Monday, June 23, 2025

 

Penn engineers turn toxic fungus into anti-cancer drug


Pharaoh's Curse fungus transformed to fight leukemia




University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Science

Aspergillus Flavus, Toxic Tomb Fungus Turned Cancer Killer 

image: 

A sample of Aspergillus flavus cultured in the Gao Lab.

view more 

Credit: Bella Ciervo





Penn-led researchers have turned a deadly fungus into a potent cancer-fighting compound. After isolating a new class of molecules from Aspergillus flavus, a toxic crop fungus linked to deaths in the excavations of ancient tombs, the researchers modified the chemicals and tested them against leukemia cells. The result? A promising cancer-killing compound that rivals FDA-approved drugs and opens up new frontiers in the discovery of more fungal medicines.

“Fungi gave us penicillin,” says Sherry Gao, Presidential Penn Compact Associate Professor in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering (CBE) and in Bioengineering (BE) and senior author of a new paper in Nature Chemical Biology on the findings. “These results show that many more medicines derived from natural products remain to be found.”

From Curse to Cure

Aspergillus flavus, named for its yellow spores, has long been a microbial villain. After archaeologists opened King Tutankhamun’s tomb in the 1920s, a series of untimely deaths among the excavation team fueled rumors of a pharaoh’s curse. Decades later, doctors theorized that fungal spores, dormant for millennia, could have played a role. 

In the 1970s, a dozen scientists entered the tomb of Casimir IV in Poland. Within weeks, 10 of them died. Later investigations revealed the tomb contained A. flavus, whose toxins can lead to lung infections, especially in people with compromised immune systems. 

Now, that same fungus is the unlikely source of a promising new cancer therapy.

A Rare Fungal Find

The therapy in question is a class of ribosomally synthesized and post-translationally modified peptides, or RiPPs, pronounced like the “rip” in a piece of fabric. The name refers to how the compound is produced — by the ribosome, a tiny cellular structure that makes proteins — and the fact that it is modified later, in this case, to enhance its cancer-killing properties.

“Purifying these chemicals is difficult,” says Qiuyue Nie, a postdoctoral fellow in CBE and the paper’s first author. While thousands of RiPPs have been identified in bacteria, only a handful have been found in fungi. In part, this is because past researchers misidentified fungal RiPPs as non-ribosomal peptides and had little understanding of how fungi created the molecules. “The synthesis of these compounds is complicated,” adds Nie. “But that’s also what gives them this remarkable bioactivity.”

Hunting for Chemicals

To find more fungal RiPPs, the researchers first scanned a dozen strains of Aspergillus, which previous research suggested might contain more of the chemicals.

By comparing chemicals produced by these strains with known RiPP building blocks, the researchers identified A. flavus as a promising candidate for further study.

Genetic analysis pointed to a particular protein in A. flavus as a source of fungal RiPPs. When the researchers turned the genes that create that protein off, the chemical markers indicating the presence of RiPPs also disappeared.

This novel approach — combining metabolic and genetic information — not only pinpointed the source of fungal RiPPs in A. flavus, but could be used to find more fungal RiPPs in the future.

A Potent New Medicine

After purifying four different RiPPs, the researchers found the molecules shared a unique structure of interlocking rings. The researchers named these molecules, which have never been previously described, after the fungus in which they were found: asperigimycins.

Even with no modification, when mixed with human cancer cells, asperigimycins demonstrated medical potential: two of the four variants had potent effects against leukemia cells.

Another variant, to which the researchers added a lipid, or fatty molecule, that is also found in the royal jelly that nourishes developing bees, performed as well as cytarabine and daunorubicin, two FDA-approved drugs that have been used for decades to treat leukemia.

Cracking the Code of Cell Entry

To understand why lipids enhanced asperigimycins’ potency, the researchers selectively turned genes on and off in the leukemia cells. One gene, SLC46A3, proved critical in allowing asperigimycins to enter leukemia cells in sufficient numbers.

That gene helps materials exit lysosomes, the tiny sacs that collect foreign materials entering human cells. “This gene acts like a gateway,” says Nie. “It doesn’t just help asperigimycins get into cells, it may also enable other ‘cyclic peptides’ to do the same.”

Like asperigimycins, those chemicals have medicinal properties — nearly two dozen cyclic peptides have received clinical approval since 2000 to treat diseases as varied as cancer and lupus — but many of them need modification to enter cells in sufficient quantities.

“Knowing that lipids can affect how this gene transports chemicals into cells gives us another tool for drug development,” says Nie.

Disrupting Cell Division

Through further experimentation, the researchers found that asperigimycins likely disrupt the process of cell division. “Cancer cells divide uncontrollably,” says Gao. “These compounds block the formation of microtubules, which are essential for cell division.”

