AUTHOR:  Crystal Mahadeo   

Q. What interested you/how did you get into lab research?

A. One luxury of going to school in Alberta (at the time) was that there were more undergraduate labs and they were better equipped. I had a lot of rewarding hands on physiology labs as an undergraduate. The physiology labs really caught my imagination because you could do an experiment and get your results within the same day. This got me interested in neurophysiology. I left the undergraduate program looking at the neurophysiology of behaviour. I was interested in understanding more about how single cells work in a circuit to produce behaviours. How these circuits are built to make behaviour has always been my background question.

Q. What did you do after your undergraduate degree? (Tell me a bit about your graduate career)

A. After I graduated from the University of Calgary, I did a Master’s degree at U of T with Harold Atwood, one of Canada’s premier synaptic physiologists. I then joined the Playfair Neuroscience program, a neuroscience unit based out of Toronto Western hospital (since dissolved), which was the hot new program for young students to be recruited to at the time. There, I was able to work with state of the art software for building 3 dimensional models of nerve circuits using serial electron microscopy, a technique that was ahead of its time. We did things that had never been done before. Those projects led me to ask the question of how nerve cells differentiate. As a result, I became interested in developmental science.

Using the serial EM system, I came up with quantitative models of how the cytoskeleton regulated cell shape, which had not been done before. I wanted to get a better idea of the molecules involved in this process. However, the EM system did not allow us to look at the molecules themselves. I wanted a molecular approach. This is when I became attracted to the fly system. 

For my postdoc, I chose Drosophila, which was just becoming a developmental genetic model. I built models for growth cones, and through this, discovered the role of the glial cells in positioning growth cones and their involvement in growth cone guidance. This was a major discovery for me in my post doctoral career. For the next 10 – 15 years I continued to study glial cells asking the questions “What cues do they provide to nerve cells to support them, guide them and modulate their genetic differentiation?”. 

Q. What are you currently working on /what are the big questions you are trying to answer in your lab?

A. The driving question of my research is, “How do you build a brain?”.  How is it that a Purkinje cell in a fish or in a whale can have the same general architecture, connectivity and similar physiology?  How is this done taking into account different body temperatures, different life spans and different rates of development? How is it that all of those variables impinge and still, you can make the same cell and the same circuit? These are still the overriding questions for me today in my research and in developmental neuroscience. How do you make a system so robust that through all of the evolutionary divergence you can still preserve the same mechanism and structure? 

One of the most interesting molecules that I have studied for neuron glial communication is Slit. I was one of the co-discoverers of how Slit works (as a repellent molecule for axon guidance). However, the system was too complex to study in the nervous system. That is when I became attracted to the heart.  When the heart is developing it only has two cell types. Slit is important for guiding migration, as a polarity cell factor, similar to axon guidance, as well as morphogenesis (in the heart Slit is involved in tube formation whereas in the CNS it is forming a synapse). So the cells are guided by the same molecule, but the heart provides a much simpler/easier model to study.

Additionally, I’m looking at heart growth and heart aging, as these are very relevant topics for health issues related to disease and this is where a lot of public interest lies. Essentially, my work examines remodelling of tissue of any kind through studying the cell surface, Slit, Integrins, extracellular matrix composition/turnover and the proteins involved. 

Q. You teach a very interesting undergrad course called, How science speaks to power. Can you tell me why you chose to create this class and what it is about?

A. How science speaks to power is a 4th year course that I created because I sensed that students were leaving university without having a critical understanding of science literature. The intent is to look at what the social mechanism of developing scientific consensus is. How do we come to accept something as scientifically supported. And from there, how does that consensus then become translated into policy? There are a lot of impediments to this process (political or otherwise). Whether science is adequate and whether it is objective. It all comes down to certainty and risk. Science accepts high risk while policy hates risk; they want certainty. It is a very interesting course to teach.

