Could chickens hatch more useful medical proteins in eggs?

A researcher is working to create chickens that hatch useful medical proteins.

Chicken eggs are already used to harvest helpful proteins called antibodies to protect humans from viruses such as influenza.

A new breakthrough at the University of Missouri could one day lead to chickens that produce other useful medical proteins in their eggs.

In a new study, Mizzou researchers solved a common issue in the field of avian genetics known as epigenetic silencing.

In the past, scientists have learned that if they insert a new gene into random places in a chicken’s DNA, the new gene may get “silenced” or turned off over time. Therefore, the chicken—and more importantly, its offspring—might either not inherit the benefit linked with the new gene or the benefit may diminish over time as the new gene gets passed down from generation to generation. That makes it difficult to create a stable line of genetically engineered chickens that produce useful medical proteins.

So, Mizzou scientists tried a new approach to avoid epigenetic silencing. Using the gene-editing tool CRISPR, researchers focused on a specific enzyme that plays a key role in glucose metabolism inside a chicken cell. They attached a marker that glows green, allowing them to easily see whether a gene stays turned on.

“This enzyme, GAPDH, is needed to break down sugar to make energy, so every cell needs it to survive,” Kiho Lee, a professor in the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources and study author, says.

“Our hypothesis was that since this enzyme is active all the time, the gene segment we introduce into that location should stay on all the time.”

After multiple months and many rounds of cell division, the researchers were excited by what they saw in the chicken cells in Lee’s lab: the reporter genes were still glowing bright green, indicating that gene silencing never occurred.

The success of this proof-of-concept study paves the way to see whether Lee and his team can create a platform for developing a stable line of genetically modified chickens. They’re collaborating with scientists and industry partners to see which genetic modifications would be most helpful to various stakeholders.

“This work could ultimately support efforts to make a stable line of genetically engineered birds that lay many eggs, all of which will hopefully contain useful proteins that can be used in various clinical applications for human medicine,” Lee says.

“There could also be agricultural and economic implications of this work, too. With how devastating avian influenza is to birds, if a new gene segment that can mitigate transmission of the virus can be inserted into the chicken’s genome, we would want that new gene segment to stay on and get passed down from generation to generation.”

The research appears in Poultry Science.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture in the United States Department of Agriculture.

Source: University of Missouri

The post Could chickens hatch more useful medical proteins in eggs? appeared first on Futurity.

from Futurity https://ift.tt/wrkgMQp

Potential losses motivate people more than potential wins

Athletes say they hate to lose more than they love to win. New research finds the same sentiment is shared in organizations.

A Virginia Tech researcher and his colleagues discovered that when managers frame work problems as a potential loss, employees are more likely to take action than when those problems are framed as potential gains.

The research also revealed that when the potential loss affects a larger group, employees are more likely to take action in the form of speaking up to a supervisor in hopes of finding a solution.

The findings appear in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

For managers, this research suggests that framing work problems as potential losses can influence employees to speak up more.

“Employee voice occurs when suggestions are made to improve organizational functioning,” says Phil Thompson, associate professor in the Pamplin College of Business management department.

“From an organizational perspective, the positive outcomes of employee voice include improved performance, effectiveness, and workplace safety. From an employee level, speaking up is positively related to creativity, innovation, engagement, and ethical behavior.”

At its core, this research shows that how managers choose to frame problems directly influences employees’ motivation to speak up at work. For managers, this is an insightful approach for building more open and collaborative teams.

“When managers say, ‘If we don’t get this done, not only will you lose the $5,000 bonus, but everybody in this work group is going to lose a $5,000 bonus,’ it magnifies an employee’s motivation to act in a proactive way,” says Thompson.

“This suggests that framing work problems as what will be collectively lost—compared to what can be individually lost—makes employees want to speak up more.”

Thompson was part of a research team led by Jeffery Thomas and Jonathan Booth from The London School of Economics and Mark Bolino from Oklahoma University. Together they analyzed responses from nearly 2,000 full-time employees, MBA students, and employee-supervisor pairs for their experience in situations where work problems were framed as either a gain or a loss. Across three different studies, framing something as a loss yielded employees to voice a work suggestion more.

