Episode 16: Tracking Our Behavior

Peter Weng 0:15
Hi, and welcome back to the gastronauts podcast. My name is Peter,

reem hasnah 0:19
and my name is Reem hasnah.

Peter Weng 0:22
And we’ll be your hosts. Here at gastronauts we’re committed to exploring communication throughout the body with a focus on the crosstalk between gut and brain. We invite speakers in this field to share both their research and their life journeys. So come join me as we explore the steps that go into shaping a scientist on the gastronauts podcast.

Today, we have two great scientists, Dr. Yulong Li and Dr. Michael Krashes. Dr. Li is a professor at the School of Life Sciences in Peking University. He received his PhD at Duke University, where he utilized single molecule techniques to understand the role of specific proteins in neurotransmitter release. He then pursued a postdoc at Stanford University in the lab of Richard Chen, where he developed a genetically encoded pH probe to monitor activity dependent release of neurotransmitters. And now his lab has expanded on his previous work and developed advanced imaging probes to untangle the exact chemical signals that neurons are using to communicate in specific circuits. And using these probes, Dr. Li’s lab has worked to identify new receptors and neurotransmitters and characterize their roles in specific neural circuits.

reem hasnah 1:49
I’ll be introducing Dr. Michael Krashes. He’s a section chief at the an ID DK at the National Institute of Health. He received his PhD from the University of Massachusetts Medical School, his work focused on memory circuits and older memory processing and Drosophila. His lab currently focuses on how the brain brings together information sense from the external environment and its own internal states, including the memory. Welcome, Dr. Michael to this episode, I would love to know why both of you have really been motivated to be in the science field. So I know that’s Michael, I heard an interview that he went into science because of your mother. So why did she influence this?

Dr. Michael Krashes 2:36
Yeah, so I mean, I think my mom was a chemist, and was, you know, very heavily involved in the sciences, and just was always very curious. And I fell in love with biology, kind of in high school. And then in college, I kind of just messed around and didn’t really get a lot of science background in college, and then kind of after graduating college, I kind of just kind of kicked around for three years before going back to graduate school. And it was really my mom, my mom that pushed me to do so. But again, you know, Scott, who’s on this call, was my graduate advisor, so he can he back this up, I really had no idea what I was getting into. As far as going to graduate school, I thought I would just go get my PhD, become a professor and be rich, that turns out not to be what happens. I didn’t know what a postdoc was before I started graduate school. In fact, probably not until about two years into graduate school, but it was really, you know, being pushed by my mom to at least get into science, but then having incredible mentors, throughout my my career and support from others in the field. I mean, Scott was just wonderful to me, and really directed my research. He knew what my interests were, I was actually going to leave and go into industry after after graduating from his lab, but he kind of knew that that’s not where my heart was, and pushed me to my postdoc advisor, who was Brad Lowe, who was very big in like the energy balance field. And again, just tremendous mentoring by him, and just the support that I’ve received from the two of them. But again, you know, people that I mean, I can see people in this phone call, I mean, from trainees to, you know, people that have interacted that were graduate students that were postdocs. I see p eyes here, you know, all people whose research I’m so motivated, inspired by, I think that’s what really kind of pushed me to where I am now.

reem hasnah 4:27
And yulong What was your motivation behind being a scientist and a person who develop techniques?

Dr. Yulong Li 4:34
I think I’d love to find since out, you know, the curiosity that was sort of with me since childhood, but I was from a small town in China and my parents been practical and I think my father actually wants me not to go to high school, Senior High School. By going to the professional school, because there was graduate, you can find a very secure job, just in our small town. And around then I, I just I refuse I was like, now this small town is so small, you know, 15 minutes biking, you know from one end to the other end. And so I was sort of just, you know, thinking I need to go to senior high school and then go into the college. And I think, fortunately, even though my parents are practical, and but they all value my own opinion. So they respect my opinions, I, if I decided to go to sort of senior high school and then go into this college entrance exam to apply for colleges, they say, well, we give our best advice. But if you choose to go to your way, good luck, and they still support me so. So that’s part of the way. But I also found that being a scientist or study, including now supervising students, I think has the same sense of financial stability. Okay, probably not expect to be enraged, but at least have some sort of enough support will also assure people that they can sort of focus during research. And you don’t want a career that people are worrying about whether they can go by every day and still concentrate, and doing research. So So I think, have steady and secure support for, from grad student to postdoc, and also to two faculties, which junior faculty will brief good, so people can focus on the important part of science, rather than worrying about their own division.

Peter Weng 7:00
Yes, I think one of the key things from you and Michael, about what they said here was the importance of finding a good mentor, find a good good team of people, whether they have something that you see that you want to do in the future, whether they have the financial security, it’s something that you can look and aspire to be. And that’s been really important. And it was a recurring theme. From what Lisa had mentioned in the previous episode, just reach out to these people who you really want to be.

reem hasnah 7:24
I have a question for Dr. Michael actually have an interest of mine is memory and memory that we make for food? Do you think this memory is created in utero so that the pregnant moms eat different kinds of food and the babies would make memory of what they are eating?

