP2 activity

In their recent study published in The FEBS Journal, Nath and colleagues propose a detailed understanding of the FP2 binding mechanism to hemoglobin, and its regulation [1]. Previously, the researchers identified that polyethylene glycol (PEG) can form stable interactions with FP2. While in this study they focused on how PEG molecules bind to FP2 and its target, hemoglobin. Studying polymers of varying sizes showed that PEG400 is effective in inhibition of FP2 activity and the researchers demonstrated a unique interaction between PEG400, FP2, and hemoglobin. Using several biochemical assays, Nath et al. suggested PEG400 as a ligand to FP2. Detailed three-dimensional structural simulations allowed Nath and colleagues to bring a detailed insight into how PEG400 regulates FP2 activity.

Consequently, this study proposes an unprecedented mechanistic basis for the development of PEG derivatives exhibiting potent anti-malarial efficacy. Hopefully, continued efforts within the research community to suggest effective therapeutic strategies may reverse the grim outlook in the fight against malaria.

References

Nath, B., Chakraborty, S. and Biswas, S. (2026), PEG400 regulates Falcipain 2 activity through an allosteric mechanism. FEBS J. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.70546

“Glowy” fungi illuminate the path to understanding bioluminescence

The FEBS Journal — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 10:00:00 +0100

Some fungi can emit light. This glow, called bioluminescence, has been widely studied, but the biology underlying this light emission remains incompletely understood.

Bioluminescence is extensively used in scientific research, and enables real-time imaging of dynamic processes like tumour progression or inflammatory responses, making it a valuable tool in medicine. Therefore, understanding the exact mechanisms that make fungi glow could provide important insights into improving and expanding bioluminescence-based tools and applications.

In bioluminescent fungi, light is produced in the final stage of a step-wise reaction called the ‘fungal bioluminescence pathway’, and a byproduct of this light-producing reaction is oxyluciferin. In order to keep this pathway going, oxyluciferin needs to be broken down, with the resulting products then recycled back into the pathway, thus also preventing substrate depletion. Previous studies have suggested a role for an enzyme, caffeylpyruvate hydrolase (CPH), in breaking down oxyluciferin, but the results are inconclusive. Two recent papers published in The FEBS Journal sought to clarify this.

Mycena luxperpetua, one of 132 known bioluminescent mushroom species worldwide, glowing naturally in the darkness. Photograph courtesy of Cassius V. Stevani, IQ-USP, Brazil.

Caio Zamuner and co-investigators characterised CPH from one of the largest and brightest bioluminescent fungal species described to date, confirming that it could indeed break down oxyluciferin, thus enabling recycling of the products of this reaction back into the bioluminescence pathway [1]. The authors also developed a new method to monitor CPH activity, thus providing a useful resource for further studies on bioluminescence.

In their companion study, Alena Malyshevskaia and co-authors dove deeper into the ‘upstream’ oxyluciferin-CPH relationship in the bioluminescence pathway, and showed that oxyluciferin can accumulate post-light production and act as an inhibitor of luciferase, the ‘light-producing’ enzyme, thus interrupting the pathway’s continuity [2]. They propose that the cph gene evolved to alleviate this build-up of oxyluciferin, therefore allowing the continuous cycling of the pathway and consequently, light production to occur.

Collectively, these studies confirm a role for CPH in making fungi glow, and illuminate new opportunities for engineering self-sustained light-emitting systems in other organisms, biological sensors to monitor ecosystems and track pollution, and eco-friendly lighting.

Who knows? One day, instead of reaching for the light switch on a lamp, or grabbing a glow stick or two before going to a concert, we might find ourselves accompanied by a friendly fungus who never leaves us alone in the dark.

If you enjoyed reading about glowy fungi, don't miss out on our 'Organismal biology' collection.

References:

[1] Zamuner, C.K., Soares, D.M.M., Nóbrega, B.B., Bechara, E.J.H., Kaskova, Z.M., Mishin, A.S., Sarkisyan, K.S., Yampolsky, I.V. and Stevani, C.V. (2026), Caffeylpyruvate hydrolase from the bioluminescent fungus Neonothopanus gardneri is the key recycling enzyme in the fungal bioluminescence pathway. FEBS J. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.70554

[2] Malyshevskaia, A.K., Barykin, A.D., Kisilichuk, D.A., Chepurnykh, T.V., Shakhova, E.S., Perfilov, M.M., Belozerova, O.A., Palkina, K.A., Markina, N.M., Zamuner, C.K., Soares, D.M.M., Zagitova, R.I., Kaskova, Z.M., Stevani, C.V., Gorokhovatsky, A.Y., Mishin, A.S., Sarkisyan, K.S. and Yampolsky, I.V. (2026), Fungal oxyluciferin is recycled by caffeylpyruvate hydrolases. FEBS J. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.70555

Cover image courtesy of Teresa Sarria.