For example, a manager dealing with a reputational crisis of their team, such as a product quality issue, can frame the problem in a way to spark helpful employee suggestions on how to resolve the issue.

For example, instead of saying “if this product has great quality, our company will look really good” a manager saying “if this product is not up to quality standards, our reputation will be damaged” carries more weight for the team. When this reputational risk is shared by everyone, employees are more willing to step forward to help the problem.

In the first study, participants were asked to think about a problem at work that was significant for them. From there, they were randomly assigned to write about the potential losses or gains from that problem. They were also asked to indicate how likely they were to talk about these problems to their supervisor. Participants who reflected on their potential losses showed a 16% higher willingness to speak up compared to those who focused on the potential gains.

When it came to the MBA students, they read a fictional performance review scenario where a workplace problem was described. They then rated how willing they would be to speak up about that scenario if they were in the situation. One example suggested that the entire team might fall short of its goals if an issue was not addressed. This specific scenario yielded the most likelihood of speaking up 35% more than the scenario’s suggesting that only they would miss their goal, supporting the research’s findings that an employee is more likely to speak up when the loss impacts more people.

The third study looked at employee-supervisor pairings to understand how these relationships play out in the real world. Using pairings from across three industries, employees reported a workplace problem they encountered and their supervisor rated how often that employee spoke up on the job. While the first two studies involved hypothetical scenarios, this real-world evidence showed that employees were 8-10 times more likely to speak up when issues were framed as a potential collective loss compared with a potential collective gain.

“This research is really geared toward managers so they can facilitate and understand how and why their employees will speak up,” says Thompson.

“You can talk about the issue, but it always ends in terms of how we frame things.”

Source: Virginia Tech

The post Potential losses motivate people more than potential wins appeared first on Futurity.

from Futurity https://ift.tt/f6dok3N

Alzheimer’s screening may work differently for men and women

A new study shows standard cognitive screening tools used to monitor Alzheimer’s disease may not reflect underlying brain changes in the same way for women and men.

According to the Alzheimer’s Association, nearly two-thirds of Americans living with Alzheimer’s are women.

New Georgia State University research in the journal Brain Communications adds to growing evidence that Alzheimer’s may progress differently in men and women—and that those differences could matter in clinical care. It also suggests doctors may need to interpret common tests differently for each sex.

The issue may involve standard screening tools like the 30-point Mini-Mental State Examination, or MMSE. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is an intermediate stage between normal aging and Alzheimer’s disease—and this research suggests that, for women, a good MMSE score during that stage may not fully reflect underlying brain changes.

“A woman who scores well on the MMSE in the MCI stage may still be showing underlying brain changes that are not fully captured by that score alone,” says Mukesh Dhamala, the study’s senior author and a professor of physics and neuroscience at Georgia State University.

“Screening tools may need sex-calibrated interpretation.”

Dhamala notes that men and women are given the same test, with no adjustments for sex—a design limitation his research suggests may mask differences in how far the disease has progressed in the brain.

To understand why, the research team analyzed brain scans from 332 people at different stages of the disease. They found that Alzheimer’s affects men’s and women’s brains differently.

In men, the brain showed more shrinkage earlier in the disease’s progression, from normal cognitive health to mild cognitive impairment. In women, the brain showed steeper and more widespread decline from MCI to Alzheimer’s disease.

The findings suggest the brain may be compensating in women in ways that help maintain cognitive performance earlier in the disease. Their cognitive scores were tied to a broader range of brain regions than men’s, suggesting the brain may be recruiting additional areas to support performance.

That may help explain why structural brain changes and cognitive scores may not align in the same way for women and men.

The study was led by Chandrama Mukherjee, a doctoral student in Georgia State’s physics and astronomy department, under Dhamala’s guidance. The work lays a foundation for the next phase of research, including tracking patients over time and examining how hormones and genetics influence these differences.

“If this line of research succeeds, the larger impact would be a move away from a one-size-fits-all framework for Alzheimer’s disease,” Dhamala says.

