Dr. Pankaj Suman is a veterinary biotechnologist at the National Institute of Animal Biotechnology (NIAB), Hyderabad, whose research bridges clinical field practice and cutting-edge nanotechnology. Transitioning from livestock medicine to aptamer-based diagnostics and nanozymes, Pankaj champions a “bedside-first” philosophy: technologies must solve real problems under real farm and field conditions, not merely impress in the laboratory. While talking with Rashmi Kumari of Neo Science Hub, Dr. Pankaj reveals how clinical veterinary experience shaped his lab’s focus on point-of-care diagnostics for livestock mastitis, estrus detection, and metabolic stress—problems invisible to bench scientists but devastating to farmers. He has now applied this philosophy to snakebite: developing aptamer- and antibody-based venom detection platforms that can identify cobra and krait venoms at the bite site, enabling species-specific antivenom administration rather than blind polyvalent dosing. A partnership with ViNSBioproducts aims to commercialize these diagnostics, potentially transforming rural snakebite outcomes.
You’ve moved from treating animals in the field to engineering aptamers, antibodies, and nanozymes in the lab. How did clinical veterinary experience shape the way you now design diagnostics—and why do you believe technology must start at the animal’s bedside, not the bench?
Clinical veterinary practice exposed me to a hard reality: many of the most pressing problems in livestock health are not due to a lack of advanced science, but due to the absence of technologies that function reliably under field conditions. Working directly with animals and farmers helped me identify critical research gaps—problems that appear straightforward on paper but are remarkably complex at the animal’s bedside. When I returned to mainstream research and entered the field of animal biotechnology, these field observations became the foundation of my laboratory’s research philosophy.
One of the earliest and most persistent challenges I encountered in the field was infertility in livestock, largely driven by the difficulty of accurately detecting estrus and predicting ovulation at the right time for insemination. This remains a major bottleneck in improving reproductive efficiency. To address this, we initiated work on developing affordable biosensors for estrus detection by targeting progesterone and luteinizing hormone—small biomolecules that are notoriously difficult to detect reliably. This challenge led us toward aptamer-based recognition systems and ultimately to the development of electrochemical sensors capable of detecting these hormones directly in milk and serum without any sample pre-processing. Today, this work has matured into a scalable platform that is moving toward commercialization.
Another major gap I observed was infertility driven by negative energy balance in Indian livestock. Animals are often fed inadequate diets during critical physiological stages, but the real problem is not feed availability alone—it is the lack of early indicators that reflect the severity of metabolic stress. To address this, we developed controlled negative energy balance models in both cattle and rodents and identified key metabolic biomarkers that can predict energy deficiency at an early stage. Early detection enables rapid recovery, whereas delayed intervention can result in prolonged infertility and months of productivity loss for farmers.
Mastitis represents another clear example of how clinical experience shaped our research direction. Mastitis is one of the most economically devastating diseases in dairy animals and carries significant public health implications. When animals suffer from mastitis, milk quality deteriorates, increasing the risk of microbial contamination and antimicrobial residues entering the food chain. During my field practice, it became evident that although somatic cell count is the gold standard for mastitis diagnosis, there is no reliable, quantitative, and truly field-deployable method available to farmers or veterinarians. Existing tests are largely qualitative, subjective, or dependent on centralized laboratories, making early and accurate diagnosis under farm conditions extremely challenging.
After joining NIAB, this field-level gap directly guided our research. We began developing a portable, affordable, and quantitative somatic cell counting platform that can be used directly at the farm. However, diagnosis alone is insufficient. One of the biggest contributors to antimicrobial resistance in livestock is empirical and irrational antibiotic use following mastitis detection. To address this, we are developing an integrated system in which, once mastitis is identified, antimicrobial sensitivity testing can be performed within 30 minutes to two hours at the field level. This enables veterinarians to prescribe the right antibiotic, at the right dose, and for the right duration—thereby rationalizing antimicrobial therapy.
Such an approach has the potential to significantly reduce antimicrobial misuse, improve animal recovery, safeguard milk quality, and mitigate antimicrobial resistance from a One Health perspective. This is precisely why I believe technology must begin at the animal’s bedside, not at the bench. Field experience teaches us that the true challenge lies not in inventing sophisticated science, but in translating it into solutions that are fast, affordable, and usable where the animal actually is. When advanced tools such as aptamers, biosensors, and nano-enabled diagnostics are driven by real clinical needs, they can simultaneously transform animal health, farmer livelihoods, and public health outcomes.
Your lab is developing point-of-care diagnostics to identify snake venom itself, not just its symptoms. If venom can be detected rapidly at the bite site, how radically could this change antivenom choice, treatment outcomes, and survival in rural India?
In snake envenomation, one of the biggest limitations is not treatment availability, but timely and accurate diagnosis. In most rural settings, clinicians are forced to rely on symptoms that often overlap across different snake species, leading to delays, uncertainty in antivenom selection, and empirical dosing. Any diagnostic solution in this space must therefore be rapid, affordable, simple to use, and deployable in high-risk rural and peri-forest areas where snakebites are most common.
If venom itself—particularly species-specific venom—can be detected rapidly at or near the bite site, it can fundamentally change how snakebite is managed. Precise identification of the offending species under field conditions would give clinicians immediate clarity on which antivenom to administer and in what dose, instead of relying on trial-and-error or administering polyvalent antivenoms indiscriminately. This not only improves treatment efficacy but also reduces the risk of adverse reactions, antivenom wastage, and unnecessary exposure to high antivenom doses.