Dr. Michael Krashes 7:42
Yeah, yeah. So I mean, a lot of this kind of beauty studies have been actually done, where the moms, for example, are given exposure to a high fat diet. And then that response is then translated down to pops. work from Young’s burnings group, has shown this really, really nicely. A lot of the changes that happen in the dopamine circuit can occur by just feeding the mom the high fat diet. So yeah, I think it actually predisposes the offspring as well.

reem hasnah 8:13
So you think our guts makes memories since day zero?

Dr. Michael Krashes 8:17
Did I mean, I think I think it definitely is involved.

Peter Weng 8:21
super interesting. Michael, I have a brief follow up. One of your previous papers, you mentioned the challenges of using optogenetics to study agrp neurons in the presence of food. And I was wondering, this optic stimulation is just such a blunt and like aggressive tool to really activate the cells. I guess this is both for you. And you long, how can technology be developed, and additional studies be performed to more accurately mimic physiologic hunger,

Dr. Michael Krashes 8:48
some of the approaches that have been done, you know, in the last couple of years, have been able to kind of record neural activity and then feed back that activity directly to those particular neural subsets. Most of this has been done in the prefrontal cortex or you know, where you can kind of get a large swath of neurons and record their activity. And then you can kind of this is like, it’s like holographic imaging, but then you can then playback exactly kind of that signal, and hopefully induce the exact same behavior that you would see that occurs when the animals actually perform that behavior.

Dr. Yulong Li 9:24
So I think that technology in a way, for example, calcuim imiging, really lower the bar for neuroscientists to study the brain, in a way study the brain activity, and previously, probably only physiologist or electrophysiologist, using sophisticated inaturalist that they can sort of detect, spiking and then study the sort of activity of the brain with precisions but calcium imaging and use You can, for example, really sort of allowed one to look at a single cell type, and a variety of animal systems. And Southland that, there’s just no easy ways to do it, I throw into the brain. So I think the technology and increase of the convenience of lectures and sensitivity or to really allow a larger group of scientists, including your scientists to really assess the uncharted territories, and our neuromodulators sensors, as well as some of the colleagues in the field, in the same way is also trying to make the boundary lower to the bar for people to study is the important signaling molecules. And I think calcine, what did you add? Those are good, but they are still incomplete, and a neuromodulator, with different chemical majors. By Design, they are quite critical. And, and therefore it’s important to measure that dynamics.

reem hasnah 11:04
So I have a question along these lines for both of you, actually. So before we make a statement of that the role of cell type x is modulating behavior, why we need to make sure that this tool that we’re using is repeated can be repeated by different people and repeated by different labs. So how you go through choosing the tools that you use in your labs, and for the experiments, especially with food derived experiments, it gets harder and harder.

Dr. Michael Krashes 11:30
Yeah, so I mean, for the first part, like looking at specific cell types, I mean, this is one of the reasons why I can’t kind of separate myself from agrp neurons. And moving on from saying agrp neurons. I mean, I do honestly think there’s still so much more to discover. But it is a population of neurons that I know if anyone use these tools that I’m using, or that labs using to kind of activate or inhibit or record from, you know, every lab is going to see the same thing. So this is very reproducible. And, and again, that to me is the most important thing about science is that any lab can do this and see something similar. And then when you kind of build on top of that knowledge, that’s how you make progress. And then as far as the tools, I mean, it’s true there is I mean, I’m not a tool developer, I’m one of the people that actually throughout my, my scientific career has taken advantage of the really smart people that have actually developed the tools, whether it was my work in Drosophila, where you know, I use trip a one, which is a heat sensitive way to kind of activate neurons and just saw flat or trip, I’m eight, which is as you know, the menthol receptor, but then can be expressed in flies, and we can change neural activity in that manner, whether it was Shiri into software, or using optogenetics, and human genetic methods in mice, I think the idea is, you know, you obviously know a good tool when you can, when it’s seen in publication after publication after publication, there are a number of tools that, you know, you see once published in a methods paper. And, you know, I think those tools may, they may or may not work as advertised. But I think the the tools that you see published the most are probably the ones that most people are using, and there’s a reason that they’re using them because they work really well and do what they’re supposed to do. And again, reliably across, you know, neurons regardless of what type of neurons or even glial whatever cells people are working with. But if they’re supposed to do what they’re supposed to do, I think that’s why people have kind of continued to use that. So that’s why you see the G camp, you see these new sensors that you Yulong developing these grab sensors, you’re seeing the D light, and you’re you know, these are, these are the tools that are highly used over and over again, because of their efficacy for actuallyworking.