Q. Do you teach graduate level courses (for those MiNDS students who may not be aware)?

A. Yes, I do. I teach Biology 762, which is a seminar-based developmental biology course. The students examine at least 2 model systems that use genetic tools in developmental biology. This includes, for example, mice and zebrafish. And then the final project for the course is a research proposal that the students write using one of the two models that they focused on during the term.  This course is typically offered in the fall term! You can look forward to it!

And then I, along with Dr. da Silva and Dr. Gillespie, teach Biology 780 advanced microscopy, which is being offered this term. It goes through confocal microscopy, immunofluorescence microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and transmission electron microscopy.

Q. What tips would you give to students at the beginning of their graduate careers?

A. Well let’s see, the first thing I would say is get a supervisory committee that works! (laughs). Seriously, you must absolutely be able to turn to other people on your committee for advice. Also, there shouldn’t be too close a relationship between those on your supervisory committee, be it intellectual or otherwise because you want INDEPENDENT SOURCES of advice. Next, don’t be afraid to USE your committee. Many students fear the judgement of their committee but really most would appreciate being sought out for advice and would be able to give you that independent advice/feedback that you seek. 

Networking, of course, is important at the beginning of your graduate career, the other thing is to take advantage of the freedom and flexibility that grad school extends to you. You’ll never get it again so try and get out there, go to seminars, take classes or do things that the rigidity of an undergraduate schedule never allowed you to do! 

Lastly, remind yourself why you are in grad school and constantly update your CV! What skills can you put on there? What experiences? Volunteer work, skills in and outside of the lab, it’s not just about publications. 

Q. What about writing for the MiNDS program newsletter? 

A. Yes (laughs)! Especially anything science communication related. As a scientist you need to be able to communicate the work that you are doing effectively. These things all pay off at some time or another.

Q. What tips would you give to students, undergrad and grad alike, that are contacting potential supervisors/PIs?

A. Look up the papers of their work and have an idea about where the work is going. Be able to have a conversation about the research. Also, express an interest in how the lab works. Every student should meet the lab before they sign on. Be proactive and plan ahead. And lastly, watch those scholarship deadlines! 

Q. It sounds like you have a very busy schedule between teaching, research and chair responsibilities.  How do you spend, what I can only image, is a very little amount of spare time?

A. (laughs). At home, I like to relax by cooking, and at work, I de-stress by swimming. I love to swim!

Thank you for your time Dr. Jacobs! 

AUTHOR: Shawna Thompson

Q.  What initially drew you to neuroscience? Why did you choose this field?

I don’t think we really choose our fields; I think they choose us. My initial research experience was in a neurochemistry lab at the University of Western Ontario with Michael Owen, where I studied catecholamine levels using HPLC initially in bee brains, but eventually in cockroach brains. That was the starting point.  

Q. Why did you choose to continue from that point?

Since grade 6, I always had planned to be a PhD scientist, so when I looked into graduate work and I applied to Queen’s, a new investigator at the time, Mel Robertson, pulled my application. He was also doing invertebrate neuroscience, so that got me into graduate studies in neuroscience.

Q.  What is currently the focus of your lab’s research?

We’re interested in how the body influences brain function, and how it might influence risk of mental health disorders, particularly anxiety and depression. We examine specifically how immune signaling and microbiota-to-brain signaling influence development of those systems.

Q.  As a supervisor in the MiNDS program, what qualities do you look for when choosing students to work with? 

I look for someone with an interest in the topic, some practical lab experience, initiative, and someone who knows something about our research.

Q. What can students gain from having you as their supervisor?

Students in my lab will learn good experimental design, and to do things correctly. They will have a broad picture of the field, and access to interesting collaborative opportunities.

Q.  What is new and exciting in your field of research?

Research directly linking specific microbiota to behaviour or a better understanding of how peripheral immunophenotype might be important to brain development that results in changes in behaviour. What’s exciting in the microbiome field is how effective probiotics are working in the anxiety and emotional side of things. This work is demonstrated in animal studies but seems to be effective in people—mostly healthy people to date—so expanding that into clinical populations is going to be of interest.

