Culture

Melatonin is used as a dietary supplement to promote sleep and get over jet lag, but nobody really understands how it works in the brain. Now, researchers at UConn Health show that melatonin helps worms sleep, too, and they suspect they've identified what it does in us.

Our bodies produce melatonin in darkness. It's technically a hormone, but you can readily buy melatonin as a supplement in pharmacies, nutrition stores, and other retail shops. It's widely used by adults and often in children as well.

Melatonin binds to melatonin receptors in the brain to produce its sleep-promoting effects. Think of a receptor as a keyhole, and melatonin as the key. The two keyholes for melatonin are called MT1 and MT2 in human brain cells. But scientists didn't really know what happens when the keyhole is unlocked. Now UConn Health School of Medicine neuroscientists Zhao-Wen Wang and Bojun Chen and their colleagues have identified that process through their work with C. elegans worms, as reported in PNAS on Sept. 21. When melatonin fits into the MT1 receptor in the worm's brain, it opens a potassium channel known as the BK channel.

A major function of the BK channel in neurons is to limit the release of neurotransmitters, which are chemical substances used by neurons to talk to each other. In their search for factors related to the BK channel, the Wang and Chen labs found that a melatonin receptor is needed for the BK channel to limit neurotransmitter release. They subsequently found that melatonin promotes sleep in worms by activating the BK channel through the melatonin receptor. Worms that lack either melatonin secretion, the melatonin receptor, or the BK channel spend less time in sleep.

But wait--worms sleep?

Indeed they do, says Chen. There's actually been quite a lot of research on worm sleep, and researchers found that sleep is similar between worms and mammals like humans and mice.

Wang and Chen next plan to see if the melatonin-MT1-BK relationship holds in mice. The BK channel is involved in all kinds of bodily happenings, from epilepsy to high blood pressure. By learning more about the relationships between the BK channel, sleep, and behavioral changes, the researchers hope both to understand melatonin better and also help people who suffer from other diseases related to the BK channel.

A type of arthritis drug may reduce the risk of dying for elderly patients with COVID-19.

This is the finding of a new international study, led by scientists at Imperial College London and the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, published in the journal Science Advances.

In the early-stage study, 83 patients, with a median age of 81 and all suffering from moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, were given a drug called baricitinib. This medication is usually used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, and was initially identified by the Imperial team using artificial intelligence as a drug that could have anti-viral and anti-inflammatory effects.

In the study, the patients, who were in multiple hospitals across Italy and Spain, had a 71 per cent reduced risk of dying compared to patients who had not taken the drug. The study also found that 17 per cent of patients who were given the drug died or needed to go on a ventilator, compared to 35 per cent in the control group who were not given the medication.

The research team say the findings are being followed up with large-scale clinical trials.

Professor Justin Stebbing, co-lead author of the study from the Department of Surgery and Cancer at Imperial said: "We urgently need to find more effective treatments for COVID-19 while we wait for a vaccine to become widely available. This is one of the first COVID-19 treatments to go from computer to clinic and laboratory. It was first identified by an AI algorithm in February, which scanned thousands of potential drugs that could work against this virus.

"The study suggests this drug can aid recovery of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19, and may provide a new weapon in our arsenal against the virus. Large-scale clinical trials of this drug, to further investigate its potential, are now under way"

In the research, scientists from the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden together with the Imperial team grew miniature human organs in the lab, called organoids, to investigate how exactly the drug may combat COVID-19.

The findings revealed that the drug may help work in two ways: reduce organ damage caused by inflammation, and blocking the virus entering human cells.

When infected with the COVID-19 virus, called SARS-CoV-2, the body releases different types of inflammatory molecules, called chemokines and cytokines. These molecules act as the early warning system for the body, telling the immune system the body is under attack.

However, in the case of COVID-19, particular cytokine and chemokines, including those called interleukins and interferons, causes this warning system to spiral out of control, and trigger a so-called cytokine storm.

This cytokine storm not only causes significant damage to the body's organs, but the study revealed it also helps the virus gain access inside human cells.

The study showed a particular cytokine, called an interferon, increases the number of receptors, or docking points, for the virus. By doing this it, in effect, lowers the drawbridge and lets the virus into the cells of the body.