Dr. Yulong Li 13:53
So, again, I think a lot more people use and as a way, they can validate the performance of distances. So for our group, as Michael Krashes set, for example, our intense group from UC Davis also developed D Ly, although a medium D one receptor, and we are using a D two receptor, so that sort of principle actually are sort of corroborated by a different group. And also we share those to us in advance to different groups to test in different scenarios, and also get a feedback and then going through the iterative improvements. Indeed, there’s a difference in terms of you know, the species the temperature might be different, and the cell type might be different for the virus. So there are a lot of parameters cannot easily just be tested by us in the lab. So we, again, we try our best to, to validate our own hands but also distribute to people in different groups to to validate And also I think making to us, test in vivo is critical. And I love tools and we make them. And I admire Roger Chen, who make those tools. And now also a lot of tools published by Cambridge, geneticist. But I think, for neuroscience, probably the most important thing is to test it in vivo, which is more challenging. And a lot of people demonstrate proof principle in cultured cells. And my own group, we want to publish since at least when I was telling my students, we want to have the in vivo evidence, and we want it to work in vivo, before we publish this, and so I think that has a higher power in a way that if you have the in vivo signal to noise ratio, and usually in other conditions, that it should be more robust, for example, in the slides, or in culture systems.

Peter Weng 15:58
Yeah, I think a really neat point that you own brings up is the importance of collaboration, you’ve shared some of those sensors with our laboratory. And it’s been really great to hear about collaboration, we actually have a question from Daria,regarding collaboration.

Daria 16:12
So I am a doctoral student in the Department of Nutrition at the University of North Carolina, and I do sort of translational work in the gut microbiome and diabetes. And I have really a general question for you. I have been involved in some limited research collaborations with collaborators in China. And I was wondering if you could speak to sort of the environment that would or would not allow for continued efficient collaboration between China and the US, given all the really great work that’s being done in both countries? And sort of, I’m wondering how you see this playing out in the future? You know, given some of the challenges that have arisen recently?

Dr. Yulong Li 16:52
Yeah, I think it’s really a good question. You know, I spent 11 years in the states from my high school and postdoctoral training, and then I have my own lab in Beijing for more than seven years. I think the scientists are open. And at least for me, I have a very pleasant collaboration with scientists around the world, including a lot of labs in the US, I think the geopolitical issues are, indeed host constraints. That is certainly worrisome. And there are different cultures and different systems, I think, one of the ways to have the collaboration could be that laying out the the collaboration in a more open tense that in case and, you know, given to the political competition or issues between the governments, so if the parties can lay out attempts, more transparent to stairways that might ease the issues, for example, you know, the why heard is that, you know, they’re, especially the Chinese Americans, some of the friends they worry about the compliment the US government might, you know, might be treated in such a way that they are an export of the sensitive information. So, at least as best I can think of, and but but generally, among scientists, I actually have quite pleasant sort of feedbacks and experience, and also the US scientists that I encounter and interact and collaborate. They’re also worrying about the political environment at my limit, and have fallen soundly to the faithful and completing reports system to disclose the collaboration in advance, and also timely, and that can sort of reduce the concern, I think.

reem hasnah 19:16
So we have a question from Elaine.

Elaine 19:18
Hello, thank you. Question for Michael Krashes. Thank you very much indeed for your really interesting talk. I was wondering, though, is the overriding desire for high calorific food do with the evolution of survival? So in other words, do we sort of instinctively need to eat more sort of high calorie, high energy food when it’s available if we don’t know where the next meal is coming from? Obviously, that’s much less of a problem now for most of us, but you know, for the mice and rats that you were talking about, and perhaps for humans, way back when meals weren’t Simply available.

Dr. Michael Krashes 20:01
Yeah, I mean, I, I can’t tell you the exact reason for it. But that’s precisely how I think about it is that is that we’re attracted to the energy dense foods because we’ve just evolutionarily conserved to try to go after, you know, the most calories for the the limited time that we have. Because again, we were we used to forage for food, you know, so that we were able, then. So I think that we try to get as many calories as we can, in a short amount of time as we can. And you know, in particular, fat is really involved in the actual evolution of the human brain. And it’s why the brain became bigger and bigger as as evolved was because of the fat that we consume from our food. So I think fat in particular, is extremely, you know, attractive to us humans. And I think that’s conserved and unfortunately, yes, as you mentioned, in you know, an obesogenic environment that we’re kind of many of us live in now, that can have a very detrimental effect. Yeah.Thank you.

Along the similar lines. Another question from Michael, about willpower and the ability to resist cravings.

Michael 21:11
Yeah. Hi. So I am Michael from the Air Force Research Labs, actually, it says a question to Dr. crashes, some people seem to have more willpower to to not eat these high density out high energy foods. Is that is that more of a learned response? Or is that? I mean, how do you sort of reconcile those those sorts of things?