“Diagnosis could become more sex-informed, biomarkers could be interpreted differently in men and women, and treatment trials could be designed with the understanding that disease timing and brain vulnerability may not be the same across sexes.”

Dhamala is clear that the findings are not yet a personal prescription.

Staying mentally and physically active, managing vascular health, and discussing family history or genetic risk with a doctor remain among the best evidence-based steps. But he believes the research should help shape an important conversation many women are having with their doctors right now.

“The long-term hope is that findings like ours will lead to sex-specific screening windows and earlier, more precise interventions,” he says.

For women, Dhamala believes that window may eventually open earlier than is currently recognized.

“In women, this may eventually help identify more targeted windows for intervention, including midlife and postmenopausal stages when neuroprotective hormonal changes may be especially relevant,” he says.

The research appears in Brain Communications.

Source: Georgia State University

The post Alzheimer’s screening may work differently for men and women appeared first on Futurity.

from Futurity https://ift.tt/D6IagWC

Team cracks 100 year-old rubber mystery

Scientists have solved a decades-old mystery behind reinforced rubber—a material used in everything from tires to industrial systems.

Every time you drive, board a plane or water your lawn, you’re relying on a material that has quietly powered modern life for nearly a century—reinforced rubber.

It’s in car and aircraft tires, industrial seals, medical devices, and countless everyday products. Yet despite its ubiquity and its central role in the $260 billion global tire industry, scientists have never fully understood why it works so well.

Until now.

A research team led by University of South Florida College of Engineering Professor David Simmons solved one of the oldest mysteries in materials science: How adding tiny particles known as carbon black transforms soft, stretchy rubber into something strong enough to support the weight of a fully loaded jet.

Their findings in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provide an answer and offer a new way of thinking about how to design safer, longer-lasting materials.

“How is it that we’ve been using this for 80, 90, 100 years and haven’t really known how it works?” Simmons says.

“It’s been through enormous trial and error. The tire companies can purchase many different grades of carbon black—basically fancy soot—and they just have to use trial and error to figure out what’s worth paying more for and what isn’t.”

Now, after running 1,500 molecular dynamics simulations totaling about 15 years of computing time, the researchers unified competing theories and revealed the true mechanism—a phenomenon called Poisson’s ratio mismatch, which forces rubber to fight against its own incompressibility.

The basic recipe for reinforced rubber has changed little over the past century. Add microscopic particles—usually carbon black—to rubber, and the material becomes dramatically tougher and more durable. That’s why tires are black and can endure years of wear, heat, and repeated stress without falling apart.

But the reasons behind that transformation remained elusive for scientists, sparking “a major debate for multiple decades now,” Simmons says.

Some suggested the particles formed chain-like networks inside the rubber. Others argued the particles acted like glue, stiffening the material around them. Still others thought the particles simply took up space, forcing the rubber to stretch more.

Each theory failed to capture the full picture.

Instead of attempting to observe the various processes directly, something nearly impossible because of their nanoscale size, Simmons and his team recreated them virtually.

Simmons, together with USF postdoctoral scholar Pierre Kawak and doctoral student Harshad Bhapkar, used advanced molecular simulations to model how hundreds of thousands of atoms interact inside reinforced rubber.

By refining existing models to better reflect the real structure of carbon black and how it disperses inside rubber, they zeroed in on the material in ways experiments can’t.

“It’s not that we literally had a simulation running for 15 years,” Simmons says. “What it means is if you ran a calculation using your laptop for one hour and it used up the whole laptop with six cores, it would be six computing hours. We used USF’s large computing cluster with many, many cores for many months.”

The breakthrough centered around Poisson’s ratio, which measures how materials change shape when stretched.

Simmons compares it to pulling back the plunger of a sealed, water-filled syringe. Water doesn’t compress easily, so the harder you pull the more resistance you feel.

Rubber likewise strongly resists changes in volume. Stretching a normal rubber band makes it thinner as it lengthens, keeping its volume largely unchanged.

But when carbon black particles are added to rubber, they act like tiny supports, preventing it from thinning as much as it normally would. When the material is stretched, it’s forced to increase in volume, something it strongly resists.

In essence, the rubber “fights against itself,” producing a dramatic increase in stiffness and strength.