The researchers revealed the drug blocks this process occurring and so increases survival from COVID-19. The research also suggested COVID-19 increases the activity of genes related to platelets, which can make the blood sticky and more likely to form clots. The drug baricitinib was shown to reduce the activity of the genes.

Professor Volker Lauschke, co-lead author from Karolinska Institutet in Sweden, explained: "This study confirms what AI predicted, and what we were hearing from patient case reports. For instance one case involved an 87-year-old severely unwell patient from Foggia, Italy, who showed rapid improvement after being given the drug, whereas her husband and son, who did not receive baricitinib, died. This study has also shone a light on exactly how this drug may protect us at the cellular level. This helps us understand why other types of drugs are proving beneficial, or not beneficial, as we as help identify other treatments which may tackle COVID-19."

Professor Stebbing added: "We have seen the top line results of a randomized study called the Adaptive Covid Treatment Trial-2 announced recently, showing benefits of baricitinib plus remdesevir, compared to remdesvir alone in over one thousand patients. Other very large trials occurring now include COV-BARRIER, and this will help create a fuller picture of the benefits and side effects of the oral medication (a small number of the patients in our study needed to stop the treatment due to problems with liver function). Further trials comparing baricitinib to other drugs in COVID-19 patients would also be helpful in improving outcomes."

LOS ANGELES (Nov. 13, 2020) -- New research presented today at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions suggests neither vitamin D nor the omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil prevent the development of atrial fibrillation, a potentially serious heart rhythm disturbance.

"Our trial results do not support taking fish oil or vitamin D supplements to prevent atrial fibrillation," said Christine M. Albert, MD, MPH, the study's lead author and chair of the Department of Cardiology in the Smidt Heart Institute, who presented the research at the late-breaking science session. "However, these supplements also did not elevate the risk of atrial fibrillation, which is good news for individuals taking them for other health conditions."

Past data from observational studies have been conflicting, leaving both patients and clinicians uncertain on recommendations regarding prevention of atrial fibrillation with these supplements.

"This is the first large-scale trial that led us to a definitive result," said Albert.

Results are based on a randomized clinical trial involving more than 25,000 men and women from all over the United States without a history of atrial fibrillation. During a more than five-year period, 900, or 3.6%, of participants were diagnosed with atrial fibrillation.

There were no statistically significant differences between the participants who were assigned to take vitamin D or fish oil supplements and the participants who were assigned to take a placebo.

Atrial fibrillation, or AF, is the most common type of abnormal heart rhythm, causing the heart to contract irregularly and, sometimes, too quickly. It is estimated to affect 33 million people worldwide.

The condition can lead to clotting inside the atrium chamber of the heart and clots can then travel from the heart to the brain, causing a stroke. Atrial fibrillation can also lead to weakening of the bottom chamber of the heart, resulting in fluid buildup or heart failure. Importantly, it often results in significant symptoms that can adversely affect one's quality of life.

While this research is important in educating patients about effective preventive measures, Albert emphasizes the need for more research directed at avoiding the condition.

"Although these two supplements do not prevent atrial fibrillation, recent studies have suggested that lifestyle modifications such as maintaining a healthy weight, controlling blood pressure, and moderating alcohol intake may lower risk of atrial fibrillation," said Albert. "We need to continue to educate the public on ways to lower their risk as well as search for new ways to prevent this condition."

Researchers from SWOG Cancer Research Network, a cancer clinical trials group funded by the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Division of Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment (DCTD), part of the National Institutes of Health, have shown that the immunotherapy combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab shrinks rare angiosarcoma tumors in 25 percent of all patients, with some having an even stronger response to the drug combination.

Results of the SWOG study, led by Michael Wagner, MD, of the University of Washington, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, and conducted by the NCI National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN), were shared in a virtual oral presentation today at The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer's (SITC) 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting. The findings provide the first rigorous evidence that immunotherapies can treat angiosarcoma, a rare cancer of blood and lymph vessels that often develops in the skin. About 500 Americans are diagnosed with angiosarcoma each year.