Dr. Michael Krashes 21:31
Yeah, I mean, so I don’t think there’s a good answer to that. What I will say is that, that mice, just like humans, really show a tremendous variability when they are exposed to these high fat diets. On average, these animals are gaining quite a bit of weight over the the experimental period where they’re exposed to high fat diet. Again, on average, these animals are completely ignoring the standard diet, because now they’re just eating a high fat diet. But in reality, just like humans, you know, there are annoying people that can eat like crap, and not gain much weight at all. And what we noticed is that it didn’t matter how much body weight these animals gained over that exposure period, we always saw that those animals showed that devaluation for the standard diet, both in their home cage and even when we did the experiments where we fasted those animals and gave them a standard diet back that those animals were still they still did not want to eat the standard diet. So I do think there’s, you know, there’s, there’s a number of factors that I’m sure that are involved in the production disposition of how the body actually reacts to to like a palatable diet. And I think that’s what we’re trying to figure out exactly what those factors are. But again, I think it’s going to be many factors and working together. So to identify, you know, particularly one of those is going to be really difficult. Thank you.

reem hasnah 22:51
So we have one more question for Michael from Hilary.

Hilary 22:55
Hi, my name is Hilary ship. I’m a postdoc at Stony Brook University. My question is about how chemo sensory cues interact with feeding. So I noticed that the animals fed the high fat diet avoided the standard pellet, like right away. And so I’m wondering if they use taste or smell cues rather than the post ingestive cues? And if so, how do those chemosensory cues then, like reach and modulate the agrp cells?

Dr. Michael Krashes 23:22
What is such a great question? And actually, we have something that we is in review right now, because we had that same question, which is basically what role does you know, olfaction play in this kind of rapid preference, and then prolonged preference and devaluation? So the preference for the high fat diet and the devaluation standard diet. So we did these gain of function and loss of function experiments where, you know, we positioned animals to be able to say, smell the high fat diet in their home cage, but never eat it. So they, you know, they, they kind of make the Association, the smell of the high fat diet, but they could never eat it. And they actually never showed devaluation for standard diet. So it would suggest that they would have to actually consume it. It’s smell alone is not sufficient for them to kind of show devaluation. And then on the opposite end of the spectrum, we actually ablated the olfactory bulb, so we did these Baalbek dummies, so you know, render the mice and cosmic, and even in anomic mice, they very rapidly made the decision that they just wanted to eat the the high fat diet as opposed to the standard diet. So at least olfaction itself, you know, of course, we took this reductionist approach, at least the faction itself doesn’t seem to be heavily involved in that process. We were looking to do some experiments on taste. Unfortunately, there’s not kind of a really nice knockout model in mice for tastes, but there are some experiments you can do by entering say the stomach or entering the calories before it’s actually absorbed into the digestive tract, to kind of look at the role of two One thing I do want to point out, and I’m glad that I can do this in this question is, when we published this study, recently, another study came out from Zack Knight’s lab, it was driven by Lisa Butler, who has her own lab now at Northwestern. And what they showed very, very nicely, I mean, we also did some infusion experiments where we directly infuse calories directly into the gut to kind of bypass all their chemosensory information that you’re, you’re talking about. But I think they did a much better job. And they went even further to show that it was actually this specific macronutrient of high fat diet is is the one that’s kind of devalued at the level of agrp neurons. And that happens presumably through through cck, like this signaling peptide cck in response to fat, so I think I think there’s still questions out there to be answered, but at least on the surface, what I can tell you from our recent work is that olfaction does not seem to be involved in this process.

Hilary 25:56
Cool. Thankyou.

reem hasnah 26:09
Thank you all for listening, and we’ll see you on the next episode. For more of our content, you can follow us on Twitter. At the gut brain matters or visit our website think astronauts calm, the gastronauts podcast would be impossible without our incredible team. Meredith is our producer and theme music composer. And special thanks to the founder of gastronauts Dr. Diego Bohorquez forecast and the Bohorquez laboratory

Episode 15: Shaping Our Appetite

Peter Weng 0:09
2020 has truly been a turbulent year and brought forth a new set of challenges on how we live and how we communicate. And as such, we have needed to find ways to adapt and grow. we’ve adapted our podcast to be a live stream through zoom. We’ve brought a new co host onboard. So everyone please give a warm welcome to Reem hasnah, a graduate student from Sidra medicine in Qatar,

reem hasnah 0:31
it’s a pleasure for me to be the new member of the Gastronauts family. Hi everyone.

Peter Weng 0:37
And we are so excited to continue diving deep on gut brain matters and learning about the scientists Behind the Science. So come join me as we explore the steps that go into shaping a scientist on the Gastronauts podcast.

