SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " enzyme " 69 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
A Bizarre Plastic-Eating Enzyme Has a Second Talent That Worries Scientists
Plastic can fool nature’s cleanup crew, but one bacterial enzyme knows exactly where to bite.
Eating blueberries every day may have a surprising effect on your mood
Eating blueberries every day could have surprising effects on mood, according to a small study that found greater reductions in depressive symptoms among older adults who consumed the fruit for three months. Researchers also detected changes in gut microbial enzymes, suggesting a possible gut-brain connection, although the mood benefits were not statistically significant compared with a placebo.
Scientists discover a plastic-eating “Pac-Man” enzyme with a surprising secret
Scientists have discovered a remarkable “Pac-Man enzyme” that helps bacteria devour certain types of plastic and may offer new hope in the fight against plastic pollution. Researchers found that several biodegradable plastics completely broke down in soil within about a year, while conventional plastic remained largely unchanged.
Rice University | Scientists engineer new tool to improve detection of HIV and other viruses
New enzyme optimized for RNA detection assays.
Stanford Scientists Identify Enzyme That May Promote Cartilage Regeneration in Arthritis
Stanford researchers identified an enzyme that may restore cartilage repair signals in arthritic joints, offering a potential drug target backed by mouse and human tissue results.
From a landmark discovery by Chinese scientists to global nanozyme research and science art
From enzyme-like nanoparticles to a global research field, nanozymes now inspire art that makes advanced chemistry accessible to wider audiences.
This protective enzyme could help stop fatty liver disease from getting worse
Scientists have identified an enzyme that may act as a natural defense against the worsening of fatty liver disease, which affects an estimated 100 million Americans. The enzyme, called UBE2N, helps liver cells clear away damaged mitochondria and break down fat, potentially preventing the inflammation, scarring, and cell damage associated with the more dangerous condition MASH.
Scientists Observe Enzymes Breaking Down DNA in Real Time
The study directly visualizes nuclease-DNA interactions and DNA fragmentation in a purified experimental system.
Anthropic says Claude found a new gene-editing enzyme but science isn't confirmed
Anthropic says Claude agents autonomously flagged a CRISPR-like enzyme system in virus DNA in a 21-hour run. A CRISPR pioneer calls it intriguing, others sceptical — it's an unreviewed preprint with function unknown.
Claude spots a mystery enzyme scientists overlooked
Autonomous agents flagged a family of phage enzymes with CRISPR-like repeats, though what the system does remains unknown.
In a New Anthropic Lab, A.I. Turns to Biology
Scientists at the company announced their first finding: a group of enzymes whose function is unknown.
Intuitive enzyme design with LLM agents
Nature Computational Science - A collaborative system of large language model agents brings protein engineering closer to natural-language interaction, lowering the barrier between human intent and...
Scientists supercharge plastic-eating enzyme with tiny one-atom change
Researchers at ANU have found that swapping out just a single atom inside a plastic-munching enzyme can double its power.
DNA Has a Four-Letter Alphabet. Scientists Just Expanded It to Eight
Researchers showed how a natural bacterial enzyme can accurately transcribe DNA containing four extra genetic letters. Life uses a four-letter DNA alphabet, but could its genetic machinery read a larger one? Researchers at the University of California San Diego have shown that RNA polymerase, the enzyme that copies DNA instructions into RNA, can accurately transcribe
Science Vs on the 49ers Substation: Anatomy of a Hatchet Job
In August, Pablo Torre Finds Out and Science Vs released an episode about my theory that electromagnetic fields from the electrical substation beside the 49ers facility may be contributing to the team’s run of soft-tissue injuries. As the originator of the theory, I was also a subject of the episode. I sat was interviewed by Wendy Zukerman and Rose Rimler of Sciene Vs. I sent them research, connected them with scientists, and spent hours digging through the City of Santa Clara’s and Silicon Valley Power’s records to help clarify critical details. Both Wendy and Rose came off as affable and professional, showing curiosity during the interviews, with Wendy going out of her way to question the “conspiracy theory” framing itself. Then they titled the episode We Solve the 49ers Viral Conspiracy Theory. I was familiar enough with their catalog that I never expected them to agree with my theory, but I did expect them to give it a fair hearing and to deliver their findings honestly. On both counts they came up short. They were not directly dishonest in anything they said, but rather in what they left out, in how what remained was cut, and in the picture painted by those two things in combination. They asked me to recorded the interview on my phone for better audio quality, and I held on to my copy for reference later. That turned out to be a fortuitous decision. Here is the raw audio of my first interview, unedited*. Only my side was recorded, so their questions aren’t on it, but you can generally infer them from the answers, and every claim I make below about what I said can be checked against my statements in this clip. (Note: Wendy had connection trouble at the beginning of the interview and was cutting in and out, which accounts for the false starts.) 0:00 -1:19:13 Audio playback is not supported on your browser. Please upgrade. Science Vs is a fun show. It is pitched at roughly a high-school understanding of science, for an audience that is skeptical, Snopes-oriented, and worried about misinformation. Take a claim circulating online, interview a supporter of the claim, interview consensus scientists, and then tell people which side of the line it lands on. I have listened to their episodes on raw milk, seed oils, 5G and other contested issues in the wellness space. I have problems with all of them, but each at least made an honest attempt to represent the actual range of scientific opinion by talking to credentialed scientists with differing perspectives. Dissenting researchers were heard from, answered, and often given a chance to respond. This episode did not do that. This article is not a relitigation of the science. I have written extensively about that already. This post is for the record. It is simply an accounting of what was wrong with their episode. Contents Is there a power plant next to the 49ers practice facility? — the clearest single example of getting something objectively wrong For the record — a high-level overview of all of the problems with their investigation Draw your own conclusions — why they had to make this episode at all What they left out about childhood leukemia — the exposure threshold, and playing games with statistics to minimize sick children What they left out about the mechanism — the body of literature they refused to cover, and evidence for the mechanism used against it The scientists Science Vs interviewed and did not air — four credential scientists who support myhe theory, recorded and cut, or not even called How they misrepresented me and my case — an answer severed from its question, and three telling edits How you would actually study the injuries — it doesn’t actually matter which team is the most injured, overall The theory: magnetic fields, oxidative stress, and collagen Since the episode never states my theory, here it is below. Those who are familiar with my work can skip this section. Electrical equipment produces magnetic fields, and those fields induce faint electrical currents in anything that passes through them, including people. My argument goes further than induced current. Mitochondria — the structures that generate a cell’s energy — run on continuous flows of electrons and protons, and those flows carry faint electromagnetic fields of their own. Maxwell’s principle of superposition shows that when two fields share the same space, they add together. An external field does not need to be strong to alter an internal field, it only needs to be present. The electron transport chain inside the mitochondria leaks a small fraction of its electrons by design, and those become reactive oxygen species — free radicals, which healthy cells use as signals. External magnetic fields cause the rate of leakage to change, increasing free radicals. When free radicals accumulate faster than the cell’s antioxidant systems can clear them, the result is oxidative stress. Oxidative stress is a recognized driver of chronic illness, including cardiovascular disease, neurodegeneration, diabetes and cancer, and it is in every medical school curriculum. One of its ordinary effects in connective tissue is that it switches on matrix metalloproteinases — MMPs, the enzymes that break collagen apart — while suppressing new collagen synthesis. Tendons are made of collagen. An athlete loading his soft tissue heavily six days a week is already creating oxidative stress in the tendons, so the addition of magnetic field exposure compounds the damage and inhibits repair, making him more susceptible to injury when enormous force lands on a tendon in a fraction of a second. That is the theory. We know that EMF causes oxidative stress, and we know that oxidative stress degrades collagen. The only thing missing is a study showing that direct connection. I have never claimed certainty that the substation is contributing to the elevated injury rate. I do believe it is likely, and I believe it warrants caution, and that a revenue machine like a major NFL team can easily afford to remove the exposure out of precaution. Is there a power plant next to the 49ers practice facility? Here is the clearest single instance of the problem with this episode. It requires no knowledge of electromagnetic fields at all. This story first came to me through Jon Feliciano, a former 49er, in an interview on Willard & Dibs on 95.7 The Game. Asked about why the 49ers are always injured, he said players used to joke that it was the power plant behind the practice fields. Wendy Zukerman corrects him on air. “It’s important to say that it’s not a power plant near the 49ers site.” Torre then asks her to explain the difference between a substation and a power plant. Her answer: a power plant generates electricity and transmits it to a substation, which converts the voltage into something your house can use and sends it on to your home or your business. There are two problems with that. The first is that there is a power plant on that site. The Gianera Generating Station is a natural-gas-fired peaker plant owned by Silicon Valley Power, and it has been there since 1986. I have published aerial photographs of the location from 1987 in which the gas plant is the only thing standing, before the practice facility was even there. I even mentioned the gas plant in my first interview. (Feliciano has since gone on record about this issue, and it is clear he had the substation in mind rather than the gas plant.) The second is that her definition describes a distribution substation, and the facility beside the 49ers is not that. It is the Northern Receiving Station, which takes in bulk power from outside the city’s grid and delivers it to distribution substations. Silicon Valley Power’s own map distinguishes receiving stations from substations, and Rose Rimler even reads the label out loud in the episode when she walks through that map on air. A few minutes before the map segment, Zukerman tells Torre: “like I said, we fact check everything.” Well, maybe not everything. I made a mistake On the morning of July 6th, at 10:20, I sent Rose and Wendy two studies. During the interview I had been asked which human studies show oxidative stress from electromagnetic fields, and I had not been able to name one on the spot. Rose emailed asking for the studies, I quickly searched for a couple, and I wrote that I thought these were the most relevant from that search. Unfortunately, I was busy and did not read either one closely at first. I picked them because they were topically relevant — one on substation workers, one on power plant workers. Neither were great studies, and their problems go past the ones raised in the episode. That was careless on my part. There is context that did not make the episode, though. Before that email I had been on a Zoom call with Rose talking about EMF and oxidative stress, and I pointed her to Dr. Henry Lai at the University of Washington, who has spent years aggregating the literature on this question. His tallies show that roughly 90% of studies since the late 1990s find oxidative effects from electromagnetic field exposure — hundreds of studies, systematically counted. Rose told me she was already