Notably, the findings don’t discard earlier theories. They unify them.

The team found that previously proposed mechanisms—including particle networks, sticky interactions, and space-filling effects—contribute to volume-resistance behavior. Rather than competing explanations, they are pieces of a larger puzzle.

By integrating them into a single framework, the researchers created the first comprehensive explanation of rubber reinforcement.

The breakthrough came after initial models fell short. When the simulations didn’t match real-world data, the team incorporated ideas from earlier scientific literature into their approach. The result was a model that aligned with the observed behavior.

For the tire industry and consumers, the findings are potentially transformative.

The “Magic Triangle” of tire design aims to improve fuel efficiency, traction, and durability at the same time, a near-impossible balancing act. Enhancing one or two outcomes often comes at the expense of the third.

Until now, manufacturers relied on trial and error to navigate those trade-offs, an expensive and time-consuming process.

With a better understanding of how reinforced rubber actually works, engineers can begin to design materials more precisely. The result could be tires that last longer, grip better in wet conditions, and improve fuel economy—all at once.

“The struggle always is to get more than two of the three to be good, and this is where trial and error only gets you so far,” Simmons says. “With these findings, we’re laying a new foundation for rationally designing tires.”

The impact extends beyond tires, since reinforced rubber is used in critical infrastructure ranging from power plants to aerospace systems. Past failures in the materials have sometimes been catastrophic, including the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986.

“If you remember, the reason the Challenger failed was a rubber gasket that got too cold,” Simmons says.

“A lot of energy systems, power plants have rubber parts. Everybody’s had a garden hose that started leaking because a rubber gasket failed. Now imagine that happening in a power plant or a chemical plant.”

This research was supported by the US Department of Energy Office of Science.

Source: University of South Florida

The post Team cracks 100 year-old rubber mystery appeared first on Futurity.

from Futurity https://ift.tt/aOILYpr

Lunar dust could help build stuff on the moon

New research turns lunar dust into building blocks for future infrastructure on the moon.

As space agencies and private companies look toward sustained human presence on the moon, a fundamental challenge centers on how to build strong, durable infrastructure without hauling every material from Earth.

The new research from Rice University points to an unexpected solution—transforming one of the moon’s most stubborn obstacles, its abrasive dust, into a valuable building resource.

Led by Denizhan Yavas, assistant teaching professor of mechanical engineering at Rice, in collaboration with Ashraf Bastawros of Iowa State University, the study demonstrates that lunar regolith simulant, a terrestrial stand-in for the moon’s fine, abrasive dust, can be used to strengthen advanced composite materials.

The work appears in Advanced Engineering Materials.

“This work started with a simple but powerful question,” Yavas says. “Lunar dust is typically viewed as a major obstacle for exploration because of how abrasive and pervasive it is. We asked whether that same material could instead be used as a resource—something that could actually improve the performance of structural materials.”

The researchers explored how lunar regolith simulant could be incorporated into fiber-reinforced polymer composites, a class of lightweight materials already widely used in aerospace and high-performance engineering applications. By integrating the simulant as a reinforcing phase, they found measurable improvements in strength, toughness, and resistance to damage with performance increases of up to 30-40%.

“Our results show that you can take a material that is inherently challenging and convert it into something structurally beneficial,” Yavas says. “That shift in perspective is critical for building sustainably beyond Earth and enabling long-term exploration.”

The idea emerged from earlier work focused on developing nanoscale polymer surfaces designed to repel lunar dust. As the team worked to mitigate the hazards posed by the material, a broader opportunity came into focus.

“Instead of only trying to keep lunar dust away, we began to think about how to use it,” Yavas says. “That led us to this concept of embedding it directly into composite systems as reinforcement.”

The implications extend beyond laboratory testing. Lightweight, high-performance composites reinforced with lunar material could play a key role in constructing habitats, protective barriers and other infrastructure needed for sustained human presence on the moon.

The researchers emphasize the importance of reducing dependence on Earth-supplied materials, noting that one of the biggest constraints in space exploration is the cost and logistics of transporting them. If engineers could utilize what is already available on the lunar surface, it greatly increases the feasibility of longer missions and infrastructure development.

