In this episode of Absolute Gene-ius, pharmacogenetic laboratory supervisor Wendy Wang takes us on a journey through the fascinating field of pharmacogenomics. Learn how digital PCR is advancing our understanding of drug metabolism, particularly through the study of the CYP2D6 gene, and gain insights into Wendy’s unique career path from history major to leading scientist.
Ever thought about why medications work differently for different people? In this episode of Absolute Gene-ius, we explore the exciting field of pharmacogenomics with Wendy Wang, pharmacogenetic laboratory supervisor at Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City. Wendy shares how genetics can influence drug metabolism, offering a glimpse into how precision medicine can revolutionize healthcare by tailoring treatments based on an individual's unique genetic makeup.
At the heart of Wendy’s research is CYP2D6, a cytochrome P450 enzyme responsible for metabolizing around 20% of all prescribed medications. She explains how her lab uses digital PCR to analyze copy number variations (CNV), offering a reliable and precise method to predict drug metabolism. Wendy dives into the complexities of structural variants, the role of digital PCR in enhancing assay efficiency, and why pharmacogenomics is a critical piece of the precision medicine puzzle. Her use of delightful metaphors—like comparing genetic testing to ladling soup—makes complex science both relatable and engaging.
In the Career Corner, Wendy opens up about her winding path to molecular biology, which included studying classical antiquity and nearly pursuing a career in history. She emphasizes the importance of resilience in research, embracing failure as a learning opportunity, and encourages budding scientists to reach out to mentors and explore diverse interests. Plus, hear about her most embarrassing lab mishap (hint: it involves a fire alarm) and the proud moment of publishing her first, first-author paper.
Visit the Absolute Gene-ius page to learn more about the guests, the hosts, and the Applied Biosystems QuantStudio Absolute Q Digital PCR System.
Jordan Ruggieri 00:00
Great explanation and a great tie into Jurassic Park, by the way. I caught that.
Wendy Wang 00:03
I think about that phrase all the time, like Jeff Goldblum is in my, there's a tiny Jeff Goldblum in my head, and he's like, laid out with his like shirt and it was like, "Life finds a way!"
Christina Bouwens 00:27
Welcome to Absolute Gene-ius, a podcast series from Thermo Fisher Scientific. I'm Christina Bouwens.
Jordan Ruggieri 00:32
And I'm Jordan Ruggieri. And in this episode, we bring you on a tour through the world of pharmacogenomics with today's gene-ius, Wendy Wang.
Christina Bouwens 00:40
Wendy received her bachelor's degree in clinical laboratory science and molecular biotechnology from the University of Kansas Medical Center and is currently pursuing a Master of Science in pharmacy from the University of Florida. She also works at Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City as a pharmacogenetic laboratory supervisor. She's a great spokesperson and guide for this exciting field, and we're excited for you to learn as much as we did from our conversation.
Jordan Ruggieri 01:04
Stick around as we amplify the coolest insights in dPCR.
Christina Bouwens 01:10
It's not even a joke.
Jordan Ruggieri 01:14
Wendy, thank you so much for joining us today on this episode of Absolute Gene-ius. We are thrilled to have you here. Can you maybe introduce yourself and share a little bit about your background and research for the listeners?
Wendy Wang 01:27
Okay, so a little bit about me. I, my name is Wendy Wang. I work as a researcher at Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City. Our lab studies pharmacogenomics, and if that's not a field you're familiar with, so we basically study how genetics contributes to the way you metabolize drugs. It's not a field that we know a lot about right now, so it's very up and coming. Very exciting. New things are happening very quickly and all the time.
Christina Bouwens 01:55
So today we're going to talk about some of the work that you have in your recent publication, and that focuses a lot on CYP2D6. But can you talk a little bit about what CYP2D6 is and its role in pharmacogenomics overall?
Wendy Wang 02:07
CYP2D6 is our lab’s pet gene. So it is a Cytochrome P450 enzyme, and it is responsible for metabolizing, I think the statistic is almost a quarter, about 20%, of all prescribed medications. So it has a huge role in a lot of different biochemical pathways that are utilized by these medications to either be activated or broken down.
