By Jonathan Chu, postbac in the Apicomplexan Molecular Physiology Section of the Laboratory of Malaria and Vector Research
Interview with Samuel Chauvin, M.D./Ph.D. candidate in the University of Pennsylvania’s Immunology Program
The “Alumni Connections” series highlights NIAID fellows who have taken the next step on their academic path. This interview features a former NIAID postbac who transitioned to an M.D./Ph.D. program in 2021. Read this interview with Samuel Chauvin to learn about his experience as a postbac in the Molecular Development of the Immune System Section of the Laboratory of Immune System Biology and how he made his decision to pursue an M.D./Ph.D. in the University of Pennsylvania’s Immunology Program.
What was your postbac research and how did you contribute to your lab at NIH?
I was in the Molecular Development of the Immune System Section of the Laboratory of Immune System Biology under the supervision of Michael Lenardo, M.D. The lab focuses on studying patients with primary immune deficiencies who are extremely immunocompromised. When a patient presents at the clinic with an unknown immunological issue, we receive their blood samples and conduct whole exome sequencing to understand what the most likely causative gene is for their disease. We then investigate if the disease-associated variant is actually deleterious and if expression of the normal gene variant can correct the patients’ symptoms. And if it did, we would investigate what the gene does in the immune system—usually the genes we encounter are very poorly studied and we’re breaking new ground.
Why did you choose to pursue a postbac?
I was originally on the premed track in undergrad, but right around Christmas break during my senior year, I considered going to graduate school instead. One of my advisors pointed out that I had never done a rigorous research project and recommended that I take a year or two to determine if I was interested in or enjoyed doing research. One of my instructors then recommended the NIH Postbac Program.
How did your postbac prepare you for your future career?
In my lab, I was treated as a scientist—it didn’t matter that I was a postbac. I felt like I had ownership over my work; this was one of the driving forces in helping me complete the projects and papers I was involved on. When I look at my peers who spent their gap years at academic institutions completing their postbacs, it seems like they didn’t quite get the same exposure and experience that I did. Now as an M.D./Ph.D. candidate, the Ph.D. portion is condensed from 6-8 years to close to 4 years, so it’s important to hit the ground running. I feel like my time at NIAID really put me ahead of the pack.
Why did you choose the M.D./Ph.D. over the Ph.D. or M.D. alone?
There were two main reasons: the first was that I really wanted to do clinically inspired basic science and learned that access to human samples is much easier with an M.D. The second comes from my exposure to both M.D.s and Ph.D.s at NIH—I saw how Ph.D.s think differently about problems than how M.D.s do. Ph.D.s receive granular, specific training and dive deep into a niche field and become experts. M.D.s, on the other hand, receive more general training and take a more holistic approach. I saw that the questions asked and the proposed experiments varied between the two groups. I decided that being trained to think with both paradigms would be important for becoming a good principal investigator.
What advice would you give others who are considering going the M.D./Ph.D. path?
First of all, it’s a great program to be in even though many people are intimidated by the long-term commitment. The time will go by very fast, and you’ll end up learning a lot in the process. Second, in terms of the process of applying, it helps to define the story of who you are, what you’re capable of, and why that institution is best suited to helping you reach your goal—keep touching on that theme throughout your personal statements and interviews.
What did you enjoy most about being a postbac?
There was a lot that I enjoyed, but I think what I enjoyed the most were the unplanned moments where you’d just be sitting around in the lab and bouncing ideas off each other. Maybe you just got some data, and you had a question about it, or you’re really excited and want to show somebody. That was the part that convinced me that I really do want to go into research.
Publications
- Chauvin SD, Price S, Zou J, Hunsberger S, Brofferio A, Matthews H, Similuk M, Rosenzweig SD, Su HC, Cohen JI, Lenardo MJ, Ravell JC. A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Study of Magnesium Supplementation in Patients with XMEN Disease. J Clin Immunol. 2021 Oct 16.
- Ravell JC, Matsuda-Lennikov M, Chauvin SD, Zou J, Biancalana M, Deeb SJ, Price S, Su HC, Notarangelo G, Jiang P, Morawski A, Kanellopoulou C, Binder K, Mukherjee R, Anibal JT, Sellers B, Zheng L, He T, George AB, Pittaluga S, Powers A, Kleiner DE, Kapuria D, Ghany M, Hunsberger S, Cohen JI, Uzel G, Bergerson J, Wolfe L, Toro C, Gahl W, Folio LR, Matthews H, Angelus P, Chinn IK, Orange JS, Trujillo-Vargas CM, Franco JL, Orrego-Arango J, Gutiérrez-Hincapié S, Patel NC, Raymond K, Patiroglu T, Unal E, Karakukcu M, Day AG, Mehta P, Masutani E, De Ravin SS, Malech HL, Altan-Bonnet G, Rao VK, Mann M, Lenardo MJ. Defective glycosylation and multisystem abnormalities characterize the primary immunodeficiency XMEN disease. J Clin Invest. 2020 Jan 2;130(1):507-522.