Murukarthick Jayakodi
To be honest, how long did it take you to settle into life in Dallas, a bustling Texan metropolis, after your quiet life in the East German province of Gatersleben?
It truly felt like landing on the other edge of the planet. I traded the calm, research-centred rhythm of Gatersleben for Dallas’s fast lanes, giant pickup trucks, and skies that seem to stretch forever. The sheer size of everything - the highways, the supermarkets, even the vehicles - was jaw-dropping at first! Thankfully, I had some practice relocating between countries, so the adjustment didn’t take long. As a family, we turned the first two months into a culinary adventure, exploring Dallas’s incredibly authentic Indian cuisine. So, settling in was deliciously easy, and I believe I won’t miss my home cuisine any more (he laughs).
Before joining the IPK, you spent several years in Seoul, describing South Korea as your second home. What do you think of your new surroundings in Texas? Which of the clichés associated with Texas are actually true?
As I told before, Seoul felt like a second home - dynamic, efficient, and constantly moving. Coming to Texas was a different kind of transition. If Seoul is vertical and fast-paced, Texas is wide and expansive. As for the clichés - some of them are true! Everything really is bigger in Texas: the highways, the portions of food, and yes, especially the pickup trucks. The distinctive Texan look - cowboy boots, wide-brimmed hats, and Western wear - is very much part of daily life here, not merely a Hollywood image. The friendliness is real, too. People greet you, hold doors, and start conversations in unexpected places. And the pride in Texas identity? That’s definitely not exaggerated. What surprised me most, though, was how international Texas, particularly the Dallas area.
What kind of institution is the Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Centre?
The Texas A&M AgriLife Research is a unique agency within the Texas A&M University System, rooted in the U.S. land-grant tradition. Across Texas, 13 research and extension centres focus on regionally important crops and livestock, including cattle. Its mission integrates research, education, and extension - ensuring that scientific discoveries move beyond publications and into fields, farms, and urban systems.
A warm welcome to Texas!
As a scientist, what are the most considerable differences between an institute like the IPK and Texas A&M AgriLife?
The most significant difference I experience is in the institutional mindset. At IPK, the environment is deeply rooted in fundamental research and long-term stewardship of genetic resources. There is a strong culture of precision, structure, and curiosity-driven science. It is a place where you can focus intensely on mechanistic questions and long-term scientific contributions. At Texas A&M AgriLife, the scientific rigour is equally strong, but the connection to application is more immediate. You regularly think about how your discoveries will translate into improved cultivars, management practices, or measurable benefits for producers, communities, and the state of Texas. Personally, working in both systems has been enriching. IPK laid the foundation for my fundamental genomics, while AgriLife sharpened my perspective on impact and implementation. Together, these experiences have influenced how I design research - combining mechanistic depth with practical relevance.
Your research group at the IPK was funded by the Leibniz Association. Large research communities like this probably don’t exist in the USA. What is the scientific system like there? How do you finance your research?
The funding systems in Germany and the United States are structured quite differently. At IPK, long-term institutional support from the Leibniz Association provides stability, enabling researchers to pursue fundamental questions with continuity. That stable framework is a major strength of the German system. In the United States, research funding is more competitive and largely grant-driven. However, there are also more diverse funding opportunities - from multiple federal agencies, state programs, commodity boards, and industry partnerships. This creates a dynamic environment where researchers can build portfolios across different funding streams. It also creates opportunities to collaborate on multi-institutional projects spanning several states and research centres across the country. Personally, this shift has influenced how I design and position my research. Proposal development and strategic alignment with national priorities are an integral part of the system. While it brings constant pressure, it also encourages innovation, broad collaboration, and interdisciplinary networking at a national scale. Experiencing both systems has given me a broader perspective on how to build sustainable, impactful research programs.
Who are your professional partners?