Jordan Ruggieri 02:33
Are there other genes that are involved in in drug metabolism as well, or any other common ones? Or is this, is this really the main one we know about?
Wendy Wang 02:42
So CYP2D6, or we call like 2D6, is definitely a big one. It is kind of a beast, because it's very, very complicated, and that's why I have a job, which is great. But there are a lot of other pharmacogenes that are relevant for drug metabolism. It really depends on the drug which enzymes and their respective genes are associated with. So, a really common one as example you could say warfarin, which is used for anti-coagulation, if you have, like a clotting disorder or something like that. The genes that are associated with that one is CYP2C9 e-core, CYP4F2. So a lot of times you'll get this interaction between multiple genes and their gene products. Well, something I want to clarify is that when I say genes, I probably more technically mean their gene products, their enzymes. But just kind of as a shorthand, I'll be like, oh, this gene, you know causes this like outcome, but really, like the technical correct thing would be the gene product of this gene, which is an enzyme, breaks down those drugs.
Jordan Ruggieri 03:18
That was my exact next question, actually, was, is it an enzyme or some type of protein that helps to metabolize some of the different chemicals? So this, so that is how it works, is it'll, it'll code for an enzyme that breaks down some of the metabolites in those particular drug pathways?
Wendy Wang 04:10
So, they're not just enzymes that are involved. There are also transporters. I believe, for some cardiac medication there is a gene called SLCO1B1, which I believe is a solute transporter, and it is really important because defects and these proteins are caused by variants, and these genes can actually affect how well it transports the drug in and out of cell membranes. So those are kind of the two main families of protein things that we work with, is enzymes and transporters.
Christina Bouwens 04:48
That's super interesting. I wonder, can you talk a little bit, because pharmacogenomics sounds, um, sounds really cutting edge and new, right. And when you talk about a lot of the things that you're looking for are, you know the results of these gene variations. In the real world, practically, is there anything that is used right now to kind of look for these modified gene products, or are you looking more upstream?
Wendy Wang 05:10
So a little bit of context about pharmacogenomics, you may also hear me say PGx like that's kind of our shorthand for pharmacogenomics. It sits within this bigger category of healthcare called precision health, that are using very personalized details to help providers make health decisions for you. So it's just like one part of it. I think it's the best low hanging fruit for precision medicine, because, like, your DNA is the same in every single cell. You don't have to worry about, like, tissue specificity. You know, you can take relatively un-invasive samples to be able to test for it. That being said, getting back to your question, this is something that is being implemented in healthcare right now. It's still kind of budding, still kind of new. There seems to be, at least the way I understand it, there seems to be more convincing that needs to happen on the more hospital administrative side to, like, actually do this in more clinical settings. So the people who work in pharmacogenomics and PGx, we're all like, “Yes, yes, let's do it. There's enough evidence. And, like, it's saving the hospital money. It's like, making sure that patients don't have adverse reactions, or even fatal reactions, too, depending on some of the drugs, like, it can really be lifesaving.” One of my favorite examples is mental health medications. I don't know if you all are familiar with the course of how those go. Usually you get prescribed a medication that's like, “Okay, this is our, you know, first line for anxiety or depression. We're just going to throw it at you and see if it works.” And the thing that really is difficult about that is because sometimes it takes, you know, several weeks up to, like, months, to really see if a particular medication works for you. But if we can look at your genetics, like what is in your DNA, the variants, it gives us a roadmap to a starting place. Like, I don't want to tout PGx as this, like silver bullet when I'll be honest, if we can know everything about your DNA we can know everything about how we're supposed to treat you. It's not really like that. It's about improving upon like what we can do, and this is something that we can do right now.
Jordan Ruggieri 07:27
So talking more about CYP2D6, when you are looking at this particular gene, are you looking at more, more point mutations, in terms of mutations that could impact it? Is it more of a maybe copy number variation look? What exactly do you look for in your research?
