Sara Buonomo

How did you first become interested in science and biology?

I think Sir David Attenborough is largely responsible for my love of biology. I remember being six years old, coming home from school, and being completely fascinated by his documentaries. In Italy, we also had Piero Angela with Superquark—his show about science, nature, and discovery sparked my curiosity from a very young age.

What brought you to the IMP for your PhD, and how did this environment shape you as a scientist?

I was initially drawn to the IMP by the quality of the science—there were several groups doing exciting work, especially Kim Nasmyth’s lab, which studied asymmetric RNA distribution at the time. I had already accepted a PhD offer elsewhere, but at the IMP they convinced me to come for an interview—and once I did, I was completely won over. What impressed me most was the environment: the lack of hierarchy, the openness of the PIs, and the quality of the scientific discussions. Everyone, regardless of their position, was treated as a peer. The IMP set the standard for me—scientifically and culturally—as a place where excellence and collaboration thrived.

The Monday Seminars especially left a mark on me. Presenting your work and defending it in a room full of sharp minds taught me how to take criticism directly and constructively—which I actually came to miss during my postdoc in the US. For me, the IMP embodied a pure love of science, and it shaped the way I approach research to this day.

What were you working on for your PhD project?

For my PhD, I studied how chromosome segregation is controlled by cohesin during meiosis. This was around the time Kim’s lab was discovering the role of cohesin in mitosis, alongside work by Frank Uhlmann—back then a postdoc in Kim’s lab—on separase-regulated cohesin cleavage. My focus was on meiosis I, specifically how homologous chromosomes are segregated. I later extended this work into mouse testis, exploring the parallels in mitosis and meiosis. Toward the end of my PhD, and during a brief postdoc in the same lab, I worked on a second project—looking at how the exit from meiosis I is regulated, focusing on the FEAR pathway.

Did anything in particular stick with you from your time at the IMP—whether a memory, a mindset, or a connection?

I’ve stayed in touch with Kim to this day, and what I valued most about the lab was the openness—we had real scientific discussions, even arguments, and that was encouraged. The lab had a great dynamic, and I formed some of my closest, longest-lasting friendships there. Many of us from Kim’s lab still keep in touch, and there’s a kind of informal alumni network that’s stayed active over the years. The same goes for others from the IMP at that time—it really created a strong, lasting community that I’m still in contact with.

What was your path from postdoc to professor like? Were there any challenges or unexpected turns along the way?

My postdoc wasn’t as smooth as my PhD. I changed both the organism and research topic, and worked on something quite separate from the rest of the lab, which meant building everything from scratch. The environment in New York was also very different—labs were more insular, and I missed the collaborative network I was used to from the IMP. Fortunately, my next step was a staff scientist role at EMBL Rome, which acted as a kind of bridge. It gave me the time and support to develop my own direction in a nurturing environment. That period was crucial—it allowed me to establish my research before moving to the University of Edinburgh. Life at a university brings many new responsibilities beyond science, so having had that space to consolidate my work beforehand made a big difference.

Now that you're leading your own lab, what lessons do you try to pass on to your students and postdocs?

I always tell my PhD students that this is the best time in their scientific life—it’s a period of freedom, with few responsibilities, where they can fully immerse themselves in learning and discovery. Once you become a postdoc, the pressure of career planning kicks in, and the experience is quite different. With postdocs, I focus more on helping them develop the skills they’ll need as future PIs—things you’re rarely trained for, like managing people, thinking strategically, writing grants, and building networks. Especially in the UK system, these skills are essential. The most important thing for me is trying to find what each person in the lab is really good at, and then helping them lean into that. Everyone’s different, and I try to steer their work in a way that plays to their strengths—so they can really thrive in their own way.

How has your perspective on science and a career in research changed over the years?

I still think we’re incredibly lucky to spend part of our lives just chasing knowledge. There’s nothing quite like that moment when something clicks—when you discover something no one else in the world knows. That joy makes up for a lot of the hardships that come with this life. At the same time, science has its ups and downs, and there are periods when it’s harder to build a career in it. You have to make big sacrifices, and sometimes more than you expected. I don’t think I fully realised that when I started out—I’ve been lucky in many ways. But it’s important to go in with your eyes open and a clear sense of what’s ahead.

What’s the focus of your research group and what are you currently working on?

My group studies DNA replication and how it’s coordinated with chromatin architecture in the nucleus. That has led us more into epigenetics—specifically how histone modifications are regulated, and how the enzymes involved might themselves be influenced by the chromatin structure. One of the things I love about working at a university is the chance to collaborate across disciplines. Lately, I’ve been working with mathematicians and physicists on modelling aspects of chromatin regulation, which is completely new for me but really exciting. Right now, we’re especially interested in how chromatin architecture and enzymatic regulation influence each other. We’ve also been collaborating with colleagues in informatics and are really enjoying exploring with the exciting new possibilities that AI is bringing to our research.

Looking back, is there a lesson from your time at the IMP that you would share as advice to current PhD students here?

The mindset I’ve carried with me from the IMP is to focus on the big questions—what’s truly important and still unknown. It’s easy to get lost in the details, especially in science, but stepping back and keeping perspective is something I learned there and still hold onto. I’d also say to current and future PhD students: you’re incredibly lucky to be at the IMP. Yes, it can be hard, and there will be moments of doubt, but being trained in that kind of environment is a huge advantage, no matter where your path leads. Even if you leave science, the way of thinking you develop there will stay with you. So, make the most of it—engage with the people and the place. It will teach you more than you know.