Wagner's study is part of a path-breaking clinical trial called DART, short for Dual Anti-CTLA-4 & Anti-PD-1 blockade in Rare Tumors. Launched in 2017 with sponsorship by the NCI, DART is proving a successful model for the study of rare cancers. Using an innovative "basket" design, DART tests the effectiveness of the ipilimumab and nivolumab combination in a variety of rare tumor types, thanks to a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) between the NCI and Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of both immunotherapy drugs. Through DART, the drug combination has completed testing in 36 cohorts of rare cancer patients, with another 12 cohorts still taking the drugs, and four cohorts temporarily closed for data analysis. Promising results have previously been reported in patients with other rare cancers, including neuroendocrine tumors and metaplastic breast cancer, while results from patients with thyroid tumors will also be reported at the 2020 SITC meeting.

An expert in sarcoma, Wagner wanted to replace anecdotal reports that immune checkpoint inhibitors like ipilimumab and nivolumab can successfully treat angiosarcoma with a prospective phase II trial. Wagner and his SWOG team enrolled 16 patients, all with advanced or inoperable cancer and all of whom were previously treated with chemotherapy. They found that 25 percent of patients saw their tumors shrink, regardless of where in the body their angiosarcoma occurred. The news was even better for patients whose cancer presented on the face or scalp. Those patients saw a 60 percent response rate to the drugs. In some cases, the response was long lasting. Two patients remain cancer free one year after treatment.

"These results open a new way to treat angiosarcoma - with immunotherapy," Wagner said. "At SWOG, we're planning a larger follow-up study to see if this combination can work as a first line of treatment."

The SWOG team also found that most patients - 75 percent - experienced side effects from the drugs and 25 percent experienced severe side effects.

Rare cancers make up about a quarter of all cancers diagnosed worldwide. But because there are hundreds of types, and because each is so scarce, rare cancers are notoriously difficult to study. With expert advice from the NCI and the SWOG statistical team, the study leadership - Sandip Patel, MD, and Razelle Kurzrock, MD, both of UCSD Moores Cancer Center, and Young Kwang Chae, MD, of Northwestern University - came up with DART's unique basket design. It's proven successful. The study has successfully enrolled 755 with rare disease who may not otherwise have been eligible for a clinical trial. It also is plowing important ground in translational medicine. Tumor and blood specimens from DART patients will soon undergo DNA and RNA sequencing to shed light on their molecular makeup and how immunotherapies may help disarm certain rare cancer types. This work will be done through the Cancer Immune Monitoring and Analysis Centers (CIMACs), which were established by the NCI through its Cancer Moonshot initiative.

Embargoed until 11:05 a.m. CT/12:05 p.m. ET, Friday, Nov. 13, 2020

DALLAS, Nov. 13, 2020 -- Taking omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin D3 supplements does not neither increase nor decrease the risk of developing atrial fibrillation, according to late-breaking research presented today at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions 2020. The virtual meeting is Friday, November 13 - Tuesday, November 17, 2020, and is a premier global exchange of the latest scientific advancements, research and evidence-based clinical practice updates in cardiovascular science for health care worldwide.

Atrial fibrillation is a rapid, irregular heartbeat caused by chaotic electrical signals in the top chambers of the heart. Atrial fibrillation is the most common heart rhythm disturbance, and it can lead to blood clots, strokes, heart failure and other heart-related complications. Atrial fibrillation risk increases with age, high blood pressure and heavy drinking and can be common among multiple, biologically related family members.

Evidence from previous observational studies has been conflicting, suggesting both risks and potential health benefits of fish oil - a source of omega-3 fatty acids - and vitamin D for atrial fibrillation.

"Once established, atrial fibrillation is difficult to treat and results in symptoms that can impair patients' quality of life," said Christine M. Albert, M.D., M.P.H., founding chair of the department of cardiology in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and lead author of this study. "Current treatment options have limited long-term success and significant risks, and there is a pressing need for preventive strategies."

The VITAL Rhythm Trial is the first, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial investigating preventive therapies for atrial fibrillation. This trial evaluated whether supplementation with vitamin D3 (2000 IU/day) and omega-3 fatty acids (EPA:DHA in 1.2:1 ratio; 840mg/day) can reduce the risk of developing atrial fibrillation compared to placebo.