Wendy Wang 07:48
For 2D6, part of the reason why it's such a beast to work with is because it's so highly polymorphic, meaning that it is very, very different between different ancestral populations. So you have that level of variation, like the point mutations. You also have structural variants, which are recombinations with its pseudo gene. So CYP2D6 has two other pseudogenes, CYP2D8 and CYP2D7. Oftentimes we'll see recombination with CYP2D7. You'll see structural variations that we call hybrids, or how I like to explain them as Frankenstein genes. Hybrid genes are basically pieces of 2D7 fused with pieces of 2D6. So they come in a couple of different flavors. You can have the front part, the three prime end being 2D6, and then it converts over to 2D7 and then the opposite can also be true, where it's 2D7 and then converts to 2D6. So that's like one gene structure, and then the other structures are duplications, deletions, multiplications. So you can have a 2D6 gene copy duplicated once or multiple times, and then you can also have it deleted out and of course, all those things have functional consequences. So just to summarize, yes, there's point mutations, but also the structural variants make it very challenging to characterize.
Christina Bouwens 09:19
So if there's pseudo genes, and they mix like that, do they create completely nonfunctional products? Or are they semi functional because they're similar?
Wendy Wang 09:26
So for 2D6, specifically, they are nonfunctional. So if you can detect a hybrid, that should be enough to kind of say, “Hey, this gene copy has no function, we're not going to include it into our prediction for activity.” However, the more researcher scientist side of me is like, we kind of still want to know what's there, because these structural variants can affect the way the point mutations look on testing. And so if something looks weird on the SNP side, a probably explanation for it could be copy number variation too. So just to get, like, a bigger picture, really good 2D6 testing should include point mutations and also copy number variations. So the paper that we worked on copy number variation by using digital PCR, we tested a triplex of locations for 2D6. So we test the five prime UTR, the intron six and the exon 9. And the exon 9 is particularly important because that tends to be the region that is converted most often when you have a conversion. So those can either be haplotypes called star 36 (*36) or *68. And when you have these hybrids, that is a really good indication that that structure is present, because you see a dropout of the exon 9.
Jordan Ruggieri 10:53
Can you, can you talk a little bit more of what is copy number variation, and maybe how that plays a factor just for the listeners to understand exactly what we mean by that?
Speaker 1 11:04
For maybe more technical definition, I would explain it as a deviation from your expected number of copies. So, you've got one set of chromosomes from parent A, another set of chromosomes from parent B, and your expected copy number should be two. So each gene should have two copies, but life finds a way, if you will, and things get recombinated and deleted out. So when we talk about copy number variation, we're looking at these things as these duplications, these hybrids, these deletions.
Christina Bouwens 11:40
One thing you said that caught my attention is on this prediction for activity. Can you talk a little bit about what that looks like? How many genes or targets are included in that prediction?
Wendy Wang 11:51
Okay, so let me walk you through like testing to like bedside and what it would look like, right? So you get your blood drawn, you're going to get PGx testing. So in the lab, we're going to isolate your DNA and run it through our pharmaco test, whether it be a SNP panel or copy number, and you will get back a report of a star allele. So these star alleles, you're going to get two, these are associated with certain functional predictors. So a star one is your reference. So this is what you would be familiar with the wild type. I'm going to get out my soapbox a little bit here. We don't really like saying, like, wild type and mutant in pharmacogenomics. We are very intentional in calling them variants, because there's not necessarily anything bad about having changes in your base pair. Like, that's all. It is just changes in your base pair. So a collection of these changes of base pairs in these genes are organized into star haplotypes, if you hear me say like, star one, star two. So once you get your haplotype, there is a conversion of that to a activity score. So each star allele has an activity score. It is in increments of 0.25, currently for 2D6, depending on what kind of function is associated with that star allele. And then you add up the two activity scores from each of your haplotypes, and you get a predicted functional number, and then that gets put into another chart that says, “Okay, if you have a two, two is your normal metabolizer.” The people who are poor metabolizers and the people who are ultra rapid metabolizers are the ones that are going to benefit the most. But the thing is, you can't look at someone and know if they're an ultra-rapid or poor metabolizer. And even though I say it's the not normal, it's like pretty common. I don't know the stats off the top of my head, but like being a non-normal, non-intermediate metabolizer will change the way you should be prescribed medication because you may be more sensitive to it.