aware of his work. So when she asked for studies, I understood her to have the aggregate view already and that she would report anything within that context. Not reading those two carefully was still a mistake, but the larger mistake was assuming the episode would be based on a thorough review of the actual body of literature, rather than on whatever I happened to send that morning. The second email At 1:49 that same afternoon — three hours and twenty-nine minutes after the first — I sent them a second email that I had been preparing for a while. It was a structured document in six numbered sections, written in response to a request they had made two weeks earlier, laying out my entire argument with citations attached to every link in the chain. The episode aired on August 13th, five weeks later, and not a single item from the second email is in it. Here is how it opens: The full email is included at the bottom of this post in Appendix B. Nearly 1,500 words in total. It contains two named mechanisms with the physics behind them. Occupational studies in humans. The literature on oxidative stress and collagen. A section addressing the strongest counter-evidence against my own theory, which I raised myself. And a closing section stating plainly what the theory cannot yet show. My entire argument, in writing, with detailed citations for every claim, provided to them five weeks before broadcast, and none of it made it into the episode. That is the single largest omission, but it is not an isolated one. The whole episode is riddled with similar problems, and the conclusion they came to is not merely a difference of opinion about the scientific evidence. Through omission and through strategic editing, Science Vs misinformed its audience — about what the evidence shows, about what I argued, and about who they spoke to. That is a notable outcome for a show whose stated purpose is correcting misinformation. For the record I am not going to tell you that Science Vs set out to discredit me, or that they had come to their conclusion before they reported the story, or that they used misleading editing to make me look like a man retreating from his own theory. I cannot know what was in anyone’s head, and I am not going to pretend otherwise, either. What I can tell you is what is on the record. They asked me for evidence and aired the weakest thing I sent. They interviewed three scientists who supported my theory and aired none of them. They discussed childhood leukemia without ever saying the exposure level at which it appears. And they took an answer I gave weeks before Ken Karipidis, the one EMF scientist who was put on air, was interviewed, and placed it directly after his critique, where it comes off as a major concession. A friend of mine who has worked as a journalist for thirty years read that last one and called it sleazy. I agree with her. Those are just the four issues that are impossible to defend as pure editorial decision, but they are not the only issues. The most glaring issues stem from what they left out: The exposure level at which the childhood leukemia association actually appears — three to four milligauss, a number the episode never states despite it being much lower than what I measured. The mechanism itself: The episode gets as far as “oxidative stress could weaken collagen,” which leaves it sounding like speculation, rather than a known pathway. The second email, and all the studies in it. Dr. Paul Héroux at McGill, whose work my proposed mechanism rests on, whose contact details I supplied, and who was never called. Dr. Beatrice Golomb at UC San Diego, who runs a research group on oxidative stress and mitochondrial function and has specific expdertice in collagen, interviewed and not aired. Dr. David Carpenter at Albany, the most prominent academic voice on the harm from magnetic field exposure, interviewed and not aired. Dr. Joel Moskowitz at Berkeley, interviewed and not even credited. The specific, testable condition I put in writing that would make me abandon the theory. My own unprompted statement of the theory’s evidentiary gap. My caveats about my own measurements. My ranking of EMF as one factor among several rather than the only one. The new equipment installed at those facilities between 2010 and 2014, and the sharp rise in system load from 2013 onward. But that is not all. What they kept, they selectively edited to serve a narrative that was not served by the raw transcripts of the interviews. A description of thousands of commercial routers in a workplace, reduced to the Wi-Fi in your house. My own acknowledgment, multiple times, that "I'm not a scientist" clipped in an episode that spends considerable energy pointing out that I am not a scientist. And a qualification I volunteered about my own measurements, cut from my answer and delivered later by their EMF expert as a correction. Together their edit produce a portrait of a wellness guy with Wi-Fi phobia and two bad studies, backing away from his theory the moment a “real” scientist looked at it. A practice facility where nothing changed because no new substation was built. Injuries written off as random because the 49ers were not quite the single most injured team in the league over the period in question. That portrait is false even though almost no individual statement made in the episode is. Draw your own conclusions At the top of the episode, Pablo Torre says his show had been flooded with requests to investigate the substation — that it was the thing they were asked to look into over and over again. Neither show went hunting for this story. It arrived from their own audience, in volume, and it could not be waved off. A thread I posted on X reached twenty-two million people. A guy with a gaussmeter and a brand-new Substack obligated a Pultizer prize winning program to spend an hour on a question about player health, that is considered fringe enough that most media operations won’t touch it. Pablo Torre Finds Out could not ignore it. So Science Vs came in and ran a “debunking” operation instead of an investigation. Everything below is what had to be left on the cutting room floor to deliver the “debunking”. They could not ignore it. So they tried debunked it instead. The demand was strong enough to force an episode, and since the episodes release the 49ers have sustained more injuries, including season ending ones, and interest has only grown. Demand from fans and playets is strong enough to force a better investigation from someone else. An omission is not a lie until you find out what was omitted. What follows is the detailed record so you can see the full picture. Draw your own conclusions. I have drawn mine. I am going to keep publishing. A note about Pablo Torre Finds Out After the episode aired I posted publicly, calling out Pablo Torre Finds Out for concerns I had about the integrity of their investigation, and about an interview directly with Pablo Torre which had been offered but never happened. I have since spoken with a producer at PTFO. The offer had rested on a misunderstanding about where things stood between us, and it fell away as the Science Vs part of the production widened past the science. He apologized for the miscommunication and I accepted. The producer also confirmed to me that they did essentially hand off the entire investigation to Science Vs for narrative purposes — so Pablo would be genuinely curious or potentially surprised by their findings — while still taking responsibility for what went out under their name. I appreciated the candor and the accountability, and I am comfortable with where we left things. So this post is not about PTFO. My disagreement is with Science Vs. What they left out about childhood leukemia Childhood leukemia appears at three milligauss. They gave no number at all. 1. They built an EMF ruler, then discussed childhood cancer without it. The sequence on air went like this: First I measured almost 9 mG, then I measured up to 50 milligauss. Torre reacts with concern — “that sounds high.” Cut to Karipidis: the public limit is 2,000 milligauss. Torre reacts again — “What happens at 2,000?” Karipidis explains that nothing happens at 2,000, that safety factors are built in. Then: at more than 50,000 milligauss you get flickers of light in the retina, and higher still, nerve stimulation. The listener now has a ruler (their ruler) to measure these numbers with. Fifty is nothing by their ruler. Then the episode turns to childhood leukemia and states, accurately, that there is a real association — but tellingly, they never give the exposure level at which that association appears. Childhood leukemia appears at three milligauss. They conveniently left that out. The pooled analyses that produced the World Health Organization’s carcinogen classification found roughly a doubling of childhood leukemia risk above three to four milligauss. That is the number that belongs in that segment, and it is more than ten times below the reading that had just been dismissed as trivial. I gave them that number myself, on tape, in the interview. Describing my own threshold, I said my comfort level for long-term chronic exposure is three to four milligauss, but preferably one. 2. Six children in thirteen million. The episode reports that these fields might explain one to four percent of childhood leukemias, then reframes it as a German estimate of perhaps six cases among thirteen million children. Torre, to his credit, is uncomfortable. What never gets explained is why that number is small. Almost no children lives above three milligauss in Europe. Fewer than two children in a hundred, in the Italian data. So even if the risk to those children doubles, the number of additional cases across an entire country stays small — not because the hazard is small, but because hardly anyone is exposed to it. Count the whole population and the few who are exposed disappear. And the reason hardly anyone is exposed is that siting rules keep housing away from transmission lines. In Europe, at least. The Dutch government has a standing precautionary policy against building new homes in any zone where the annual average magnetic field exceeds 4 milligauss — the same number the episode never mentioned. Denmark and Norway treat 4 milligauss as the level that triggers a look at mitigation. That is five hundred times below the ICNIRP figure quoted on air. The United States has no federal equivalent. That is evidence of infrastructure siting policy working. It is not evidence that there is no hazard. It is evidence that we already act as though there is one. If you listen to the raw audio you will hear that my proposed solution is EMF exposure is to build better infrastructure. What they left out about the mechanism 3. They accused me of cherry-picking, and then cherry-picked themselves. On air, Zukerman tells Torre that people who worry about electromagnetic fields dismiss the studies showing null results and collect the ones showing harm, and that this is why you have to be careful not to cherry-pick. They had two papers I had rattled off in a hurry, and a second email containing a carefully chosen set. They ran the two weakest, graded them on air, and presented the result as the state of the evidence for not only my theory, but the whole question of oxidative stress from magnetic fields. That is cherry-picking from my emails. The bigger picture is what they did with the literature as a whole. Zukerman acknowledges it exists, dismisses it, and disposes of it in a single stroke. You can go online right now, she tells Torre, and find scores of studies showing these fields increase oxidative stress. The issue, she says, is that they are not studies in people. Many of them are in people. The occupational studies in my second email are in people. That email had been in her inbox for five weeks. She waved off the literature on a factual claim that the documents in her possession contradict. (I have written separately about the evidentiary standard at work here). The effect was that they essentially baited me: ask the subject to supply the evidence, take the weakest thing he sends, and let that stand as a proxy for the whole argument. Wendy has been doing this show for ten years and clearly knows how to extract what she needs for her desired narrative. 