Showing posts sorted by date for query SARS. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query SARS. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, August 26, 2026

 

Clues to longevity may reside in the genomes of long-lived bats



Scientists are finding that bat genes involved in viral interactions also play a role in longevity



University of California - Berkeley

Longeared bat 

image: 

This longeared bat, Myotis evotis, was captured in Arizona by researchers from UC Berkeley and the University of Arizona. The scientists took tissue samples from the wings before releasing it and used the samples to sequence the bat's genome and to establish cell cultures for study.

view more 

Credit: Elise Lauterbur





The secret to a long life may lie in the genomes of the longest-lived mammals for their size: bats.

That idea captivated Juan Manuel Vazquez when he was a graduate student at the University of Chicago, but at the time he couldn’t find any good, published information on bat genomes to provide clues. Once he became a UC Berkeley postdoctoral fellow in 2020, however, he unleashed his passion and began scouring the Western U.S. for bat species that could provide tissue samples and DNA to sequence.

Enlisting the help of Berkeley undergraduates, he traveled around the West erecting mist nets over streams, ponds and rivers at night to capture, biopsy and release as many species of bats as he could. He focused on those in the genus Myotis, which contains the bat with the longest lifetime — a Brandt’s myotis, Myotis brandtii. One individual was banded in Europe and recaptured 50 years later.

In a new paper appearing this week in the journal Nature, Vazquez and colleagues report the first analysis of eight Myotis genomes and the discovery of a close link between the animal’s longevity and its immune system — longer-lived bats had higher levels of cancer-fighting genes.

The findings suggest that an immune system able to mount an overwhelming attack against infectious organisms and cancer may be integral to a long lifespan. The overlap between genes involved in aging and those involved in fighting disease also means that understanding one will help scientists understand the other.

“Bats evolved to live for a long time without getting diseases, which suggests that we don't necessarily need to look at diseases of aging and diseases of infection as completely separate fields,” Vazquez said. “We can look at these bats and try to understand how, in the same way you can improve your immune system to fight off viruses, maybe you can improve your immune system so it doesn't decline in old age. Or maybe bats can help us find ways to fight off tumors so our immune system doesn’t get tired, and that can also help us deal with other stresses of life and not exhaust our immunity.”

For the study, Vazquez cultured cells he biopsied from the wings of the bats. (He currently has cell cultures from 259 individuals representing 32 species.) When he treated cultured bat cells with toxic chemicals, he found an unusual response: for the longest-lived bat in his sample, the widespread little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), the toxin didn’t trigger activation of genes for DNA repair proteins, but rather up-regulated genes promoting cell death.

“We found the literal opposite of what we expected if you treat the bats with a lethal dose of this chemical,” he said. “The longest-lived bat in North America decides ‘I can't save this ship’ and immediately switches gears to prioritize killing off the cells that are damaged. The elephant, another cancer-resistant species that is long-lived, has the exact same strategy — if you can't save the cell, kill the cell.”

The discovery is a heads-up that clues to longevity can be gleaned from understanding the different ways animals deal with disease, said Peter Sudmant, a Berkeley associate professor of integrative biology who studies the genes involved in aging and longevity.

“By looking across the diversity of life and the remarkable longevities of different species, we hope we can better understand the interplay between DNA damage and the immune system to enable us to have full and healthy life spans,” he said.

“If you start looking at long-lived species like elephants, whales and bats, you start finding ways that nature has actually already resolved a lot of these problems in human health,” Vazquez added.

Longevity, an active lifestyle and an immune system on high alert

The bat lifestyle has been a big success since the group arose about 60 million years ago. Bats now comprise 20% of all mammalian species, live on all continents except Antarctica and occupy a wide range of ecological niches. Of the known 1,511 species, about 139 are in the Myotis genus, which is known for bats exhibiting an extreme range of lifespans. While Brandt’s myotis bats can live half a century, the black Myotis — Myotis nigricans, of South and Central America — lives a mere seven years. This is as if our close relative, Homo neanderthalensis, lived nine times longer than modern Homo sapiens, Vazquez said.

Despite bats’ evolutionary success, scientists were surprised to find that their immune systems are hyperactive, working overtime to suppress damaging inflammation from constant viral infections without actually becoming sick. As a result, healthy bats can host an amazing variety of viruses, some of which, like the cause of COVID-19, can spill over into human populations.

Some researchers have linked bats’ robust immune systems to their very active lifestyle. Vazquez likens bats’ nighttime patrols for bugs to running several ultramarathons every day.