The five-year study, from 2012 - 2017, included 25,119 adults, ages 50 and older who had no history of atrial fibrillation. About half of the participants were female, 21% were black, and the average age was 67. Atrial fibrillation diagnoses were established both by participant self-report and claims data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Electrocardiogram evidence and/or a physician's report documenting a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation were required for confirmation.

During the trial follow-up period, 900 participants developed atrial fibrillation, 3.6% of the study population. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups who were assigned to supplemental EPA/DHA and/or vitamin D3 compared to individuals who were assigned to the placebo.

Albert added, "With regards to clinical care, these results do not support using marine omega-3 fatty acids or vitamin D to prevent atrial fibrillation. However, the results do provide reassurance that these supplements do not increase the overall risk of atrial fibrillation and appear to be generally safe for patients who are taking these supplements for other reasons."

It's a decision being made thousands of times over inside hospitals all around the country: is it time to place a patient struggling to breathe on a ventilator? For all of the attention ventilators have received during the COVID-19 pandemic, deciding when to place patients on them--and when to take them off--is complex. Michigan Medicine researchers have been investigating best practices for mechanical ventilation for years, never knowing how applicable their work would become.

In a new paper in the journal CHEST, lead author and clinical lecturer Jennifer Ervin, Ph.D., MSc of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Michigan Medicine and her team outline 20 evidence-based practices shown to reduce time spent on a ventilator and death in patients with acute respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress--conditions that have many overlaps with severe COVID-19. "Hopefully, this work will inform clinical decision-making in these complex care settings," says Ervin.

The trigger points for ventilation, she explains are "junk in the lungs" or congestion visible on an X-ray and the inability to maintain normal oxygen levels in the blood. "Ventilation gives the body and lungs time to heal," she says.

Optimizing how long a patient is on a ventilator can help prevent negative outcomes both immediately and later on, Ervin says. And putting someone on a ventilator and then monitoring them is a team sport, she says. "You have attending physicians working with registered nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and trainees."

Mechanical ventilated patients typically must be sedated and/or paralyzed so that the machine can do the work of breathing. But over-sedation can lead to a host of problems, including delirium and later on, post intensive care syndrome, which has many of the same features as being reported by those with "long COVID."

Best practices that have emerged include prone position, or placing a ventilated patient on their stomach, to give the lungs more room to inflate--a practice that should be done early, says Ervin. Lung protective ventilation, which involves avoiding over-inflating the lungs, has also been shown to improve outcomes. However, "anywhere from 30-60% of patients are potentially having their lungs over-inflated," she says.

Furthermore, several practices revolve around frequently checking to see whether it is time to take a patient off the ventilator, including turning down sedation to check for delirium and doing breathing exercises to see how well a person is doing without the machine's help.

The team's next step has been to prioritize the 20 best practices they've identified, acknowledging that it's near impossible for healthcare providers to do them all, especially during the stress of a pandemic. "None of these happen in a vacuum. It's a continuum of care and a lot of practices are contingent on one another," says Ervin. "We are trying to give the tools...here's everything in one place. This is just one step, though."

Critical care at Michigan Medicine is a well-oiled machine because everyone understands what their role is, she says. She notes that in a time of crisis you have to do the best you can, but doing even three or four of these evidence-based practices is better than none. "This is a very important resource for clinicians who may not be familiar with how to optimize mechanical ventilation, as well as for future trainees."

BOSTON - A public health strategy that combines contact tracing and community-based screening with isolation and quarantine centers can substantially reduce infections, hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19 while being cost-effective in low-and-middle-income countries like South Africa, a study by Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has found. In a paper published in The Lancet Global Health, the research team reported that this battery of health interventions, implemented either fully or partially, could offer good value for the money and, in some scenarios, even reduce health care expenditures in South Africa.

"Our results demonstrate to public policymakers that a multi-faceted COVID-19 strategy can prevent infections and save lives even where budgets and resources are constrained," says investigator Krishna Reddy, MD, with the Medical Practice Evaluation Center at MGH, and corresponding author of the study.

By September 2020, 16 countries in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) had each reported more than 10,000 COVID-19 cases. Raising the health risk to populations in this region are high urban density, limited opportunities for physical distancing, and poor access to hygiene and health care facilities. In the past, the World Health Organization has issued recommendations for disease surveillance and control in low- and middle-income countries, and some have implemented programs like contact tracing and community-based screening in response to previous infectious disease epidemics like Ebola and tuberculosis.