4. They presented the collagen-improvement research as a gotcha, but I had already addressed it. The episode treats the existence of studies showing that EMF can improve collagen as a surprise that undercuts me, but I had pre-emptively addressed that five weeks earlier in the email they ignored. Those studies use measured, high-intensity pulsed dosing. The mechanism by which they work is oxidative signalling. The cell reads a controlled rise in reactive oxygen species as a warning, upregulates its antioxidant defenses, mounts a repair response, and the therapy stops before the system is overwhelmed. The key point is that it induces an oxidative response, which means those studies are actually evidence for my proposed mechanism, not against it. A field that produces a therapeutic effect cannot be biologically inert (which is the implication when they say “Nothing happens at 2,000 milligauss). Chronic ambient exposure is the same pathway with no off switch, and it is most consequential during the evening and while sleeping, when the body is in repair mode and the exposure does not stop. Section 5 of my email is titled What about the study showing improved collagen synthesis. I raised the counter-evidence myself, explained why I did not think it refuted the theory, and wrote that I was disappointed the question had not come up in the interview. That is worth holding against the cherry-picking charge in the item above: the studies they presented as inconvenient for me were studies I had gone out of my way to put in front of them. 5. Section 1 of my email stated a critical argument that was never put to the expert directly responsible for it. My email says the exposure limits exist to prevent acute effects and do not address chronic exposure at all, and that my dispute is with the entire framework. Zukerman gestures at this once. After Karipidis gives the 2,000 milligauss figure, she tells Torre that I would object because those levels do not capture “more subtle effects.” That is not my argument, and “subtle” is doing a lot of work here. My argument is that the limits are built to prevent acute effects — nerves firing, muscles twitching, etc — and were not designed to address chronic exposure at all. In fact, ICNIRP’s own documents state as much themselves. Mine is a structural objection to what the standard measures, reduced as a concern about subtlety, it becomes a matter of degree, rather than a categorical difference. They interviewed Ken Karipidis, vice chair of ICNIRP — the body that writes those limits. He was asked what the limit is, but he was never asked how it applies to chronic exposure. The scientists Science Vs interviewed and did not air 6. They interviewed four officials of the standards body. The episode credits roughly a dozen researchers. Four of them are associated with ICNIRP. Ken Karipidis is the vice chair. Rodney Croft chaired ICNIRP from 2020 to 2024 and led the development of its current guidelines. Dan Baaken is ICNIRP’s scientific secretary. Frank de Vocht sits on the Main Commission. One of them speaks in the episode. Their institution’s position is more than adequately represented — the 2,000 milligauss figure, the safety factors, the assurance that nothing happens below the line. 7. The four who were left out. Dr. Beatrice Golomb is Professor of Medicine at UC San Diego — a physics undergraduate degree, a PhD in biology, an MD. She directs a research group whose stated focus is the relationship between oxidative stress, mitochondrial function and health. That is the mechanism the episode spent its first half dismissing. Her published work includes the fluoroquinolone case series behind the FDA’s black box warning on an antibiotic class that ruptures tendons, where the accepted mechanism is oxidative stress and mitochondrial toxicity — the back half of my chain, already on a drug label. She is in the credits. She is not in the episode. She has told me she finds my theory biologically plausible, and that she has a recording of her interview. Dr. David Carpenter directed the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany for decades and is the most prominent academic voice arguing these fields cause harm. Childhood leukemia is the reason these fields carry a WHO classification at all, and Carpenter is the person you call if you want that case made by someone who has spent a career on it. He is in the credits. He is not in the episode. He has told me that when he was interviewed they could not have been less interested in what he had to say. Dr. Joel Moskowitz directs the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health. He told me directly that they interviewed him and that he thought it went well. He does not appear in the episode, and unlike Golomb and Carpenter, he does not even appear in the credits. Dr. Paul Héroux at McGill is the researcher whose work provides the foundation for the oxidative stress mechanism my theory rests on. I gave Rose his email address and phone number. He was never interviewed. They never even called him. 8. “He’s not a scientist.” The episode leans hard on the fact that I am not a credentialed scientist. Zukerman says it. Torre repeats it. “At all.” Having built a segment on that, they then left out the physicist-biologist-physician, the professor of public health, the director of a university environmental health institute, and the McGill researcher whose work the primary mechanism comes from. They spent the episode telling their audience I am not a scientist, and then kept four actual scientists who support the theory off because their argument does not survive otherwise. How they misrepresented me and my case 9. They played my words as a response to an interview I had never heard. Near the end of the hour, Zukerman says she went to me and told me the evidence was lacking. Then she plays me saying I am not wedded to it being an EMF, that I have staked my reputation on it needing more study, and that I am not certain of anything. That segment was placed immediately after Karipidis had finished taking the cherry-picked papers apart. It plays as a man folding under expert scrutiny. Commenters have used it against me since, but it is incorrect. Here is the sequence as it happened. I was interviewed. Karipidis was interviewed weeks later. I was never told what he said, or even who he was. I was never asked to respond to it. I did not know his name until the episode aired. That is not a simple editing decision. That is a quote from one interview, moved to follow a critique from a different interview it was not a response to, so that it would land as a concession. A friend of mine who has spent thirty years as a journalist read that sequence and called it sleazy. She is right. The full passage is reproduced in Appendix A, and it is worth reading. What airs is the preamble. Four paragraphs later I say “to directly answer your question” — and that answer, about what would change my mind if the team relocated, is not in the episode. Neither is the sentence two paragraphs on, where I say the EMF might turn out to be ten percent of the problem. I will say the underlying point again, though, because I meant it and I still do. I am not wedded to my theory that magnetic fields from the substation are contributing to the 49ers injuries. I could be wrong. What I am wedded to is the process of scientific inquiry, and the fact that we should be cautious around these exposures and we need more independently funded studies. 10. Three telling edits. They cut “I’m not a scientist” mid-sentence. What I said: “...and I am not certain of anything. I’m not a scientist. To me, I find the mechanisms compelling. I will go back to the fact that I got into this not because of the 49ers, but because of clients I was working with who suffer from EDS...” What aired: “...and that I am not certain of anything. I’m not.” The clip ends on the first two words of the sentence in which I say I am not a scientist, in an episode that spends considerable energy establishing that I am not a scientist. The full sequence is in Appendix A. They cut my own description of my work. Asked what I do, I said I run a wellness business, that I am focused on writing software to help people navigate environmental stressors, that environmental health is my focus, and that I also do independent journalism and research. What aired is the wellness business and the environmental health, with the software and the journalism removed from my own answer. The software engineering does come up later — narrated by them, as a hacker who grew up to write firmware — but my current work, in my own words, arrives as “wellness guy.” Thousands of commercial routers became home Wi-Fi. What I described: working at a wireless networking company surrounded by thousands of Wi-Fi routers, and a stress-induced health collapse afterward that working in that environment contributed to. What aired: Wi-Fi, the kind you have at home — reinforced by a clip of Christian McCaffrey talking about turning his router off at night. Three cuts, and every one of them makes me seem less credible. That is not a coincidence. 11. I gave them my own caveats and the test that would disprove me. In the first email I wrote that a well-designed chronic, ambient-level exposure study in tendon showing no collagen degradation, run over many months, would undercut my confidence in the theory. That is a specific, testable condition, stated in advance and in writing. There was a second interview, weeks later, which was not used in the episode, but in that I asked again for the falsification criterion to be included. What the episode presents instead is a man saying “we need more study,” which reads as a hedge, an open-ended request for the benefit of the doubt. It is the opposite of a hedge. Section 6 of my second email says, unprompted, that as far as I am aware there is not a single study showing EMF-driven oxidative stress degrading collagen in a human in vivo or in human tendon in a lab. I wrote that because it is true and because it is the first thing anyone should check. Under their standard it becomes the hinge of the entire first half, framed as something they had to surface without my cooperation. I had handed it to them five weeks earlier. And in the interview I said that my 25 to 50 milligauss readings were taken at knee level, and that these fields attenuate quickly, so by the time it reaches your head it is not that high anymore. That did not air either. The qualification arrives later, from Karipidis, as a correction. How you would actually study the injuries 12. They measured the wrong thing. The episode spends its final act on whether the 49ers are the most injured team in the NFL, finds no clean ranking, and lands on “injuries are random”. That is the wrong test. You would define the exposure — measured field levels at the facility — and the outcome narrowly: soft-tissue injuries, not a single MSK injury count that a broken finger and a ruptured Achilles both land in. Then you would compare the 49ers to themselves before and after the exposure changed, and compare that change against every other team over the same window. That controls for league-wide shifts in rules, turf and training load. It is a difference-in-differences design, and it is standard. I sent them that argument on July 28th, in writing, along with the fact that in eleven of the past twelve seasons the 49ers had finished top ten in Adjusted Games Lost. And by the episode’s own reporting, the 49ers are second in games lost to injury over the past decade, with FTN’s Aaron Schatz confirming that once you adjust for starters they come out second worst in the league — after having been one of the healthiest teams for years before that. A finding like that is where an investigation starts, not where it stops. 13. I did a lot of substation research for the episode that was never aired. I had reported that the substation next to the facility was expanded in 2014. That was wrong, and Rose Rimler and I sorted it out together. They gave me credit on air, which I appreciated, but framed it as a concession on my part to something they had found. In fact I had been investigating it myself, was uncertain before they asked, but was waiting for clarification from Silicon Valley Power. The uncertainty centered around a substation named “Esparanca” that was proposed right behind the facilities as part of the stadium construction, but now appears to never have been built. I spent days in Silicon Valley Power’s records, and did eventually reach Silicon Valley Power for confirmation and indentified the mistake myself. I also gave them highly detailed documents on what we do know about those facilities: new equipment installed between 2010 and 2014, and load growth across the system with an inflection around 2013–2014, with the Northern Receiving Station carrying the highest capacity in the system and sitting closest to the data center corridor. None of that is in the episode. I have a separate piece about it coming out soon. *I cut 2 seconds from the raw audio to remove personal information that had no connection to anything in the episode. Appendix A: the passage the clip was taken from This is the sequence from my first interview, in full. The episode uses one fragment of it. It’s tricky because my understanding is that there’s something like a 15-year half-life on collagen remodeling issues. They’re going to get a new crop of players. What I really need, though, is for the injuries to be broken down so we can see the soft tissue injuries. Right now, they’re categorized as MSK injuries, but let’s say we can actually identify them more specifically. Is that right? He was able to do that? Oh, cool. I wasn’t able to find that information. Interesting — I didn’t know that data existed. I tried so hard to get it, and I didn’t know it was available. Maybe you could connect me with