Thursday, June 05, 2025

 

Study helps pinpoint areas where microplastics will accumulate



Biofilms deposited by living organisms reduce the accumulation of small particles, while areas of bare sand can be microplastics hotspots.



Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Microplastics pollution 

image: 

Researchers made a flow tank with fine sand and vertical plastic tubes (green dots) simulating mangrove roots. They pumped plastic particles and found where they landed using ultraviolet light. Researchers focused on determining how extracellular polymeric substances, or EPS, affected the transport of microparticles, including microplastics. The bottom row shows the microplastic distribution (orange dots) under different EPS concentrations.

view more 

Credit: Courtesy of Hyoungchul Park and Heidi Nepf




The accumulation of microplastics in the environment, and within our bodies, is an increasingly worrisome issue. But predicting where these ubiquitous particles will accumulate, and therefore where remediation efforts should be focused, has been difficult because of the many factors that contribute to their dispersal and deposition.

New research from MIT shows that one key factor in determining where microparticles are likely to build up has to do with the presence of biofilms. These thin, sticky biopolymer layers are shed by microorganisms and can accumulate on surfaces, including along sandy riverbeds or seashores. The study found that, all other conditions being equal, microparticles are less likely to accumulate in sediment infused with biofilms, because if they land there, they are more likely to be resuspended by flowing water and carried away.

The open-access findings appear in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, in a paper by MIT postdoc Hyoungchul Park and professor of civil and environmental engineering Heidi Nepf. “Microplastics are definitely in the news a lot,” Nepf says, “and we don’t fully understand where the hotspots of accumulation are likely to be. This work gives a little bit of guidance” on some of the factors that can cause these particles, and small particles in general, to accumulate in certain locations.

Most experiments looking at the ways microparticles are transported and deposited have been conducted over bare sand, Park says. “But in nature, there are a lot of microorganisms, such as bacteria, fungi, and algae, and when they adhere to the stream bed they generate some sticky things.” These substances are known as extracellular polymeric substances, or EPS, and they “can significantly affect the channel bed characteristics,” he says. The new research focused on determining exactly how these substances affected the transport of microparticles, including microplastics.

The research involved a flow tank with a bottom lined with fine sand, and sometimes with vertical plastic tubes simulating the presence of mangrove roots. In some experiments the bed consisted of pure sand, and in others the sand was mixed with a biological material to simulate the natural biofilms found in many riverbed and seashore environments.

Water mixed with tiny plastic particles was pumped through the tank for three hours, and then the bed surface was photographed under ultraviolet light that caused the plastic particles to fluoresce, allowing a quantitative measurement of their concentration.

The results revealed two different phenomena that affected how much of the plastic accumulated on the different surfaces. Immediately around the rods that stood in for above-ground roots, turbulence prevented particle deposition. In addition, as the amount of simulated biofilms in the sediment bed increased, the accumulation of particles also decreased.

Nepf and Park concluded that the biofilms filled up the spaces between the sand grains, leaving less room for the microparticles to fit in. The particles were more exposed because they penetrated less deeply in between the sand grains, and as a result they were much more easily resuspended and carried away by the flowing water.

“These biological films fill the pore spaces between the sediment grains,” Park explains, “and that makes the deposited particles — the particles that land on the bed — more exposed to the forces generated by the flow, which makes it easier for them to be resuspended. What we found was that in a channel with the same flow conditions and the same vegetation and the same sand bed, if one is without EPS and one is with EPS, then the one without EPS has a much higher deposition rate than the one with EPS.”

Nepf adds: “The biofilm is blocking the plastics from accumulating in the bed because they can’t go deep into the bed. They just stay right on the surface, and then they get picked up and moved elsewhere. So, if I spilled a large amount of microplastic in two rivers, and one had a sandy or gravel bottom, and one was muddier with more biofilm, I would expect more of the microplastics to be retained in the sandy or gravelly river.”

All of this is complicated by other factors, such as the turbulence of the water or the roughness of the bottom surface, she says. But it provides a “nice lens” to provide some suggestions for people who are trying to study the impacts of microplastics in the field. “They’re trying to determine what kinds of habitats these plastics are in, and this gives a framework for how you might categorize those habitats,” she says. “It gives guidance to where you should go to find more plastics versus less.”

As an example, Park suggests, in mangrove ecosystems, microplastics may preferentially accumulate in the outer edges, which tend to be sandy, while the interior zones have sediment with more biofilm. Thus, this work suggests “the sandy outer regions may be potential hotspots for microplastic accumulation,” he says, and can make this a priority zone for monitoring and protection.

The work was supported by Shell International Exploration and Production through the MIT Energy Initiative.