Christina Bouwens 14:00
Awesome. So it’s kind of to summarize that the predicted activity is really it's per gene and it depends on a lot of different factors in the different haplotypes that you can identify from the testing?
Wendy Wang 14:10
Yes, yes. That's a really good succinct way to say that, yeah.
Christina Bouwens 14:14
When you're talking about this, what also comes to mind is you're talking about genes that have super polymorphic regions, which means you may or may not know what you're looking for. So this actually sounds like a good use for something like sequencing or Sanger sequencing, like NGS or Sanger. But I'm really interested to hear what your thoughts are on why you selected dPCR?
Wendy Wang 14:32
So the reason why we use dPCR over the more traditional way of doing copy numbers. So to begin, the traditional way of doing copy number is by Taqman copy number. So you're looking at the change of these amplification over cycles of your qPCR, right. And depending on how many copies are in your gene, it will come up above that threshold a little bit earlier because there's more copies it's producing more signals, it'll come up faster. This has been, I would say, pretty effective for the most part. It's the most common clinical method for copy number variation. However, we've seen that it's not perfect, because it really depends on one, you have to have all of your PCR conditions the same throughout your different repetitions. You have to do multiples of the same sample to get good confidence. Also, when you have your reference gene of which you compare that sample to, you have to make sure, or you're assuming, that there's no variation in that gene. We really like digital PCR because of its preciseness and reliability. So, what happens in these assays when you run them is that you're getting a number value that is the comparison of the count of positive micro reactions, if you will, and it is comparing it to the reference. And so when you have deviations from a nice, neat integer number, that is really indication that something in the PCR, or in even, not even the PCR, like the DNA itself, like variations underneath your assay, will cause changes and PCR efficiency. So what it looks like in the data, in the compartments, you get these plots that if it goes to a certain amplitude, then it's positive, right. And then you plot it against another plot, which is your other fluorophore that is positive. So you have clusters of double positives and positive-negative, and then with the dPCR, because it has four channels, you get all those, like different combinations that you can use to multiplex. When we have changes in the PCR efficiency, the microreactions, when they don't go to endpoint that means there's something in that recipe, something in that compartment that is like running out or hindering the reaction for it to reach that final amplitude. I like to think of it as like a soup. Imagine your big soup, your a big stew of all your PCR reactions, right. You've got like peas and carrots, and you've got like noodles, and you take your ladle like each one of those ladleful’s is like your microreaction, right. So with dPCR, the goal is to have everything homogenized like you would hope, that every single one of those micro reactions has similar amounts of everything in them. So by statistical chance, sometimes you're going to get, like, no peas in one scoop and more carrots in the other. And like, this noodle is the only thing in this reaction. And like, that's just going to like happen normally. It's like, the change of what's already there when it's parsed out in these ladleful’s of soup is where you get these deviations from what you expect. And that can either mean, “Yes, we have a copy number, or maybe yes, there's a copy number and it looks weird and there's something else under there, or like, this is supposed to be normal, but it looks very strange.” You know, it's just really the preciseness of being able to ladle out all of those reactions, and the aggregate of that information tells you so much.
Jordan Ruggieri 18:20
So is it, are you using digital PCR, then more around, like just looking at assay efficiency and kind of the accuracy of the results? Is that you're just taking a deep dive a little bit more into what's happening each kind of run to see if you're accurately can predict or can come up with some of these predictions on the different ways this gene could interact with drugs? Like how exactly does it, is it just in that assay performance or, or can you use it kind of in conjunction with NGS or Sanger or or just trying to look for a little bit more on that role right that dPCR plays in the research?
Wendy Wang 19:04
So dPCR is specifically used to look for that copy number variation. You need to conjoin it with another method, either sequencing or a panel of single variants that you're testing to get your end star alleles. So the way, maybe this is the time for the star allele conversation. So like I said before, star alleles describe a collection of variants, and they basically are named haplotypes. However, structural variants also have star allele designations. So for example, I talked about earlier a *36. So *36 is, the front part is 2D6, and then the Exon 9 is converted to 2D7. If you're just running SNPs on it, you're going to get variant reference, reference, reference and then, when you hit exon 9, you're going to get no signal because these assays are specific to 2D6. So if you're testing anything in exon 9, you're going to be like, “What's going on?” You combine it with a copy number variation assay like digital PCR, and that's going to give you your confirmation that the exon 9 dropped out because you're not getting 2D signal from that region. And you can call that particular allele a *36.