Notably, the compounds had little to no effect on breast, liver or lung cancer cells — or a range of bacteria and fungi — suggesting that asperigimycins’ disruptive effects are specific to certain types of cells, a critical feature for any future medication.

Future Directions

In addition to demonstrating the medical potential of asperigimycins, the researchers identified similar clusters of genes in other fungi, suggesting that more fungal RiPPS remain to be discovered. “Even though only a few have been found, almost all of them have strong bioactivity,” says Nie. “This is an unexplored region with tremendous potential.”

The next step is to test asperigimycins in animal models, with the hope of one day moving to human clinical trials. “Nature has given us this incredible pharmacy,” says Gao. “It’s up to us to uncover its secrets. As engineers, we’re excited to keep exploring, learning from nature and using that knowledge to design better solutions.”

This study was conducted at the University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Science; Rice University; the University of Pittsburgh; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis; Baylor College of Medicine and the University of Porto.

The study was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (R35GM138207, R35CA274235, R35GM128779), the University of Pennsylvania, the Welch Foundation (C-2033-20200401), the Houston Area Molecular Biophysics Program (NIH Grant T32 GM008280), the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (RR220087, RR210029) and the National Science Foundation (OAC-2117681, OAC-1928147, OAC-1928224).

Additional co-authors include Fanglong Zhao, Xuerong Yu, Caleb Chang, Rory Sharkey, Bryce Kille, Hongzi Zheng, Kevin Yang, Alan Du, Todd Treangen, Yang Gao and Hans Renata of Rice University; Chunxiao Sun and Shuai Liu of Penn Engineering and Rice; Siting Li and Junjie Chen of MD Anderson; Mithun C. Madhusudhanan and Peng Liu of Pitt; Sandipan Roy Chowdhury, Dongyin Guan, Jin Wang, Xin Yu and Dishu Zhou of Baylor; Maria Zotova and Zichen Hu of Penn Engineering; Sandra A. Figueiredo and Pedro N. Leão of the University of Porto;  and Andy Xu and Rui Tang of Wash U, St. Louis.

First author Qiuyue Nie and coauthor Maria Zotova, from left, purify samples of the fungus.

Credit

Bella Ciervo

 

International study: AI has little impact on workers’ wellbeing so far, but…





University of Pittsburgh





As artificial intelligence reshapes workplaces worldwide, a new study provides early evidence suggesting AI exposure has not, thus far, caused widespread harm to workers' mental health or job satisfaction. In fact, the data reveals that AI may even be linked to modest improvements in worker physical health, particularly among employees with less than a college degree.

But the authors caution: It is way too soon to draw definitive conclusions.

The paper, “Artificial Intelligence and the Wellbeing of Workers,” published June 23 in Nature: Scientific Reports, uses two decades of longitudinal data from the German Socio-Economic Panel. Using that rich data, the researchers — Osea Giuntella of the University of Pittsburgh and the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Luca Stella of the University of Milan and the Berlin School of Economics, and Johannes King of the German Ministry of Finance — explored how workers in AI-exposed occupations have fared in contrast to workers in less-exposed roles.

“Public anxiety about AI is real, but the worst-case scenarios are not inevitable,” said Professor Stella, who is also affiliated with independent European bodies the Center for Economic Studies (CESifo) and the Institute for Labor Economics (IZA). “So far, we find little evidence that AI adoption has undermined workers' well-being on average. If anything, physical health seems to have slightly improved, likely due to declining job physical intensity and overall job risk in some of the AI-exposed occupations.”

Yet the study also highlights reasons for caution.

The analysis relies primarily on a task-based measure of AI exposure — considered more objective — but alternative estimates based on self-reported exposure reveal small negative effects on job and life satisfaction. In addition, the sample excludes younger workers and only covers the early phases of AI diffusion in Germany.

“We may simply be too early in the AI adoption curve to observe its full effects,” Stella emphasized. “AI's impact could evolve dramatically as technologies advance, penetrate more sectors, and alter work at a deeper level.”

Key findings from the study include:

  • No significant average effects of AI exposure on job satisfaction, life satisfaction, or mental health.
  • Small improvements in self-rated physical health and health satisfaction, especially among lower-educated workers.
  • Evidence of reduced physical job intensity, suggesting that AI may alleviate physically demanding tasks.
  • A modest decline in weekly working hours, without significant changes in income or employment rates.
  • Self-reported AI exposure suggests small but negative effects on subjective well-being, reinforcing the need for more granular future research.

Due to the data supply, the study focuses on Germany — a country with strong labor protections and a gradual pace of AI adoption. The co-authors noted that outcomes may differ in more flexible labor markets or among younger cohorts entering increasingly AI-saturated workplaces.