My professional network spans academic collaborators, breeders, and industry partners. Because my research sits at the interface of genomics and applied breeding, collaboration is essential. I work closely with plant breeders to ensure that genomic discoveries translate into usable markers, improved selection strategies, and ultimately better cultivars. At Texas A&M AgriLife, collaboration with stakeholders is part of the institutional culture. I also collaborate with researchers across multiple U.S. institutions through joint grant projects and consortium-style initiatives. For me, these partnerships are not only scientifically productive but also intellectually stimulating - they constantly challenge us to think beyond disciplinary boundaries.
What are the next challenges you want to tackle?
Faba bean, the crop I work with most, is interesting. I currently lead the international faba bean pangenome consortium. Through international collaboration, we recently mapped a major genetic locus strongly associated with cold and frost tolerance. In addition, we developed molecular markers to accelerate the breeding of winter-hardy faba bean varieties. Globally, there is a strong need to develop competitive winter legumes that can serve as cover crops, provide economic alternatives to winter cereals such as wheat, rye, or canola, and improve soil organic matter. Agriculture has long relied heavily on these winter grains, and diversifying systems is increasingly important for sustainability. Scientifically, legumes are fascinating because of their ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen, which improves soil health and reduces fertiliser dependence. At the same time, the growing demand for plant-based protein has brought them back into public focus. Looking ahead, regional challenges shape my research direction. In a state like Texas, water stress is a major constraint, and soil borne diseases pose significant threats to crop production. I am steering my program toward improving drought resilience and host resistance to soil borne pathogens in perennial grasses and leguminous crops. By building interdisciplinary teams and leveraging advanced phenomics, genomics, and artificial intelligence, we aim to develop more resilient and sustainable crop systems for the future.
Murukarthick Jayakodi bei der Arbeit im Gewächshaus.
Some people rely on legumes to protect the climate and the environment. Others emphasise their importance for a healthy diet. But how are legumes viewed in the USA, where climate protection and healthy eating are not priorities for everyone?
In the United States, the conversation around legumes tends to be pragmatic rather than ideological. While climate protection and healthy eating are important themes, they are not always the primary drivers of agricultural decisions. Farmers often prioritise economics, risk management, and yield stability. That said, legumes are gaining ground because they offer clear practical advantages. They improve soil fertility, reduce nitrogen input costs, and strengthen crop rotations. These benefits are especially valued in the U.S. organic sector, where nitrogen management and soil health are central challenges. For organic producers, legumes are not optional - they are foundational to system sustainability. At the same time, consumer demand for plant-based protein continues to grow, particularly in urban and health-conscious markets. So, while the narrative may differ from Europe, legumes are increasingly recognised across both conventional and organic systems. In my view, their momentum in the U.S. comes from their versatility - they make agronomic, economic, nutritional, and environmental sense all at once.
Science has recently come under pressure in many countries, including Germany. Research is often met with scepticism, and sometimes even hostility. What is your experience of this in the USA?
Science in the United States exists in a mixed environment. In agricultural and academic circles, it is strongly valued - especially when it delivers practical solutions. Farmers and stakeholders are generally pragmatic; if research helps improve yield, resilience, or profitability, it earns respect. At the same time, scepticism toward science is visible in parts of society, sometimes shaped by political or cultural debates. Topics connected to climate, biotechnology, or public policy can become polarised. In my experience, the most effective response is clarity and engagement. When scientists communicate transparently and demonstrate real-world impact, trust tends to follow. Ultimately, credibility is built not only through publications but through visible, tangible outcomes.
Which IPK colleagues are you still in contact with? When will you be in Germany next, perhaps even at the IPK?
I stay closely connected with Martin Mascher, who is not only a mentor but also a friend and long-time well-wisher. Our continued scientific exchanges mean a great deal to me, and they remind me of the strong foundation we built together. I had the pleasure of meeting Thorsten Schnurbusch and members of his team at the PAG meeting in San Diego - it truly felt like running into family far from home. More recently, Nils Stein visited our centre in Dallas, and catching up in person brought back many memories of shared discussions, ideas, and moments from my time in Germany. IPK was a defining chapter of my scientific journey, filled with growth, mentorship, leadership, and friendships. I hope to return to Germany - and to IPK - before long. Going back would feel less like a visit and more like revisiting a place where an important part of my story was written.