Equally important, early venom detection at the primary healthcare level allows for faster clinical decision-making. A frontline health worker can rapidly confirm envenomation, initiate appropriate first-line care, and direct the patient promptly to a secondary or tertiary care center with clear guidance on treatment. This reduction in diagnostic uncertainty and response time has the potential to significantly improve survival and reduce long-term morbidity, which are major challenges in rural India.
In our laboratory, we have developed point-of-care diagnostic technologies for species-specific detection of cobra and krait venoms using both antibody- and aptamer-based platforms. These technologies are designed to be simple, rapid, and field-deployable, with a strong focus on real-world usability rather than laboratory sophistication. To translate this work beyond the lab, we have also signed a memorandum of understanding with VINS Bioproducts, with the goal of moving these diagnostics toward commercialization.
Our broader vision is to enable a shift from symptom-based snakebite management to evidence-based, precision diagnosis at the point of care. If implemented at scale, such technologies could dramatically improve treatment outcomes, rationalize antivenom use, and save thousands of lives each year—particularly among the most vulnerable rural populations.
From nanopatches for transdermal delivery to nanozymes that re-engineer digestion, your work treats animals almost as living bioreactors. Are we entering an era where animal biotechnology shifts from “treatment” to “engineering biology”—and what ethical or practical limits should guide that transition?
I do think we are entering a phase where animal biotechnology is moving beyond reactive treatment toward a more proactive and systems-level approach—what one might call engineering biology. But I would frame this shift not as turning animals into “bioreactors,” but as understanding and gently modulating biological processes that already exist.
Technologies such as nanopatches for transdermal delivery or nanozymes that modulate digestion are not about redesigning animals at will; they are about delivering interventions more precisely, efficiently, and safely. Traditional treatments often rely on repeated dosing, systemic drug exposure, and trial-and-error. In contrast, nano-enabled systems allow us to localize action, reduce drug burden, and work in harmony with physiological pathways. In that sense, this transition represents refinement, not overreach.
That said, clear ethical and practical boundaries must guide this shift. The first and most important limit is animal welfare. Any biological engineering must demonstrably reduce stress, pain, or long-term harm compared to existing practices. If a technology does not improve animal well-being or resilience, it has no justification—no matter how innovative it is.
The second boundary is reversibility and safety. Interventions should be non-permanent, controllable, and biologically reversible wherever possible. We should prioritize technologies that modulate function temporarily rather than permanently altering genomes or developmental trajectories, especially in food-producing animals.
Third, there must be strong translational realism. A technology that works only under highly controlled laboratory conditions has limited value in livestock systems. Engineering biology must remain affordable, scalable, and usable under real farm conditions, otherwise it risks widening the gap between innovation and impact.
Finally, there is a public and regulatory dimension. Transparency, regulatory oversight, and public engagement are essential—particularly when technologies influence food systems. Animal biotechnology must earn trust by showing clear benefits for animal health, farmer livelihoods, and public health, rather than creating solutions in search of problems.
So yes, the field is evolving from treatment toward biological engineering—but it must remain guided by restraint, responsibility, and real-world relevance. When engineering biology is driven by animal welfare, safety, and societal benefit, it becomes a powerful tool. When it ignores these boundaries, it risks losing legitimacy.
Affordable diagnostics are often described as “low-cost science,” yet your work shows they demand deep innovation. What is the hardest scientific problem in making high-precision technologies like aptamers and nanodevices work reliably in real farm and field conditions?
Affordable diagnostics are often misunderstood as low-cost or simplified science, but in reality they demand some of the deepest innovation. The hardest scientific problem is achieving laboratory-level precision and reliability in environments that are biologically complex, variable, and uncontrolled—such as farms, villages, and field settings.
From a technical standpoint, one major challenge is robustness. High-precision tools like aptamers and nanodevices are exquisitely sensitive, which is an advantage in the lab but a liability in the field. Biological samples such as milk, blood, or saliva contain proteins, fats, enzymes, and contaminants that can interfere with signal stability. Designing recognition elements that remain specific and functional despite temperature fluctuations, dust, humidity, and poor sample handling is extremely challenging.
Another critical issue is reproducibility at scale. An aptamer or nanomaterial that works beautifully in a controlled laboratory setup may behave very differently when produced in large batches or used by non-specialists. Ensuring batch-to-batch consistency, long shelf life without cold-chain dependence, and minimal calibration requirements requires fundamental work in surface chemistry, materials science, and bio–interface engineering.
Equally important is the problem of signal interpretation. In field settings, diagnostics must give clear, unambiguous readouts that do not depend on expert judgment. Translating subtle molecular interactions into binary or easily interpretable signals—without sacrificing sensitivity or specificity—is a major scientific challenge.
Finally, affordability itself is a constraint that shapes innovation. Every design decision must balance performance with cost, manufacturability, and ease of use. You cannot simply miniaturize an expensive laboratory instrument; you have to re-engineer the biology, chemistry, and physics of detection from first principles.
In my view, the real difficulty lies in making advanced technologies behave simply. When aptamers and nanodevices are designed not just to detect molecules, but to survive and perform under real farm conditions, that is when science truly translates into impact.
