Questions and AnswersProf. Matthias Gunzer

Nearly all the scientific work currently published by immunologists is performed using molecular biology. You spend most of your time behind a microscope. Isn’t that a bit old-fashioned?
I wouldn’t describe myself as old-fashioned. We are working with high-tech instruments, particularly with a 2-photon microscope that gives us insights into processes in tissues that we could only dream about a couple years ago. In contrast, people using a molecular “microscope” too often forget the overall context of intact organisms when interpreting their results.

What kind of insights is your work giving you?
In one project, for example, we’re investigating Aspergillus fumigatus, a fungus that is ubiquitous in the air. It is a pathogen, but under normal circumstances it doesn’t cause problems. However, it’s extremely dangerous for individuals who don’t have an intact immune system, for example patients who have received a bone marrow transplant. We want to know how the immune system of a healthy individual inactivates the spores of Aspergillis. That’s why we’re looking in situ, in the prepared lungs of a mouse, to see what is happening in the alveoli. There one can see, for example, how fungus spores are attacked and destroyed by cells of the immune system. It’s absolutely fascinating.

That sounds a little bit like how Anthoni van Leeuwenhoek described the “animalculi” that he saw under his microscope more than 300 years ago...
It’s true, the approach my team and I use is initially the same as that utilized by the old school of scientists. We observe and describe exactly what we see under the microscope, exactly like van Leeuwenhoek and generations of scientists after him did it. This process is important, because the things we are seeing have never been observed before. In order to make this information accessible to the general public, we first have to make precise descriptions. One common problem scientists have is that they generate artifacts in vitro as a result of the experimental conditions in the test tube. We don’t have this problem. We see what is really happening in tissue or even in a living organism. But of course we don’t stop there. The molecular mechanisms also interest us, and we want to indentify them for the complex patterns of behavior that we observe in vivo. We frequently work with other scientific groups to achieve this, which is something Van Leeuwenhoek didn’t do. It’s no longer possible to publish purely observational data; the question, “Why is it like that?“, always comes. However, I wish that microbiologists would also take a look through our microscope, because some of them design experiments for which one can clearly say from the beginning that things don’t work that way in real life!

You’ve been working for several years as an immunologist. What continues to inspire you about your research?
I’ve already mentioned one aspect: what we can see under the microscope is absolutely fascinating. And nobody has seen it before! It’s a thought that comes again and again. I look at certain images over and over, and each time I’m excited. It’s also fascinating to work with these wonderful high-tech instruments. The combination of science and technology is what makes my job so exciting.


Your career took off extremely fast, and at the age of 38 you were offered your position at the University of Magdeburg. What is your advice for young scientists? How can they have success in science?
It’s certainly important to choose a promising topic to work on, starting with the Ph.D. thesis. Young scientists are often incapable of really judging this, and that’s why it’s important to get advice from experienced researchers. Then they should try to experience as much as possible, because one can learn so much in a good laboratory. Of course the most important factor is excitement about one’s own research.


What do you think: which discovery in your field of research could someday earn a Nobel Prize?
That’s a difficult question. Perhaps something with a connection to another process in immune defense. We now know that infections with influenza virus are often followed by bacterial infections. And these are often deadly. The same holds true for deadly cases of the H1N1 (swine) flu: it’s not the virus that kills people, the culprit is most often a subsequent superinfection with a bacterial species that we normally fend off easily. The virus seems capable of disarming the immune system, but it’s still a puzzle how this could work. We and many others are investigating this question. The person who can explain how the disarmament works - and perhaps even deliver a suitable therapy – should be awarded the Nobel Prize. But that will surely not be us (smile).

back