Hi, everyone, we would like to welcome you all to our sixth year of Gastronauts. For those of you who have been with us from the beginning, we would like to thank you all for your commitment. For those of you just tuning in, we are happy to have you join our community. Here at Gastronauts. Our ambition is to foster discussion and spread knowledge on gut brain matters. What started as a seminar series led by Dr. Diego Bohorquez in 2015, has now expanded into an international symposium and a podcast aimed at exploring the scientist Behind the Science. Today, we invite you to join us in thinking and talking about why we eat. My name is Peter and I along with Reem Hasnah will be your hosts. So without further ado, let’s introduce our speakers. Dr. Lisa Beutler is an assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. She is a physician scientist aiming to study how the gut and brain communicate with each other to maintain body weight. Dr. Beutler received her MD and PhD from the University of Washington where she studied how input from NMDA receptors onto medium spiny neurons, inhibitory neurons in the basal ganglia are critical for learning and Dr. Richard pomodoros laboratory. She then proceeded to specialize clinically in endocrinology, and began studying how a subset of neurons in the hypothalamus these AGRP neurons are involved in regulating hunger in Dr. Zachary Knight’s lab, and she is currently studying how obesity affects the ability of these neurons to detect certain nutrients.

Dr. Anthony Sclafani is a professor of psychology at Brooklyn College at the City University of New York. He has had a truly distinguished career of over 50 years and studying the neurochemical circuits that govern learn taste preferences. He has served as the past president of both the Society of the study of adjusted behavior and the obesity society, and has authored over 300 publications. Dr. Sclafani began his research into ingestive behavior in Dr. Pete Grossman’s laboratory where he developed a wire knife to dissect neural pathways involved in an obesity syndrome generated from damage to the hypothalamus. From there he has pioneered studies that have helped answer how specific features of food promote appetite, and the brain reward systems that are activated from the consumption of palatable foods.

Sometimes eating is not a reward. So what do you think of this?

Dr. Anthony Sclafani 3:35
So that’s a very good question. I mean, one way to look at it is that the brain is basically turned on by food almost all the time. And if the food is satiating, then it generates signals that temporarily turn us off. Or if we accumulate too much fat, we have long term signals like leptin, that keeps our appetite somewhat limited. But when you look at the behavior of these shame, feeding animals, for example, whereas a normal rat, when food deprived, would drink, maybe 10 ml of a sugar solution, if you lead to sugar fall out of its stomach, in the 30 minute period, you test it and might drink 50 or 60 ml of the solution. So there’s no inhibition and it seems to be just permanently driving this reward system. You know, there are situations like with anorexia nervosa or with animals that hibernate and they show cyclic changes in their approach to food, that the brain may be turned off to food but it might be a good biological bet that if there’s food there, and it’s a nutritious and it tastes, we’ll eat it when you can.

Dr. Lisa Beutler 4:49
Food is certainly always rewarding to me.

reem hasnah 4:52
Me too.

Dr. Lisa Beutler 4:54
I think I think I overall agree with that. But I will say that one of the reasons why I got it To this field, I think there’s a there’s a few reasons why I was interested in studying feeding and setting obesity. One is very related to my medical school experience in my life experience with obese people and wanting to figure out why they were obese, because it just makes their life so much harder for something that is really not within their control. But the other reason that I really got into this is because I personally come from a family where about half of us are complete food maniacs, and the other half of us really, you know, eat to survive, you know, dinner at dinner, they eat because it’s like Time to eat dinner. And so they eat a small meal, and then they can stop. And so I think that there’s like, people are probably tuned differently as to how rewarding food is and to how far they will go. And I think, you know, kind of related to that, if you look at an average healthy, like 25 year old guy will go eat a burrito the size of his head, and feel really great afterwards and kind of learned nothing from the experience that maybe that’s overnutrition and not great. But you take that same person at the age of 40, or 50, or whatever, at some later age. And probably at some point part of the way through the burrito, they’re going to be like, Whoa, if I eat more than this, I’m gonna feel not great later. So I think that probably breaks maybe get put on more in general later in life and are also on at different levels and different people.

Peter Weng 6:23
Do you think that sensing and ingesting behavior is altered with the aging process? So as we age, we tend to have new circuits new neuronal circuits or less of the effect of a specific sugar or a specific nutrients on our food preference?

Dr. Anthony Sclafani 6:41
That’s a good question. We certainly know with aging, the sensitivity of the olfactory system declines. And that could interfere with the appetite of elderly people. And unfortunately, many COVID patients have a lot of primarily odor, and that interferes with their attraction to food. We have not looked at aging animals for their post oral nutrient response. I think that’s an excellent question. And someone should write up an r1 application for that project.

Dr. Lisa Beutler 7:13
I totally agree. I think we don’t know from any of the models that we use, what aging does we just know, kind of from the human experience, and from mouse models, what Tony said about the olfaction going down? I think an interesting question is whether the homeostatic setpoint for body weight changes in aging people, does it get lower? Are we supposed to get skinnier? Does Britain think we should be skinnier when we’re older? Or do the negative consequences of eating too much just begin to alter our behavior? And hopefully in the coming years, we’ll find out the answer to that question.