“This research is an early snapshot, not the final word,” said Pitt’s Giuntella, who previously conducted significant research into the effect of robotics on households and labor, and on types of workers. “As AI adoption accelerates, continued monitoring of its broader impacts on work and health is essential. Technology alone doesn’t determine outcomes —institutions and policies will decide whether AI enhances or erodes the conditions of work.”

# # #

 

Mapping the gaps: New global assessment reveals stark biases in ocean biodiversity data




University of Plymouth





Despite decades of ocean exploration, humans still lack basic answers to one of the most fundamental ecological questions: where is marine life found, and why?

A new study published in Communications Earth & Environment, highlights just how uneven our knowledge of ocean biodiversity really is.

By systematically processing nearly 19 million records from the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS), the study reveals that global marine biodiversity data from below 30m are heavily biased towards shallow waters (50% of benthic records come from just the shallowest 1% of the seafloor), the Northern Hemisphere (over 75% of records), and vertebrates, namely fish.

What’s missing from that are vast areas of the deep sea, particularly in the southern hemisphere and Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ), which remain under-sampled. Invertebrates, despite making up the bulk of ocean biodiversity, are also poorly represented.

These findings matter. Biodiversity data underpin everything from habitat protection to climate impact modelling. The current data gaps mean that scientific models and management plans risk being skewed, trained on better-known regions and taxa while overlooking some of the most threatened and least studied parts of the planet.

To elucidate these patterns, the researchers developed a novel pipeline that separates benthic (seafloor) and pelagic (open-water) data – an important but often overlooked distinction. While the technical achievement is notable, the real story here is what the cleaned data reveal: a global call to action.

The authors urge future sampling to focus on four key priorities: the deep ocean (>1500 m); the southern hemisphere; invertebrate taxa; remote areas beyond national jurisdiction.

This work is a major step forward in turning biodiversity ‘big data’ into meaningful insight, with the datasets and code serving as a resource for researchers, policymakers, and conservationists working to meet the goals of the UN Decade of Ocean Science and the 30x30 biodiversity target.

Dr Amelia Bridges, Research Fellow at the University of Plymouth and the study’s lead author, said: “Our findings show just how uneven our knowledge of ocean life really is, and that has major implications for how we protect it. If we want to manage the ocean sustainably, we first need to understand where life exists, and right now, we’re working with an incomplete map. This study provides not only a clearer picture of the gaps, but also a tool to help fix them. It’s a first step toward building a more balanced, global understanding of marine biodiversity.”

Professor Kerry Howell, Professor of Deep-Sea Ecology at Plymouth Marine Laboratory and the University of Plymouth, added: “This research will now help guide the work being done under the UN Ocean Decade Challenger 150 Programme, a global cooperative of deep-sea scientists whose aim is to map life in the deep ocean to support sustainable management. We now know where the gaps are and can focus our efforts on filling them. It’s a first step toward building a more balanced, global understanding of marine biodiversity.”

 

Research reveals why receiving food before others is a source of discomfort for social diners



New research shows that most diners feel uncomfortable eating before everyone else at the table has been served – even though their fellow diners wouldn't mind if they did.


Peer-Reviewed Publication

City St George’s, University of London





Restaurants and dinner hosts could improve dining experiences and reduce social awkwardness by serving guests at the same time, a new study has found.

We have all faced that situation in a restaurant or at a dinner party: our food has arrived but we find ourselves waiting for others at the table to be served before starting. This long-established norm is the subject of new research co-authored by Bayes Business School, that shows we are more concerned about violating this practice ourselves than we are about others doing so.

WATCH: Authors of the study explain its outcomes

The research by Irene Scopelliti, Professor of Marketing and Behavioural Science, and Janina Steinmetz, Professor of Marketing at Bayes, along with Dr Anna Paley from the Tilburg School of Economics and Management, examined how participants viewed their own compliance of the norm versus their expectations of dining companions across six experiments.

Participants imagined dining with a friend and either receiving food first or watching their co-diner receive theirs. Those ‘receiving’ food first were asked to what extent they should wait or eat on a numerical scale, while those waiting for food were asked what they thought their dining partner should do.

Results displayed a ‘self-other’ difference, in that those receiving food first believed they should wait to a far greater extent than their dining partners expected them to.

Further experiments explored why this happens. Participants were asked how they would feel about their co-diner eating or waiting, and how they would expect their companion to feel about them. Results showed that people expected to feel better about waiting themselves – and worse about starting to eat – if their food arrived first, than they predicted others would feel in the same situation.

The study also tested whether interventions might influence behaviour – such as encouraging participants to consider their co-diner’s perspective or telling them that their dining partner had explicitly invited them to start eating.

The research suggest this is why people would still encourage co-diners to break the norm, and that restaurants should avoid putting diners in this situation where possible.

Professor Steinmetz said:

“The decision of when to start eating food in the company of others is a very common dilemma.

