5 Questions for Sarada Achyutuni, PhD

This question-and-answer series explores the motivations, inspirations and accomplishments of investigators at St. Jude. Sarada Achyutuni, PhD, is a postdoctoral researcher in the laboratory of Jian Xu, PhD, in the Center of Excellence for Leukemia Studies. 

1. What do you like most about being a scientist?

What draws me to science is the opportunity to understand disease at its most fundamental level. As a student, learning about leukemia stem cells made me realize that even the most complex diseases are shaped by underlying biological principles. The idea that a small population of self-renewing cells could sustain leukemia fascinated me. It showed me that beneath what often seems like chaos, lies a biological architecture.

As a scientist, I find deep satisfaction in uncovering that structure. I am drawn to questions about how and why biological systems organize themselves the way they do, and I enjoy using data to build clear and meaningful explanations. There is something deeply rewarding about taking a complex dataset and gradually revealing the patterns within it through careful experimentation and thoughtful analysis.

I also appreciate the gradual process of science. Progress is often incremental, but each careful experiment contributes to a larger body of knowledge. Knowing that small advances may eventually inform better therapies gives meaning to the work.

At St. Jude, that connection feels especially tangible. Seeing children in the hospital is a constant reminder that the questions we ask in the laboratory are not abstract. They are part of a larger effort to improve lives. That combination of intellectual curiosity and human impact is what I value most about being a scientist.

2. What questions are you trying to answer through your research?

My research focuses on how lineage identity, cell of origin and genetic alterations shape the metabolic landscape of leukemia. Metabolism refers to the processes that allow cells to generate energy and build the molecules needed for growth and survival, and in cancer, these processes are often rewired.

Leukemia is not a single disease. Even when acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) cells appear similar under a microscope, their internal metabolic programs can be profoundly different. Clinically, many metabolism-modulating therapies show distinct responses across leukemia subtypes, although the underlying basis remains largely unclear. 

This gap is what drives my work.

I’m interested in understanding how a cell’s origin establishes a foundational metabolic state and how specific genetic alterations reshape that state to support leukemic growth and survival. Rather than viewing metabolic alterations as isolated pathway changes, I try to understand the organizing principles that govern metabolic differences. Through systematic mapping, my goal is to identify context-specific metabolic dependencies and vulnerabilities that can be therapeutically targeted.

Ultimately, I hope to build a metabolic atlas of leukemia — not simply a catalog of altered pathways, but a structured framework that explains the logic behind those alterations. If we can clarify that architecture, it may guide therapies that are more precise and mechanistically grounded.

3. What resources or capabilities set St. Jude apart as a great place to do research?

St. Jude stands out because of how seamlessly different areas of expertise come together. Scientists, clinicians, computational researchers and shared resource teams work closely with one another, creating an environment where ideas move quickly from concept to application. That level of collaboration makes it possible to approach complex biological problems from multiple angles.

The research infrastructure also plays an important role. Access to well-established shared resources, including advanced flow cytometry, metabolomics, genomic sequencing, functional screening platforms and computational resources, allow investigators to pursue ambitious questions with the right technical support. Because many specialized experimental processes are handled through these resources, researchers can devote more time to designing experiments, interpreting results and refining scientific questions.

Another aspect that makes St. Jude unique is how closely research and patient care are connected. Previously, I worked at research institutes with nearby affiliated hospitals, but here the connection is undeniable. Seeing patients and families around campus brings a different perspective to the work we do in the laboratory and reinforces why the research matters.

I have also served as a St. Jude volunteer, which allows me to interact with children and families in a more informal setting. That experience makes the institution’s mission very real to me. Being part of a community where people openly share expertise and remain deeply committed to improving children’s health creates a setting where both meaningful science and personal growth can flourish.

4. How have mentors at different stages of your training shaped your career?

I have been shaped by mentors at every stage of my journey, each contributing something distinct to how I approach science.

My parents were my earliest guides. They encouraged me never to lose my individuality, regardless of the environment I entered. That grounding allowed me to pursue science authentically and with conviction. Teachers in school and college nurtured my inquisitive nature and gave direction to my curiosity. They reinforced the idea that asking thoughtful questions was not a weakness but a strength.

When I was a master’s student, Priya Srinivas, PhD, from Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology, provided a nurturing yet disciplined environment that helped me become more self-assured as a scientist. She emphasized understanding the intent behind experiments rather than simply executing protocols, shaping my appreciation for thoughtful and purposeful science. She was also the first person who taught me how to review a paper critically and challenge its assumptions. Our lengthy discussions sharpened my analytical thinking and deepened my understanding of scientific rigor.

During my doctoral studies at CeMM Research Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Robert Kralovics, PhD, and Harini Nivarthi, PhD, had a profound influence on my development. Robert brought a whimsical energy and intellectual boldness while insisting on rigorous groundwork. After failed experiments, he had a remarkable way of helping us see meaning in the results and restoring confidence. Harini created space for my ideas to evolve while challenging me to think more deeply and defend my reasoning. That balance of freedom and accountability strengthened both my confidence and analytical precision.

My current mentors, Jian Xu, PhD,  Center for Leukemia Studies, and Min Ni, PhD, Department of Oncology, have further refined how I think. They emphasize mechanistic depth and conceptual clarity, encouraging me to filter through complexity and focus on what truly drives a biological question. Jian often reminds us not to perform experiments solely in the hope of uncovering something interesting. Instead, experiments should be built on a clear, conceptual framework and a defined hypothesis. Science, in his view, must have meaning and direction. Each experiment should connect to a central question and lead to a mechanistic follow-up, so that findings contribute to a coherent narrative rather than isolated observations. That discipline of intent keeps me centered. At the same time, both Jian and Min demonstrate that kindness and integrity are integral to scientific excellence. Their guidance has helped me develop foresight into framing questions and sharper insight into interpreting data, for which I am deeply grateful.

The common thread across all these influences is the practice of seeing things as they are, remaining open to learning, and believing that every person, place and experience has something to teach. Together, these mentors have shaped not only the projects I pursue but also the kind of scientist I strive to become.

5. What is one piece of advice you would give to people considering careers in science?

One piece of advice that has stayed with me comes from Jian’s doctoral advisor, Stephen Smale, PhD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, who once said, “You do what you should do, not what you can do.” I have found that idea especially meaningful in science, where it is easy to follow what feels achievable rather than what is truly worth understanding.

If you are genuinely curious about how and why things work, science can be both rewarding and liberating. That curiosity becomes important during difficult moments, such as when experiments fail, progress feels slow or uncertainty becomes frustrating. It is what keeps you engaged long enough for patterns to emerge and for complex problems to begin making sense.

With that in mind, I also encourage prospective scientists to focus on building depth rather than rushing to prove themselves. Learning to ask clear questions, think critically and design experiments with intention creates a foundation that strengthens over time. Science is not about staying busy but about developing understanding in a way that is both rigorous and thoughtful.

At the same time, it is important to enjoy the process. Both successes and failures are part of the journey, and each offers something to learn from. Stepping away when needed and returning with a fresh perspective often brings clarity.

Finally, prospective scientists should seek mentors who both challenge and support them, while also encouraging them to stay grounded in their individuality and integrity. Science is a long journey, and they should anchor themselves in curiosity, balance and resilience to build something meaningful over time.