Christina Bouwens 20:25
I love it. I feel like the star alleles are like little guidebooks. You can just go down and figure out what you have.
Wendy Wang 20:30
Okay, so, like, this is my really nerdy thing to say here. I love a good technical document.
Christina Bouwens 20:36
A good, well-annotated document is the best.
Wendy Wang 20:38
Yeah, I'm giving myself away. I read the manual when I put Ikea furniture together.
Christina Bouwens 20:43
I do have one more kind of technical thing that I hear a lot about in the field, so I'd love to have you kind of chat about it. In digital PCR, especially, so Absolute Q, we say often, it doesn't require upfront digestion of the samples, because the way that we compartmentalize, it's not dependent, you're not going to get a lower number of micro reactions just because your DNA is very long. But copy number variation is actually one where we do actually see the need for digestion in some cases. And I know that was actually a big component of your paper, so I was wondering if you could talk about why there is a need for restriction digest for an application like copy number variation, and how this one pot digestion that your paper covers helps your overall workflow?
Wendy Wang 21:22
Yeah, oh my gosh. Love this question. Okay, so we're going to go back to the soup metaphor, right. So your little noodles of DNA are like wiggling around in the molecular breeze, and when they become compartmentalized, everything is like in one reaction, right. So to determine copy number, you need to separate out your gene copies, because if they are stuck together, you're going to get a difference in the expected number of positive reactions, which is then going to skew your copy number value. So if things are not properly separated, then you're not going to get an accurate representation of the different copies. So it's like, each ladle instead of getting one noodle, you're getting two but you think it's one is really like what that is. Why the one pot digestion is really cool, so in the past, what happens is, you get your DNA and you have to do a separate digestion. Oftentimes you can't reuse that DNA once it's been digested, because you're only doing it for the specific reasons. And yet, this may be like a precious sample that you want to do additional testing on something else. With the one pot digestion it's kind of like it's an all-in-one step, where you do the digestion with the assay reaction. So instead of having a different tube for the restriction enzyme digest and then adding that product to your assay and then running it, we're adding the enzyme to the assay mix, doing an onboard digestion and then just running it. So it's just, instead of two times at the bench and extra time labeling tubes, you're at the bench once you pipette, you pop it on, and then you don't have to, like, worry about it, which is very, very efficient. I love efficiency.
Jordan Ruggieri 23:18
Taking a break from our conversation for a quick message. If you are looking for absolute quantification for your gene targets, be sure to check out Applied Biosystem’s QuantStudio Absolute Q dPCR system. You can achieve precise quantification without the need for standard curves in only 90 minutes.
Christina Bouwens 23:35
You can learn more at www.thermofisher.com/absoluteq or visit the Absolute Gene-ius webpage.
Jordan Ruggieri 23:42
The Applied Biosystem’s QuantStudio Absolute Q dPCR system is for Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures. And now back to our conversation
Jordan Ruggieri 23:56
All right, we're going to switch gears here, Wendy and talk a little bit about your career journey in the career corner part of the podcast. Um, can you give us just a little bit of background on, maybe your educational journey and kind of some steps that you took to prepare for your current role?
Speaker 1 24:15
This is something I actually talk about a lot. So at Children's Mercy, we often have like teens and undergrads who come and visit and do, like, research experiences with us. And I really like to emphasize that your career doesn't have to look like a checkbox and things that you have to check off and know all at the same time. Like I grew up being like, “Oh, I don't know what I want to do. I kind of want to do science.” I actually went to college to do like history, and I have most of a degree in classical antiquity, because I took Latin for seven years and thought I wanted to do history, but took,
Jordan Ruggieri 24:51
That's amazing. That's amazing.