Upcoming FEBS Letters Webinar: Circadian Clocks

FEBS Letters — Wed, 27 May 2026 11:45:23 +0100

FEBS Letters is pleased to announce we will be hosting a free webinar on circadian rhythms to be held on Thursday 25th June 2026 at 18:00 CEST. The webinar will be hosted by Carrie Partch and Emery Usher (University of California Santa Cruz, Howard Hughes Medical Institute), and will feature three short talks by experts in the field.

This webinar is being organised to accompany our latest special issue on “Circadian clocks”, guest edited by Carrie Partch. This free special issue features 14 review articles by renowned experts in the field, focused on the latest advances in our understanding of the molecular basis of circadian rhythms, their pervasive and powerful control of biology, and new frontiers in the field, including approaches to modulate biological timekeeping to improve human health.

The programme will feature talks by:

Emery Usher — is a postdoctoral fellow with joint mentorship from Carrie Partch at UC Santa Cruz and Alex Holehouse at Washington University in St. Louis. He leverages simulations and biophysical experiments to understand how post-translational modification affects the properties and functions of intrinsically disordered proteins, such as those found in the core circadian clock.
Jerome S. Menet — is an associate professor of the biology department at Texas A&M University. Research in his lab aims at characterizing how circadian clocks and clock genes regulate gene expression to provide insights into how and why clock dysfunction leads to a wide spectrum of pathologies.
Priya Crosby — hailing from Norwich originally, Priya has been studying circadian timekeeping throughout her whole career. She started as a Chancellor’s Fellow at the University of Edinburgh in 2024, and her lab uses a combination of cell biology, biophysics and structural biology to understand how these rhythms are regulated at the cellular level.

We hope that you will join us for this exciting webinar. Questions can be asked during the webinar, and we also invite attendees to send questions to the speakers in advance by emailing us at febsletters@febs.org.

Please register for free at the link here.

Interview series: Meet Gülin Baran, a FEBS Open Bio Poster Prize Winner

FEBS Junior Section — Tue, 26 May 2026 12:00:00 +0100

Our interviewee is Gülin Baran, a Postdoctoral Researcher from the Mustafaoglu Lab, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Türkiye, and a member of the Turkish Biochemical Society, FEBS Constituent Society. Gülin received a FEBS Open Bio Best Poster Prize at the 24th FEBS Young Scientists' Forum (YSF 2025), held on 2–5 July 2025 in Sapanca, Türkiye.

Gülin Baran. Photo credits: personal archive

Tell us about your research topic/work. What project(s) are you working on? What is the aim of your study?

At the Mustafaoglu Lab, we develop blood–brain barrier (BBB)–integrated models of brain diseases to better understand disease mechanisms and design targeted drug delivery strategies. Within this framework, my research focuses on engineering human cell–based microphysiological systems to model glioblastoma (GBM) in a physiologically relevant, BBB-integrated environment.

I develop BBB-on-a-chip and GBM–BBB-on-a-chip platforms by combining human induced pluripotent stem cell (hiPSC) technology with organ-on-a-chip approaches. These platforms integrate hiPSC-derived brain microvascular endothelial cells with human glial and glioblastoma cells to recreate a physiologically relevant tumor microenvironment under dynamic flow conditions.

The overall aim of my work is to recapitulate tumor–barrier interactions and blood–tumor barrier dysfunction in a controlled, human-relevant system and to investigate why glioblastoma exhibits a predominantly non-metastatic (or rarely metastatic) behavior. Using our GBM–BBB-on-a-chip and complementary transwell models, I study glioblastoma-induced microenvironmental remodeling and BBB integrity. I also investigate glioblastoma-derived extracellular vesicle (EV)–mediated crosstalk within the tumor microenvironment and explore candidate EVs as potential drug carriers. In parallel, I evaluate nanoparticle-based drug-shuttling systems to improve BBB transport and therapeutic efficacy against glioblastoma.

