Brandon Murareanu is a Ph.D. student in Dr. Stephanie Protze’s lab at the University of Toronto. He completed his B.Sc. in Molecular Genetics & Microbiology at U of T in 2021, where he trained in Dr. Aaron Reinke’s lab studying host– pathogen interactions and pathogen evolution.

Driven by a broad interest in developing new bioengineering strategies and platforms for cell and gene therapy, Brandon joined the Protze lab in 2022 to work on an ischemia-resistance project.

His dedication and innovative work have already earned him recognition: he is the recipient of the 2025 Drew Lyall Award of Excellence as the lead author of the top-ranked abstract in the TMM2025 competition for his work, Breaking through ENGRAFTment barriers with cell therapy functional genomics.

SCN’s Director of Knowledge Mobilization, Joanna Valsamis, recently caught up with Brandon to learn more about his research, his inspirations, and life beyond the lab.

Congratulations on receiving the 2025 Drew Lyall Award of Excellence! To begin, can you tell us a little about your area of research and what excites you most about the work you’re doing?

My work aims to harness functional genomics to overcome cell therapy barriers. One of the most pressing is the engraftment problem, where >90% of cells die quickly and fail to engraft due to transplant stress. This is particularly limiting for cardiac cell therapies, where for example, billions of new cardiomyocytes are needed to regenerate a human heart after myocardial infarction. If we think about the goal here – providing new human cells to a human patient – it’s perhaps not surprising that we keep running into these barriers given how little we know about the human cell. We’ve sequenced countless human genomes and transcriptomes, yet we still don’t know what roughly a third of our genes are doing. Most research is also focused on just ~10% of genes. With this in mind, using the heart as a vessel for discovery, we set out to systematically screen all human protein-coding genes for roles in the engraftment problem. We’re doing this in multiple ways; both with targeted in vivo CRISPR screens, and meta-analysis of cell graft transcriptomes. The exciting part is seeing promising hits that nobody would’ve ever thought of just by reading the literature. The challenge, however, is finding the needle in the haystack – the silver bullet that actually solves the problem. Translating our insights into measurable improvements to engraftment is still something we’re working on.

In the lab or beyond, what is the best piece of advice you’ve ever been given, and how has it shaped your path?

There’s definitely a few, but I think the most impactful for me recently has been “nothing is permanent” , from one of my friends. It’s very easy to get caught up in our own lives – I think most of us like to think about our greatest achievements to feel good, or dwell on our own suffering to feel righteous. And while these are important parts of being human, I think the most important thing is to keep moving forward. There’s only so much we can learn from thinking about the past or present, both good and bad. At some point, we need to put ourselves in unfamiliar and uncomfortable situations to really grow both as scientists and human beings. Knowing that nothing we do is permanent helps me do that.

Looking back over the past decade, what stands out to you as the single most important breakthrough in life sciences or biomedicine?

I would say the sequencing revolution, but that’s a bit older than a decade. Still, nextgeneration sequencing is the main reason we’re able to study most of the biology we do today. In terms of a more modern breakthrough, I’d say the protein design revolution, for which the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded. While next-generation sequencing gives us nearboundless ability to surveil cells and their naturally evolved compendium of genes, protein design stands to give us near-boundless ability to create entirely new biology.

The best solutions to age-old biomedical problems might not lie within the human genome, or any genome, but instead within some unexplored plane of artificially designed genes and proteins. Maybe I’m a little too excited about it, but I’m definitely eager to see how far protein design can take us in the coming decades.

Every scientist has role models. If you had to choose one, who would you say is your biggest scientific inspiration—and why?