###

Written by David L. Chandler, MIT News

 

US self-reported race and ethnicity are poor proxies of genetic ancestry





Cell Press





Genetic ancestry is much more complicated than how people report their race and ethnicity. New research, using data from the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) All of Us Research Program, finds that people who identify as being from the same race or ethnic group can have a wide range of genetic differences. The findings are reported June 5 in the Cell Press journal the American Journal of Human Genetics.

As doctors and researchers learn more about how genetic variants influence the incidence and course of human diseases, the study of genetic ancestry has become increasingly important. This research is driving the field of precision medicine, which aims to develop individualized healthcare.

People whose ancestors came from the same part of the world are likely to have inherited the same genetic variants, but self-identified race and ethnicity don’t tell the whole story about a person’s ancestors. NIH’s All of Us Research Program was created in part to address this puzzle and to learn more about how genetic ancestry influences human health.

In the current study, the investigators looked at the DNA of more than 230,000 people who have volunteered to share their health information for All of Us. They compared it to other large DNA projects from around the world using a technique called principal component analysis (PCA) to visualize population structure and help identify genetic similarity between individuals and groups of people. This analysis showed that people in the US have very mixed ancestry, and their DNA doesn’t always match the race or ethnicity they write on forms. Instead of falling into clear groups based on race or ethnicity, people’s genetic backgrounds show gradients of variation across different US regions and states.

This is especially significant for people who identify as being of Hispanic or Latino origin. These people have a wide-ranging blend of ancestries from European, Native American, and African groups. Importantly, genetic ancestry among these people varies across the US in part because of historic migration patterns. For example, Hispanics/Latinos in the Northeast are more likely to have Caribbean (and thus African) ancestry, and those in the Southwest are more likely to have Mexican and Central American (and thus Native American) ancestry.

One specific discovery was that ancestry was significantly associated with body mass index (BMI) and height, even after adjusting for socio-economic differences. For example, West and Central African ancestries were associated with higher BMI, whereas East Africa ancestry was associated with lower BMI. There were similar findings showing that people with ancestral origins from different parts of Europe have different body measurements including height, with northern European ancestry associated with greater height and southern European ancestry associated with shorter height. This suggests that subcontinental differences in ancestry can have opposite effects on biological traits and diseases.

This finding suggests that the subcontinental differences in ancestry between individuals can have opposite effects on biological traits, diseases, and health outcomes, emphasizing the importance of not classifying individuals into broad ancestry groups such as African, European, or Asian. Doing this will help to make this research more accurate and will help to improve the field of precision medicine.

###

 

This work was supported by NIH’s National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH’s National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Office of the Director at NIH, CNPq-Brazil (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico), and FAPEMIG (Minas Gerais State Research Agency).

American Journal of Human Genetics, Gouveia et al., “Subcontinental genetic variation in the All of Us Research Program: Implications for biomedical research” https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(25)00173-9

The American Journal of Human Genetics (@AJHGNews), published by Cell Press for the American Society of Human Genetics, is a monthly journal that provides a record of research and review relating to heredity in humans and to the application of genetic principles in medicine and public policy, as well as in related areas of molecular and cell biology. Visit http://www.cell.com/ajhg. To receive Cell Press media alerts, contact press@cell.com.

 

Living towers of worms observed in nature



Nematode towering behavior is recorded in the wild for the first time, a rare example of collective hitchhiking in nature




Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior

Living worm tower 

image: 

Nematode worm tower imaged in the laboratory

view more 

Credit: Daniela Perez





Nematodes are the most abundant animal on earth, but when times get tough, these tiny worms have a hard time moving up and out. So, they play to the strength of their clade. If food runs out and competition turns fierce, they slither towards their numerous kin. They climb onto each other and over one another until their bodies forge a living tower that twists skyward where they might hitch a ride on a passing animal to greener and roomier pastures.

At least that’s what scientists assumed. For decades, these worm structures were more mythical than material. Such aggregations, in which animals link bodies for group movement, are rare in nature. Only slime molds, fire ants, and spider mites are known to move in this way. For nematodes, nobody had even seen the aggregations—known as towers— forming anywhere but within the artificial confines of laboratories and growth chambers; and nobody really knew what they were for. Did towers even exist in the real world?

Now, researchers in Konstanz, Germany, have recorded video footage of worms towering in fallen apples and pears from local orchards. The team from the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior (MPI-AB) and the University of Konstanz combined fieldwork with laboratory experiments to provide the first direct evidence that towering behavior occurs naturally and functions as a means of collective transport.

Natural towers

“I was ecstatic when I saw these natural towers for the first time,” says senior author Serena Ding, group leader at the MPI-AB, of the moment when co-author Ryan Greenway sent her a video recording from the field. “For so long natural worm towers existed only in our imaginations. But with the right equipment and lots of curiosity, we found them hiding in plain sight.”

