2025 has been an extraordinary year for our lab. Lots of the core ideas have come to fruition, the team grew, and we've been laying the groundwork for even more exciting science ahead.

The science: three manuscripts that define our vision

The highlight of 2025 has undoubtedly been getting three major manuscripts out into the world, as together, they represent our core aims as a lab:

Understanding the human body fundamentally (microanatomical domains): We systematically quantified the fundamental units of tissue organization across the human body and how they change in health and disease. This work by Iva bridges the gap between cell- and anatomical-centric views of biology, to reveal conserved patterns of tissue architecture that underpin organ function and relate to resilience during aging.

Developing translational tools (tissue clocks): Our work on predicting biological age from histopathological images, revealing how different organs age at different rates and how we can derive tissue-specific aging insights from blood samples. This work opens up new avenues for non-invasive aging diagnostics and personalized medicine.

Building principled tools for the community (LazySlide): Our framework for accessible, scverse-compatible whole slide image analysis—now supporting 44+ foundation models and officially part of the scverse ecosystem. LazySlide embodies our belief that good science requires good tools, and that those tools should be open and accessible to everyone.

What makes me particularly proud about these works is that they represent something we've been striving for since the lab started: biologically-principled computational biology. We're not just building the next method or training black-box models (though those certainly have their place). We're asking fundamental questions about how tissues are organized, how they change with age, and how we can quantify these changes in ways that are meaningful to biology and medicine.

These manuscripts are the clearest articulation yet of our research vision—and seeing them take shape has been incredibly rewarding.

The ERC Starting Grant: long-term stability for the lab

In September, we received the news that our ERC Starting Grant proposal "QUANTAGE" had been funded. This was a huge moment for the lab which validated our vision and provided us with the resources to pursue our long-term goals.

Our approach to aging research departs significantly from the current paradigms in the field. Most aging research focuses either on molecular mechanisms at the cellular level or on organ-specific functional decline, with limited integration between these scales. QUANTAGE proposes to bridge this gap by studying tissue architecture in a systematic and quantitative manner, and to use the spatial organization of tissues in our body as a fundamental readout of biological aging.

The concept of 'tissue clocks' that emerged from our preliminary work demonstrates this approach: rather than relying solely on molecular markers, we can predict biological age from the morphological features of tissue itself. However, there is so much more depth to be gained by combining these morphological insights with molecular data, and by expanding our analyses across a wider range of tissues and conditions.

The ERC grant will allow us to pursue this vision over the next five years, providing stability for the lab and enabling us to take risks and explore ambitious ideas without the constant pressure of short-term funding cycles.

The behind-the-scenes

Regarding the process itself, there were multiple lessons that I took away. Some of these are specific to the ERC system, while others are more general reflections on grant writing and revision.

I had applied the previous year with essentially the same idea. I made it to the interview stage and was incredibly excited—this felt like validation that the vision was solid. But I didn't get it.

The disappointment was real. The slump that followed made the prospect of resubmitting unappealing. Going back to the same proposal, focusing on reviewer feedback rather than developing new ideas, felt like a chore rather than an opportunity.

But here's what I learned: that's exactly what made it work. The feedback from seven reviewers was excellent—detailed, constructive, and clear about what needed to change. By forcing myself to address their concerns systematically rather than chasing new directions, the proposal became tighter and more convincing.

The second time around, I was honestly less confident. The excitement of the first submission had faded, replaced by a more workmanlike approach to revision. And yet, that's when it succeeded.

There's a lesson here about the ERC system: the review process, when it works well, genuinely helps improve proposals. And sometimes the less glamorous work of careful revision beats the thrill of new ideas. I'm grateful for the reviewers who took the time to provide such thoughtful feedback, even when their conclusion the first time was "not yet."

Now, while the process for me was ultimately successful, I know that not everyone has the same experience. The ERC system can be opaque and intimidating, and I hope that sharing my experience helps demystify it a bit for others considering applying.

Despite the ERC being a very particular funding scheme, I do wish that other funding bodies would consider adopting a similar vision of funding truly transformative research. Unfortunately many funding agencies have relinquished high-risk, high-reward projects in favor of 'safe bets' that promise incremental progress. The focus on high-risk, high-reward projects that challenge existing paradigms is something I believe is essential for scientific progress.

A growing team

2025 saw a major expansion of our group, and it really brought home how much we've grown since starting the lab in 2022.

Parijat Chakraborty started as an intern in September (a few days before our retreat but not shy from a very early cross-presentation dance) and brought with her biological expertise which we really need in the lab.

Shrestha Srivastava joined as a PhD student in September with a background in deep learning and ambitious ideas about modeling tissue organization.

Samir Moustafa came on board as a data scientist in November with a background in graph neural networks and efficient deep learning solutions - which was very fortuitous considering all the infrastructural growth pains we have accumulated. Having someone dedicated to infrastructure and procedures will bring a level of stability and consistency that's essential for scaling up—and hopefully, it might even leave me with some time to keep experimenting and programming myself!

We've also had some visits from friends at the LBI-NetMed—Simon Schindler and Joel Fischer—and I had the pleasure of co-supervising master students Sabina Tepus and Gabriel Meca Lacuna who are doing their Master at the Medical University of Vienna. These collaborations and mentoring relationships have enriched the lab and reminded me of our responsibility to train the next generation of scientists.

To everyone who contributed this year: thank you. It's been great to see the lab grow and evolve, and I'm excited about the diverse perspectives and skills that each of you brings.

Beyond the keyboard (and bench): community and outreach

2025 wasn't just about papers and grants. Some of my favorite moments came from engaging with communities beyond our usual academic circles.

In October, I participated in a panel discussion at FotoWien, Vienna's international photography festival. The discussion, titled "Medical Gaze and In/visibility," explored how photography has been used to portray illness throughout history. It was moderated by Monika Pietrzak-Franger and included artist Fiona Tang. This was a first for me—speaking publicly in an arts and humanities setting rather than a scientific one—it was challenging but ald genuinely refreshing.

On the more playful side, we joined the infamous CeMM Halloween party with a theater piece. It was silly, it was fun, we did it for ourselves—and we won the prize for best performance! These light moments sometimes matter more than we sometimes admit in academia.

In September, a team led by Yimin participated in the NVIDIA Accelerate Omics Hackathon, working on GPU-accelerated stain normalization for histology image processing. While very technical and focused, it got us interested in performance and optimization aspects of our computational work, which is leading to some exciting developments in research infrastructure which I'm looking forward to next year.

Looking ahead to 2026

As I look to the year ahead, I'm excited about what comes next. Our first round of papers has been largely foundational—understanding the composition and changes of the human body along age in a fairly static manner. We've been building the tools and frameworks, characterizing the landscape.

In 2025 we have already make great progress, on pushing further: experimental data, more applications, and increasing connections between datasets and modalities which will help us take a step closer to causal inference.

In 2026, we'll hopefully see our second round of papers, which will bring this work to light. We want to understand not just what changes with age, but why and how. What are the fundamental mechanisms that govern aging across anatomical scales?

These are big questions, and we certainly won't answer them all next year. But I'm confident that the foundations we've laid in 2025 have positioned us well to make meaningful progress.

Thank you

To close, I want to express my gratitude—to the team, to our collaborators, to the funding bodies that support our work, and to the broader scientific community that engages with our ideas and software.

2025 has been a year of growth, validation, and excitement. Here's to an even better 2026.

Happy New Year!

— Andre