Peter Weng 7:44
Has having a career in science of feeding altered your own food choices?

Dr. Anthony Sclafani 7:49
I’m not so sure I mean, I’ve been experimenting with some some recent developments in nutrition, there are these rare sugars called isomaltulose and allulose that have been promoted. Because I so multilocus is a sucrose type molecule that’s slowly digested. So it doesn’t produce a spike in blood glucose. And we’ve actually shown that mice will drink it. But they show let’s have a conditioning response to it. And allulose is a fructose molecule that’s not digested. It’s not metabolically use, you could buy cereal products that contain this fructose molecule that allows them to save the sugar, the cereal contains no sugar, because you can’t use it. And I’ve actually purchased the cereal. But it wasn’t particularly tasty to me. So I haven’t pursued that very much. But, you know, I’ve haven’t experimented with some products such as sweet taste inhibitors. But I’m not sure it really is changed my long term nutritional inputs.

Dr. Lisa Beutler 8:59
I think probably working in the field that I do, both in science and in medicine should have changed my eating behavior more than it has. But I think overall it has not. I think maybe if I’m being generous to myself, I would say that working in the feeding and in the obesity fields has at least made me try to focus on eating foods that I actually really love. And not eating foods simply because they’re available, but I still eat way too much.

reem hasnah 9:28
A question that I really want to ask you, Lisa. So as both we are females in science, how do you think your work might have been affected if you were in the field 50 years ago?

Dr. Lisa Beutler 9:40
Oh, man. I don’t know if I don’t know if I would have been in the field 50 years ago. To be honest, I don’t know how my life would have been different 50 years ago, but I’m very grateful to be doing science now. God I’ve not ever been asked quite this question. I will say that I count myself as someone who’s enormously privileged there are a large number of scientists and physicians in my family, my great grandmother on my dad’s dad’s side was a physician. And so I feel like I’ve experienced less barriers than many, many women. And many, many, certainly women of color have experienced and getting into science and medicine. So I want to start by just one expressing my gratitude and saying that I think that comparatively, I’ve had it fairly easy. But as I’ve transitioned to being a PA, and I have women trainees, I noticed the ways that they’re conditioned to behave differently than men still. And I’ve feel like I’ve worked to overcome some of that over the last 15 years. And my hope is that I can take my privilege and pay that forward to the next generation of women. Because I like if it had been 50 years ago, I may not have gone into science. And I hope that in another 50 years, it’s it’s easier still and more equitable still, for women and other groups.

Peter Weng 11:01
These times have been really changing. And hopefully, we’re going to make a lot more progress in the coming years for both, I guess the diversity and inclusion efforts and thinking about the changes that we have in our society has also made me think about the technological advances and how things are developing at a blistering pace, really, some of the work that you Dr. Sclafani started out as were these course dissections and creating lesions in the hypothalamus. And now we can actually target really specific neuronal populations, through light or through chemicals. How do you leverage the implementation of these latest technologies against methods that you have developed in your laboratory that, you know, are tried and true? And how do you go about including or incorporating collaborative efforts for things like this?

Dr. Anthony Sclafani 11:44
Right, I am in total, or of the work that’s being done today, in manipulating the brain with the super sophisticated procedures when I was in graduate school 55 years ago, which by the way, I don’t recall how many women we had in our class, I think it was very few. At the time, we were manipulating the brain by putting a wire in the brain and passing electricity and destroying 1000s and 1000s of cells. My PhD advisor, was one of the first scientists to actually put drugs into the brain to manipulate the activity of chemospecific ways. But at that time, believe it or not, we were putting the drug in the brain in crystal form, we didn’t have the technique to inject solutions. So we just stuck a crystal at the end of a stainless steel tube. That’s how crude it was. So in my lab, I never developed these super sophisticated techniques, we were manipulating the gut, and lucky to be able to get shamed, feeding animals and self infusing animals. And that gave us a lot to keep us busy. But I just loved the work that’s being done today by both men and many women.

Dr. Lisa Beutler 13:00
Can I add something to that? Even even as like looking on a shorter timescale, I had basically a five year interruption and doing science between when I finished my graduate work. And when I started my postdoctoral research, because I was finishing my clinical training. And even in those five years between 2011 and 2016, I got back into science and was like, holy crap, this is really, really different than how I left it. I was pivoting fields as well. So that was certainly a component. But really, the actual tools and technologies available had just completely exploded in the last five years. And it was both, inspiring and terrifying. So I think that this is an exponential process. And we’ll see we’ll see how it continues going. But also, from my perspective, as a pretty Junior investigator, I learn so much by going back to some of the old literature, not like, you know, when when somebody brings me a paper and says this is really old, and it’s from 2001, or something like that. But really going back to when people were thinking and only had the tools to study the very most fundamental aspects of biology, or much more fundamental aspects of biology. I think you can learn a lot and save a lot of reinventing some wheels, and generate a lot of really cool questions by looking at these older studies.

reem hasnah 14:39
If you could offer your graduate students, any self advice of wisdom of what you gained throughout your expertise and throughout your career, what would it be and why?