that person. That would be amazing. I’m not wedded to it being an EMF, honestly. I’m not. I would say that, to a certain extent, I’ve staked my reputation on the fact that it needs more study. It’s important to look into it, and I am not certain of anything. I’m not a scientist. To me, I find the mechanisms compelling. I will go back to the fact that I got into this not because of the 49ers, but because of clients I was working with who suffer from EDS, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, a tendon hypermobility issue. This condition is documented to be partially caused by oxidative stress. I’ve worked with them to mitigate their EMF exposure and have seen people improve. I think it’s a bigger story. In a way, the 49ers represent an occupational cluster with specific exposure risks. If someone would conduct a study on this, I believe we could learn a lot. Perhaps we would discover that it’s like, okay, maybe it’s 10% of the problem. I don’t know the exact number, but I think either way, conducting the study would provide valuable insights. To directly answer your question, it’s challenging for me because it’s part of a bigger story. If the 49ers move and stop having injuries, I might conclude that it was related to the substation. However, if they move and still experience injuries, I would want to analyze the nature of those injuries. Are they primarily soft tissue injuries? I don’t think it’s necessarily a case closed, but the story might lose traction at that point regardless. Three things are worth noting. The aired fragment stops immediately before the sentence in which I say I am not a scientist — the cut described in item 10. It also stops four paragraphs before the words “to directly answer your question.” What the episode plays is the throat-clearing. The actual answer, about what would change my mind, never airs. And two paragraphs in, I say the EMF might turn out to be ten percent of the problem. That is the ranking the episode says I never gave. Appendix B: the full email, July 6th, 1:39 PM Hi Rose, You asked me to send you some studies a couple of weeks ago. I apologize for the delay. I have been incredibly busy. I also wanted to give you a chance to dig in yourself, and get your own perspective before I influenced you too much with mine. That said, I do want to make sure that the actual argument is abundantly clear, so here it is! One note before I begin, there are really two separate questions here: Does the substation cause the soft-tissue injuries? That was my specific claim, and what the podcast is about. Is the theory biologically sound? Can 50/60 Hz fields at these levels do anything biological below the safety limits? Question two is why people have been calling me a conspiracy theorist. The regulatory and advisory bodies (ICNIRP, etc) maintain that anything below their exposure limits is biologically inert, and that position is broadly accepted within the mainstream, but the actual science paints a different picture. To defend my theory I’ve had to defend a much larger claim: that the advisory bodies have the biology wrong. I can’t honestly answer question 1 without first addressing that. Here’s is a simplified outline of my theory, with links to studies: 1. Advisory body thresholds for biological effects The ELF magnetic-field limits (ICNIRP’s ~2,000 mG public / 10,000 mG occupational) exist to prevent acute effects from exposure. If a magnetic field is strong enough, it makes nerves fire and muscles contract. Muscles twitch. You can see faint flashes of light in your vision. People can even feel tingling or even a shock. That happens due to Faraday’s law, which states that a time-varying magnetic field induces an electric field inside the body via the creation of Eddy currents.The standards assume that those currents do nothing below the twitch threshold. They do not consider chronic effects at all. My argument is that they are biologically active and do have chronic effects. 2. There are multipe ELF-EMF mechanisms for inducing oxidative stress. This is basic biophysics. Below are the two primary mechanisms. Simplest first. Dr. Paul Héroux of McGill has the most intuitive explanation, which rests on Maxwell’s principle of superposition: because Maxwell’s equations are linear, two sets of electromagnetic waves sharing the same space simply add together. In the interview I pictured a pebble dropped into a pond, sending out clean ripples. Then a boat motors past at distance, sending larger waves, and where they meet the ripples, the two add together and the original pattern gets distorted. In our cells, the mitochondria run on continuous currents of electrons and protons that carry their own faint electromagnetic fields. An external field from a substation, by the principle of superposition, adds to those internal currents and shifts the pattern. The electron transport chain in the mitochondria leaks a fraction of its electrons by design as reactive oxygen species (ROS), which act as signalling molecules in a healthy cell. Distorting that field increases that electron leakage, creating oxidative stress. A tiny electromagnetic interference results in a large downstream effect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844025006474 The more complex pathway is Dimitris Panagopoulos’s Ion Forced-Oscillation / Voltage-Gated Ion Channel (IFO-VGIC) mechanism. Weak, polarized, low-frequency fields force the ions (calcium, potassium, sodium) next to an ion channel’s voltage sensor to oscillate; because that force scales with the inverse cube of the distance involved, fields far below the stimulation threshold can still force the channel open, disrupting the cell’s ion balance and driving ROS overproduction (Nitric oxide and superoxide interact and produce peroxynitrite, a highly unstable cytotoxin that breaks down into free radicals). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366088934 https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92 https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/18/10041 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1585441/full https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3772193/ 3. Evidence of oxidative stress, in vivo, in humans from ELF-EMF There are many studies, and the strongest are occupational, which applies to the 49ers situation. 115 power-plant workers vs. 145 office controls. Serum malondialdehyde (MDA, the standard lipid-peroxidation marker), superoxide dismutase, and catalase were all significantly higher in the exposed group, and the markers rose with increasing field exposure. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3233/WOR-203244 A follow-up where they reversed the oxidative stress in power plant workers. A double-blind randomized controlled trial: 91 power-plant workers given vitamin E, vitamin C, both, or placebo for 90 days. The antioxidant groups showed reduced lipid peroxidation and raised antioxidant capacity versus controls. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32191586/ A spot-welder study: 46 welders occupationally exposed at 50 Hz, showed significantly altered red-blood-cell antioxidant enzyme activity and concluded ELF-MF “might act as an oxidative stressor… even at the recommended levels of exposure.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18504600/ A substation-specific study found oxidative stress and DNA damage https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24460415/ 4. Oxidative stress degrades collagen This half isn’t controversial at all. Oxidative stress activates the matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) that break collagen down and suppresses its synthesis. Here are three example studies: Siwik et al. 2001: Oxidative stress raises MMPs and lowers collagen synthesis in cardiac fibroblasts. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11121376/ Fisher et al. 2009: Collagen fragmentation drives oxidative stress and elevates MMP-1 in aged human skin. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2631323/ Varani et al. 2006: Decreased collagen production in oxidatively aged skin. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16723701/ 5. What about the study showing improved collagen synthesis I’m glad you asked this question, and I’m bummed we didn’t get to it in the interview because it is a great question, and very important to understand. Superficially it may appear to be a refutation of my theory, but I would argue that it actually supports the underlying argument. That study used a short, high-intensity pulsed dose: therapeutic-PEMF, the same type of field used clinically to stimulate bone and tissue healing. The reason this works is because it triggers the very same biological pathways that can lead to oxidative stress. The exposure still stimulates ROS production, but done at a controlled dosage, for a limited duration it has a different effect. The cell reads the ROS as a warning signal and it upregulates its antioxidant defenses, and mounts a repair/proliferation response. The therapy is then stopped before the cell gets overwhelmed. That is essentially a hormetic response: a small dose of a stressor producing a beneficial adaptation. Two things follow: At the very least, this means the field is biologically active, which by itself undercuts the regulatory claim that these fields are inert below their thresholds. There is a wealth of literature on PEMF (pulsed EMF) bone regeneration and calcium channel signalling (which is the second mechanims in section one). Here is one. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep13856 At best, it leads us straight to my actual concern, which is that under chronic, chaotic and unregulated exposure, the cell’s antioxidant capacity gets overwhelmed, resulting in oxidative stress. There are plentiful examples of things that are beneficial at controlled doses, but harmful at uncontrolled doses. Excecise is one obvious, uncontroversial example. Botox is perhaps a more interesting example. 6. What about a study that shows EMF causing collagen degradation in humans? As far as I am aware there is not a single study showing EMF-driven oxidative stress degrading collagen in a human, in vivo, or in human tendon in a lab. There are studies involving isolated fibroblasts though, which secrete collagen. The most relevant one showed that human fetal scleral fibroblasts exposed to 50 Hz ELF-EMF showed a significant decrease in collagen synthesis and that MMP-2 expression was upregulated, which is the exact mechanism I described in section 2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3626379/ That’s it! Thanks again for the interview. Best, Peter Anthony Cowan Environmental Health · Wellness Tech · Researcher & Journalist Publisher & Editor, Living Energy Bio: petercowan.comSocial: X · Instagram · TikTokApp: sunlightis.lifePhone: [redacted]
Mosaic (MOS) Bets On Enzymes While Its Core Business Bleeds
On August 17, Mosaic Biosciences, a unit of The Mosaic Company (NYSE:MOS), launched Renuvis Enzara, an enzyme-based treatment meant to speed up how fast crop residue breaks down after harvest. The launch landed less than two weeks after Mosaic reported a second-quarter net loss of $273 million, a sharp reversal from the $411 million profit […]
Lallemand establishes Solyve as dedicated food and beverage enzyme business
Lallemand has launched Solyve as a dedicated food and beverage enzyme business. The move follows Lallemand’s acquisition-led expansion.
All known life uses 4 DNA letters; UC San Diego showed an existing bacterial enzyme can accurately read and transcribe 8, doubling the genetic alphabet with synthetic letters
All life on Earth, from bacteria to blue whales, writes its genetic instructions using the same four-letter alphabet. These four DNA bases, usually referred to as A, T, C and G, pair up in predictable ways to store and pass on the information needed for life.
Scientists Discover Soil Bacteria Enzyme that Breaks Down Both Plastic and Antibiotics
Biologists studying how bacteria break down a new generation of plant-based bioplastics -- long-chain aliphatic polyesters -- have discovered an enzyme that can dismantle both plastic and antibiotics.
Scientists find a weak spot in one of the deadliest brain cancers
Researchers may have found a new way to weaken glioblastoma’s defenses against treatment. Blocking a protein called SET prevented tumors from forming in preclinical models, while targeting related proteins made cancer cells more vulnerable to radiation. The strategy works by restoring activity of PP2A, an enzyme that glioblastoma cells appear to suppress. Human testing will be needed to determine whether the approach is safe and effective.
Seattle science powerhouses bet big on AI-designed biology
A new $95 million project could yield cancer treatments, genetic switches and plastic-eating enzymes.
Theranostic pair shows promise for diagnosing and treating kidney cancer
The paired agents 68Ga and 177Lu-NYM096 target carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX), an enzyme that is highly expressed in ccRCC.
