Wilfred van der Donk tells Rachel Cooper about investigating enzymes and the choice between history and science

              

Wilfred van der Donk is an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, US and the Richard E Heckert Professor of Chemistry at the University of Illinois, Urbana, US, and has recently joined the Chemical Communications editorial board. He uses a combination of synthetic and protein chemistry to address problems at the interface of chemistry and biology. He is also the winner of the 2009 OBC Lecture Award.

Who or what inspired you to become a scientist?

I am afraid it was not a dream from very early on as for some of my colleagues. I never had a chemistry set at home nor did I read about science beyond the textbooks at school. My parents have their own small business and when I was not helping there, I was usually playing soccer with my friends. The way the Dutch school system worked, I had to make a choice between liberal arts and science when I was 14. Because science courses were more challenging to me, I chose the science track. I have come to cherish that choice, although I very much regretted then that I had to drop history, which I always loved from a very early age. Once on the science track, I chose chemistry as my major in college because of its cool laboratories.

What motivated you when choosing chemical biology?

More than anything my motivation came from a Robert A Welch foundation conference entitled Chemistry at the Frontiers of Medicine in Houston in 1991. At that time, I was a second year graduate student studying organometallic chemistry at Rice University [US] with a masters degree in inorganic chemistry. The line-up of that Welch meeting was spectacular and the talks very inspiring. Seeing what chemists can do to understand and manipulate biology prompted me to seek a postdoc position in a laboratory where I could learn the tools of molecular biology and biochemistry. I was fortunate to receive that opportunity with JoAnne Stubbe at MIT [US]. There I became intrigued by the power of enzymatic transformations. Our current research is still driven by a desire to both understand enzyme catalysis and use that knowledge for improving human health. 

What is your favourite result from all of your investigations so far? 

Probably solving the problems of getting lantibiotic biosynthetic enzymes to work in vitro. Although we have done more important work since then, it was such a tough road for my students in the early years of my laboratory, that the day we had our first in vitro activity is still the most exciting day of my independent career.

And what do you find most exciting in your current research?

The use of genomic information to discover new natural products. These compounds are in my opinion still the best lead source for antimicrobial agents, but most pharmaceutical companies have shut down their natural product discovery efforts because of diminishing success. An enormous reservoir of novel scaffolds remains untapped and I am optimistic that genomic approaches will provide access to them. However, for this approach to become economically attractive new methodology needs to be developed and a number of groups, including our own, are trying to develop those methods.

You have recently been appointed to the ChemComm editorial board, what do you look forward to achieving as a board member?

I believe the journal is in very good shape already, but I would like to see more chemical biology papers. In my opinion, not enough colleagues in this field consider ChemComm and I hope to be able to promote the journal for such studies.

You have won a variety of awards including being appointed Howard Hughes Medical Investigator in 2008, and winning the 2009 OBC Lecture Award. What do you think is the secret to being a successful scientist?

I am not sure there is a secret. Scientists are successful using very different approaches. Everyone has to find his/her own style of managing a group successfully, something that is very much influenced by who you are and where you are. I have been fortunate to start my career at the University of Illinois where I have been blessed with a superb group of coworkers. I don't think that awards are the best criteria to define success. Any scientist that solves a problem is successful. To receive widespread recognition, however, at least two factors are essential. You have to work on problems that are of high scientific interest and that have broader impact.

What do you enjoy doing outside of work?

Right now, I enjoy spending time with my kids of four and six years old. Kids are so amazing; every day I learn new things simply by observing them and every day you recognise aspects of their character that are scarily similar to how you were yourself as a child. When I am not exhausted from playing with them, I love to read historical novels and follow the Illinois sports teams.

And finally, if you weren't a scientist, what would you be?

I mentioned my love for history. I would have been very happy to do historical research and write books on various topics that I am interested in. But, I already have the best possible job right now!