Ultimately, my goal is to contribute to the development of more predictive, human-relevant in vitro models that support translational and personalized approaches for brain cancer therapy.

Who or what inspired you to choose a career in science?

Growing up with parents working in the healthcare sector, I was surrounded by doctors and pharmacists, which naturally sparked my curiosity about diseases and treatment approaches. This curiosity was also driven by a strong desire to help people. From an early age, I observed that one of the major challenges in clinical practice is the limited availability of personalized treatment strategies in many areas of medicine. This realization encouraged me to pursue research aimed at understanding diseases more deeply and contributing to more personalized therapeutic approaches.

I have always been fascinated by how the brain works, how brain-related diseases—such as brain cancer, neurodegenerative, and neuropsychiatric disorders—develop, and how incurable or hard-to-treat conditions might eventually be treated. The complexity of these diseases, shaped by both genetic and environmental factors, has always intrigued and motivated me to better understand them. I have been particularly drawn to incurable diseases because I believe that even when solutions are not yet visible, there must be a way forward. This belief has strongly shaped my motivation to pursue a career in science.

I was also deeply inspired by a close friend of my mother, Prof. Nesrin Cesur, a professor of pharmacy. Her passion for scientific research and enthusiasm for teaching left a lasting impression on me. I experienced the unifying power of knowledge sharing for the first time during a two-hour organic chemistry lesson she gave me while I was in high school. That single lesson not only strengthened my interest in science but also demonstrated how passionate teaching can spark curiosity and motivation in others. In many ways, this experience created a “butterfly effect” that shaped my desire both to pursue a career in science and to share knowledge with those around me.

Together, these experiences inspired me to follow a career in biomedical research focused on understanding brain diseases, developing improved therapeutic strategies, and contributing to a more personalized and human-centered approach to medicine.

Gülin Baran presenting her work at the 24th FEBS Young Scientists' Forum (YSF 2025). Photo credits: personal archive

How does it feel to receive a FEBS Open Bio Poster Prize as recognition for your work? How do you see this Prize influencing your career and future plans?

As scientists, we often work behind closed doors to fill gaps in knowledge. Conferences and publications are among the few ways we can share our findings, contribute to scientific progress, and collaborate to achieve even more. While we are deeply focused on research, it is easy to lose our sense of direction. In this context, awards like this one remind us that we are on the right path.

This Award came at a time when I was feeling almost lost in my career journey. It lightened my way by showing and reminding me that I am on the right path and that I should not stop moving forward. It encouraged me to keep going and to take the next steps, even during difficult times. I believe that if we continue to move forward, even in hard times, we will eventually see the light. For me, this Award was exactly that—a light that renewed my motivation and determination.

What advice would you give to aspiring students/scientists?

Find what truly sparks your curiosity and do not be afraid to try different things to discover where you belong. Science comes with many challenges, failures, and moments of self-doubt—much like life itself—but this does not mean you are on the wrong path. Change your perspective, be patient, and keep taking consistent steps forward. Even when it feels like you are not progressing or have taken a step back, you may later realize how far you have actually come. Believe in the value of your work, even when progress feels slow or invisible—small, steady steps will eventually lead to meaningful impact.

Learning to accept failure is one of the most challenging yet most valuable parts of a scientific journey—it certainly was for me. However, we grow through failure and move forward stronger. In many ways, failure means you are pushing boundaries; if you have never failed, you may not yet be pushing yourself far enough to grow and improve.

Do not be afraid to step outside your comfort zone and explore interdisciplinary experiences. Collaboration, openness to new ideas, and learning from different fields can enrich both your research and personal development. You do not need to know everything—science is a collective effort, and brainstorming with colleagues often leads to better ideas and stronger outcomes. Science is not a stage where one succeeds alone; it thrives on teamwork and shared knowledge.

Finally, make sure to create personal spaces or activities where you can pause and take a deep breath. Your mind can truly shine only when you take care of your physical and mental well-being. Science needs fresh and healthy minds, and to sustain that, you sometimes have to remember to take care of yourself as well.

Gülin Baran, attending the 49th FEBS Congress.
Photo credits: personal archive

Where do you envision the future of your career?