Dr. Anthony Sclafani 14:49
Well,I think you have to be willing to change fields as needed and utilize the most latest techniques but one early experience that I had that was very instrumental. When I first came up with the idea that there was a Nā Pali Coast tatse, I submitted an NIH grant, it was rejected. And I resubmitted the grant, and it was rejected a second time. And in those days, the good old days, you could submit it a third time. And I submitted the grant a third time. And I think I worm him out, because I asked for four years of funding, but they only gave me two. And then, in those two years, I had already collected so much private, you know, private data, I finally had a breakthrough and showed convincing evidence. And they subsequently supported the grant for 30 years, and no, they had a problem, you know, getting funded. But if I gave up too soon, I don’t know where I would have been. So if you think you have a good idea, don’t give it up too soon. Give it a try couple of times,

Dr. Lisa Beutler 15:58
as a trainee, rather than focusing on the duration of your training, or how close or far you are, from your next goal. Focus on whether you like going to work everyday or not. Because if you like going to work on more days than you don’t like going to work, I think you’re probably doing something right. And this is a it’s a long path for all of us. So don’t get too too hung up on the number of years, you are from your next thing, just enjoy what you’re doing. And use that as your barometer for whether you’re doing the right thing.

Peter Weng 16:31
That’s really great advice.

reem hasnah 16:33

Peter Weng 16:33
I think that’s something I’ve been doing with myself lately. Like, how many days do I wake up? And I’m happy doing what I’m doing,

Dr. Lisa Beutler 16:38

Peter Weng 16:39
And if the answer is less than 50%, and maybe need to change my career path or something,

reem hasnah 16:44
maybe not change your career, change your team, the team plays a huge effect. So when you have a great team of people, and then you want to wake up every morning just to have coffee with them, and just talk science,

Peter Weng 16:57
where do you see the field of gut brand communication going in the future? And how do you want to be a part of this?

Dr. Lisa Beutler 17:04
I think I see it as really turning into more than just one field. I don’t know that I consider gut brain communication to be a totally unified field. My focus is on body weight maintenance. Tony’s focus is on development of taste preference. Are those two things related? Yes, but Tony’s built, and I’m building an independent career on two aspects of this thing that are completely different. I think that the direction that I’m probably overall most excited about and hope to contribute to is understanding how genetics lead to differences that promote or protect from obesity, why body weight maintenance succeeds in some people and fails and others is what keeps me up at night. And I think that the way we’re going to ultimately understand that from a gut brain perspective, is to really drill down the molecular aspects of this genetic aspects of this,

Dr. Anthony Sclafani 18:04
we need much more translation in our research. Because while it’s very easy to condition, a mouse in rakk, with intragastric confusions, it’s much more difficult to demonstrate food learning and adults, adult humans, although children seem to learn much, much more readily, there’s something missing. And part of it is the complexity of the human environment and the foods that we eat. But there may be differences in how rapid humans form development, you know, developmental responses to gi changes. So some of our experiments have been have to be safely translated to human work and see how we can understand the difference between humans and rodents in this regard, because it’s easy to make animals obese and maybe prevent them becoming from obese obviously, in a clinical situation, it’s much more difficult.

Peter Weng 19:01
Yes,certainly, a lot of the goals with regards to obesity are not particularly for mice would be great if we never had any obese mice. But we want to translate this impact to humans in the socially complicated diseases like obesity and anorexia. What is the biggest barrier to communicating this information to the public?

Dr. Anthony Sclafani 19:19
Well, it’s very difficult. Every week, you’ll read the New York Times The Washington Post or some magazine, and they’ll highlight a recent study that came out and it sounds like you know, it’s the best thing since whitebread was invented. And it turns out they overhype the results. So the results were based on a small group size or some cases it’s based on limited number of human subjects in an experiment. So it’s very difficult for the news media, I think, to do a good job in presenting the data because they’re always looking for the hottest headline too, and then people they don’t pay attention to it. Because the story keeps changing. So now we have, you know, artificial sweeteners cause overweight, sugar causes overweight. But what should people do? They don’t know what to do.

Dr. Lisa Beutler 20:10
I think that overhyping is a huge, huge issue. And I think some people respond by not listening. But I think that unfortunately, some fraction of the population might respond by listening too much, and get really fixated on ideas that were sold to them as being potentially like a really great cure, but are either not practicable or not going to be effective, and it leads to kind of recurrent disappointment, and really doesn’t help anyone. And I think another another problem with communicating to the public is just that, you know, this is my job. And it’s really, really hard to stay on top of the amount of literature that’s coming out on this. And for somebody who doesn’t do this as their career, and even for the media to keep up on the literature as it really is, I think, is probably borderline impossible.