Breakthrough Israeli cancer study finds mutations break DNA when it doesn’t bend
Weizmann Institute of Science and Rowan University researchers show that repair enzymes fail to fix gene structures of certain shapes, in discovery that may lead to new therapies
Bronx Teens See Major Health Gains — One Reverses Prediabetes, One Reverses Fatty Liver — Through North Central Bronx Program
One teenager reversed his prediabetes and shed nearly 40 pounds. Another lost 11 pounds while growing 2 inches taller and improved his liver enzymes—and
AbCellera women’s health data top ‘most aggressive upside scenario,’ putting Astellas and Bayer on notice
AbCellera has reported phase 2 results “beyond even the most aggressive upside scenario” that its CEO dared to consider, boosting the biotech’s chances of challenging Astellas and Bayer for a women’s health market. The phase 2 clinical trial compared ABCL635, an antibody targeting NK3R, to placebo in patients with hot flashes caused by menopause. Investigators enrolled 92 postmenopausal women experiencing a mean of about 10 moderate or severe hot flashes per day. By Week 4, the number of moderate or severe hot flashes had fallen by a mean of 8.8 on ABCL635 and by 3.5 on placebo. That statistically significant, placebo-adjusted reduction of 5.3 hit the trial’s primary endpoint. The level of efficacy also cleared the bar set by existing drugs. While cross-trial comparisons can be misleading, AbCellera CEO Carl Hansen, Ph.D., had seen enough to start hyping the program. “We now view ABCL635 as a potential best-in-class non-hormonal therapy with strong differentiation against approved NK3R competitors across all important dimensions, including efficacy, safety, dosing and convenience,” Hansen said on a Monday morning conference call with investors to discuss the data. “We believe ABCL635 is now a highly de-risked program.” Last week, Hansen used AbCellera’s earnings call to set expectations for readout, with the CEO defining success as a clean safety profile and efficacy comparable to the two approved small molecules. The data vaulted over that bar. Astellas linked (PDF) one of the small molecules, Veozah, to placebo-adjusted reductions in hot flash frequency of 2.1 and 2.6 at Week 4 of its two phase 3 trials. Bayer reported (PDF) placebo-adjusted reductions of 3.04 and 3.29 at Week 4 of pivotal studies for its small molecule, Lynkuet. At 5.3, the placebo-adjusted reduction in AbCellera’s trial comfortably cleared the standard set by the incumbents. Veozah and Lynkuet came to market based on evidence of their ability to reduce the frequency and severity of hot flashes. AbCellera’s phase 2 study covered both endpoints, with the Canadian biotech reporting a mean reduction in severity of 1.4 points at Week 4 on ABCL635, compared to 0.3 points for placebo. Again, the placebo-adjusted result compares favorably to data on Veozah and Lynkuet. Analysts shared Hansen’s enthusiasm for the data. The phase 2 results “firmly validate ABCL635 as a potentially best-in-class treatment,” BMO Capital Markets analysts said in a note to investors Monday. ABCL635’s apparent efficacy edge “is likely attributable to the higher dosing/target engagement the asset is able to reach vs. the oral agents due to its wider therapeutic index,” the analysts added. The analysts, who model $2.3 billion in unadjusted peak sales for ABCL635, flagged the safety profile as another positive of the phase 2 readout. While Veozah carries a boxed warning for liver damage, nobody on ABCL635 in the phase 2 trial had elevated liver enzymes or bilirubin values. If replicated in phase 3, the lack of a liver signal could allow approval without the monitoring requirements imposed on Veozah. Investors appeared equally enthused, sending AbCellera's stock up 32% to $9.21 in premarket trading Monday from a Friday closing price of $6.93. Next, AbCellera will collect the Week 12 data and talk to its advisors about further development. The results open up “a wide variety of possibilities of how we might take this forward into phase 3 studies to truly maximize the value of the asset and make sure that ABCL635 is able to demonstrate its differentiation potential,” Sarah Noonberg, M.D., Ph.D., AbCellera’s chief medical officer, told investors.
World’s most-used weedkiller disrupts honeybee brains
Glyphosate was long thought to be safe for honeybees because they lack the enzyme the chemical targets in weeds. However, researchers found that exposed bees foraged 13 percent less after only three days and showed changes in brain chemicals linked to behavior. Across a whole hive, that decline could reduce honey production, weaken pollination, and threaten long-term survival.
Two deadly flowers could inspire powerful new medicines
Scientists have figured out how two famously poisonous plants create chemicals with surprising medical potential. After tracking thousands of genes in wolfsbane and larkspur, they identified six enzymes needed to build a complex compound called atisinium. The team recreated the process inside tobacco plants, offering a sustainable way to produce and test these rare molecules in larger amounts.
Enzyme ratio could help cardiologists track risk of stroke, AFib after TAVR
The De Ritis ratio could be a new way to anticipate when TAVR patients may face certain short-term risks after treatment.
Can This New Enzyme Turn Back the Clock in Bodily Tissues?
In a recent study, scientists devised a way of reversing the buildup of compounds that lead to some age-related diseases.
Harvard scientists turn a silicon chip into a DNA writing machine
Scientists have created a silicon chip that can write dozens of DNA sequences simultaneously using electricity and water-based enzymes, offering a cleaner alternative to conventional DNA manufacturing. The breakthrough could eventually support portable DNA-writing devices and even massive DNA data storage, although new chemistry will be needed to scale the technology further.
Scientists find the “Achilles’ heel” of deadly gut bacteria
Researchers discovered an “Achilles’ heel” shared by E. coli, Shigella, and other diarrhea-causing bacteria: enzymes they use to breach the gut’s protective mucus layer. By targeting this common vulnerability, scientists may be able to develop a single vaccine that prevents several major diarrheal infections before they even begin.
Efzimfotase alfa demonstrated improvements in bone health in treatment-naïve pediatric patients with hypophosphatasia achieving median difference of 1.67 vs placebo in RGI-C Score at week 25 in MULBERRY Phase III trial
Positive results from the MULBERRY Phase III trial showed that efzimfotase alfa (ALXN1850), an investigational enzyme replacement therapy, demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in bone health in children (2 to
What Happens to Your Liver When You Drink Green Tea Every Day
What does green tea do for your liver? Learn how it may affect fat buildup, inflammation, and liver enzymes, plus risks and benefits.
Making Our Own Luck
We are cross-posting a piece that former NIH official Kris Willis wrote for Macroscience. Kris is now the President and Founder of the Woodley Park Institute, for which I’m a board member. Picking winners or hedging bets? Federal science agencies have long wrestled with the question of how to ensure their billions of dollars of grants and contracts result in maximum benefits for Americans. On the surface, it might seem that a goal-oriented, interventionist style of management would be the best policy: prioritize our most pressing problems and distribute funding accordingly.This top-down strategy creates a unique hazard, though: bad choices can send resources in the wrong direction, resulting in slow progress that impedes the delivery of tangible benefits to citizens. Moreover, if decision makers pursue an applied advance when the underlying scientific principles remain poorly understood, they risk costly failures and a loss of support for the research enterprise at large. Examples include Nixon’s 1971 War on Cancer, undertaken on the premise that a cure could be achieved in less than a decade, the drive to build an operational commercial fusion plant by the mid-1990s, and the National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease, which failed to produce the effective treatments and prevention strategies promised by 2025. The contrasting laissez-faire approach is to hedge your bets. If the path to an advance is impossible to predict, then the wisest choice might be to distribute funding to as widely as possible. The main risk of this strategy is that spreading funding thinly may limit the resources available to the most promising research, resulting in the same negative outcomes as the interventionist approach: limited support for the most promising topics, slow progress, and delayed returns. In reality, at science agencies like the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, program managers navigate between these two extremes, setting some funds aside to target high-priority areas and using the rest to cover the widest possible range of meritorious proposals. This middle path seems like the most rational way to proceed, but it still requires making choices. How much should be set aside for high priority topics? What should those topics be? How should we define merit? Expert opinion can provide a helpful guide, but leading experts can have remarkably different opinions about what matters and what should be prioritized. Moreover, experts and administrators alike can be risk averse, giving an edge to high-profile, well-established concepts. What’s really needed is a data-driven framework to help guide decision-making, one that doesn’t simply repackage prestige or incumbency. Recognizing breakthroughs years in advance Many breakthroughs fail to attract funding or recognition at the earliest stages of development. Katalin Karikó, for example, spent years struggling to win grants for work on mRNA that would eventually win her and Drew Weissman a Nobel Prize. Similar stories can be told about Jim Allison’s groundbreaking studies leading to the development of cancer immunotherapy, Stan Pruisner’s demonstration that prions can self-replicate without DNA, or Robin Warren and Barry Marshall’s proof that Helicobacter pylori, not stress, causes ulcers. Yet at some point, the scientific community recognizes and responds to transformative breakthroughs like these. How does that change happen? And what if science funders could identify the areas that are on the cusp of a breakthrough? Those questions led my collaborators and me to study how scientists responded to past breakthroughs. Based on patterns in that data, we developed a means of predicting future breakthroughs, using biomedicine as a proof of concept. It’s worth taking a moment to describe how our approach works. Briefly, our prediction process begins by grouping the 18 million or so peer-reviewed papers in PubMed, the authoritative database of biomedical research, into roughly 50,000 unique topics. A small subset of these topics are so widely acclaimed as breakthroughs that they have been recognized with a major prize like a Nobel or a Lasker Award. We theorized that studying the development of these outliers over time, especially before they gained acclaim, was the key to identifying future instances of them. After defining topics, we chose 21 representative breakthroughs and asked what they looked like before they won prestigious prizes. To answer that question, we re-ran our topic-mapping algorithm repeatedly, winding back the clock one year each time, stringing together the years to follow the progress of each field as it grew and advanced. We found that in each case, the years leading up to a discovery followed a pattern: a burst of papers on a new, rapidly evolving topic, many of which quickly became influential. These characteristics—the percent of papers that are new, the percentage of papers that are brought in from other topics, and the influence of each individual paper—can all be measured separately for any given topic. Together, they act as a predictive signal that is detectable an average of five years before a transformative discovery is made, and up to thirty years before the discovery receives a major prize. Scanning the current research landscape for topics that display this signal allows us to predict what work will likely produce a future breakthrough. Each year we analyzed includes four or five signals, a number that appears to have remained constant across a twenty year time frame. In their classic work on the sociology of science, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar established that the desire to participate in a major discovery is an important motivator for scientists as they consider whether they should take up (or abandon) a research problem. Although further work is needed, the simplest explanation for our results is that