“Bats have evolved this incredible fitness capacity, this incredible ability to deal with disease and this incredible ability to be able to prevent cancer,” he said. “That means that, by understanding how bats have evolved to do all these things that other mammals haven't, we can find completely new and unexpected ways of dealing with the normal things that cause human diseases.”

The new study provides tantalizing clues. Vazquez found that whenever he identified a bat gene linked to lifespan, his collaborator, Elise Lauterbur, then at the University of Arizona, had identified the same gene as one involved in the bat’s interaction with viruses.

“There is way more overlap than you would expect just by random chance between the genes that are associated with longevity and genes that are associated with viral interactions,” he said.

Another surprise was that Myotis bats have an enhanced abundance of genes that make proteins that interact with DNA viruses — viruses, like herpes, that encode their genes using DNA. These proteins can either promote infection or protect against it, such as by boosting expression of the antiviral hormone interferon.

“DNA viral interacting proteins were strongly enriched for selection in bats in contrast to most other mammals, where there is a very strong enrichment for selection for both DNA and RNA viral interacting proteins,” Sudmant said. Humans and other primates, on the other hand, tend to have more genes for proteins that interact with RNA viruses, like COVID and HIV, than DNA viruses.

This mismatch between bats and humans may be why viruses spilling over from bats into humans and causing zoonotic disease have wreaked such havoc in recent years.

“Humans and bats are badly suited to each other,” Vazquez said. “That is one of the reasons why we have to be careful working with bats — it's a two-way street for zoonoses. We don't want to give the bat something and we don't want to get something from the bat. That mismatch is definitely something we should look into more.”

While Vazquez continues to investigate the genetic control of longevity in cell culture in his new faculty position at Pennsylvania State University, Sudmant is more interested in the immune responses of these cells.

“One thing that I'm really excited about is the trade-off between how a bat protects itself by producing proteins that attack the genomes of viruses but also protects its own genome from being attacked by those proteins,” he said.

He currently has cell cultures from many species of primate in which he is studying the genetic basis of longevity and how that’s related to DNA repair genes.

In addition to Vazquez, Sudmant and Lauterbur, now at the University of Vermont, other co-authors of the paper include Lucie Etienne of the École Normale Supérieure in Lyon, France, and David Enard of the University of Arizona in Tucson. The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

Friday, August 21, 2026

 

Why immune responses to vaccines vary from person to person



Study finds past immune encounters may predict future vaccine response




Arizona State University

A window into vaccine response 

image: 

Pre-existing antibody patterns may reveal how strongly a person will respond to vaccination, helping identify individuals at risk of a blunted immune response.

view more 

Credit: Graphic by Jason Drees for the Biodesign Institute At Arizona State University






Vaccines protect most people from serious illness, but the strength of that protection can vary considerably from one person to another. A new study led by Arizona State University helps us understand why.

Before a vaccine ever enters your body, your immune system may already hold clues to how strongly it will respond. In blood samples from more than 4,000 people, ASU researchers and their colleagues measured antibodies against 185 antigens—targets recognized by the immune system, including those from common viruses and bacteria as well as targets associated with autoimmune diseases.

They then used artificial intelligence to analyze patterns in samples collected before and after COVID-19 vaccination, identifying antibody signatures that helped distinguish strong vaccine responders from weak ones.

The research opens a possible path toward more personalized vaccination strategies.

“What our study found is that certain biomarkers, when analyzed with AI, can predict who is likely to respond well to a vaccine, even before they receive it. This suggests that some people may be more immune-ready than others,” says Joshua LaBaer, who led the study.

LaBaer is the executive director of the Biodesign Institute at ASU and director of the Virginia G. Piper Center for Personalized Diagnostics. The research was conducted with ASU colleagues and collaborators from medical and research institutions across the country.

The study appears in the current issue of the journal Cell Press Blue

Antibody clues reveal immune readiness

Usually, scientists evaluate vaccine response after the shot, by measuring whether the immune system produced antibodies against the target. Here, the researchers asked a different question: Could patterns already present in the blood predict the response before vaccination?

Age, sex, genetics, prior illnesses and underlying health conditions have all been linked to how strongly people respond to vaccines. People with immune-compromising conditions are often at higher risk of weaker responses. But even within these groups, outcomes can differ sharply.

The new approach is one of the first to use a broad, pre-vaccine antibody “fingerprint” to assess immune readiness. Unlike some prediction methods that rely on genetic analyses, this strategy uses antibody patterns in blood, which may be easier to adapt for clinical use.

Beyond immune categories

To test whether that antibody fingerprint could reveal vaccine readiness, the researchers analyzed antibody responses to 185 antigens. These included SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, other common viruses and bacteria, and targets associated with autoimmune diseases.