“Our long-term vision is to design materials that are not only high performing but also deeply integrated with the environment in which they are built,” Yavas says.

“For the moon, that means leveraging lunar regolith as much as possible to create resilient, scalable infrastructure.”

Source: Rice University

The post Lunar dust could help build stuff on the moon appeared first on Futurity.

from Futurity https://ift.tt/0guBb8Q

Could humans regrow limbs like salamanders?

Researchers have successfully regenerated skeletal and connective tissue—even if not perfectly formed—demonstrating the next, critical step in limb regeneration.

For centuries, the inability to regrow lost body parts has been considered a defining limitation of humans and other mammals. While animals like salamanders can regenerate entire limbs, humans are left with scar tissue.

But new research suggests that this limitation may not be permanent.

“This changes the way we think about what’s possible.”

Instead, the capacity for regeneration may still exist—hidden within the body’s normal healing process.

“Why some animals can regenerate and others, particularly humans, can’t is a big question that has been asked since Aristotle,” says Ken Muneoka, a professor in the Texas A&M University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences (VMBS)’ veterinary physiology and pharmacology department (VTPP).

“I’ve spent my career trying to understand that.”

In their study in Nature Communications, Muneoka and his colleagues detail a newly developed two-step treatment that led to the regeneration of bone, joint structures, and ligaments.

While the results were imperfect, the team believes this approach could be used more immediately to reduce scarring and improve tissues repair after amputations.

Redirecting the body’s natural response

In mammals, injuries typically trigger fibrosis, a process in which fibroblast cells rapidly close the wound and form scar tissue. This response prioritizes survival by sealing the injury quickly, but also limits the body’s ability to rebuild missing structures.

In regenerative species, like salamanders that can regrow lost limbs, those same types of cells organize into a blastema, a temporary structure that enables tissue regrowth.

“It’s as if these cells can move in two different directions,” Muneoka says. “They could either make a scar or make a blastema. Our research focused on redirecting the behavior of fibroblasts already present at the injury site.”

To test whether mammalian healing could be shifted toward regeneration, researchers developed a sequential treatment using two well-studied growth factors.

The first step involved applying fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2) after a wound had already closed. This timing allowed the body to complete its typical healing response, and then the team “changed what happens next,” Muneoka says.

FGF2 stimulated the formation of a blastema-like structure—something that does not normally occur in mammals following this type of injury; several days later, a second treatment—using bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2)—was applied, triggering those cells to begin forming new structures.

“This is really a two-step process,” Muneoka says. “You first shift the cells away from scarring, and then you provide the signals that tell them what to build.”

Challenging assumptions

A key implication of the study is that regeneration does not depend on adding external stem cells, as many current approaches in regenerative medicine attempt to do.

“You don’t have to actually get stem cells and put them back in,” Muneoka says. “They’re already there—you just need to learn how to get them to behave the way you want.”

Larry Suva, a VTPP professor who worked on the study, says the findings shift how researchers think about the limits of mammalian healing.

“The cells that we thought to be unprogrammable, in fact are,” Suva says. “The capacity is not absent—it’s just obscured.”

The study also showed that cells can be redirected to form structures beyond their original location—a concept known as positional re-specification, which plays a critical role in development.

This means cells that would normally contribute to one part of the body can be instructed to rebuild a different structure after injury.

Not perfect

Although the regenerated structures were not exact replicas of the original anatomy, researchers were able to restore all the expected components removed during amputation, such as the bone, tendon, ligament, and joint.

The results included both skeletal elements and connective tissues, organized in a way that reflects the natural structure.

“We regenerated what you would expect to see at that level of injury,” Muneoka says. “The structures are there—just not in a perfect form.”

The findings also revealed that regeneration occurs through multiple biological pathways, indicating that rebuilding tissue is more complex than relying on a single mechanism.

Potential applications for humans

While the research is still in early stages, it may have more immediate applications in improving how wounds heal.

Rather than focusing solely on regrowing entire structures, researchers believe the approach could first be used to reduce scarring and improve tissue repair.