this behavior is widespread enough to detect at scale. A foundational advance, or something like it, draws the attention of scientists and causes them to change the direction of their research. They vote with their feet, staking their own reputation and careers by publishing on and citing the new idea. That upswell of interest is the foundation of our breakthrough signal. What kind of research does our model identify as a breakthrough? After building a model based on the patterns in our 21 preselected breakthroughs, we tested it by identifying all early signals of discovery from 1994 through 1997. Of the 18 signals we found in that time period, 17 can be traced forward in time to a breakthrough. Examples include super-resolution fluorescence microscopy (see the image above), the directed evolution of proteins and enzymes (Chemistry Nobel, 2018), and sequencing the human genome (National Medal of Science, 2008). The discovery of the role of leptin signaling in obesity is a particularly interesting case study. Around 1950, scientists noticed the existence of a type of lab mouse that suffered from a unique inherited form of obesity. When given the freedom to choose their own diet, these mice ate more than normal and preferred food that was high in fat. Researchers had few clues as to why the animals overate; early experiments pointed to the existence of a soluble ob factor found circulating in the bloodstream that regulated appetite, but its identity was unknown. In 1994, Jeffrey Friedman and colleagues identified and sequenced the ob gene, noting that the protein it encoded appeared to fit the profile of a circulating factor. A year later, a trio of high-profile publications demonstrated that ob was a hormone that regulated body weight and fat deposition by regulating appetite. One of these was co-authored by Friedman, who christened it leptin from the ancient Greek word for thin. Using our model, the data from 1996 make it clear this advance would become a breakthrough. Scientists had flocked to study the biology of the new hormone, generating the flurry of new papers and citations required to produce a signal. One of these demonstrated that serum leptin concentrations reflected the amount of adipose tissue in the human body, providing clinical validation of the earlier mouse studies. Before the identification of leptin, scientists were unable to point to a specific molecule that controlled appetite and adiposity, so that it was impossible to rule out non-physiological causes of obesity; its characterization fundamentally changed our concept of weight gain. In 2010, Friedman and fellow pioneer Douglas Coleman were awarded a Lasker for the discovery. Our work also identifies breakthroughs in clinical practice and behavioral and social sciences, even though these areas are less likely to draw the attention of major prize committees. One example that falls into this category is the introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair, a minimally invasive surgical procedure for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm, a leading cause of death among Americans over the age of 65. Relative to the previous standard of care, it reduces in-hospital mortality by almost four-fold. In 2017, Timothy Chuter received the American College of Surgeons’ prestigious Jacobsen Innovation award for his multiple refinements to the technique. Another under-recognized breakthrough identified by our model is the development of standardized survey instruments to assess the quality of life for HIV+ patients. The antiretroviral cocktails introduced in the mid-1990s reduced AIDS mortality, but treatment came with serious side effects. The new evaluations showed that patients whose disease progressed had worse physical functioning than Americans with other chronic diseases, while those who were asymptomatic maintained a health-related quality of life on par with the overall US population. This evidence made it possible for patients and activists to argue that even in the absence of a total cure, and in spite of the side effects, alleviation of symptoms was a worthwhile priority for clinicians. My colleagues and I have failed to identify any significant recognition for the physicians and health policy experts who pioneered this advance, although in 2016, researchers called for the World Health Organization to set targets for good health-related quality of life as part of its framework to end the AIDS pandemic. From forecasting to funding How should science funders use our predictions? Any serious discussion of what we should do with this new capability needs to begin with an understanding of its limitations. We can’t (and shouldn’t) invest all of our resources in the small number of topics predicted to produce breakthroughs. Innovative new fields are born from existing ones; they rarely arise de novo. If funders don’t maintain a diverse portfolio, the breakthroughs of tomorrow will have no antecedents. Think of this as eating the seed corn, or killing the goose that lays the golden egg. There are also multiple goals of funding beyond basic scientific discovery, including translating discoveries into clinical practice, developing new technologies, supporting economic development, and training new scientists. The investments needed to accomplish these goals are likely different from those required to support emerging breakthroughs. Finally, we must be aware that we may not capture every instance of a breakthrough. The concept is fuzzy, and not every significant discovery is recognized with a major award. Further, breakthroughs are rare, meaning that our dataset is, by necessity, small. This makes formal estimates of accuracy challenging. Although our overall success rate appears to be high, any one signal may turn out to be a false positive. We found one apparent example: the development of the third generation COX-2 inhibitors, Vioxx and Celebrex, which were much celebrated in the early 2000s as effective but non-addictive pain relievers, meets all the algorithmic criteria of a breakthrough. Five years after it received FDA approval, researchers demonstrated that Vioxx was associated with serious cardiovascular complications, and the manufacturer voluntarily pulled the drug from the market. Celebrex remains available, although like other NSAIDs, it carries an FDA warning for increased cardiovascular risk. Decision makers who were overly focused on the breakthrough potential of this research might have wasted substantial resources nurturing an area that ultimately proved to be a failure—but so would those who relied on expert opinion at the time. That said, the potential benefits of funding the next mRNA vaccine or cancer immunotherapy years earlier than we might have are large. When we can’t assume the outcome of an action, it’s worth conducting an experiment. Can targeted support for areas that are poised to produce a breakthrough increase the return on scientific investment without cannibalizing future advances? With the necessary administrative infrastructure in place, conducting this experiment would be straightforward. First, identify all the breakthrough signals between 2018 and 2023, select half at random, and commit to a decade of investment. For biomedicine, a six year window should yield about 30 topics with the potential to produce a breakthrough. Providing strong support to half of these might be accomplished for $300 million a year. That’s roughly half of the recent annual budget of the NIH Common Fund or around 20% of the fiscal year 2025 budget for ARPA-H. After five years, then again at ten, compare to see which group — the one that was actively managed, or the control — produced more breakthroughs, and on what timescale. Although we used biomedicine as an example, the same experiment could just as well be run for physics, materials science, or any other discipline. Any attempt to undertake such an experiment should keep three points top of mind. First, we can predict the topic of future breakthroughs, but the people and vision for how to move the work forward are still important. In practice, this means success requires active program managers with the expertise to develop the science and the authority to do so, including by recruiting investigators. Second, we would be wise to learn from the failures of past attempts to fund transformative research. High among these are funding modestly repackaged work, confusing the genuinely novel with the merely unfamiliar, and relying too much on incumbent investigators. All of these risks can be mitigated by thoroughly and intelligently integrating high quality data into portfolio management. Finally, we need to have patience. Even with strong funding support, producing a breakthrough takes time. If supporting breakthroughs is the best way to nurture the birth of new fields, we also need to accurately describe and properly manage the other two stages, so that we invest wisely throughout the productive lifetime of ideas and divest once they reach the point of diminishing returns. We would benefit from more study of all of these phases, especially the transition from one to another. More research could answer questions like: When does a breakthrough become an established field? How do the availability of funding, the size and characteristics of the available workforce, and the accumulation of evidence that disagrees with prevailing models affect a field’s decline? Exactly how do old ideas give birth to new ones, and can we speed up the process? The more we understand about the dynamics of scientific progress, the better we can maximize the odds that our curiosity leads to results. I’d call that finding a way to make our own luck.
USC scientists discover a hidden Alzheimer’s trigger and a possible way to shut it down
USC researchers have identified potential new drug compounds that may reduce the brain inflammation linked to Alzheimer’s disease, especially in people with the high-risk APOE4 gene. The compounds target cPLA2, an enzyme that seems to fuel harmful inflammation while also being important for normal brain activity.
Scientists found a hidden Alzheimer’s trigger and shut it down
A newly identified enzyme called IDOL could become a major new target in the fight against Alzheimer’s disease. Researchers found that removing it from neurons sharply reduced amyloid plaques and improved key brain processes linked to resilience and communication between cells. The discovery may lead to future treatments that go beyond slowing Alzheimer’s — potentially helping protect the brain from further decline.
Scientists found a fat-burning switch that affects bone strength
Scientists have discovered a previously unknown mechanism that helps burn fat and could strengthen bones through new treatments.
A rare cancer-fighting plant compound has been decoded
Scientists at UBC Okanagan have uncovered how plants produce mitraphylline, a rare natural compound with promising anti cancer potential. The team identified two enzymes that work together to build the molecule’s unusual twisted structure, solving a mystery that had puzzled researchers for years. Because mitraphylline appears only in tiny amounts in tropical plants like kratom and cat’s claw, the discovery could make it far easier to produce sustainably in the future.
Scientists discover hidden fat-burning switch that could strengthen bones
Scientists at McGill University have uncovered a hidden molecular “switch” that turns on a powerful calorie-burning system in brown fat — the body’s heat-generating fat linked to metabolism and weight control. The breakthrough centers on glycerol, a molecule released when fat is broken down in the cold, which activates an enzyme called TNAP and triggers an alternative heat-producing pathway that scientists had struggled to explain for years.
Scientists discover new enzyme that could supercharge weight-loss drugs
Researchers at the University of Utah have discovered an enzyme called Pap B that will chemically change and update drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy making them stronger and last longer.
Catching a fungal enzyme open for business
Serious fungal infections are on the rise, and many hospital-acquired cases are becoming harder to treat as fungi become resistant to available medications.
Scientists unveil how heat-loving enzyme could help improve plastic recycling
Cutinases are fungal enzymes that naturally degrade plant cuticles and show promise for recycling plastics. However, they must balance structural rigidity to withstand high temperatures with flexibility required for catalysis. Now, researchers have investigated the structural basis of catalytic activation in a heat-tolerant cutinase, CtCut, from the fungus Chaetomium thermophilum and found that a rigid core supports stability while a flexible lid is associated with catalytic function, offering insights for improving enzymes for plastic recycling.