I envision my future career at the intersection of biomedical research, bioengineering, and translational science. During my master’s studies under the supervision of Dr. Emre Deniz, I gained expertise in genome editing and molecular biology–based approaches to investigate disease mechanisms and non-coding RNAs. During my doctoral research, under the supervision of Dr. Nur Mustafaoglu, I specialized in the development of human cell–based microphysiological systems, particularly BBB-on-a-chip and glioblastoma–barrier models, to study GBM biology, decipher extracellular vesicle (EV)-mediated crosstalk, and apply novel nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems in physiologically relevant in vitro GBM disease models.

Currently, I continue to build on this background and aim to further develop my research in glioblastoma biology and treatment using human cell–based, physiologically relevant in vitro systems, while minimizing the unnecessary use of animal models during the first phase of my postdoctoral research in the Mustafaoglu Lab.

In the long term, I plan to use my interdisciplinary background and scientific curiosity to contribute to the treatment of brain diseases—not only brain cancer but also neurodegenerative and neuropsychiatric disorders—through innovations in bioengineering. I believe that personalized medicine approaches can bring us closer to meaningful solutions and help reduce failure rates in clinical applications. Moreover, I hope to take an active role in mentoring young scientists and fostering interdisciplinary collaborations, sharing my enthusiasm for science and encouraging others to pursue solutions for incurable or hard-to-treat brain diseases.

Gülin Baran, attending the 49th FEBS Congress.
Photo credits: FEBS Careers of Young Scientists Commitee

FEBS Junior Section presents Toni Giorgino - Sequence, Function, and the Question of Imitation in AI

FEBS Junior Section — Thu, 21 May 2026 18:03:03 +0100

Designing standardized biology laboratory practicals by leveraging the collective curricular wisdom

Didier Picard — Thu, 21 May 2026 14:52:46 +0100

Designing laboratory practicals is in itself a challenge, and even more so when one of the goals is to fit them into the European academic space in some standardized form. This is what Stella Nicolaou and her multinational team set out to do for a biology laboratory course for undergraduate students in life sciences and health-related curricula. This short commentary highlights their recent publication and its unusual, original endeavor (1). It is also a pleasure to present this contribution from Stella Nicolaou, who happens to be one of our FEBS Education Ambassadors.

Photo by Polina Tankilovitch (through pexels.com)

Have you ever wondered whether pre-existing practicals were adequately designed or even had to design entirely new lab practicals? If so, you probably applied one of two strategies: (i) Design the practicals from scratch, starting by defining learning outcomes, and then building the individual modules around them; (ii) adapt existing practicals, potentially even the ones you attended yourself as a student, and then just tweak them to fit the desired learning outcomes. In principle, there is nothing wrong with either of these approaches, provided the intended learning outcomes are sound and constructively aligned with them.

In contrast, Nicolaou and colleagues reasoned that they could take advantage of the collective wisdom of all or at least a large number of European universities. They systematically searched the curricula of 138 universities from 28 European countries to extract relevant topics and learning outcomes to design a standardized two-semester biology laboratory course (1). The risk of this exercise was to end up with a stale smallest common denominator, but the authors avoided this pitfall by not using the results mechanically. Instead, the laboratory modules and learning outcomes were defined with respect to the three categories "knowledge and understanding", "practical skills", and "transversal (transferable) skills" within the broader educational frameworks of Bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives (2), and the long-term educational goals laid out by both the AAAS and the European Commission (3).

The result is not some lofty dissertation on how to design a biology laboratory course, but a useful and concrete blueprint for how to do it. The authors propose a detailed curriculum for two-semester biology practicals, structured as 2 x 8 modules, and course-level learning outcomes. Most impressively, they even break down the learning objectives according to their three learning categories for each one of these 16 modules (4). This makes the paper not only interesting, but a great resource for educators revising or designing laboratory teaching.

A few limitations and questions are worth mentioning. Whereas a number of advantages of standardization are obvious (portability to other curricula and institutions; facilitated comparisons between programs; facilitated student mobility and faculty exchange), the "one size fits all" approach for all life/health sciences and their respective curricula is not questioned. The integration into a vast array of curricula, and adaptation to fit local needs and constraints may be challenging, even though the standardized laboratory course is undoubtedly modular and flexible. Indeed, flexibility also comes from the possibility to include virtual laboratories. These are valuable complementary teaching tools in their own right, but it must be critically investigated whether replacing "hands-on labs" with virtual ones, to compensate for time or financial constraints, compromises achieving some of the learning objectives. For FEBS, a federation reaching far beyond EU countries, it would be interesting to know whether the strategy presented here would have come to a different "standard", and whether the same standardized learning objectives would prevail across the large variety of different languages and cultures that make up our international learning landscape.

