ECR Spotlight is a series of interviews with early-career authors from a selection of papers published in Journal of Experimental Biology and aims to promote not only the diversity of early-career researchers (ECRs) working in experimental biology during our centenary year but also the huge variety of animals and physiological systems that are essential for the ‘comparative’ approach. Janneke Schwaner is an author on ‘ Muscle force–length dynamics during walking over obstacles indicates delayed recovery and a shift towards more strut-like function in birds with proprioceptive deficit’, published in JEB. Janneke is a post-doctoral scholar in the lab of Dr Monica Daley at University of California, Irvine, USA, investigating how we navigate complex terrain.
Janneke Schwaner. Photo credit: John Banken.
Describe your scientific journey and your current research focus
I started my career with a master's degree from Wageningen University in The Netherlands. I fulfilled two master's theses, completing the second at California State University, Fresno, USA, working with Ulrike Muller, focusing on how carnivorous plants overcome fluid limitations. During my PhD, at the University of Idaho, USA, working with Craig McGowan, I explored how kangaroo rats overcome power limitations during jumping and angular momentum limits during aerial reorientations. During my present post-doc research, I am investigating how we navigate complex terrain and how that is affected by nerve damage, and I hope also to further relate muscle physiological properties to muscle performance in vivo.
How would you explain the main finding of your paper to a member of the public?
When experiencing a proprioceptive deficit, which decreases the amount of peripheral information the body can get from the state and position of a muscle, guinea fowl show a delayed recovery from obstacle perturbations during walking. Additionally, these birds use their ankle extensors more like struts, which allows for energy transfer from more proximal muscles. Lastly, we show evidence for different control mechanisms in walking compared with running. This means that birds change obstacle negotiation strategy based on locomotor speed.
What are the potential implications of this finding for your field of research?
This work further reveals how we use our neuromusculoskeletal system to navigate complex terrain during walking. Additionally, it provides insights into how obstacle navigation is affected by proprioceptive deficits. We show that birds use different mechanisms for obstacle navigation while walking compared with those found in a previous study on running. Lastly, many neurological disorders impair stable locomotion; therefore, the foundational knowledge obtained through this project has the potential to inform treatments and rehabilitation.
Which part of this research project was the most rewarding/challenging?
The most rewarding part was that I could learn more advanced data analysis skills to handle large, complex datasets. This was fun and interesting, and the perfect foundation to analyze data on new/different kinds of perturbations to further reveal the range of muscle function in unsteady locomotion conditions.
Are there any important historical papers from your field that have been published in JEB?
There are many papers that have been foundational to my field of study and it is impossible to narrow that down to a shortlist. But I have picked one paper here that I think is foundational for the project I work on now: Robert K. Josephson's 1985 paper ‘Mechanical power output from striated muscle during cyclic contraction’ (doi:10.1242/jeb.114.1.493). The reason why I picked this paper is that Josephson's work was foundational to work loop techniques and although they were initially applied to in situ preparations, they are now also applied to more dynamic in vivo experiments, which gives us insights into muscle function during navigation of complex terrains.
Another fun connection is that Josephson spent a large part of his career at the University of California, Irvine, and the large electronics room here is still named ‘Bob's room’. I am making all my DIY electronics in this room, which feels extra special as I am continuing some of the work that he has done. Maybe a bit nostalgic, but its also a realization that we currently do research because other people have done the foundational work. And for the current project I am doing at University of California, Irvine, Josephson's work is very foundational.
Are there any modern-day JEB papers that you think will be the classic papers of 2123?
Similar to the previous question, it's hard to choose from the strong papers that have been published in JEB in the last couple of years. But I will respond by saying that I have been enjoying the JEB centenary papers that have been published so far. I like reading those reviews with a true backward and forward looking angle that cross a wide range of topics. To give an example, I really enjoyed the review by Talia Moore and Glenna Clifton from 2023 on how we can (and should!) merge field work with lab-based work to fully grasp how animals navigate themselves through their habitats (‘Jumping over fences: why field- and laboratory-based biomechanical studies can and should learn from each other’; doi:10.1242/jeb.245284). It's a topic I've been thinking about since the start of my PhD and I think that they explain this need, and potential avenues to combine these approaches, clearly. But its also a fun read.
So far I have really enjoyed some great JEB centenary papers that have been published and I am excited to see the rest of these manuscripts over the coming year.
What do you think experimental biology will look like 50 years from now?
I think that in the future we will make more use of physical and computational models, versus experimental animals. Although I think that animals will always be part of research, with the use of validated models we can further reduce and refine the use of animal models for research. Validated models have the power to test a breadth of new hypotheses about form–function relationships that can go beyond what purely experimental work can get at, and I think that's exciting!
If you had unlimited funding, what question in your research field would you most like to address?
With unlimited funding, I would still want to address the same questions as I do now, but I would want to address them through three simultaneously running research lines: laboratory experimental approaches, field work and computational modeling approaches. This would allow me to truly use interdisciplinary approaches to answer my questions, but also train interdisciplinary researchers as they can take on projects that cross approaches and silos. This way, people that work with me on answering these questions can choose what they want to do best, but also get experience with other approaches.
What changes do you think could improve the lives of early-career researchers, and what would make you want to continue in a research career?
I think that the lives of early-career researchers would be made easier if there was less pressure on them. There is pressure to publish, perform and apply for jobs (not acknowledging pressures from one's private life). That's a lot! I think that that sometimes takes the fun away. I don't know how we can do that on a large scale as many people have their own way of having fun. But making certain processes within academia easier would help. Examples are ‘one format’ initial paper submissions across journals, smoothing reimbursement processes, and making a streamlined application process for academic jobs/grants/awards across institutions.
Janneke Schwaner's contact details: University of California, Irvine, 321 Steinhaus Hall, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
E-mail: [email protected]
