Proteomes | Interview with One of our Authors—Dr. Christina Karakosta
We recently had the privilege of speaking with Dr. Christina Karakosta, one of the authors of a recent paper published in Proteomes (ISSN: 2227-7382). She generously shared her perspective on her research, the challenges she’s encountered, and her personal journey in the field.
“Differential Signaling Pathways Identified in Aqueous Humor, Anterior Capsule, and Crystalline Lens of Age-Related, Diabetic, and Post-Vitrectomy Cataract”
by Christina Karakosta, Martina Samiotaki, Anastasios Bisoukis, Konstantinos I. Bougioukas, George Panayotou, Dimitrios Papaconstantinou and Marilita M. Moschos
Proteomes 2025, 13(1), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/proteomes13010007
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7382/13/1/7
The following is a brief interview with Dr. Karakosta:
1. Please tell us a little bit about yourself and your paper?
I am currently working as a Medical Retina and Genetics Fellow at Oxford University Hospitals, while also continuing my postdoctoral research on lens proteomics at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. My interest in this field began during my master’s thesis, which was also focused on lens proteomics. That first exposure sparked my curiosity and ultimately led me to pursue a PhD, where I have been exploring the molecular mechanisms underlying cataract formation, under the supervision of Dr. Martina Samiotaki and Prof. Marilita M. Moschos. In our recent paper, we investigated proteomic alterations and the signaling pathways involved in three major types of cataracts: age-related cataracts, diabetic cataracts, and post-vitrectomy cataracts. To achieve this, we analyzed three different sample types obtained during routine cataract surgery: the aqueous humor, the anterior lens capsule, and the content of the phacoemulsification cassette.
One of the most exciting aspects of this study was working with the phaco cassette content. These cassettes are widely used in cataract surgery but are typically discarded as medical waste. By analyzing this material, we not only uncovered valuable biological information but also highlighted a sustainable and readily accessible source of samples for future research. We believe this approach opens new doors for investigating lens biology, cataract pathogenesis, and potentially other lens-related diseases in a cost-effective and environmentally conscious way.
2. What do you think made the academic community respond to your article so positively?
The positive response from the academic community is largely due to the fact that our study focused on human samples collected during routine cataract surgery. While animal models and in vitro systems are invaluable in providing controlled environments for experimentation, they cannot fully replicate the complexity and variability of human disease. By analyzing human samples, we were able to capture a more authentic picture of cataract pathophysiology, even though this inevitably comes with challenges such as inter-individual variation.
Another important factor is the comprehensive design of our study. We did not limit ourselves to one type of specimen but instead examined three distinct sample sources. This is the first time that phaco cassette content has been analyzed. This multi-tissue approach allowed us to detect both shared and unique proteomic changes across different compartments of the eye, which provides a more holistic view of cataract biology.
3. What do you think is the biggest challenge currently and the future directions in your area of research?
One of the biggest challenges in lens proteomics is the inherent complexity of the human lens and the multifactorial nature of cataract formation. Factors such as age, systemic diseases like diabetes, prior ocular surgery, and environmental influences all contribute to disease progression. This makes it challenging to distinguish which proteomic changes are truly disease-specific and which reflect normal aging or individual variability.
Considering the future, I believe our research field is moving toward integrating proteomics with other “omics” approaches, such as genomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics, to build a more comprehensive understanding of cataract pathophysiology. For example, genomics can help identify genetic predispositions that influence lens protein composition, while transcriptomics can reveal changes in gene expression that precede protein alterations. Metabolomics adds another layer by capturing the small-molecule changes that reflect cellular metabolism and oxidative stress in the lens. By combining these layers of information with advanced bioinformatics and machine learning, we can construct a multi-dimensional map of disease mechanisms, which may allow for earlier detection and potential therapeutic targets.
4. What advice would you give to young scholars seeking to break into academia or publish their work?
My advice to young scholars would be to embrace curiosity and persistence. Academia can be challenging, and research often involves navigating unexpected results or setbacks, but it is important not to give up despite difficulties. Some of the most brilliant ideas may initially seem unconventional, yet they often lead to the most meaningful discoveries.
It is also crucial to build a strong foundation in both theory and methodology and to be meticulous in experimental design and data analysis—quality always matters more than quantity. Equally important is having a supervisor who is not only a mentor but also a guide, a supporter, and a trusted sound board. A supervisor who believes in you, encourages your ideas, and provides constructive feedback can make a tremendous difference, especially when navigating challenges or exploring new directions in research. Networking and collaboration with peers and the wider scientific community are also valuable for opening opportunities and refining your ideas.
When it comes to publishing, do not be discouraged by rejection; it is a normal part of the process and an opportunity to improve your work. Ultimately, aim to contribute something meaningful—research that addresses real questions and advances understanding will always resonate with the academic community.
5. What is your impression of the publishing experience with Proteomes?
My experience publishing with Proteomes was extremely positive and professional. The submission process was straightforward and well-organized, which made it easy to navigate the initial stages. Communication with the editor was very smooth and responsive, and any questions or clarifications were addressed promptly. Throughout the review process, responses were consistently speedy, which helped maintain momentum and allowed us to complete revisions efficiently.
The reviewers provided thorough and constructive feedback that not only improved the clarity and quality of our manuscript but also encouraged us to think more critically about our results and their broader implications. I also appreciated the transparency and professionalism at every stage of the process, from submission to final acceptance. Overall, this experience made publishing with Proteomes both enjoyable and rewarding, and I would not hesitate to submit future work to the journal.
6. How do you manage your time between research and daily life? Do you have any tips to share?
Managing time between research, clinical work, and personal life can be challenging, but I have found that organization and setting clear priorities are key. I try to plan my days in advance, allocating dedicated blocks of time for experiments, data analysis, writing, and clinical duties. At the same time, I make sure to set aside time for rest, family, and hobbies, because maintaining balance is essential for long-term productivity.
For me, moving between clinics and the lab is actually refreshing. Shifting from clinical work to research—or vice versa—feels like a change of perspective and prevents monotony. This variety never allows you to fall into a routine and keeps my work engaging and stimulating.
Another strategy that helps is breaking larger projects into smaller, manageable tasks and celebrating progress along the way. This keeps motivation high and prevents feeling overwhelmed. I also believe in flexibility—sometimes research or clinical duties require unexpected attention; therefore, being able to adjust your schedule without stress is important. Ultimately, I think the best tip is to stay disciplined but also to be kind to yourself, recognizing that balance is an ongoing process rather than a fixed goal.
We thank Dr. Karakosta for taking the time and sharing her expertise, and we look forward to seeing her continued efforts in contributing to the research of cataract pathophysiology. We wish her all the best with her research and upcoming publications!