Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Kevin J. Verstrepen

2023; Elsevier BV; Volume: 33; Issue: 18 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.cub.2023.08.049

1879-0445

Kevin J. Verstrepen,

Kevin Verstrepen is Professor in Genetics and Genomics at Leuven University. He serves as director of the VIB–KU Leuven Center for Microbiology, director of the Leuven Institute for Beer Research, Guest Professor at Tianjin Institute for Biotechnology and Honorary Professor at Nottingham University. Verstrepen studied biological engineering at Leuven University in Belgium. For his MSc thesis, he joined Isak Pretorius' group at Stellenbosch University in South Africa where he studied the genetics of yeast flocculation. His doctoral research at Leuven University was aimed at characterizing yeast genes involved in flavor formation during fermentation. After obtaining his PhD, Verstrepen joined the lab of genetics pioneer Gerald Fink at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, USA. Revisiting the topic of his MSc thesis, Verstrepen discovered that the genes responsible for yeast flocculation contain arrays of highly unstable repeats in their DNA sequence. In 2005, as a Bauer Fellow at Harvard University, Verstrepen started his own lab, which was dedicated to studying fundamental genetics using yeast cells as a model system. More specifically, his team unraveled how unstable tandem repeat sequences facilitate molecular rapid evolution and adaptation. In 2009, Verstrepen returned to the VIB–KU Leuven Center for Microbiology in Belgium, where his team continues to investigate eukaryotic genetics and evolution, while also venturing into applications in the fermentation industry. What drew you to your specific field of research? Dumb luck, as is often the case. I always planned to go into biomedical research, but I also wanted to go abroad for my MSc thesis. I ended up in the lab of Sakkie Pretorius in Stellenbosch University, where I discovered the awesome power of yeast as a model system for basic research, as well as its key role in so many industrial processes. I never looked back! My only frustration is that the field of microbiology is sometimes not respected by some of the 'real' biomedical researchers. Some seem oblivious to the fact that many breakthrough discoveries and technologies actually come from microbes. Who were your key early influences? Oh boy! There have been many, and they have been quite important. I am thoroughly convinced that many of our accomplishments are the result of luck, and often that is the luck of interacting with special people. Firstly, there are the parents, of course. My mum was a kindergarten teacher, and my dad taught mathematics. This helped me become a scientist, not because they helped me understand study material or assisted with homework (they never did any of that!) but simply because education was deemed important. Next, there was Jaqueline Goossens, possibly the most driven high-school math teacher in the universe. She drove a select group of students to the limit, sneaking in university-level material and teaching extra hours during the school lunch breaks. I really suffered, but it helped me to fly through the mathematical courses in my bio-engineering program. Another defining person was a professor in my second year at university. One dreary morning, he taught us how beer is made. It was not a course that turned us into home brewers (that would have been fun too, for a student!) but rather focused on the underlying science. It was the first time that I really saw how different scientific disciplines come together into a product, and beer has never tasted the same since. To me, this was similar to understanding how cells work — a fantastic moment. When I started teaching a freshman seminar at Harvard, I used this idea to construct a course that introduced students to basic principles in biochemistry, chemistry, biology and engineering, all by simply explaining the beer brewing process. It took more than a year to convince Harvard that it was OK to have a beer brewing course for students that had not yet reached the legal drinking age (we ended up calling it 'fermentation'). However, the course quickly became over-subscribed, and I had to refuse a lot of students, which made me feel quite bad since they were all good and paid a lot for tuition. But it also got me the Derek Bok award for teaching, twice in a row! In fact, one of the students of the class of 2007 e-mailed me out of the blue last week to say how he is often reminded of the course. Those e-mails make my day! A couple of years ago, we turned the course into a MOOC (massive open online course), so everyone can now take it, for free. More than 20,000 students already took that online course, the feedback has been great, and the course was awarded the annual MEDEA prize. The biggest influences came during my postdoc and early PI years. Firstly, Gerry Fink, my postdoc advisor at MIT, was such a wonderful mentor, always bubbling with ideas, quotes, jokes, memories and advice (but don't do the experiment unless he mentioned it three times!). He showed me how a good team of scientists really should work. Later at Harvard, Andrew Murray showed me how a tad of craziness, imagination and joy are vital to do frontier research, while Erin O'Shea showed me how to manage an institute. All these key people have been a source of inspiration as well as frustration, simply because I realize I will never be as good as them. Still, they did make me a better scientist and PI. Do you have a scientific hero? Eric Lander used to be at the top of that list. I admire his uncanny talent to get people enthused about science, and his immense drive to push through big projects (although perhaps not always in a good way, as is becoming clear now). Which historical scientist would you like to meet and what would you ask them? Darwin of course! I would want to hear first-hand how he looks back at his scientific adventure. But I would be equally psyched about telling him how we now have a molecular understanding of evolution. What is the best advice that you've been given? When I started my lab as a fellow at Harvard, Mike Laub told me to put time, effort and money into recruiting lab members. Honestly, I still find it extremely hard to judge people based on a CV, an interview and a few chats with the people who provide references. But I seem to be doing something good, since we have a truly fantastic team of good scientists and, perhaps even more importantly, simply fun people. Perhaps that is my biggest talent — being able to recruit great people, have them do good work and have fun in the meantime. Although I guess that working in institutes like Harvard, Leuven University and VIB also helps in that respect. As well as having a 500-liter experimental brewery as part of our lab, of course! If you had not made it as a scientist, what would you have become? My partner insists I would have become a top criminal, mostly because she knows that, as a kid, I did not care much about