“People should start thinking about using these signals during the healing process,” Muneoka says. “Even shifting the response slightly away from scarring could have real benefits.”

Because BMP2 is already FDA approved for certain medical uses and FGF2 is in multiple clinical trials, the pathway to clinical exploration may be more accessible for entirely new therapies.

The study represents a shift in how scientists understand regeneration in mammals—not as a lost ability, but as one that remains present but inactive.

“This changes the way we think about what’s possible,” Suva says. “Once you show that regeneration can be activated, it opens the door to asking entirely new questions.”

For Muneoka, those questions have guided decades of research—and now, finally, have a new foundation.

“Regenerative failure in mammals can be rescued,” he says. “Now we have a model to begin figuring out how.”

Source: Texas A&M University

The post Could humans regrow limbs like salamanders? appeared first on Futurity.

from Futurity https://ift.tt/3S5q2wD

AI-generated code is vulnerable

Vibe coding programmers are releasing batches of vulnerable code, according to researchers who have scanned over 43,000 security advisories across the web.

The programming style relies on using generative artificial intelligence (AI) to create software code using tools like Claude, Gemini, and GitHub Copilot.

According to graduate research assistant Hanqing Zhao of the Systems Software & Security Lab (SSLab) at Georgia Tech, no one had been tracking these common vulnerabilities and exposures before the launch of their Vibe Security Radar.

“The vulnerabilities we found lead to breaches,” he says. “Everyone is using these tools now. We need a feedback loop to identify which tools, which patterns, and which workflows create the most risk.”

The radar extensively scans public vulnerability databases, finds the error for each vulnerability, and then examines the code’s history to find who introduced the bug. If they discover an AI tool’s signature, the radar flags it.

Of the 74 confirmed cases uncovered so far by the tool, 14 are critical risks, and 25 are high. These vulnerabilities include command injection, authentication bypass, and server-side request forgery. Zhao explains that since AI models tend to repeat the same mistakes, an attacker would need to find these bugs just once.

“Millions of developers using the same models means the same bugs showing up across different projects,” he says. “Find one pattern in one AI codebase, you can scan for it across thousands of repositories.”

Despite its success, the team has only scratched the surface of the problem. The radar can trace metadata like co-author tags, bot emails, and other known tool signatures, but it can’t identify an issue if these markers have been removed.

The next step is behavioral detection. AI-written code has patterns in how it names variables, structures functions, and handles errors.

“We’re building models that can identify AI code from the code itself, no metadata needed,” says Zhao. “That opens up a lot of cases we currently can’t touch.”

The team is also improving its verification pipeline and expanding its sources to include more vulnerability databases. The goal is to get a more complete picture of AI-introduced vulnerabilities across open source, not just the ones that happen to leave signatures behind.

As more programmers rely on vibe coding, Zhao warns that it still needs to be reviewed as thoroughly as any other project.

“The whole point of vibe coding is not reading it afterward, I know,” he says. “But if you’re shipping AI output to production, review it the way you’d review a junior developer’s pull request. Especially anything around input handling and authentication.”

When prompting AI, SSLab also recommends providing more detailed instructions to get it closer to production-ready. There are also tools to check the code for vulnerabilities after code it has been generated. Not double-checking could lead to a catastrophe.

“The attack surface keeps growing,” says Zhao. “More people running AI agents locally means the attacker doesn’t need to break into the company infrastructure. They just need one vulnerability in a model context protocol server that someone installed and never reviewed.”

One reason the attack surfaces are expanding rapidly is AI’s evolution. In the second half of 2025, the Vibe Security Radar found about 18 cases across seven months. Then, in the first three months of 2026, it identified 56. March 2026 alone had 35, more than all of 2025 combined.

Many tools, like Claude, are now more autonomous, allowing developers to write entire features, create files, and even make architecture decisions.

“When an agent builds something without authentication, that’s not a typo,” says Zhao. “It’s a design flaw baked in from the start. Claude Code and Copilot together account for most of what we detect, but that’s partly because they leave the clearest signatures.”

Source: Georgia Tech

The post AI-generated code is vulnerable appeared first on Futurity.

from Futurity https://ift.tt/mL649WG