References:

Nicolaou, S. A., Nicolaou, P., Dafli, E., Bamidis, P. D., Puig, B., and Lazar, G. (2026). Standardizing biology laboratory curriculum in health education: a blueprint for European undergraduate programs. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 50, 57–64. (open access; licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY-NC 4.0. Published by the American Physiological Society).
Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R., eds. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. ISBN 978-0-8013-1903-7.
(i) Vision and Change: a Call to Action. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2009; (ii) European Commission: European Education and Culture Executive Agency. (2020). The European higher education area in 2020 : Bologna process implementation report. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/756192.; (iii) González, J. and Wagenaar, R. (2005). Tuning Educational Structures in Europe II: Universities’ Contribution to the Bologna Process. Universidad de Deusto (2005). ISBN 9788498300147.
Nicolaou et al. (2026): Supplemental Material, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30353920 (freely accessible; licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY-NC 4.0. Published by the American Physiological Society).

Biomimetic 3D Culture Systems for Disease Modeling

The Meshwork — Wed, 20 May 2026 11:11:16 +0100

We are excited to invite you to our upcoming webinar, “Biomimetic 3D Culture Systems for Disease Modeling”, featuring a keynote lecture by Dr. Jennifer Ashworth, and two short talks exploring innovative approaches in biomaterials, synthetic matrices, and 3D cell culture platforms.

Date: Wednesday, May 27

Time: 2:00 PM UK / 9:00 AM EST

Duration: 90 minutes

Location: Zoom

Registration through the QR code or here

Keynote Speaker

Dr. Jennifer Ashworth (Assistant Professor, University of Nottingham, UK)

Title: Exploring Matrix Patterning in Tissue-Mimetic Biomaterials

Short Talks

Dr. Mikayla Shelton (Product Development Technologist, Peptimatrix)

Title: Next-generation synthetic matrices for advanced cell culture

Riba Thomas (PhD Candidate, University of Nottingham, UK)

Title: Developing animal-free 3D platforms to investigate breast cancer

Interview series: Meet Tristan Samuels, a FEBS Open Bio Poster Prize Winner

FEBS Junior Section — Tue, 19 May 2026 12:00:00 +0100

Our interviewee is Tristan Samuels, a PhD Candidate in the Department of Biochemistry at Western University in London, Ontario, CA. Tristan received a FEBS Open Bio Poster Prize at the FEBS special meeting: expanding frontiers in aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase research, held from 28 September to 3 October 2025, in Dubrovnik, Croatia.

Tristan Samuels (on the right) receiving the FEBS Open Bio Poster Prize.
Photo credits: personal archive

Tell us about your research topic/work. What project(s) are you working on? What is the aim of your study?

Our laboratory is interested in elucidating the cellular and molecular mechanisms of pathogenic variants in aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases using model systems such as yeast. We also look to employ cognate substrate supplementation as a treatment strategy to rescue observed defects, which hopefully can eventually be translated as a therapeutic for real patients. I am currently working on various NARS1-disease- causing variants in the cytoplasmic asparaginyl tRNA- synthease, as well as some dominant Charcot-Marie Tooth disease (CMT)-associated variants in the cytoplasmic tyrosyl-tRNA synthetase.

Who or what inspired you to choose a career in science?

I had a great experience volunteering in a translational health outcomes research lab during my undergraduate studies, which served as my proper introduction to research. This experience made me realize how I enjoyed employing the scientific method to answer questions. However, there was not much of a wet lab component, which I wished to experience, and was offered by the lab that I now find myself in!

How does it feel to receive **a FEBS Open Bio Poster Prize as recognition for your work? How do you see this Prize influencing your career and future plans?**

To receive this award was extremely flattering, and validating. As most graduate students do, I have experienced imposter syndrome and doubts about whether or not I deserve to be in the position that I am. Being surrounded by the most prestigious scientists in my niche of research at the AARS special meeting exacerbated this feeling, but receiving this award has helped to reassure me that I am a competent scientist, and others can see that!

What advice would you give to aspiring students/scientists?

Do not be discouraged after setbacks. They are natural in the world of science and serve as a learning opportunity. Dedication and motivation (which stems from your curiosity and interest in your work) will make sure you get over the line, not how 'intelligent' you are!

Where do you envision the future of your career?

The goal is to become a clinician-scientist, although I am open to an industry-related career as well.