Greenway, a technical assistant at the MPI-AB, spent months with a digital microscope combing through decaying fruit in orchards near the university to record natural occurrences and behavior of worm towers. Some of these whole towers were brought into the lab. What was inside the towers surprised the team. Although the fruits were crawling with many species of nematodes, natural towers were made only of a single species, all at the tough larval stage known as a “dauer.”

“A nematode tower is not just a pile of worms,” says the first author Daniela Perez, a postdoctoral researcher at MPI-AB. “It’s a coordinated structure, a superorganism in motion.”

Function of towers

The team observed the natural dauer towers waving in unison, much like individual nematodes do by standing on their tails to latch onto a passing animal. But their new findings showed that entire worm towers could respond to touch, detach from surfaces, and collectively attach to insects such as fruit flies—hitchhiking on mass to new environments.

To probe deeper, Perez built a controlled tower using laboratory cultures of C. elegans. When placed on food-free agar with a small vertical post—a toothbrush bristle—hungry worms began to self-assemble. Within two hours, living towers emerged, stable for over 12 hours, and capable of extending exploratory “arms” into surrounding space. Some even formed bridges across gaps to reach new surfaces.

“The towers are actively sensing and growing,” says Perez. “When we touched them, they responded immediately, growing toward the stimulus and attaching to it.”

This behavior, it turns out, is not restricted to the so-called “dauer” larval stage seen from the wild samples. Adult C. elegans and all larval stages in the lab also towered—an unexpected twist that suggests towering may be a more generalized strategy for group movement than previously assumed.

Yet despite the architectural complexity of these towers, the worms inside showed no obvious role differentiation. Individuals from the base and the apex were equally mobile, fertile, and strong, hinting at a form of egalitarian cooperation. But so far only, the authors point out, in the controlled conditions of the laboratory. “C. elegans is a clonal culture and so it makes sense that there is no differentiation within the tower. In natural towers, we might see separate genetic compositions and roles, which prompts fascinating questions about who cooperates and who cheats.”

As researchers seek to understand how group behavior evolves—from insect swarms to bird migrations—these microscopic worm towers might rise to provide some of the answers.

“Our study opens up a whole new system for exploring how and why animals move together,” says Ding who leads a research program on nematode behavior and genetics. “By harnessing the genetic tools available for C. elegans, we now have a powerful model to study the ecology and evolution of collective dispersal.”

Natural worm tower [VIDEO] | 

Natural towers were imaged on a rotting pear in the wild (~ 3 mm, Caenorhabditis sp. 8). Towers wiggle and respond to tactile stimuli for attachment. Worm tower (C. sp. 8) attaching to the passing fly and traveling on the vector until it reaches the next substrate and detaches.

Credit

Credit Perez et al. (2025) Current Biology

 

Brain mechanisms that distinguish imagination from reality discovered





University College London




Areas of the brain that help a person differentiate between what is real and what is imaginary have been uncovered in a new study led by UCL researchers.

The research, published in Neuron, found that a region in the brain known as the fusiform gyrus – located behind one’s temples, on the underside of the brain’s temporal lobe – is involved in helping the brain to determine whether what we see is from the external world or generated by our imagination.

The researchers hope that their findings will increase understanding of the cognitive processes that go awry when someone has difficulty judging what is real and what is not, such as in schizophrenia, and could eventually lead to advancement in diagnosing and treating these conditions.

Lead author, Dr Nadine Dijkstra (Department of Imaging Neuroscience at UCL) said: “Imagine an apple in your mind’s eye as vividly as you can. During imagination, many of the same brain regions activate in the same manner as when you see a real apple. Until recently, it remained unclear how the brain distinguishes between these real and imagined experiences.”

For the study, researchers asked 26 participants to look at simple visual patterns while imagining them at the same time.

Specifically, participants were asked to look for a specific faint pattern within a noisy background on a screen and indicate whether the pattern was actually present or not. A real pattern was only presented half of the time.

At the same time, participants were also instructed to imagine a pattern that was either the same or different to the one they were looking for, and indicate how vivid their mental images were.

When the patterns were the same, and participants reported that their imagination was very vivid, they were more likely to say they saw a real pattern, even on trials in which nothing was presented. This means they mistook their mental images for reality.

While participants performed the tasks, their brain activity was monitored using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). This technology enabled the researchers to identify which parts of the brain showed patterns of activity that helped distinguish reality from imagination.

The team found that the strength of activity in the fusiform gyrus could predict whether people judged an experience as real or imagined, irrespective of whether it actually was real.

When activity in the fusiform gyrus was strong, people were more likely to indicate that the pattern was really there.