Historically, it would have to be Ignaz Semmelweis. Although, I don’t know if “inspired” is necessarily the right word since his story is more of a tragedy. Semmelweis provided early evidence for the germ theory of disease by showing compulsory handwashing greatly lowered childbed fever rates in obstetrical clinics. Many rejected his evidence and mocked him, causing him to allegedly suffer a nervous breakdown and be committed to an asylum. I think about this story often, especially when I feel like I’m not being taken seriously – surely a common feeling among students, post-docs and PIs alike. Semmelweis reminds me that the pursuit of knowledge is difficult. Even the most inquisitive scientists are human beings susceptible to suffering, but always worthy of compassion. Criticism is a necessary part of science, sometimes deserved, sometimes undeserved. Years after Semmelweis died, he was vindicated. The data will always cut through the noise and speak for itself, even if it takes longer than we expect. I try my best to live up to the scientific spirit of Semmelweis, while avoiding his fate, both for myself and for those around me.

Mistakes can often be powerful teachers. What’s one misstep—personal or professional— that ultimately turned into a positive outcome for you?

One mistake was diving into the world of in vivo CRISPR screens without having a strong foundation – trying to run before we could walk. There’s a reason in vitro screens are more common – because the natural challenges of functional genomics are amplified in vivo, in part because of the engraftment problem we’re trying to solve. Getting your data back only to find it’s nowhere as clean as you expected is not a great feeling. But I don’t think anyone can call themselves an expert if their experiments worked perfectly on the first try. Since we had to refine almost every aspect of our pipeline, from cardiomyocyte differentiation to CRISPR editing and hit calling, we learned a lot more than we would have if everything just worked, or if we gave up. So, while it would have been easier to start out with some in vitro question, it was arguably better for our understanding to go right in vivo. Through this experience, we learned how to improve the method, how to call hits with more confidence, and how to complement the shortcomings of our screen data with an entirely different method. All of these are wins in my book.

Stem cell science is advancing rapidly. For the sake of speculation, where do you see the field heading in the next 5, 10, or even 20 years?

I know this is bold, but I think Biobank-scale databases will soon make up the core of scientific discovery, both for stem cells and most life sciences. As we collect and archive more sequencing data, the discovery power within that archive may eclipse any single wet lab experiment. That’s not to underscore the value of wet labs, especially in targeted validation, but it’s really to say I think there’s a lot hidden in the mountain of sequencing data that exists and will grow exponentially. The information stored in these high-content datasets is almost never exploited to its full potential, and I think the next generation of researchers are starting to realize that. I could see many open questions or apparent disputes being solved by comparative analysis of these data. Just for example, there’s hundreds of transcriptomes in the literature for several stem cell-based disease models, and if we wanted to understand what model is the “best” for a given disease, comparing all these transcriptomes to some standard could potentially answer that. Any database will also have natural variability based on cell line, patient sample, timepoint – variability that might be leveraged to understand disease mechanisms and identify new treatment targets. The best part is that we don’t even have to get up from our desks – the experiment has already been done for us by the community with hundreds of replicates, which is more powerful than anything most labs or institutes could produce on their own.

Outside the lab, what helps you recharge? Whether it’s a hobby, a book, a show, or something else, what are you enjoying these days?

I’ve always enjoyed creative writing – it keeps my incessant rambling in check. There’s nothing quite as satisfying as finding the most compelling way to articulate an idea, which is ultimately what crafting a good story is about. I’ve especially been enjoying high fantasy – crafting narratives and twists about made-up characters in magical worlds brings me peace, though any fantasy I’ve written myself has yet to see the light of day. Books, TV shows, movies, or video games of this nature also scratch that itch, which probably explains why I dive into the Lord of the Rings movies on a yearly basis. My favourite part of fantasy universes are the physical worlds themselves, which aligns with a broader obsession I have with geography and maps – the day I discovered Google Earth is still one of the best days of my life. Beyond that, I’m also a part-time cook, full-time eater. I enjoy cooking a good meal, but I’ll admit I’m mainly a food consumer. One of the best parts of living in Toronto is the food. Thanks to my family and friends, I’m very lucky to have experienced much of the culturally diverse cuisine that Toronto offers, though I’ll never be able to sample it all. Right now, I’m really into sandwiches – there’s a deli on Elm Street that I’m addicted to, especially since it’s so close to the lab.