Wendy Wang 24:54
I think I hit a point in my undergrad where I've changed my major five times. It was like history, classical antiquities, cell bio, ecology, and then I landed on clinical laboratory science. And it's, this isn't like a Hallmark movie, but they had a little display in the bio building that was like, “Do you want to be an investigator, like a scientist person and, like, figure out the questions of health and stuff?” I'm like, “This looks like a really good career.” I switched my major, and it actually was a really, really great experience, clinical laboratory science, it is like when you go to the doctors and you get your blood drawn and they like, send it to the lab. A lot of people tend to think that it's just like doctors in the lab doing tests, but there's actually a whole crew of highly trained professionals that are very highly educated and very smart and dedicated that run the testing, make sure the testing works, and report it out. I think it's like, kind of slept on. It's really great, like I learned so much from my program, from like disease physiology to like how biochemical assays work, and like different bacteria, and like blood transfusions, like it's really, really cool. And a part of, like, my work in my undergrad was doing research rotations. So the program at KU specifically has two concentrations. One for, like, a more traditional clinical laboratory science track, and the other one is molecular biotechnology. And me being someone who likes to cry and make myself cry, like I chose both. I did the research rotation, one of mine, in the lab that I work in now. And that's kind of like where I fell in love with it was, like, “Research is so cool,” because one, you're generating new knowledge, and two, you're constantly learning. So that's something that's a big positive for me. And like, my everyday looks different. If, when students ask me, “What does your day to day look like?” I'm like, “Well, it kind of depends. Like, sometimes I'm in the lab and I'm running experiments, and sometimes I'm writing papers, and sometimes I'm like, I'm teaching and, like, helping PIs and consulting on, like, how to process samples or something like that.” And I think that is really great for people like me who, like they don't want the same day in and day out. And as you can get the impression, like, I've got a large variety of things that I like. I am constantly surprised by how creative you have to be in science to be an effective researcher.
Jordan Ruggieri 27:33
So one of those in your mind, you just like, you know, you have the creative people, and then you have the scientists, right? Like, it's, I think, very similar for, like, mathematicians as well, right? Like, they're, they seem to be opposite ends of the spectrum, but you actually need both sets of skills, the logic and the creativity, in order to really be successful. And it's really cool to hear you say that.
Speaker 1 27:56
Yeah, absolutely, that's something I don't say enough. Like, my job is, like, really fun. Like, if someone's like, “Do you like what you do?” I'm like, “Oh my God, yes, I love what I do.” It's so much fun. It's so cool that, like, I'm doing this thing that's like, helping people, like, get better health care. I'm learning new things about genetics. Like, every day is just so interesting. And I like, that's something I couldn't like, I don't see myself not being in a role like this.
Jordan Ruggieri 28:23
That's awesome. Have you had any setbacks that you've had to navigate through, or any uncertainty?
Wendy Wang 28:29
As someone who works in the lab, like, there's a lot of lot of setbacks, lot of things don't work. You really have to get comfortable with failure. That sounds really bad, but what I really mean is building the resilience to be, like, confident in yourself. Like, of course, roll out personal error when things go wrong, but you are going to fail. Like, stuff just, it's inevitable. stuff is just like not going to work. And what is really important is like not taking that personally and learning something from it and moving on with it. You know, like, whenever something goes wrong, it's like, blaming is never the answer. Like it just creates an environment that doesn't allow for problems to be solved is really what that's doing. Really what should be happening is understanding the problem and like the error or the failure, and maybe engineering ways around it in the future, or, you know, figuring out something else that is a going to let that happen as easily again.
Jordan Ruggieri 29:33
Always reminds me of MythBusters, which, by the way, talk about dream job, that would be so much fun, but where their answer, or their one of their taglines is, “Failure is always an option. “
Wendy Wang 29:44
Oh, absolutely, yeah.
Jordan Ruggieri 29:46
What advice would you give to someone interested in pursuing a career in what you do?