Usually, activation in the fusiform gyrus is weaker during imagination than during perception, which helps the brain keep the two apart. However, this study showed that sometimes when participants imagined very vividly, activation of the fusiform gyrus was very strong and participants confused their imagination for reality.

Senior author, Professor Steve Fleming (UCL Psychology & Language Sciences) said: “The brain activity in this area of visual cortex matched the predictions from a computer simulation on how the difference between internally and externally generated experience is determined.”

Dr Dijkstra added: “Our findings suggest that the brain uses the strength of sensory signals to distinguish between imagination and reality.”

The study also showed that the fusiform gyrus collaborates with other brain areas to help us decide what is real and what is imagined.

Specifically, activity in the anterior insula – a brain region in the prefrontal cortex (the front part of the brain that acts as a control centre for tasks such as decision making, problem solving and planning) – increased in line with activity in the fusiform gyrus when participants said something was real, even if it was in fact imagined.

Professor Fleming said: “These areas of the prefrontal cortex have previously been implicated in metacognition – the ability to think about our own minds. Our results indicate that the same brain areas are also involved in deciding what is real.”

These results offer new insights into what might go wrong in the brain during psychiatric conditions like schizophrenia where patients struggle keeping apart imagination and reality. The findings may also inform future virtual reality technologies by identifying how and when imagined experiences feel real.

The research was conducted in collaboration with Professor Peter Kok (Department of Imaging Neuroscience at UCL) and former UCL Masters student Thomas von Rein. The study was funded by grants from the European Research Council and Wellcome.

 

Chimpanzees can catch yawns from androids




City St George’s, University of London






Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) can ‘catch’ yawns from an android imitating human facial expressions, according to new research from City St George’s, University of London.

The study, published in Scientific Reports, demonstrates that chimpanzees will both yawn and lie down in response to yawns made by an android, suggesting that it may act as a cue to rest rather than simply triggering an automatic response.

The findings appear to show contagious yawning due to an inanimate model for the first time, according to the authors, and the study also highlights the role of social factors in shaping yawn contagion.

Contagious yawning – where seeing another animal yawn triggers a yawn response in an individual – is primarily observed in mammals and some fish. While the evolutionary origins of yawning and yawn contagion are still unknown, some animals, including humans, can catch yawns from other species.

To test the responses of chimpanzees, Dr Ramiro Joly-Mascheroni, Honorary Research Fellow at City St George’s, Professor Beatriz Calvo-Merino, Professor Tina Forster (Professors in Cognitive Neuroscience at City St George’s), and colleagues at Universitat de Girona used an android head that could simulate facial expressions to test the responses of 14 adult chimpanzees aged between 10 and 33 years at the Fundació Mona Primate Sanctuary in Spain.

The android head generated facial expressions – ‘yawning’, ‘gaping’, and ‘neutral’ – with each facial movement lasting 10 seconds. Chimpanzees displayed contagious yawning in response to the android’s ‘yawn’.

Adult chimpanzees responded in a graded manner depending on the different android facial expressions. The highest yawn contagion occurred when the android displayed a fully wide-open mouth (‘yawning’), a reduced response when the mouth was partially opened (‘gaping’), and no contagion when the android's mouth was closed. Only during the yawning condition did they gather bedding materials before lying down. 

Lead author Dr Joly-Mascheroni said:

“Our findings show that chimpanzees exhibit yawn contagion when triggered by a non-biological inanimate agent, a humanoid android, that looks as if it is yawning. Despite its elusive primary functions – we still don’t know exactly why we yawn, let alone why yawning is contagious – yawning may still have an evolutionarily old, non-verbal communicative role, and its contagious aspect may help us find out more about how humans and animals developed ways of communication and social interaction.”

Professor Calvo-Merino said:

“Exploring the yawning responses of primates towards an artificial agent helps us to understand the mechanism of social cognition and interactions beyond humans. This interdisciplinary research enhances the collaboration of disciplines such as psychology, robotics and zoology.”

The researchers add that the mechanisms behind this response still require further research to clarify whether other actions performed by robots or artificial agents are contagious to animals and how similar it is to the response in humans.

 

Health care workforce recovery after the end of the COVID-19 emergency



JAMA Network




About The Study: Health care employment growth decreased amid the pandemic but fully recovered by 2024. This recovery contrasts with non–health care employment trends and may result from health care financing via insurance coverage shielding health care employment from macroeconomic fluctuations. 

Corresponding Author: To contact the corresponding author, Thuy Nguyen, PhD, email thuydn@umich.edu.

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

(doi:10.1001/jama.2025.8588)

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 This link will be live at the embargo time https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/10.1001/jama.2025.8588?guestAccessKey=2fc24583-102f-4efb-82a6-5bdb87cb7ed1&utm_source=for_the_media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=060525