Scientists Stunned: Colossal Eggs Discovered 3,500 Meters Beneath an Active Volcano
Beneath an active seafloor volcano off Vancouver Island, researchers have documented a congregation of giant eggs at roughly 3,500 meters, a discovery that reframes how life can flourish under extreme conditions. The eggs belong to the Pacific white skate, an elusive deep‑sea species adapted to cold, crushing pressure and perpetual darkness. What seemed an unlikely nursery is actually a geothermally warmed refuge, where subtle heat helps embryos survive a marathon incubation. The finding links volcanic energy to a quiet engine of biodiversity, turning a hostile landscape into an incubator. A living volcano, a hidden nursery The seamount long assumed dormant now exhales mineral‑rich, shimmering plumes, proof of hydrothermal life at depth. Expedition cameras swept across black basalt and pale bacterial mats, revealing vents that pulse with warmth. That warmth, though modest by human standards, alters the physics of development for cold‑adapted embryos. In a realm where metabolism creeps, even a few degrees can mean faster growth and higher survival. The volcano is not only active; it is ecologically formative, drafting a blueprint for a thriving oasis. Giant eggs and a skate built for the abyss The Pacific white skate, Bathyraja spinosissima, is built for the abyss: broad wings, armored spines, and a life history that trades speed for endurance. Females lay outsized, rectangular “mermaid’s purses,” often 46–50 centimeters long, packed with rich yolk to fuel years of growth. In the frigid deep, embryos can require around four years to hatch, a timeline that magnifies every energetic advantage. The scale is striking—large eggs, large adults, and a textbook case of deep‑sea gigantism. The volcano’s gentle heat may literally shave months or years from the wait. Why heat matters at the bottom of the sea Hydrothermal circulation delivers low‑level warmth without the turbulence that would scatter fragile egg‑cases. Slightly elevated temperatures accelerate enzyme kinetics, nudging development along while keeping embryos within a safe range. Mineral‑laden fluids likely shape local microbiomes, which, in turn, can influence biofilms on egg surfaces. The environment acts like a slow, steady incubator, countering the deep sea’s tyrannies of cold and scarcity. For a species with long maturation and few offspring, every incremental boost compounds across generations. An ecosystem sculpted by fire and water Seafloor volcanoes create steep environmental gradients, stitching together hot vents, cool eddies, and mineral gardens into mosaic habitats. Microbes harvest chemical energy, seeding food webs that support crustaceans, fishes, and skates. Cameras documented egg‑cases nestled among rocky ledges, near communities nourished by vent‑driven chemistry. These islands of productivity behave like deep‑sea oases, sustaining life far beyond the vent orifice’s flickering light. The nursery’s success underscores how geological forces engineer biological opportunity. “Finding a cradle of life tucked beneath a breathing volcano reminds us that the planet’s harshest places can be profoundly generous.” What the discovery could change The nursery reframes conservation priorities in regions where volcanism quietly underwrites reproduction. Protecting hydrothermal corridors could safeguard entire lifecycles, not just charismatic adults spotted during occasional surveys. It also sharpens questions about how climate‑driven shifts in ocean circulation might influence vent activity, temperature fields, and embryo survival. With methodical mapping, time‑series cameras, and environmental DNA, scientists can track whether nurseries remain stable or drift with geologic rhythms. Key implications include: Enhanced understanding of deep‑sea reproduction at hydrothermal sites. New conservation targets centered on geothermal nurseries. Comparative studies with other volcanic regions, from the Galápagos to rift zones. Biotechnological insights from organisms adapted to long, cold development. Better models of how seafloor heat shapes regional biodiversity. Methods behind the revelation Remotely operated vehicles threaded through chimney fields, gathering video, temperatures, and mineral signatures. High‑definition imagery captured the distinctive, horned egg cases, their edges dusted with fine volcanic silt. Geochemical profiles mapped how heat and chemicals disperse, outlining the “thermal lanes” where eggs most cluster. Combined, these datasets reveal a nursery organized by geothermal topography, with egg‑cases concentrated in pockets of gentle, sustained warmth. A fragile boon in a changing ocean Deep‑sea environments feel remote, yet they intersect with global pressures: mining proposals, cable routes, and shifting oxygen levels. The nursery’s resilience hinges on stable heat flow, intact substrates, and minimal disturbance from noise or sediment. Safeguarding such places is not just about protecting novelty; it preserves a slow, ancient strategy that lets large, long‑lived animals endure in the coldest reaches of the Pacific. Where geology and biology meet, the planet’s deep time still writes living stories. This volcano‑warmed nursery adds a vital chapter to that story, revealing how subtle thermal gifts can tip the scales toward life in the abyss. With each dive, researchers trace the contours of an unseen world, where fire feeds water, and water—against all odds—feeds the future.
Glyphosate: A story of science, risk, and nuance
In the summer of 2014, a California groundskeeper named Dewayne Johnson started noticing patches of raw, weeping skin spreading across his body. He had spent years applying Roundup, Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide, for a school district, sometimes drenched in it when equipment malfunctioned. By 2014, he had a diagnosis: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In 2018, a jury awarded him $289 million in damages, later reduced on appeal. Tens of thousands of lawsuits followed. The story hasn’t quieted down. It’s all over the internet, swinging between “this will kill you, buy organic” and “relax, you’re fear-mongering.” Some of that recent chatter stems from an Executive Order protecting glyphosate and its production, which set off intense infighting within the MAHA movement. Some of it reflects a deeper truth: Americans genuinely care about harmful chemicals in their environment (see poll below). And the conversation isn’t going anywhere, with a Supreme Court case involving Monsanto set for this April. Glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. But does glyphosate cause cancer? And how much exposure is actually risky? With so much mistrust in institutions and corporations (and some genuine conflicts of interest), making sense of the actual scientific evidence is genuinely hard. Here is a translation of what the scientific evidence actually says. Does glyphosate cause harm? Glyphosate is an herbicide that kills most plants it contacts rather than targeting specific species. It works by blocking an enzyme pathway (EPSPS) that plants and many microorganisms need to produce essential amino acids. Without those amino acids, the plant can’t grow and dies. Glyphosate was first developed by Monsanto in the 1970s and became ubiquitous after the company introduced “Roundup Ready” crops in the 1990s. In 2024, Bayer removed glyphosate from residential Roundup-branded products due to litigation pressure. But today it is still the most widely used herbicide in the world. Farmers also discovered they could spray it directly on crops like oats, lentils, beans, and peas just before harvest to dry them out faster and make harvesting easier. Because of its widespread use, it’s obviously really important to understand if it’s harmful to humans. The key principle: The dose makes the poison The most important concept in toxicology is that “the dose makes the poison.” Sixteenth-century physician Paracelsus articulated what remains the foundational principle of toxicology: sola dosis facit venenum. Water will kill you if you drink enough of it. Aspirin saves lives at 81 milligrams and causes internal bleeding at higher chronic doses. So, at what dose is glyphosate poisonous? The LD50 in rats (the dose that kills half the test animals) is around 5,600 mg/kg body weight. Table salt is roughly 3,000 mg/kg. By that classic measure, glyphosate is less acutely toxic than salt. But some people are exposed to a lot of glyphosate through their work. And among the general public, there are many questions about low-dose, cumulative exposure from multiple sources over long periods. Does glyphosate cause health problems? Cancer Correlation maps are striking, with one analysis finding that 60% of counties that spray the most glyphosate have non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma rates above the national average. But correlation alone doesn’t establish cause, which is why animal and human studies matter. In animals: Rat studies are typically what most fear is rooted in, but most people don’t know the study details on the dosage given to rats. A pooled analysis of the 13 most rigorous rat studies found evidence that very high doses, around 55,000 times greater than typical food residue exposure, can cause certain cancers. In humans: One of the strongest studies followed 55,000 herbicide users over 20 years and found no overall increased cancer risk. There was one signal: among those with the highest use, rates of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) appeared elevated. A broader meta-analysis of 18 human studies also found no overall cancer risk, though a separate meta-analysis focused specifically on non-Hodgkin lymphoma found that people with high cumulative glyphosate exposure faced a 41% higher relative risk compared to those with low or no exposure. These human studies are observational studies (randomized controlled trials would be unethical), and meta-analyses are only as reliable as the studies they pool. But the story seems consistent: at very high exposure levels, there may be some cancer risk. But that’s about as far as the science currently takes us. Emerging research: gut and reproductive health Gut: Because glyphosate targets a pathway that exists in some gut bacteria, scientists have questioned whether it could affect the microbiome. In mice, a 2023 University of Iowa study found that glyphosate altered gut bacterial composition and raised markers of intestinal inflammation. A 2024 systematic review found similar patterns: disrupted gut bacteria and problems with the mucus layer that protects the intestinal wall in mice. Whether this translates to humans is an open question. The human gut is highly variable and resistant, and we don't yet have strong studies confirming the same effects in people. Reproductive health: Animal studies have found that glyphosate-based herbicides can interfere with reproductive hormones, including disrupting egg cell development in mice and reducing the number of eggs available in sheep’s ovaries. However, the doses used in these experiments were high, so it’s not yet clear whether the same effects would occur in humans. On the human side, a 2021 pilot study led by Mount Sinai researchers tested urine samples from pregnant women across the U.S. and found glyphosate in 95% of them. The study also found a possible connection between higher glyphosate exposure during pregnancy and a subtle physical difference measured in female newborns. That said, some connections weren’t statistically reliable and this was a small study. The researchers themselves said more and larger studies are needed before drawing firm conclusions. What do regulators say about glyphosate safety? In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A). The classification is worth taking seriously. But, there’s an important distinction: IARC classifies hazard, meaning the potential to cause harm under some conditions. It does not assess risk, which accounts for actual exposure levels and the real-world probability of harm. The U.S. EPA, the European Food Safety Authority, Health Canada, and regulatory agencies in Australia and Japan have all concluded that glyphosate is “unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans” at realistic exposure levels. They’re asking a different question: given how much of this people actually encounter, what is the probability of harm? Your actual exposure is what determines your actual risk. What does glyphosate mean for your daily life? At the grocery store: Food residues are small. The EPA’s acceptable daily intake is 1.75 mg/kg of body weight per day. To hit that threshold from oatmeal alone, a 150-pound adult would need to eat roughly 50 pounds of oats every day. But this calculation addresses only one pathway (food), and we don’t yet have robust tools to measure people’s actual total exposure. If reducing exposure matters to you, organic certification prohibits synthetic herbicides, and organic oat products generally test at lower or undetectable levels. Either way, a diet rich in whole grains, conventional or organic, is far better for your health than one that omits them out of fear of residues. On the farm: Occupational exposure is orders of magnitude higher than consumer exposure. Farmers and farm workers who mix, load, and apply glyphosate-based herbicides, especially without protective equipment, face meaningfully different risk profiles. Proper PPE isn’t optional. Integrated weed management strategies that rotate chemical modes of action are also worth taking seriously, both for health and for long-term effectiveness. If you live near a farm: Spray drift is real. Concentrations near field edges can spike during and after application, particularly on windy days. This is an area where I think public health could really step up and empower rural communities with buffer zones, rather than placing the onus on individuals. But for now, knowing your local agricultural calendar and keeping windows closed during application are the first steps. Bottom line Dewayne Johnson was exposed to glyphosate at levels most people will never encounter, and a jury decided he deserved compensation. That outcome is not evidence that the oatmeal in your pantry is dangerous. But it is a reminder that the dose, the context, and the person doing the exposing all matter enormously. Glyphosate is a chemical tool with benefits, trade-offs, and genuine open scientific questions. Learning to hold that complexity without collapsing into panic or dismissal is, honestly, one of the most useful and hardest things to do in navigating modern health science. Love, YLE Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) is founded and operated by Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, MPH PhD—an epidemiologist, wife, and mom of two little girls. Hannah Totte, MPH, is an epidemiologist and YLE Community Manager. YLE reaches more than 425,000 people in over 132 countries with one goal: “Translate” the ever-evolving public health science so that people will be well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Subscribe
A promising fatty liver treatment may raise cancer risk
A surprising new study reveals that blocking a supposedly protective enzyme, Caspase-2, could actually backfire—raising the risk of chronic liver damage and cancer over time. Researchers found that without this enzyme, liver cells grow abnormally large and accumulate genetic damage, leading to inflammation, scarring, and eventually tumors, especially with age. While inhibiting Caspase-2 may offer short-term benefits, such as reducing fatty liver disease, the long-term consequences appear dangerous.