Wendy Wang 29:50
I would say don’t be afraid to talk to people. Like I was a really socially awkward and socially anxious kid and still kind of am in many ways. And I would always be really intimidated to talk to people because I’m like, “Oh, they’re so big in their field and these research scientists, there’s no way they have time for me.” And you don’t want people to be mad at you for bugging them but people become researcher and scientists because they are incredibly passionate about what they do and incredibly passionate people love talking about their passion. So if you reach out and just like, “Hey, I just want to learn more about what you do and maybe see if there’s any opportunities for me in X, Y, Z.” Like almost everyone is going to try to make that work or yes, or at least have a conversation with you. You know if they no, they’re probably busy or you know, me being in a position where people are like asking me about my career and stuff now, I’m like thinking about it from that perspective and I’m like “Yes, please come talk to me.” When I have like high schoolers, I’m like, “You know if you have any questions about this career then email me.” And I really do want them to email me, I like want to help them and impart my knowledge and experience and I think a lot of people don’t take those opportunities.
Christina Bouwens 31:06
That's such great advice. I totally agree with you. I think that the people who are most in the weeds with their research are the most excited to tell you everything about it.
Jordan Ruggieri 31:14
Well, I have one more question. We ask this of everybody that's on the podcast. Can you give your most embarrassing lab moment, and then on the flip side, the moment that you're most proud of? And let me tell you anything really on the on the scale of embarrassing?
Wendy Wang 31:32
Okay, so you say embarrassing, definitely one moment comes to mind. Not really a lab moment, but it was at work. So my coworker and I were dropping off a package down at the docks, and it is twisty, turny, windy labyrinth to anywhere in the hospital, and on our way back, we get trapped in a stairwell. It was like a no, no exit, but we exited because, you know, sometimes it says, like, do not exit but then it's actually fine. I thought it was one of those. On the other side of the stairwell was the exit to the outside. We open it, we set off the fire alarm. We can't go back the other way because it like, is locked from that so we're just like, hanging out in the stairwell with like, fire alarms blaring at us. It's so loud we're like, “What do we do? Like, do we just leave out the fire escape that we just set off, that doesn't seem right?” And about five minutes of just panic, a security guard comes and like, gets us, and like, he like, opens the door, and you can just see in his eyes that he is over, absolutely over it. And he's just like, “Did you guys set this off?” And we're like, yeah, “We're sorry. I know this wasn't an exit.” It was all, like, really apologetic. And he's just like, yeah, you go out that way. Oh my gosh. I wish I knew who that person was. I think I would, like, buy them coffee every week. Like, this was years ago, but like, just, I'm so sorry, dude, I.
Jordan Ruggieri 33:05
Maybe they're listening to the podcast. And then your proudest moment?
Wendy Wang 33:12
My proudest moment kind of cheesy, but I think my first, first author paper was my proudest moment. So, like I kind of said earlier, I'm not, like, I'm not a primary investigator. I don't own the lab, I'm a participant in it. And the fact that Andrea and our team was like, “Hey, you can really pull this off, and I want you to and, like, really take the lead on this project to work with our collaborators to get this paper out.” Like I was so into it. I was, like, writing every day and like editing, and I just have my bachelor's degree right now, so to be like, first author on a paper with just like a bachelor's and like, having really meaningfully contributed, and like, know, every aspect of like that project, like that feels really, really, really cool. And even with the Absolute Q paper that just came out, I was really, like the main person on that one, and like doing all the experiments. You know, working with everyone, just like being present in every single niche of the project, like I I love that. I think that that just feels really, really, really cool.
Jordan Ruggieri 34:26
That's awesome. I'm I, I'm proud for you. It makes me excited.
Wendy Wang 34:29
Thank you. Yeah.
Jordan Ruggieri 34:33
Wendy, thank you so much for being on today's episode of Absolute Gene-ius. It was great talking with you. I learned a ton, and just really glad that you were able to join us today.
Wendy Wang 34:44
Yeah. Thank you so much. This was so much fun, and I'm happy to yap about research and what I do anytime.
Christina Bouwens 34:53
That was Wendy Wang, pharmacogenetic laboratory supervisor at the Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City. With more great conversations around the corner in upcoming episodes. Stay curious, and we'll see you next time. This episode of Absolute Gene-ius was produced by Sarah Briganti, Matt Ferris and Matthew Stock.
Wendy Wang 35:12
I hope you're not too hungry, with all of like, my soup metaphors and like, oh my goodness.
Jordan Ruggieri 35:18
I am thinking about some ramen, maybe now for dinner tonight.
Wendy Wang 35:22
Yeah, glad I can inspire that.