The study included 8,687 samples from 4,089 participants, spanning healthy volunteers and people with conditions or treatments linked to immune suppression, such as HIV, multiple myeloma, solid organ malignancy, autoimmune disease, inflammatory bowel disease and solid organ transplantation.

The researchers found that several immunosuppressed groups were more likely to have blunted responses to COVID-19 vaccination. But those categories were imperfect predictors. Some immunosuppressed participants mounted strong responses, while about 5% to 6% of healthy participants had weak responses.

Sentinel antibodies

The study found that higher levels of certain preexisting antibodies, including antibodies to common microbes such as Staphylococcus aureus, RSV and human respirovirus 3, were associated with stronger COVID-19 vaccine responses.

The researchers describe these as “sentinel” antibodies because they may indicate a person’s baseline immune readiness. They are not necessarily fighting the vaccine target directly. Instead, they may reflect how responsive the antibody-producing arm of the immune system is likely to be.

The researchers then asked whether the full antibody fingerprint, not just a few individual markers, could help identify people likely to have weak vaccine responses. Their deep-learning model analyzed patterns across the antibody panel, combining many measurements into a broader immune profile.

The study highlights a key strength of AI in health research: its ability to find subtle, predictive patterns in millions of biological data points that might otherwise remain hidden. The approach suggests that vaccine readiness may be better understood by looking at the immune system as a whole, rather than focusing only on a single disease or a single antibody.

The work also highlights the value of newer technologies that can measure large numbers of antibody responses at once. Instead of asking whether someone has antibodies to one pathogen, the method can scan a wider immune landscape, capturing patterns formed by many previous encounters with viruses, bacteria and other immune targets.

The researchers say the findings could have implications beyond COVID-19, if they are validated in additional studies and with other vaccines. Sentinel antibody profiling could help guide vaccine testing, vaccine development and clinical care for people at risk of weak immune responses.

The approach might eventually help doctors identify patients who need additional vaccine doses, closer follow-up or alternative protective measures. It could also help researchers better understand why some people respond well to vaccination while others do not.

The work points toward a future in which vaccine decisions could be guided by a person’s own immune readiness.

 

 

Thursday, August 20, 2026

 

Bringing objectivity to the COVID origins debate





American Institute of Biological Sciences





A newly published Viewpoint article in the journal BioScience argues that the contentious debate over the origins of SARS-CoV-2 could benefit from a well-established scientific approach for weighing competing explanations. Multiple working hypotheses and strong inference, argues author Alan B. Franklin (formerly of the USDA National Wildlife Research Center) could break the logjam of single-hypothesis reasoning that has marked the politically charged accusations that the SARS-CoV-2 originated from either an intentional or unintentional release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology versus from the proximate live animal market.

 

In the article, Franklin pointedly avoids a declaration of the pandemic's origins, focusing instead on improving our analytical approach to such questions. As he puts it, "My goal here is not to support any particular hypothesis but to argue for a better process to distinguish among these competing hypotheses, a process that should be guided by an objective consortium of scientists rather than the media and politicians."

 

Franklin describes the approach's origins in a 1890 paper by Thomas Chrowder Chamberlin, who described the "method of multiple working hypotheses" and contrasted it with the "method of the ruling theory," in which a single hypothesis is bolstered by selective evidence while competing explanations are discounted or dismissed. Franklin argues that the search for the origins of COVID-19 "seems to have relied more heavily on ruling theory rather than on multiple working hypotheses even though the question is ripe for the multiple working hypotheses approach."

 

A central obstacle, Franklin notes, is that the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. He observes that arguments favoring one explanation often rest on the volume of available data, but cautions that "the amount of available data is not a substitute for an objective measure of strength of evidence." The article points to precedents from natural resource management, where structured, quantitative frameworks have been used to resolve conflicting hypotheses, which are agreed on by neutral parties before the evidence is analyzed.

 

Franklin proposes a prominent role for scientific societies in such processes, noting that public trust in individual scientists to deliver unbiased conclusions is comparatively low. Because the societies are often seen as sources of unbiased information and can convene large and diverse groups, he argues that they are well positioned to bridge the gap between researchers and policymakers. "The involvement of scientific institutions in contentious issues, such as the origin of SARS-CoV-2, may garner more public trust in the outcome than would the involvement only of individual scientists or politicians," he writes. Following Franklin's approach may help restore public confidence in scientists and the institutions that support them.

 

The Viewpoint appears in BioScience, which is published by the American Institute of Biological Sciences. The article, "Multiple working hypotheses, strong inference, and the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic," is available at https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biag037.