Wednesday, December 10, 2025

 

Receptors in mammary glands make livestock and humans inviting hosts for avian flu


Iowa State University

Microscope images of flu receptor in swine mamary gland 

image: 

Microscope-captured images of a mammary gland of a pig show the presence of influenza receptors. In the image on the left, receptors for avian influenza A are colored orange. In the image on the right, receptors for the type of influenza A that typically infects mammals are purple.

view more 

Credit: Tyler Harm/Iowa State University.





AMES, Iowa – An ongoing outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza has affected more than 184 million domestic poultry since 2022 and, since making the leap to dairy cattle in spring 2024, more than 1,000 milking cow herds.

A new study led by Iowa State University researchers shows that the mammary glands of several other production animals – including pigs, sheep, goats, beef cattle and alpacas – are biologically suitable to harbor avian influenza, due to high levels of sialic acids.

“The main thing we wanted to understand in this study is whether there is potential for transmission among these other domestic mammals and humans, and it looks like there is,” said Rahul Nelli, the study’s lead author and a research assistant professor of veterinary diagnostic and production animal medicine.

Sialic acid, a sugar molecule found on the surface of many types of animal cells, provides an influenza virus the microscopic docking station it needs to infect a host cell, an entry point for attaching and invading. A study by many of the same researchers last year found that dairy cattle udders have high levels of sialic acid, which helped explain why the H5N1 avian influenza outbreak was able to spread rapidly among dairy herds.

In the study published Nov. 27 in the Journal of Dairy Science, a research team that includes scientists from the ISU College of Veterinary Medicine and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Animal Disease Center in Ames also found the same receptors in the mammary glands of the humans.

Only a few sporadic cases of H5N1 infection have been reported in the animals examined in the new study, but those species aren’t being tested on a widespread basis, said Dr. Todd Bell, professor of veterinary pathology and a study co-author.

“If we don’t look, we don’t know,” Bell said.

In dairy herds, H5N1 infections are causing sick cows to produce milk contaminated with the virus, prompting nationwide surveillance testing of raw cow milk samples by the USDA. Pasteurization kills influenza viruses, so store-bought milk is safe. But concerns about raw milk should extend to other mammalian livestock, Nelli said.

“Some people do consume the raw milk of these other animals,” he said.

The presence of the virus in milk from infected cows has likely played a role in the H5N1 spreading and makes transmission to humans a bigger risk, Nelli said.

“If a virus in livestock is being spread by respiratory infections, few humans will be in close enough contact to catch it. But milk is an entirely different situation because it’s transported into communities,” he said. 

All of the mammary gland tissues examined in the new study had sialic acid receptors preferred by both avian influenza and the seasonal influenza that circulates more readily among humans. The possibility of both types of viruses comingling and transmitting between different species heightens concerns about more dangerous adaptations emerging, Bell said. H5N1 has in the past had a fatality rate in humans of around 50%, though the 71 confirmed human infections during the current outbreak have led to just two deaths.

“We need to try to stay ahead of this so it doesn’t have a chance to continue to replicate and potentially evolve into something even more troublesome,” he said.

NEO-LIBERAL MANAGEMENT STUDIES

University of Phoenix College of Doctoral Studies releases white paper on reclaiming control to build workforce resilience




New analysis by Karen Johnson, Ed.D., connects career autonomy to reduced burnout and stronger resilience—and offers practical steps for employers and workers




University of Phoenix






University of Phoenix College of Doctoral Studies announced the publication of “Reclaiming Control: Autonomy as the Key to Workforce Resilience and Career Optimism,” a new white paper by Karen Johnson, Ed.D. The report argues that restoring a sense of autonomy is essential to reducing record-high burnout and strengthening organizational resilience.  

Drawing on findings from several years of the University’s Career Optimism Index® study, Johnson highlights an “autonomy crisis” in the U.S. workforce: 21% of workers say their control over their professional future has declined, while 51% report burnout—the highest level since tracking began. The paper frames autonomy within Conservation of Resources theory and outlines how access to skill-building and effective use of AI can restore agency, optimism, and adaptability.

“Autonomy is the missing link between coping and truly thriving at work,” said Johnson. “When organizations invest in skill-building and equip people to use AI responsibly, employees gain the control and clarity they need to reduce burnout and build resilience.”

Among the findings: workers who feel in control of their careers are significantly less likely to experience burnout (45% vs. 70%), report higher motivation and adaptability, and benefit when employers prioritize internal mobility, targeted upskilling, and responsible AI training. The paper details recommendations for leaders and employees to embed autonomy in role design, development pathways, and day-to-day work.

Johnson is a University Research Methodologist with the College of Doctoral Studies and a research methodology group leader in the Center for Educational and Instructional Technology Research (CEITR). She has served as University of Phoenix faculty since 2005 and is an active contributor to researcher development and publication initiatives.

The full white paper is available at the University of Phoenix Career Institute® webpage or the College of Doctoral Studies’ Research Hub.

AboutUniversity of Phoenix 

University of Phoenix innovates to help working adults enhance their careers and develop skills in a rapidly changing world. Flexible schedules, relevant courses, interactive learning, skills-mapped curriculum for our bachelor’s and master’s degree programs and a Career Services for Life® commitment help students more effectively pursue career and personal aspirations while balancing their busy lives. For more information, visit phoenix.edu.

About the College of Doctoral Studies

University of Phoenix’s College of Doctoral Studies focuses on today’s challenging business and organizational needs, from addressing critical social issues to developing solutions to accelerate community building and industry growth. The College’s research program is built around the Scholar, Practitioner, Leader Model which puts students in the center of the Doctoral Education Ecosystem® with experts, resources and tools to help prepare them to be a leader in their organization, industry and community. Through this program, students and researchers work with organizations to conduct research that can be applied in the workplace in real time.

 

 

New review reveals how microbial communities accelerate the global spread of antibiotic resistance




Biochar Editorial Office, Shenyang Agricultural University

Antimicrobial resistance in complex microbiomes: ecological evolution and public health risks 

image: 

Antimicrobial resistance in complex microbiomes: ecological evolution and public health risks

view more 

Credit: Zhigang Yu, Michael Gillings, Nicholas J. Ashbolt & Jianhua Guo





A new scientific review has uncovered how complex microbial communities, including those in the human gut and the natural environment, act as powerful engines that drive the evolution and spread of antimicrobial resistance. The findings highlight urgent risks to global health and call for coordinated action across human, animal, and environmental sectors.

The research team synthesized evidence from microbiology, ecology, and environmental science to explain why antimicrobial resistance evolves differently in diverse microbial ecosystems compared with individual bacterial species. These ecosystems include the gut microbiome, wastewater networks, soils, and natural water bodies, all of which contain thousands of interacting species.

“Microbial communities are far more than random collections of bacteria,” said corresponding author Jianhua Guo. “They are dynamic ecosystems with constant competition, cooperation, and genetic exchange. These interactions create ideal conditions for antimicrobial resistance to emerge and spread.”

Antimicrobial resistance causes millions of deaths every year and continues to rise as bacteria acquire new resistance genes. The review describes how five major pathways of horizontal gene transfer enable bacteria to exchange resistance genes within communities. These pathways include plasmid mediated conjugation, transformation of free DNA, bacteriophage mediated transduction, extracellular vesicles that carry genetic material, and protozoan predation that concentrates bacteria inside protective vacuoles.

The authors explain that microbial communities amplify the efficiency of these processes. High population density creates more opportunities for cell to cell contact. Biofilms protect bacteria from antibiotics, allowing resistant strains to thrive. Cooperative behaviours such as antibiotic detoxification by neighbouring species can shield sensitive bacteria, enabling them to survive drug treatment and later acquire resistance genes.

The review also highlights the surprising role of protozoa in natural environments. These microbial predators can engulf bacteria and create enclosed spaces that promote genetic exchange. Some protozoa even expel packages of undigested bacteria that remain protected from antibiotics, which helps resistance spread further.

“Microbial predators and their prey have a long evolutionary history,” Guo said. “Our review shows that these interactions unintentionally create safe zones where bacteria can share resistance genes and become harder to kill. This makes antimicrobial resistance a true ecological problem that extends beyond hospitals.”

The authors frame these findings within the One Health perspective. Resistant bacteria and genes move freely among humans, animals, and environmental reservoirs. Wastewater discharge releases resistance genes into rivers and soils. Agricultural antibiotic use enriches livestock microbiomes and increases spillover into the food chain. Global travel accelerates the international spread of resistant strains.

Clinical settings remain major hotspots for antimicrobial resistance evolution. Patients on intensive antibiotics often carry mixed microbial populations that exchange genetic material. Biofilms on medical devices and drainage systems act as long term reservoirs. According to the review, these factors contribute to the rise of resistant pathogens that cause pneumonia, bloodstream infections, urinary tract infections, and other life threatening illnesses.

The authors conclude that understanding antimicrobial resistance within microbial communities is essential for predicting future risks and designing effective interventions. They recommend integrated surveillance, reduction of unnecessary antibiotic use, and improved management of waste and water systems.

“Microbial communities shape the future of antimicrobial resistance,” Guo said. “If we want to protect public health, we must consider the entire ecosystem rather than individual pathogens.”

 

=== 

Journal reference: Yu Z, Gillings M, Ashbolt NJ, Guo J. 2025. Antimicrobial resistance in complex microbiomes: ecological evolution and public health risks. Biocontaminant 1: e011  

https://www.maxapress.com/article/doi/10.48130/biocontam-0025-0008 

=== 

About Biocontaminant:
Biocontaminant is a multidisciplinary platform dedicated to advancing fundamental and applied research on biological contaminants across diverse environments and systems. The journal serves as an innovative, efficient, and professional forum for global researchers to disseminate findings in this rapidly evolving field.

Follow us on FacebookX, and Bluesky

 

Nearly 1 in 5 UK emergency department patients cared for in corridors/waiting rooms



Almost all emergency departments routinely deploying this approach



BMJ Group





At any one time, nearly 1 in 5 emergency department patients in the UK is being cared for in corridors, waiting rooms, and other non-standard ‘overflow’ spaces—an approach known as escalation area care—suggest the results of a large observational study, published online in Emergency Medicine Journal.

 

Almost all emergency departments in the UK are routinely deploying this approach, which contravenes national guidance, the findings indicate.

 

Amid the high prevalence of emergency department overcrowding in the UK, escalation area care is reported to be widespread, but there is no high quality evidence describing its prevalence, say the researchers.

 

This is especially important as escalation area care is known to compromise patient safety, generate substandard and undignified experiences for the patient, and is thought to be a factor in the heightened risk of death among patients enduring long waits in emergency departments, they add.

 

To gauge its true prevalence, the researchers studied clinical activity in 165 out of 228 type 1 emergency departments—those providing consultant-led, 24-hour services with full resuscitation facilities—at 5 different time points across 10 days in March 2025.

 

Local reporting teams relied on electronic health records, department management systems, and real-time observations to record the number of patients in escalation areas.

 

They also recorded the number of patients awaiting an inpatient bed; the number of cubicles or chair spaces in each emergency department (stratified by resuscitation room and non- resuscitation room status); whether there were children and patients with a presenting mental health issue in escalation areas; and the availability of resuscitation cubicles.

 

An escalation area was defined as ‘any area not routinely used unless the capacity of the usual emergency department geographical footprint is exceeded’ and they included: an ambulance queueing to offload for more than 15 minutes; a repurposed clinical area; a non-clinical area, such as a hospital corridor or waiting room; and a doubled-up cubicle.

 

The data showed that the treatment of emergency department patients in escalation area spaces was a regular and common occurrence.

 

The total number of patients in escalation areas across all 5 time points totalled 10,042, or 18% of all 56,881 patients in the participating emergency departments. And the proportion of sites reporting patients in escalation areas ranged from 70% to 90%.

 

A break-down of the total proportion of patients treated in the various types of escalation area in use showed that repurposed clinical spaces (31.5% to 39%) and non-clinical spaces, such as waiting rooms and corridors (53% to 58%), made up the lion’s share.

 

Overall, the time point with the highest number of patients in emergency departments (15, 933) was Monday at 7pm. The highest proportion of patients in escalation areas was Thursday at 7 am (the end of the clinical night shift), when more than 1 in 5 (21%) of all UK emergency department patients were being cared for in these locations, despite this being the period with the lowest total number of patients (7056).

 

Both children and patients with a mental health presentation were being cared for in these spaces across all 5 time points. Among the emergency departments seeing children, 5% to 23% reported treating them in escalation areas. And the proportion treating patients with a mental health presentation in these spaces ranged from 26% to 35.5%.

 

Regionally, the proportion of patients in escalation areas was consistently highest in Northern Ireland and lowest in the Southwest of England. And this proportion was highest in adult only emergency departments and smaller local emergency hospitals, and lowest in major trauma centres.

 

The number of patients waiting for an inpatient bed consistently exceeded the number of patients being cared for in escalation areas.

 

And the proportion of sites without any immediate resuscitation cubicle capacity ranged from 10.5% to 26%, “representing a significant patient safety issue,” note the researchers.

 

They conclude: “National guidance from NHS England states that escalation area use is not acceptable; this study demonstrates that it is widespread and routine. The same guidance states that children and those with mental health problems should never experience escalation area care; this study demonstrates that this is occurring regularly.

 

“Admitting patients awaiting an inpatient bed from the [emergency department] would largely solve the escalation area care problem… Healthcare policy makers must address this issue or openly accept escalation area care and its associated harms as a standard experience in UK emergency care.”

 

In a linked editorial, the immediate past and current presidents of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, suggest that the findings are likely to be an underestimate.

 

“The authors of this paper have successfully quantified the extent to which crowding leads to patients being treated in inappropriate spaces. If anything, their findings will be an underestimate.”

 

They point out: “Most recently, the harm associated with crowding has been quantified, such that for every 72 patients who wait 8–12 hours before admission there is one excess death.”

 

The study provides further evidence on the cause of overcrowding in emergency departments, they highlight. It’s not the volume of patients coming in, but the flow out.

 

“Basically, if all the patients who required admission were taken out of the equation, the [emergency departments] in the study (remember that is most of the [emergency departments] in the UK) would not have been overcrowded. The issue is the exit block, and the policy focus needs to be on that,” they insist.

 

They add that the research didn’t measure the effects on patients and staff of escalation area spaces, but it stands to reason that this can’t be the best quality care.

 

“Despite NHS England’s guidance on ‘providing safe and good quality care in temporary escalation spaces’, it simply isn’t possible to offer proper care in corridors and cupboards. Patients describe loss of autonomy, unmet expectations, and feelings of increased vulnerability. Many of these patients are elderly, frail, and vulnerable. Many have visual or hearing impairment, or are confused. Many have extensive nursing needs,” they write.

 

“The disconnect between guidance from politically driven organisations, such as NHS England, and the real world is starkly exposed here,” they add.