“Norm adherence dictates that we wait until all food is served before starting, and disregarding it feels rude and discourteous to us. Surprisingly, this feeling barely changes even when another person explicitly asks us to go ahead. It occurs because people have greater access to their own internal feelings – such as appearing considerate or avoiding social discomfort – than to others' psychological experiences.

“In these situations, we should be aware that we’re only waiting for our own benefit, and co-diners probably mind far less than we think if we wanted to go ahead and eat.

“People will wait to feel polite, but if the quality of their food is dependent on factors like temperature it may not taste as nice when they finally do start eating.”

Professor Scopelliti added:

“This is not just about politeness: it's about psychological access.

“We can feel our own internal discomfort, guilt, and the positive feelings from appearing considerate, but we can't fully access what others are experiencing internally. So, while we might feel genuinely awful about eating before others get their food, we assume others won't feel as strongly about it.

“Results of our study have implications for restaurants and beyond. Any service where people receive food at different times within a group creates similar psychological dynamics. Providers often optimise for efficiency, without realising that some people experience genuine discomfort when they receive service before others in their group.

“The research shows how much we systematically underestimate others' internal emotional experiences, which contributes to broader understanding of social norms and group dynamics.”

Wait or Eat? Self-other differences in a commonly held food norm’, by Dr Anna Paley, Professor Irene Scopelliti and Professor Janina Steinmetz is published in Appetite.

ENDS

Notes to Editors

  1. The full sample size of this study is 1,907 participants
  2. In a preregistered survey of 625 individuals from 91 countries, 91 per cent of respondents reported that in their country of origin it is expected that the person with the food delays consumption until everyone is served.

 

1 in 4 LGBTQ+ singles say the political climate is reshaping their dating lives




Kinsey Institute





In 2025, love and politics are colliding for many LGBTQ+ singles. A new Kinsey Institute and DatingNews survey finds 1 in 4 are changing how they date amid the political climate. The State of Us: National Study on Modern Love & Dating in 2025 shows politics are affecting LGBTQ+ singles across demographics, however Gen Z ages 18-25 are feeling the most impact.

Among the overall sample of 302 respondents:

  • 25% of LGBTQ+ singles say politics have changed how they date
  • 35% of LGBTQ+ adults say they don’t feel safe being open about their identity while dating
  • 18% of respondents said they are taking extra measures to protect their identity and privacy in online dating
  • 10% of LGBTQ+ adults say they are less comfortable visiting LGBTQ+ venues

Gen Z appear most affected:

  • 44% of Gen Z adults (aged 18-24) say they don’t feel safe being open about their identity while dating compared to only 5% of LGBTQ+ seniors age 65+
  • 1 in 4 say they are taking extra measures to protect their identity and privacy online in online dating
  • 21% have relocated to more LGBTQ-friendly areas

“These findings provide pretty clear evidence that the current political climate is having a significant impact on the way that many LGBTQ singles are approaching dating. However, the effects seem to be most acute for the youngest LGBTQ persons,” said Kinsey Institute Senior Research Fellow Dr. Justin Lehmiller. “Older LGBTQ Americans appear to be a bit more resilient to the current political challenges, perhaps because they have weathered these kinds of attacks for decades and have found other ways to cope.”

The DatingNews.com and Kinsey Institute State of Us: National Study on Modern Love & Dating in 2025 was led by Kinsey Institute researchers Dr. Justin Lehmiller and Dr. Amanda Gesselman, with data collected and conducted by Prodege.com among a nationally representative sample of 2,000 single U.S. adults ages 18 to 91 via an online survey from April 29, 2025, to May 8, 2025. The sample was balanced to ensure a reliable and accurate representation of the U.S. population in terms of age, gender, household income, geographic region, and race/ethnicity. Overall, 15% of the sample (302 respondents) identified as LGBTQ+. 

Results of any sample are subject to sampling variation. The magnitude of the variation is measurable and is affected by the number of interviews and the level of the percentages expressing the results. For the interviews conducted in this study, the chances are 95 in 100 that a survey result does not vary, plus or minus, by more than 3 percentage points from the result that would be obtained if interviews had been conducted with all persons in the universe represented by the sample.

About the Kinsey Institute

For almost 80 years, the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University has been the global leader in research on sexuality, relationships, and well-being. The Kinsey Institute provides an unbiased, nonpartisan, and multidisciplinary approach, serving as a trusted source for evidence-based information worldwide. The Kinsey Institute's research programs are led by internationally renowned experts across disciplines including neuroscience, psychology, public health, anthropology, biology, history, and gender studies. The Kinsey Institute also houses the world's largest library of materials on human sexuality and offers a dynamic range of art exhibitions, public lectures, and continuing education programs. Visit kinseyinstitute.org to learn more and follow us on LinkedIn.