What’s needed in the field in the next decade is the concept of taking personalized medicine a step farther by coming up with biomarkers that will allow us to stratify individuals into subtypes so that we have better targets for the development of therapies and current treatments.

Q. Which research are you most impressed by, and why?

The most impressive research is research that considers how integrated the system is. In particular, one of the things that’s emerging is this idea of sex differences, and where these sex differences actually have an effect, and during which periods of development might those be important.

Q. How have you seen the field change since you’ve been in neuroscience?

We’re working in an area that didn’t exist when I began in neuroscience, but particularly the expansion of cross- and multi-disciplinary research and the engagement of reverse translational approaches.

Q. What are the words of wisdom you’d give to a new graduate student?

Take ownership of your project, meaning that you should be the best informed on the topic and dig deep in the literature. What happens is that people don’t read enough. Read broadly, and read the previous research from your lab. 

AUTHOR: Elyse Rosa

How and/or why did you become a MiNDS faculty member and what is your lab currently working on?

I became a MiNDS faculty because there was no neuroscience program in Health Sciences that could compare. In my lab, we are working on understanding the mechanisms of psychiatric disorders, in particular obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), using both animal and human subjects.

What would you like to accomplish in the next ten years (in relation to your research)?

Firstly, I’d like to establish that what ultimately produces OCD, is the organizing principle, which is the proper function in the security motivation system (a motivational system that is postulated to deal with a potential threat). Secondly, I’d like to expand the work of my lab to encompass the genetic mechanisms underlying OCD.

As a supervisor, what qualities do you look for in a student?

I look for students who are hard workers and who are interested and excited to be a researcher—passion and excitement for discovery are very important!

What makes you a worthwhile supervisor?

My many years of experience and my high interest in the subject. I also remember being a graduate student and my experiences in grad school; so I can empathize with being a graduate student!

Which researcher are you most impressed by, and why?

People who make a mark on you are usually people that you’ve encountered when you’re young or just starting out. So, when I was a graduate student at the University of Pittsburgh I had some very interesting people around me. Alan Fisher, one of the pioneers of psychobiology and a very knowledgeable and fantastic writer, described to me that there are two kinds of scientists: there are those who are really good at working out the details, and then there are the others who like to make discoveries of new things without going deeper (Theoreticians vs. Experimentalists—Focusing on the big picture vs. details). Alan Fisher was more like the former, he was not able to pursue the nitty gritty details and like myself, he enjoyed looking at the theory and the bigger picture.

What has been the most humbling lesson you’ve learned so far in your career?

Research funding…it’s all capricious. For instance, you never know about your grants, you’re flying high one time and the next time you can be in the dumps. You can never be certain about your continued support. The true lesson here is not to take it personally! Events outside your control have a big impact on you but you can never take it personally, when you’re successful and when you’re not!

Do you have one piece of advice for new MiNDS students:

One of my mentors wrote some advice that I highly recommend all new students read:

Philip Teitelbaum. Some useful insights for graduate students beginning their research in physiological psychology: Anecdotes and attitudes. Behavioural Brain Research. Volume 231, Issue 2, 1 June 2012, Pages 234–249

AUTHOR: Elizabeth Krawczak

Q.  What initially drew you to Neuroscience? Why did you choose this field?

A.  I got interested in neuroscience originally conceptually because I was interested in plasticity and learning about the brain, since essentially plasticity is the hallmark of the nervous system. If you are interested in biological processes then basically the only other system that approaches that kind of plasticity is the immune system, but of course it is different. So I think the complexity and the plasticity were the real factors that drew me to it in the first place. But another reason was that I was really attracted to the interdisciplinary aspect of neuroscience. True neuroscience is extremely interdisciplinary. This was a place where people who come from physics or like physics and gadgets do really well because it is so interdisciplinary and I have always appreciated that.