Peter Weng 21:03
Yeah, I think I’ve talked to some friends who are not really in the scientific fields. And a lot of times, they’ll be like, Oh, I thought we cured that disease already. And it’s just like, No, we’ve just learned more and more about it. But there’s still a lot of work to be done, to transition a bit about our communication to the public communication amongst scientists. And I really want to thank you both for participating in this new experimental seminar type format. And I’m curious to hear how you felt the dissemination of scientific knowledge has changed over the past 20 to 50 years, from an era before PowerPoint presentations, Dr. Sclafani to a time of now we have these virtual conferences, what principles have enabled the presentation to be so memorable or having a long lasting impact? And how do you think these types of presentations or dissemination of knowledge will continue to evolve?

Dr. Anthony Sclafani 21:53
Well, I think these new methods are very effective. We used to take as a weeks to prepare our slides for a slide talk. Now we could do everything almost instantaneously include the latest data, when I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago, we literally had to go to the library, and look in index medicus, or psych abstracts to find out what the research was today, on your telephone, you could look up PubMed and find out what the latest news is. But the latest news doesn’t always tie back to the oldest studies. So you know, you have to be very careful and looking at what’s the latest brightest thing and try and put everything in context. But as far as communication wise, I’m, I just love these new forms of communication.

Dr. Lisa Beutler 22:45
And I think that’s something that stayed consistent. I mean, I don’t I can’t speak from experience from 20 or 30 years ago. But something that has stayed the same, at least at the level of the literature, and as long as I’ve been on in science, is that whatever the technology is, that is used to disseminate new scientific stories, the key to doing so successfully is to tell a story. And the science that I read, and the science that sticks with me, and the presentations that stick with me, are those that really succeed in telling a story and answering the why, and then proceeding logically through the how and what it showed. And in fact, that’s how I came to be in neuroscience, which is a field that I when I was younger I swore I would never go into.

reem hasnah 23:29
For people who are considering to be a part of this field, what advice do you give them for young scientists, graduate students, or just high school students that might have listened to us?

Dr. Anthony Sclafani 23:42
My advice is, it’s to me. It’s been an exciting way of life. I spent 50 years or more in the laboratory. I was fortunate, however, to be funded, a little nervous if I was in a new student, what the funding situation is going to be. But it’s, it’s, you know, it’s exploration. Science is just wonderful to increase your understanding of the universe.

Dr. Lisa Beutler 24:10
As a young investigator, I am nervous about the funding situation and where my career is gonna be in five years. But as I alluded to, before, I like going to work every day like I look forward to going into the lab and seeing my students and talking to them and talking to my technician. And that’s I can’t think of a better barometer for choosing a career than that. And I guess my other advice, which I think is easier advice to give than probably to take, but something that I would advise young scientists or young people thinking they want to get into scientists is to not be afraid to reach out to us because as you can probably tell, we really love talking about what we do and answering questions and talking to young scientists and young people who want to do science is one of the highlights of what I get to do. So if you’re curious, send an email. If we don’t respond, send another email, we won’t get mad at you. And just keep at it and keep trying to get your your foot into the door. Like I said, that’s easier for me to say than to do. And that also comes from a fair amount of privilege. But hopefully, if this can get to some ears, that were reluctant to actually send an email because they don’t want to be a bother because they don’t know if it’s appropriate. It is, and do it.

Dr. Anthony Sclafani 25:28
I agree.

reem hasnah 25:29
Thank you, guys. A huge thank you from the gastronorm family to the audience who attended today’s episode, your presence matters the most to us. Also, we would like to thank our speakers, Dr. Buetler, and Dr.Sclafani, who gave us from their precious time to share with us their science and knowledge. A final remark. I’m really thankful and excited to be the newest member of the gastronorm family, and to be co hosting these episodes with Peter. See you in our next episode. Stay tuned. Thank you, everyone.

Dr. Anthony Sclafani 26:02
Thank you. It was a pleasure.

Peter Weng 26:03
Thank you all.

Dr. Lisa Beutler 26:04
Thank you very much.

reem hasnah 26:10
Dr. buechler. And Dr. Sclafani taught us many fascinating things. But the major highlights of this podcast is what we eat shapes how we eat, and that different nutrients activate different receptor and as a consequence, different pathways. Also, in this episode, we received a great advice that in science never stopped trying and keep on going, knock many doors and send too many emails. with that. I want to thank you all so much for listening, and we’ll see you on the next episode. For more of our contents, you can follow us on the new Twitter account gutbrainmatters, or visit our website thinkgastronauts.com the Gastronauts podcast would be impossible without our incredible team. Meredith is our producer and team music composer. And the special thanks to the founders of Gastronauts Dr. Diego Bohorquez, and the Bohorquez laboratory.