Scientists discover what really happens during sourdough fermentation
New research shows that sourdough fermentation does more than make bread rise—it transforms wheat fibers in unexpected ways. Scientists found that enzymes already present in wheat, activated by the sourdough’s acidic environment, break down key fibres called arabinoxylans. This process may influence the bread’s texture, digestibility, and flavor. Some microbes even create buttery or subtly sweet notes that give sourdough its distinctive taste.
Scientists find a new therapeutic target present on up to half of all tumors
For five decades, scientists have known about a notorious cancer-causing enzyme called SRC. But they always assumed it only appeared on the inside of cells, where it sent signals that fueled tumor growth ...
Scientists discover tiny plant trick that could supercharge crop yields
Researchers have uncovered a molecular trick used by hornwort plants that could help future crops capture carbon dioxide more efficiently. A unique protein feature called RbcS-STAR causes the key photosynthesis enzyme Rubisco to cluster into dense compartments, helping it work more effectively. When scientists added this feature to other plants, Rubisco reorganized in the same way. The finding raises the possibility of engineering more efficient photosynthesis into major crops.
Scientists discover molecule that stops aggressive breast cancer in its tracks
Scientists at Oregon Health & Science University have developed a new molecule that could open the door to treating triple-negative breast cancer, one of the most aggressive and difficult-to-treat forms of the disease. The compound, called SU212, targets and disables a key enzyme that cancer cells rely on to fuel their growth. In tests using humanized mouse models, the molecule caused tumors to shrink and slowed the spread of cancer by forcing the enzyme to break down.
Science & Medicine: APOBECs and the fight against cancer
One of the handiest tools in our immune system is an enzyme called apolipoprotein B mRNA-editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptide — better known as APOBECs.
March 6, 2026
Astronomer and Queen guitarist Brian May teams up with astrophysicist Derek Ward-Thompson to bring the cosmos to 3D. Plus, Frances Arnold’s game-changing technique of “directed evolution” creates enzymes with unusual capabilities. And, how did we come to think of society's toughest problems as something for individuals to manage rather than governments to regulate?
Nature Made® Continues Expansion of its Gut Health Offerings with the Launch of SuperGreens and Digestive Enzymes
WEST HILLS, Calif., March 03, 2026--Nature Made, the leading national vitamin and supplement broadline brand with over 50 years of expertise in delivering high-quality products with ingredients backed by science, today announces the launch of three new products to help support gut health – SuperGreens Powder, SuperGreens Capsules, and Digestive Enzymes – as part of the brand’s larger product innovation strategy.
Scientists reveal how exercise protects the brain from Alzheimer’s
Exercise may sharpen the mind by repairing the brain’s protective shield. Researchers found that physical activity prompts the liver to release an enzyme that removes a harmful protein causing the blood-brain barrier to become leaky with age. In older mice, dialing down this protein reduced inflammation and improved memory. The discovery points to a surprising body-to-brain pathway that could inspire new Alzheimer’s therapies.
Scientists Discovered Silkworms Have a Genetic Secret for Living Longer. You Have It, Too.
Larvae of the silk moth tend to live longer lives if they have higher levels of an enzyme known as NAD+.
Scientists discover brain switches that clear Alzheimer’s plaques
Researchers have identified two brain receptors that help the brain clear away amyloid beta, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease. By stimulating these receptors in mice, scientists increased levels of a natural amyloid-breaking enzyme, reduced buildup in the brain, and improved memory-related behavior. Because these receptors are common drug targets, the findings could open the door to affordable pill-based treatments with fewer side effects.
One in three people carry this brain parasite but the body has a kill switch
A parasite that may already be hiding in your brain has a shocking survival trick: it can infect the very immune cells sent to destroy it. Yet most people never get sick, and new research from UVA Health reveals why. Scientists discovered that when Toxoplasma gondii invades CD8+ T cells — key defenders of the immune system — those cells can trigger a self-destruct mechanism powered by an enzyme called caspase-8. By sacrificing themselves, the infected cells also wipe out the parasite inside them.
Scientists discover the enzyme that lets cancer rapidly rewire its DNA
Researchers have uncovered the enzyme behind chromothripsis, a chaotic chromosome-shattering event seen in about one in four cancers. The enzyme, N4BP2, breaks apart DNA trapped in tiny cellular structures, unleashing a burst of genetic changes that can help tumors rapidly adapt and resist therapy. Blocking the enzyme dramatically reduced this genomic destruction in cancer cells.
This breakthrough could finally unlock male birth control
Scientists at Michigan State University have uncovered the molecular “switch” that powers sperm for their final, high-speed dash toward an egg. By tracking how sperm use glucose as fuel, the team discovered how dormant cells suddenly flip into overdrive, burning energy in a carefully controlled, multi-step process. A key enzyme, aldolase, helps convert sugar into the burst of power needed for fertilization, while other enzymes act like traffic controllers directing the flow of fuel.
Scientists found a hidden fat switch and turned it off
Researchers have discovered a previously unknown enzyme that plays a crucial role in fat production. By blocking it, they stopped weight gain, reduced liver damage, and lowered harmful cholesterol levels in animal studies. The finding opens the door to a new kind of medication that could tackle obesity, fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular disease all at once.
Why Minced Broccoli Might Be More Nutritious, According To Science
According to research, mincing broccoli activates enzymes that increases the amount of sulforaphane — a phytochemical with disease-fighting properties.
Scientists may have been wrong about what causes asthma
Asthma may not be driven by the molecules scientists have blamed for decades. Researchers have identified “pseudo leukotrienes,” inflammation-triggering compounds formed by uncontrolled free-radical reactions rather than normal enzymes. These molecules were found at much higher levels in people with asthma, closely tracking how severe their symptoms were. The finding hints at a new way to treat asthma by preventing the inflammatory spark instead of blocking its aftermath.
This new building material pulls carbon out of the air
A new building material developed by engineers at Worcester Polytechnic Institute could change how the world builds. Made using an enzyme that turns carbon dioxide into solid minerals, the material cures in hours and locks away carbon instead of releasing it. It’s strong, repairable, recyclable, and far cleaner than concrete. If adopted widely, it could slash emissions across the construction industry.
Scientists find ‘master regulator’ that could reverse brain aging
Researchers have identified OTULIN, an immune-regulating enzyme, as a key trigger of tau buildup in the brain. When OTULIN was disabled, tau vanished from neurons and brain cells remained healthy. The findings challenge long-held assumptions about tau’s necessity and highlight a promising new path for fighting Alzheimer’s and brain aging. Scientists now believe OTULIN may act as a master switch for inflammation and age-related brain decline.
Scientists “resurrect” ancient cannabis enzymes with medical promise
Scientists have uncovered how cannabis evolved the ability to make its most famous compounds—THC, CBD, and CBC—by recreating ancient enzymes that existed millions of years ago. These early enzymes were multitaskers, capable of producing several cannabinoids at once, before evolution fine-tuned them into today’s highly specialized forms. By “resurrecting” these long-lost enzymes in the lab, researchers showed how cannabis chemistry became more precise over time—and discovered something unexpected: the ancient versions are often more robust and easier to work with.
Scientists Resurrected Extinct Cannabis Enzymes And Traced The Drug's Origins
Can't beat the classics.
Newly discovered coffee compounds beat diabetes drug in lab tests
Roasted coffee may do more than wake you up—it could help control blood sugar. Researchers discovered several new coffee compounds that inhibit α-glucosidase, a key enzyme linked to type 2 diabetes. Some of these molecules were even more potent than a common anti-diabetic drug. The study also introduced a faster, greener way to uncover health-boosting compounds in complex foods.
The new science and business of oral biologics
Biologics are built for precision. The gastrointestinal tract is built for demolition. Between stomach acid, digestive enzymes, and the physical barricade of the intestinal wall, most large molecules do not merely struggle to get absorbed. They get dismantled.
A rare cancer-fighting plant compound has finally been decoded
UBC Okanagan researchers have uncovered how plants create mitraphylline, a rare natural compound linked to anti-cancer effects. By identifying two key enzymes that shape and twist molecules into their final form, the team solved a puzzle that had stumped scientists for years. The discovery could make it far easier to produce mitraphylline and related compounds sustainably. It also highlights plants as master chemists with untapped medical potential.
Scientists uncover the hidden survival trick that lets cancer bounce back
Scientists discovered that certain cancer cells use a low-level activation of a DNA-dismantling enzyme—normally seen in cell death—to survive treatment. Instead of dying, these “persister cells” leverage this sublethal signal to regrow. Because the mechanism is non-genetic, it appears much earlier than typical resistance mutations. Targeting this enzyme could help stop tumors from returning.