rules. However, I like to think I would have ended up in the management of some (lawful) company. Different from most of my science colleagues, I actually deeply enjoy the managerial aspects of running a lab and a center. What's your favorite experiment? The ones that work after failing. What has been your biggest mistake...? There are so many that it is truly challenging to make a ranking! One that comes to mind is zoning out as a kid when my parents told me stories about their parents and grandparents (how I wish my parents were still here to ask them!). When I look at a 'higher level' of mistakes, I would say that my biggest mistake is the consistent failure to look at the bright side of life, be more positive and fully enjoy success when it comes along. Sakkie Pretorius said it best: "When Kevin smells roses, he starts looking for a coffin." Honestly, it has proven a useful character trait at times, but it also puts a lot of stress on myself as well as others. What is your favorite conference? Without any doubt the EMBL Conference on molecular mechanisms in evolution and ecology. Heidelberg is not my favorite place in the world, but the conferences are always top in every way. Closely followed by a series of yeast conferences, including those focusing on more applied research like ISSY. And, just about any conference in Copenhagen, one of the best cities in the world as far as I am concerned… My least-favorite conferences are the brewing conferences. They are fun (guess why!), but the level of some of the science presented can be frustratingly low. What is your greatest research ambition? I would love to push the boundaries of precision fermentation, and in the meantime also convince our Belgian government and the EU that they need to invest in synthetic biology and microbial cell factories. This field is exploding and offers real-world solutions for some of the most pressing challenges that our society and planet are facing, but somehow the EU is missing out a bit. Do you feel a push toward more applied science? How does that affect your own work? I don't feel a push at all, but I very much enjoy doing translational work. The number of people in my lab doing basic research has stayed fairly constant over the years, between 10 and 15 researchers. But the other part of the lab that is using our expertise to generate superior yeasts for various industrial applications has been growing steadily, from just 2 at the start to more than 30 now. This means that my team has become quite large, nearly 50 people, which is challenging at times. However, the applied side of the lab is managed by an excellent senior staff scientist, Jan Steensels, so I hardly have to worry about it. Moreover, my two current host institutes, KU Leuven and VIB, also actively support our industrial collaborations. Applied research is great, not only because it offers a different perspective and forces one to see things through a more practical lens but also because it is actually useful for society by providing oxygen for our economy and our society. Some of the yeasts we are producing in my team actually make various industrial processes more sustainable. For example, we have generated new biofuel yeasts that yield more ethanol from the same starting material. Other strains we are working towards are those that produce food-grade ingredients from agricultural waste streams. Not to mention that some of what we do is aimed at making beer and chocolate even better —who can argue against that? I realize that some colleagues have reservations and fear that working with industrial partners limits our academic freedom or reduces the focus on basic research. In my experience, this is not true. We have, for example, published on the molecular mechanisms underlying the mutagenic effect of ethanol. This is not something breweries like to see, but they understand that our task as academics is to do research, and it has not been an issue. No, you will never hear me argue against applied research and industrial collaborations. But, like most of us, I am also convinced that everything starts with strong basic research. Do you think that there is an increased need for scientists to market themselves and their science as 'a brand'? I don't know whether the need has increased, but I do think it is true that we, as scientists, tend to neglect or even detest that 'marketing' aspect. The idea that the only true scientists are nerds that just focus on their research and not care about much else is short-sighted. I much admire colleagues that fit under that umbrella, but I equally admire others that are proud to have passions besides work or go on TV shows. It is our responsibility to educate, translate and make society aware of the fun and importance of science. Why not embrace more people that do not do the science but communicate it? What do you think of post-publication peer review of papers? I am not a fan. Yes, there is a lot wrong with peer review, but I cannot think of a better system to at least have some attempt at quality-checking publications. Is it not our responsibility? The epidemic of fake news and the rise of social media and AI make it even more important to do some fact-checking before a scientific paper is published. It is simply too easy to attempt to ditch traditional peer review and rely on community review, no matter what some frustrated authors and money-hungry publishers try to argue. (But then, I might briefly change my opinion after we get another rejection letter from one top journal or another…) Any strong views on social media and science — for example, the role of science blogs in critiquing published papers? Social media is much like nuclear technology — several fantastic applications but unfortunately also a few consequences that threaten our very existence. That sounds like a ridiculous overstatement, but the effects of sourness, lies, and only being exposed to one viewpoint can be devastating. In science, the problem is perhaps not even too bad, since most scientists are rational and critical people. Which aspect of science, your field or in general, do you wish the general public knew more about? The huge potential of precision fermentation and microbial cell factories. A revolution is upon us! Do you think that there is too much emphasis on 'big data'-gathering collaborations as opposed to hypothesis-driven research by small groups? Nope. I am actually a big fan of large projects, as long as they are fairly centralized and do not involve too many partners. Without those, we might have still not cracked the human genome. Which is not to say that I would want to ditch the smaller, hypothesis-driven type of research. There needs to be a balance between both, and I think we are doing quite OK at this point. If you could ask an omniscient higher being one scientific question, what would it be? How did the universe start? And life? The author has patents in the broad field of microbial biotechnology and precision fermentation (US 63/219,993, EP 22198794.4., GB 2019132.6, GB 2019127.6, US 63/170884).