A PhD journey with Dr. Vincent Louvel
Can you tell us a bit about your background and what sparked your interest in science?
My name is Vincent Louvel, and I am French. To go back to the beginning, I come from the Paris region, where I always had an interest in experimentation, even at a very young age. This curiosity naturally led me toward scientific studies, and more specifically into biology. I recall being fascinated by observation, by the act of watching and analyzing the world around me.
Nature and biology were integral parts of my environment, which guided me to pursue an academic path in France. I started with a technological high school diploma, which provided me with a strong technical foundation. Afterward, I entered a preparatory class for competitive engineering school exams, focusing on biology and biotechnology. Following that, I joined a French engineering school in Bordeaux, ENSTBB – Bordeaux INP, which specializes in biotechnologies, specifically in the production and characterization of biomolecules for the pharmaceutical industry. While this might seem far from my current research topic, the connections remain relevant in many ways.
I chose engineering studies because I enjoyed experimenting, developing processes, and finding practical solutions. I also had a scientific curiosity to observe and understand the world around me. Engineering in biology and biotechnology thus seemed like a natural and obvious choice, almost a "perfect match" for me.
At the end of my studies, I wasn't always sure I wanted to continue to a PhD. But then a project was presented to me that perfectly combined technology and biology, and I thought: "Let's go for it!"
Can you tell us about your doctoral research and explain the main questions or issues you are addressing?
My thesis focuses on developing expansion microscopy protocols for fluorescence microscopy, which suffers from limited resolution compared to electron microscopy. This rapidly evolving technology is based on the following principle: we enlarge the samples using an expansive polymer to see them better under the same microscope.
Electron microscopy uses extremely costly machines, requiring highly skilled personnel and specialized equipment. However, it offers exceptional precision in resolution, allowing us to visualize the structures of living organisms at a nanometric scale, down to the smallest details of cells. One of its main drawbacks, though, is that it reveals the structure without providing insight into its molecular composition.
Fluorescence microscopy, on the other hand, can identify what these structures are made of, thanks to the use of light. But this method is limited by the diffraction of light, which imposes a "glass ceiling" in terms of resolution. Consequently, it doesn’t reach the precision of electron microscopy, leaving certain crucial questions unanswered, particularly regarding the localization of proteins and molecules within living structures. Such information is essential for both fundamental research and medical applications.
My work aims to overcome this "glass ceiling" through expansion microscopy. The "trick" we use is not to improve the microscope itself but to artificially enlarge the sample. By increasing its size, we proportionally reduce the required resolution, enabling the microscope to examine details that would otherwise remain invisible.
My project revolves around improving these protocols. The goal is to make them more accessible, more efficient, and capable of answering scientific questions that have so far remained unresolved.
How does your work combine technological and biological aspects, and what do you find most exciting about this approach?
There are two main aspects to my work: the technological development of protocols and the use of biology as a tool for study. In my case, I am not directly working on a biological subject, but I use biology as a model for observation and analysis.
I’ve been fortunate to work with a wide variety of samples: human cells, an infectious parasite, a green algae collected from the sea, and tissues from diverse organisms. This diversity has fueled my scientific curiosity by allowing me to observe a range of biological systems.
At the same time, there’s the technological development aspect, which I’ve always seen as a kind of game in the lab. It involves exploring the right experimental conditions to make the protocols work—for instance, obtaining an expanded sample that meets the objectives. The idea is to create technology that is both more efficient and faster.
This blend of observing biological models and practically developing experimental tools has been particularly enriching for me.
You participated in the "Ma thèse en 180 secondes" competition. How would you describe this experience, and what stood out to you about this exercise in scientific communication?
"Ma thèse en 180 secondes" is an international French-speaking competition that takes place on multiple levels: first nationally in French-speaking countries, and then between countries. It includes a national final and an international final, where each participant must present their research in three minutes. The goal is to make research accessible to the general public by clearly explaining the problem, the methods, and the results. It’s a competition that combines science and performance, especially since the presentations are often broadcast during evening events.
Participating in this competition was a real challenge for me because it pushed me out of my comfort zone. In the lab, we tend to use very precise scientific language, whether we are speaking with colleagues or presenting our work to peers. We don’t always pay attention to how we phrase our ideas, as we assume the audience already understands the subject.
For "Ma thèse en 180 secondes," I had to adapt to a completely different audience, made up of people with no prior knowledge of my field. Additionally, the format required an extremely short presentation time. This forced me to work on several aspects: scientific popularization, idea synthesis, oral expression, posture, and the rhythm of my presentation. I had to learn how to speak clearly without rushing, to smile, and to master modes of expression that are often unconscious and not part of my daily work.
The path of a PhD can be demanding. What were the key elements that helped you stay motivated and overcome difficult times?
To be completely honest, during a PhD, it’s not always easy to maintain motivation. There are moments when, faced with the demands, you can feel overwhelmed, stuck, or even lost. So, what helped me get through it?
The work environment plays a crucial role, and this is a point I’d like to emphasize. If I were to give advice to those considering a PhD, I would say that 80% of a PhD’s success depends on the people you work with. Of course, the subject of the PhD is important, but the team you work with is even more decisive.
In my case, it was my colleagues and the team I worked with who helped me overcome the tough moments. They kept me on track and motivated me despite the obstacles. The work environment and the support of mentors also play a key role. Mentors, in particular, have a significant influence, especially at the beginning of the PhD.
For me, Paul and Virginie, my supervisors, were invaluable. They knew when to redirect my work or simply give me a motivational boost. I was lucky in this regard, and it confirms the importance of carefully choosing the team you commit to for this journey.
In summary, during challenging times, it was truly the people around me—my colleagues, the environment, and my mentors—who allowed me to maintain stability and keep moving forward.
You recently presented your work during the Faculty’s graduation ceremony. If you had a message to share with the graduates and audience that day, what would it be? What key lessons from your journey would you like to convey?
I hope I managed to convey some of my energy, my world, and my curiosity about what I do. For example, examining a new sample—like a parasite—is always an exciting opportunity for me. I also hope I shared some of my passion for research and scientific exploration.
I would like to emphasize that a PhD is not only about work. Sometimes it’s also an adventure, an opportunity to have fun while discovering new things, like an ongoing learning process. In this adventure, we are the driving force behind our own learning, and that’s something I hope I communicated effectively.
A PhD requires a great deal of autonomy, and while that can be stressful, it’s also what makes it so exciting. This autonomy allows us to truly take charge of our own project, which is incredibly motivating.
As for the message I would like to share for a professional career—whether with or without a PhD—I would say it’s essential to carefully choose the people you work with. I can’t stress this enough: it’s not just about what you do, but also about who you do it with that, in my opinion, makes all the difference.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE: