Tuesday, June 23, 2026

Injectable hydrogel made from silk and kudzu plant compound achieves complete wound closure in laboratory tests

Terasaki Institute for Biomedical Innovation

Los Angeles, CA – June 22, 2026 - Researchers at the Terasaki Institute for Biomedical Innovation have developed an injectable hydrogel, a water-based gel material, made from silk proteins and a plant-derived compound. In laboratory tests, the material promoted complete wound closure within 72 hours, suggesting a potential new approach to minimally invasive soft tissue repair.

Wounds that are difficult to reach or slow to heal present a persistent challenge in medicine. Current biomaterials, materials engineered to interact with biological systems, often require surgery to implant, lack the mechanical flexibility needed to conform to soft tissue, or fail to support robust cell growth. The new material combines two naturally occurring substances. The first is silk fibroin (SF), a protein from silkworm cocoons that is well-tolerated by the body. The second is puerarin (PUE), a bioactive compound from the root of the kudzu plant with anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties.

The team systematically tested five formulations containing increasing amounts of puerarin, ranging from 1 to 5%, combined with a fixed concentration of silk fibroin. Published in ACS Omega, the study found that puerarin strengthened the hydrogel network through hydrogen bonding, a type of physical attraction between molecules. Importantly, this process did not alter the underlying protein structure of silk fibroin. Higher puerarin concentrations produced denser internal networks and increased mechanical stability. The material could also flow through a fine 27-gauge needle under pressure and recover its gel-like structure once injected.

In laboratory studies, human skin cells exposed to the hydrogels showed cell viability above 95% from day one. Cells cultured with the material achieved complete wound closure within 72 hours across all formulations tested. The highest puerarin concentration showed approximately 60% wound closure within the first 24 hours alone. No signs of toxicity were observed in any tested formulation.

“What excited us most was seeing complete wound closure in all formulations by 72 hours. That result, combined with the material’s ability to be injected through a fine needle, suggests real clinical relevance for soft tissue applications,” said Dr. Bruna V. Quevedo, Visiting Scholar at the Terasaki Institute and first author of the publication.

“Injectable biomaterials that can be delivered through a small needle and still support tissue repair have the potential to reduce the burden of invasive procedures for patients. This work brings us a step closer to that goal,” said Dr. Menekse Ermis Sen, Terasaki Fellow at the Terasaki Institute for Biomedical Innovation.

This research could support the development of minimally invasive treatments for soft tissue injuries and chronic wounds. Further studies in animal models are needed to validate the material’s performance under real physiological conditions.

For more information, please contact:
Dr. Menekse Ermis Sen, Terasaki Fellow
Terasaki Institute for Biomedical Innovation
Email: mermis@terasaki.org

About the Terasaki Institute for Biomedical Innovation
The Terasaki Institute for Biomedical Innovation is a non-profit research organization that invents and fosters practical solutions that restore or enhance the health of individuals. The Institute aims to enhance the quality of human life through translational research and the acceleration of biomedical innovation. TIBI's research focuses on the development of biomaterials, cellular and tissue engineering, medical devices, and microfluidic systems.

###

Journal

ACS Omega

DOI

10.1021/acsomega.6c02412

Method of Research

Experimental study

Subject of Research

Cells

Article Title

Injectable Silk Fibroin−Puerarin Hydrogels with Tunable Supramolecular Organization as a Potential Platform for Tissue Engineering

Study finds prostate cancer screening discussions are rare – but make a big difference

Medical University of South Carolina

image:
Family medicine physician Nicholas Shungu, M.D., has found that prostate cancer screening often isn't discussed in primary care visits.
view more
Credit: Medical University of South Carolina

Millions of men face a decision about whether to be screened for prostate cancer. National guidelines say that decision should begin with a conversation about the risks and benefits of testing.

But a new MUSC study suggests those conversations may not be happening nearly as often as they should. Researchers found that discussions about prostate cancer screening were documented in only a small fraction of primary care visits. Yet when those conversations did occur, men were far more likely to get screened.

The research, published in the Southern Medical Journal and led by Nicholas Shungu, M.D., a family medicine physician at MUSC Health and researcher at MUSC Hollings Cancer Center, underscores a gap between national guidelines and clinical practice.

"One of the biggest takeaways was the surprisingly low rate of documented shared decision-making conversations," said Shungu. "The other key finding was that when those conversations were documented, screening was much more likely to occur."

A different approach to cancer screening

Unlike mammograms or colonoscopies, prostate cancer screening is not universally recommended once men reach a certain age. Instead, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, American Cancer Society and other medical organizations recommend that men discuss screening with their clinicians and make an informed decision based on their personal risks and preferences.

That recommendation reflects the complex history of prostate cancer screening.

The prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, blood test can detect prostate cancer early and has been shown to reduce deaths from the disease. However, the test is not perfect. As men age, the prostate naturally enlarges and produces more PSA, which can raise blood test levels even when cancer is not present. Because the PSA test cannot determine why levels are elevated, some men without cancer may undergo unnecessary biopsies. At the same time, many prostate cancers grow slowly and may never cause symptoms or become life-threatening, raising concerns about overtreatment. These factors have shaped the ongoing discussion around prostate cancer screening.

Historically, those concerns led experts to question whether the benefits of screening outweighed the risks. But Shungu said the landscape has changed dramatically in recent years.

New tools such as prostate MRI can help doctors to determine which patients need additional testing, while many low-risk cancers can be safely monitored through active surveillance. Those advances, he said, have reduced some of the concerns that originally fueled resistance to widespread screening.

"We've moved away from the idea that everyone should automatically be screened or not be screened," he said. "The recommendation now is that patients and clinicians have a discussion and decide together what's right for that individual."

As screening and treatment options have become more sophisticated, Shungu said that conversations between patients and clinicians have become even more important.

Looking at what happens in practice

To determine whether those conversations were taking place, the researchers reviewed the medical records of 600 men ages 45 to 69 who received care at MUSC family medicine clinics between 2019 and 2020.

"Different guideline organizations recommend slightly different ages to start screening discussions, particularly for higher-risk groups such as Black men," Shungu said. "We wanted to be fairly broad in who we included so we could capture the population for whom these conversations should be taking place."

This study builds on Shungu's previous research by examining what happens during real-world clinical encounters. The researchers examined whether clinicians documented shared decision-making conversations about prostate cancer screening in patients’ medical records and whether those patients went on to receive PSA testing.

The results revealed a substantial gap between guideline recommendations and clinical practice. Overall, conversations about prostate cancer screening were uncommon, with only 6% of patients having a documented discussion. Documentation rates did not differ significantly by race, age, insurance status or family history of cancer.

One important caveat is that some discussions may have occurred without being documented in the medical record.

"With any chart review study, there's always the possibility that clinicians had the conversation but didn't document it," Shungu said. "Even with that limitation, though, the numbers were surprisingly low."

Conversations linked to higher screening rates

Although the conversations themselves were uncommon, their impact was striking.

Among men with documented shared decision-making discussions, nearly 72% went on to receive a screening PSA test. Among those without a documented conversation, only about 36% received screening.

The association was even stronger among Black men. Eighty-five percent of Black men who had a documented discussion received a screening PSA test, compared with 36% who did not have a conversation. After accounting for other factors, shared decision-making discussions remained one of the strongest predictors of prostate cancer screening.

The finding suggests that shared decision-making does more than help patients to weigh options. For many men, learning about both the benefits and limitations of screening appears to have increased their willingness to be tested.

"When these conversations occurred, most men decided they wanted to be screened," Shungu said. "That tells us these discussions really matter."

Starting the conversation

The findings carry particular importance in South Carolina, where prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer in men. South Carolina also has some of the nation's highest prostate cancer mortality rates, raising the need to promote informed screening and early detection. For Shungu, the findings also stand out because of prostate cancer's disproportionate impact on Black men, who are more than twice as likely to die from the disease as men of other races.

Improving awareness and access is already a major focus at Hollings. Through initiatives such as SC AMEN and SC PRENS, Hollings researchers and community partners are working to increase prostate cancer screening and reduce longstanding disparities across South Carolina. The new findings suggest that ensuring men have opportunities to discuss screening with a trusted clinician may be another important step toward that goal.

Shungu hopes the study serves as a reminder for both clinicians and patients. For clinicians, the findings underscore the importance of making time for conversations about prostate cancer screening, even during busy primary care visits. For patients, they highlight the value of asking questions and raising the topic if it is not discussed.

"A lot of people assume that if their doctor doesn't bring up prostate cancer screening, it must not be important. But sometimes there just isn't enough time during a visit,” Shungu said. “Patients are always going to be their own best advocates and should feel empowered to ask about it and make sure the conversation happens so they can make the most informed choice possible."

Journal

Southern Medical Journal

DOI

10.14423/SMJ.0000000000001980

Method of Research

Observational study

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Prostate Cancer Screening Shared Decision Making and Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing in Black and Non-Black Men in Primary Care in South Carolina

Article Publication Date

22-Jun-2026

US Abortion bans and pregnancy-related care across physician specialties

JAMA Network Open

About The Study:

In this qualitative study of the consequences of abortion bans across multiple medical specialties, abortion bans were associated with disrupted clinical care far beyond what is traditionally categorized as abortion, with treatment delays that endanger patients, undermined patient autonomy and physician-patient trust, and with new gatekeeping roles for physicians. These restrictions shifted medical decision-making from clinical judgment and patient values toward legal risk mitigation, with potential long-term consequences including exacerbation of health care inequities and compromised ability to provide safe and effective care for pregnant patients.

Corresponding Author: To contact the corresponding author, Sophia Landay, MD, email slanday@bidmc.harvard.edu.

To access the embargoed study: Visit our For The Media website at this link https://media.jamanetwork.com/

(doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.19644)

Editor’s Note: Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, conflict of interest and financial disclosures, and funding and support.

Embed this link to provide your readers free access to the full-text article

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.19644?guestAccessKey=1b34668e-afe8-4888-aa3d-dd05b3b83eff&utm_source=for_the_media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=062226

Journal

JAMA Network Open

Mental health treatment disparities among transition-age youth with suicidal thoughts and behaviors

JAMA Pediatrics

About The Study:

This nationally representative study showed that 1 in 8 transition-age youth (TAY) had suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STB), yet less than half of those with STB had any mental health care. Asian, Black, and Latine TAY experienced substantial access disparities, with treatment rates 14 to 21 percentage points lower than white peers. Despite all TAY having STB in the subsample in this study, the large service access differences suggest that structural barriers, rather than clinical appropriateness or patient preference alone, drive these inequities.

Corresponding Author: To contact the corresponding author, Michael William Flores, PhD, MPH, email mwflores@cha.harvard.edu.

To access the embargoed study: Visit our For The Media website at this link https://media.jamanetwork.com/

(doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2026.2261)

Embed this link to provide your readers free access to the full-text article

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2026.2261?guestAccessKey=1619d29f-e9bd-4443-b0a8-df53cce63279&utm_source=for_the_media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=062226

Journal

JAMA Pediatrics

How thousands of nature’s longest sperm squeeze into a tiny fruit fly

By bringing mathematics and biology together, researchers at the Simons Foundation’s Flatiron Institute have uncovered the dynamics of how supersize fruit fly sperm behave when packed into a small space.

Simons Foundation

Sperm Graphic — image:
Visual explainer that shows the enormous length of the fruit fly sperm compared to the sperm storage sac: The sac is only one tenth the length of the fruit fly sperm. The fruit fly sperm is 40 times longer than a human sperm.
view more
Credit: Lucy Reading-Ikkanda/Simons Foundation

The supersize sperm of fruit flies swim about their storage cavity with elegant churning choreography, and scientists at the Simons Foundation’s Flatiron Institute have figured out why.

Within the abdomen of the humble fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) are some of the longest sperm the animal kingdom has ever known. Uncoiled, the tails of these swimmers stretch around 2,000 microns long. That’s nearly the length of the male fly itself, and 10 times longer than the storage organ that houses sperm by the thousands.

Yet surprisingly, the sperm-filled organ isn’t a chaotic mess. The sperm form orderly flows, undulating like waves. “Each one of them is dragging this massive cargo, and they’re not getting entangled,” says Jasmin Imran Alsous of the Flatiron Institute’s Center for Computational Biology (CCB). “That’s what really blew my mind.” The question became: How could they move around in such tight quarters without getting tangled up in knots?

To find out, Imran Alsous and her collaborators developed mathematical models that could be used to simulate the highly complex biological system. They found that, rather than propelling themselves by creating waves through fluid like human sperm, fruit fly sperm actually push off their brethren to propel themselves forward. When thousands of sperm interact in this manner, the result is a collective churn.

The researchers report this new understanding of how individual fly sperm movements give rise to orderly collective dynamics in a new paper published June 22 in Nature Physics.

The larger ethos behind their work — building collaborations to develop quantitative approaches to reproductive biology — could help scientists answer other fundamental questions in biology, such as how nutrients flow through networks of veins, how organelles self-assemble within cells and how embryos develop.

“This is how you’re going to reach a truly quantitative understanding of biology,” says CCB Director Mike Shelley.

For the full story behind the new work, read our article “Mysteries of Fruit Fly Sperm Untangled by Mathematical Models.”

About the Flatiron Institute (CCB)

The Flatiron Institute is the research division of the Simons Foundation. The institute's mission is to advance scientific research through computational methods, including data analysis, modeling and simulation. The institute's Center for Computational Biology develops new and innovative methods of examining data in the biological sciences whose scale and complexity have historically resisted analysis. The center's mission is to develop modeling tools and theory for understanding biological processes and to create computational frameworks that will enable the analysis of the large, complex data sets being generated by new experimental technologies.

Stylized illustration of sperm tails coiled up and aligned tidily.

Credit

Lucy Reading-Ikkanda/Simons Foundation

Sperm Time Lapse [VIDEO]

Time-lapse of a collection of fruit fly sperm, with red-colored heads and gray-colored tails, showing how they "flow" together, showing the collective dynamics that Jasmin Imran Alsous and colleagues are studying.

Single Sperm Time Lapse [VIDEO]

Colorized time-lapse of an individual sperm. The sperm uncoils at random like an earthworm in a puddle showing the juxtaposition of single sperm dynamics vs. the collective.

Credit

J Imran Alsous, et al./Flatiron Institute

Journal

Nature Physics

DOI

10.1038/s41567-026-03305-4

Method of Research

Experimental study

Subject of Research

Cells

Article Title

The physical consequences of sperm gigantism

Article Publication Date

22-Jun-2026

Study finds social determinants of health can match or exceed genetic risk in predicting common diseases

Life circumstances add important insight beyond genetics alone

The Mount Sinai Hospital / Mount Sinai School of Medicine

New York, NY — [June 22, 2026] — A new study from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai shows that social determinants of health—including environmental conditions, health behaviors, access to resources, and social well-being—can play an equally important or even greater role than genetics in predicting a person’s risk of developing common diseases.

Published in the June 22 online issue of The American Journal of Human Genetics [DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2026.05.014], the study, titled "Integrating Social Determinants of Health and Genetic Risk in Disease Risk Models," examined how inherited genetic risk and social, behavioral, and environmental factors interact to influence disease risk across diverse populations.

Using data from the All of Us Research Program—a nationwide National Institutes of Health (NIH) initiative—researchers analyzed genetic information, electronic health records, and survey responses from participants across the United States. They evaluated six common conditions: asthma, chronic kidney disease, coronary heart disease, high cholesterol, breast cancer, and prostate cancer.

The researchers found that incorporating social determinants of health significantly improved disease risk prediction beyond genetics alone. For four of the six diseases studied, social, behavioral, and environmental factors contributed as much as, or more than, commonly used genetic risk scores.

"Genes are an important part of the equation, but they do not determine destiny," says senior corresponding author Samira Asgari, PhD, Assistant Professor of Genetics and Genomic Sciences at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. "We found that the circumstances of people's lives—their environments, behaviors, and social experiences—can contribute as much as genetics to predicting disease risk. To truly understand health, we have to look at the whole person, not just their DNA."

The findings highlight the complex factors that shape health and disease. While advances in genetics have expanded researchers' ability to estimate inherited risk, the new findings suggest that combining genetic information with social and environmental context may provide a more complete understanding of disease risk and help inform future prevention strategies.

To conduct the study, researchers analyzed more than 100 survey-based and community-level measures related to social and environmental conditions. Rather than focusing on a handful of predefined risk factors, the team developed a framework that identifies broader patterns across many aspects of people's lives and evaluates how those patterns contribute to disease risk.

Among the notable findings, the researchers observed associations between disease risk and factors that are less frequently examined in genetic and biological research, including loneliness. While the study was not designed to determine cause and effect, the findings highlight areas that warrant further investigation.

"Some risk factors, such as smoking, have been studied extensively for decades,” says first author Abhijith Biji, a PhD student in the Asgari lab who led the work. "What is especially intriguing is that we also observed associations involving factors like loneliness. Understanding how these experiences may become biologically embedded could open new avenues for research and ultimately improve our understanding of disease."

The authors emphasize that the study does not identify simple causes of disease and should not be interpreted as showing that any single factor directly leads to illness. Also, because many of the survey responses were collected at a single point in time, the research cannot determine whether a particular factor preceded the onset of disease.

Instead, the researchers say, the study provides a framework for integrating genetic and non-genetic information to build more comprehensive disease risk models.

The researchers believe this approach could strengthen population health research, improve disease prevention strategies, enhance risk assessment, and support future efforts to develop more personalized approaches to health care. Future studies will explore how social determinants of health can be integrated with additional biological measures and investigate the biological mechanisms that may connect social experiences to disease.

"Our goal is to build a more complete understanding of health and disease," says Dr. Asgari. "By combining genetics with social and environmental context, we can move toward risk models that better reflect the realities of people's lives and help advance more personalized approaches to health."

The authors, as listed in the journal, are Abhijith Biji, Kathleen Ferar, Vikas Pejaver, Eimear E. Kenny, Bian Liu, and Samira Asgari.

This work was supported in part by NIH grants: R21MD019104 and R35GM160530 and the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) grant UL1TR004419 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Research reported in the publication was also supported by the Office of Research Infrastructure of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers S10OD026880 and S10OD030463.

-####-

About the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai is internationally renowned for its outstanding research, educational, and clinical care programs. It is the sole academic partner for the seven member hospitals* of the Mount Sinai Health System, one of the largest academic health systems in the United States, providing care to New York City’s large and diverse patient population.

The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai offers highly competitive MD, PhD, MD-PhD, and master’s degree programs, with enrollment of more than 1,200 students. It has the largest graduate medical education program in the country, with more than 2,700 clinical residents and fellows training throughout the Health System. The Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences offers 13 degree-granting programs, conducts innovative basic and translational research, and trains more than 470 postdoctoral research fellows.

Ranked 11th nationwide in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai is among the 90th percentile of U.S. private medical schools in Sponsored Programs Direct Expenditures per Principal Investigator, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. More than 6,900 scientists, educators, and clinicians work within and across dozens of academic departments and multidisciplinary institutes with an emphasis on translational research and therapeutics. Through Mount Sinai Innovation Partners (MSIP), the Health System facilitates the real-world application and commercialization of medical breakthroughs made at Mount Sinai.

-------------------------------------------------------

* Mount Sinai Health System member hospitals: The Mount Sinai Hospital; Mount Sinai Brooklyn; Mount Sinai Morningside; Mount Sinai Queens; Mount Sinai South Nassau; Mount Sinai West; and New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai.

Journal

The American Journal of Human Genetics

DOI

10.1016/j.ajhg.2026.05.014

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Integrating Social Determinants of Health and Genetic Risk in Disease Risk Models

Article Publication Date

22-Jun-2026