Launched in 2020, Quantitative Plant Biology is an open access journal, co-published by Cambridge University Press and The John Innes Centre with the aim of providing an interdisciplinary forum for high quality research on ground-breaking discoveries and predictions in quantitative plant science.

We sat down with Associate Editor Felix Hartmann to learn more about his background, and hear his thoughts on what this community-driven journal means for the plant science community.

Can you tell us a bit about your background, and what your current research is focused on?

I have a background in physics. As a young student, I was fascinated by quantum mechanics, especially experiments with entangled photons. But when it became clear to me that my physical disability was not compatible with experimental works, I developed a new interest in modeling and simulations. Instead of the fundamental laws of physics, I turned to complex systems, mostly at the interface with biology.

After a short and inconclusive experience in computational neuroscience in Paris, I sized an opportunity to start a PhD on wood formation modeling (in Nancy, northeastern France). Back then, I knew hardly anything about plant biology; ‘cambium’ was a new word to me. But being surrounded by people working on tree physiology and forestry, I learned fast. And yet, as a trained physicist, doing a PhD in a biology / forestry lab with no proper preparation was quite challenging, and things did not always go smooth. Nevertheless, learning interdisciplinarity the hard way (and surviving it!) has been very formative.

I followed up this first experience in plant science with a postdoc in Cris Kuhlemeyer’s lab (Bern Universität, Switzerland), where I modeled 3D auxin flux in the shoot apical meristem. This confirmed my interest in plants and in collaborating with experimentalists, including molecular biologists.

In 2017 I joined the French national research institute for agriculture, food and the environment (Inrae) in Clermont-Ferrand (PIAF lab), as a research engineer. This means one part of my job is devoted to my own research while the other part consists in developing software or setting up numerical / mathematical methods for other researchers. I am still investigating wood formation, but with a new focus on mechanical stress, either internal (due to tissue confinement) or external (due to wind). I am also working on the quantitative description of plant movements and tropisms, and on how to model these movements mathematically.

What has been your biggest challenge/greatest achievement in your career so far?

When addressing a biological question, I always try to answer it in a way that yields both relevant knowledge in biology and a profound physical insight. I believe this is what I achieved when I modeled how wood formation is regulated by biochemical signals. I tried to describe the kinematics of cambial activity as comprehensively as possible, using concepts from continuum physics, in order to take into account every potential feedback between tissue growth and signal transport. This approach did not only result in a plausible model of wood formation in conifers; it also deepened my own understanding of the physical concepts I was applying. I love when biology pushes physics to its limits and casts new light on its fundamental principles!

On the engineering side of my job, I do my best to help experimentalists get most information from their data. When advanced numerical or mathematical methods are needed (and they often are in complex systems), they should be kept ‘under the hood’ to provide the users with a convenient and friendly interface. This is at least how I proceed, and a good example is Interekt (https://forgemia.inra.fr/felix.hartmann/interekt), a software designed for describing and modeling plant movements. The data-processing pipelines are quite sophisticated, but the user experience is smooth and painless.

Why did you decide to become an Associate Editor of Quantitative Plant Biology?

This is my first experience in scientific edition, so the easy answer could be “out of curiosity”. Actually there is a bit more to say about it since I would not have accepted such an offer from many other journals.

What I saw in Quantitative Plant Biology was an opportunity to publish differently, and hopefully better, especially for theoretical / modeling research. The standard article format in biology was initially designed for experimental works. Theoretical or hybrid works do not always fit in that format, or in a very contrived way. For instance, the Material & Methods section is often in small type, at the end of the article. Indeed, for an experimental article, this section is often not essential to understanding the results and can be skipped on first reading. On the contrary, the description of a model is more than a mere recipe. It is an intellectual construct, encapsulating evidence from the literature and proposing a novel point of view on a system. Therefore, it should be put at the center of the article, not aside.

Moreover, models, even very complex ones, are most often published as finished products, hiding the trial-and-error process which lead to their final form. This is unfortunate because that heuristic process usually reveals many illuminating details about the system of interest and makes both the biology and the model itself more understandable. Instead, modeling too often looks like black magic. Improving the situation is not only a matter for the modelers themselves, but also, and maybe mostly, for scientific journals.

The step-by-step description of a model involving mathematical formulations and/or physical concepts requires space and pedagogy. Since this can be the argumentative core of the article, it belongs to the main text. In some cases, interleaving experimental results, model development and theoretical results may be the most appropriate way to tell a story and make an interesting and enjoyable paper. It is also faithful to the scientific method, in which one goes back and forth with experiment and hypothesis. Unfortunately, this is by no means the most standard way of formatting an article in biology journals. Of course, a few journals are now showing more flexibility in this respect, with eLife standing out as a particularly good example. However, there is still a need for journals which welcome any kind of creative article, as long as it is for the sake of clarity and readability. Actually, not only welcoming, but also actively promoting it.

I decided to become an Associate Editor of Quantitative Plant Biology because I believed, and I still believe, that it can be such a welcoming journal. At least that is what I try to encourage as an Associate Editor.

Another reason I enjoy being an Associate Editor of QPB is the journal’s openness to art-science articles. Although I am not active in this field myself, I really appreciate this aspect.

Do you have any advice for authors submitting to Quantitative Plant Biology?

Do not hesitate breaking the rules! As long as it serves a scientific or pedagogical purpose! Of course I can not promise that your manuscript will be accepted. But QPB is probably the most welcoming place to try something original.