Q.  What is your lab currently working on–what are your main research projects?

A.  So our big question really is how do neural circuits wire themselves? This is a big question for neuroscience. I would say it is one of the things that makes neuroscience one of the big hot topics; people in other fields, cosmologists for example, can understand why this is an interesting question. Essentially, because it is a bootstrapping problem. So that is the basic question that we are trying to answer. But we do it in a special place, which is the lateral superior olive. We do it there because it is a nice model system for learning about integration of excitation and inhibition. But it still is all about the same question, which is how do these circuits wire themselves up in order to perform their task optimally and if something goes wrong, why is that? What are the mechanisms? One goal would be: can we understand the system well enough to be able to re-engineer circuits when they have gone awry during development.

Q.  And are you having any luck answering these questions?

A.  The funny thing of course is you go three steps forward and two steps back. We find something out and then we find something so surprising that we have to figure out what is going on there before we can really move forward to the big questions. So we’ve had some tantalizing small questions, but yes, we are moving forward.  

Q.  As a supervisor in the MiNDS program, what qualities do you look for when choosing students to work with?

A.  We are a pretty technical lab, which is true of most neurophysiology labs, and so I look for someone who is not afraid of challenge. Someone who knows how to be coached, who understands that this is teamwork and that you do not get there on your own. Someone who knows how to use constructive criticism constructively. These are all really helpful qualities. Someone who doesn’t really get bulled over by frustration, but takes it and then powers through.

Q.  On the flip side, what can students gain from having you as their supervisor?

A.  Well lots of puns of course. We use a wide variety of approaches in our lab, including some powerful, classic approaches that are not well represented at McMaster. There is a lot people can learn in terms of the techniques. We also work on communication skills, out of the lab. And for the students focusing on physiology, I expect them to learn to program. That’s a really great skill that transfers. And I hope that students grow as creative and critical scientists.

Q.  What would you personally like to accomplish in the next ten years, in terms of your research and/or career?

A.  I would like to understand the information content of the activity that is spontaneously generated in the system, before we have acoustically driven activity. I would like to understand that well enough to be able to basically force a developing circuit to make connections the way I want to make them. Then I would really know that I understand circuit development. Is that going to happen in the next ten years? Mmm…probably not. But that would be a dream! That would be great, amazing. The idea would be that ultimately in systems where the circuits have developed according to some sort of different program we could go back in and with a combination of perhaps pharmacology and stimulus directed inputs we could transform the system.

Q.  Which Nobel Laureate are you most impressed by and why?

A.  I think there are probably three groups that come to mind. First, Hodgkin and Huxley—that is one of the most amazing models in all of biology. It is arguably the most important model developed in neuroscience and biophysics in the twentieth century. It is right up there with Darwin’s theory of evolution and Watson and Crick’s DNA, except that this is mathematical and it still works. And they did it at a time when working out the math and solving those equations was pretty tough. So that was a huge accomplishment. Next, Sakmann and Neher, and Neher in particular, worked for a long time to get patch clamp technology and develop the technique so that it would work. That took many years. They knew what they were aiming for and transformed neuroscience. But not just for the reason that they thought it would. It transformed not just channelology, but also it made it possible for those of us, for example, who like to work with mammalian circuits to do so. And finally, I think Rod MacKinnon’s story is a great inspiring story for young neuroscientists. Did he really have to go learn to crystallize membrane proteins in order to get that structure? I mean, in fact most of what he found had already been predicted by people looking at voltage-gated channels classically. But, it was a great story of someone who really completely re-tooled because he felt that this was important and I think it is good for people to see that that can be successful. Older, wiser people than Rod MacKinnon said “You’re crazy! Why are you doing this, basically shutting down your own lab to do a post doc in someone else’s lab to chase after this unicorn?”, but the unicorn led him to Stockholm. It is a great story.