The MGH research team, in collaboration with the Africa Health Research Institute, developed a COVID-19 microsimulation model to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes of various combinations of five complementary epidemic control interventions in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Those interventions are health care testing, where diagnostic testing is performed at designated health care centers; contact tracing to identify those who may have come in close contact with someone with COVID-19; isolation centers for people with COVID-19; mass symptom screening of local populations by community health workers; and quarantine centers for people who have been in close contact with someone with COVID-19 but have tested negative.

A public health program built on all five interventions in response to the pandemic could reduce COVID-19 deaths by 94% compared to the use of health care testing alone over one year, the study found. It also estimated that a program combining all interventions would cost an additional $340 per year of life saved, which represents similar or better value than many other established public health initiatives in South Africa, including tuberculosis diagnostic testing and cervical cancer screening. In some epidemic growth scenarios, combinations of interventions saved health care costs over one year compared with health care testing alone. "Our results show that these upfront investments can both save lives and actually lower health care costs by substantially reducing the need for hospitalizations for COVID-19," says Mark Siedner, MD, MPH, with the MGH Medical Practice Evaluation Center, and senior author of the study.

Many countries have the infrastructures in place for some or all of these interventions, the researchers pointed out. Contact tracing and community-based screening, for example, have frequently been deployed in the past through networks of community health workers. And isolation centers, which are likely to require the greatest investment, have been implemented successfully in response to Ebola epidemics in West Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where health care resources are among the scarcest in the world. According to the MGH research team, isolation centers would be particularly effective in areas with high household density and limited capacity for in-home isolation. Quarantine centers were also shown by the MGH microsimulation model to be a cost-effective way to reduce the health impact of epidemics, but their implementation must recognize social and human rights issues that have plagued mandatory quarantine in some settings.

"Even where quarantine centers are not feasible due to lack of public support, implementing the other interventions we described can provide major clinical benefits in an economical manner," stresses Reddy. "The bottom line is that prevention goes a long way, and we're hopeful that decision makers will work to translate the evidence we've uncovered into effective public policy and interventions for pandemic control."

As almost any new parent will attest, the issue of infant sleep can be a nightmare. But the challenges and consequential health effects of infant sleep problems may, like so many other health disparities, disproportionately affect families of different racial/ethnic backgrounds and household socioeconomic statuses. A new study led in part by researchers from Brigham and Women's Hospital takes a look at 24-hour sleep-wake cycles for infants across racial/ethnic and socioeconomic categories. The team found several distinct differences in sleep-wake patterns, largely explained by discrepancies in socioeconomic status. Findings are published in Sleep.

"What we knew before this study was that, in general, individuals with low socioeconomic backgrounds, as well as children and adults who are minorities, had shorter sleep than white individuals and higher socioeconomic individuals," said senior author Susan Redline, MD, MPH, of Brigham's Division of Sleep and Circadian Disorders. "What wasn't so clear was when those differences first emerged."

Previous studies have used responses from surveys of parents to draw conclusions about how sleep duration varies by race and socioeconomic status, but when such disparities arise was previously unknown. This study characterized sleep-wake patterns in infants at 1- and 6-months old using ankle-placed actigraphs and parent-completed sleep diaries, examining differences among infants with different racial/ethnic backgrounds and household socioeconomic statuses.

The study consisted of 306 infants -- 42.5 percent non-Hispanic white, 32.7 percent Hispanic, 17.3 percent Asian, and 7.5 percent Black. Between the ages of 1 and 6 months, night sleep duration increased by 65.7 minutes, night awakenings decreased by 2.2 episodes, and daytime sleep duration decreased by 73.3 minutes, confirming that night sleep increases and day sleep decreases overall in the first six months of life.

The team found several distinct differences in sleep-wake patterns across these categories:

Black and Hispanic infants experienced less of an increase in night sleep length when compared to white infants;

infants in families with lower maternal education and household income experienced less of an increase in night sleep duration;

Asian infants exhibited more frequent night awakenings than all other racial categories.

Additionally, Asian infants were the only group to still have a night sleep duration deficit compared to white infants at 6 months after adjusting for household socioeconomic status, meaning, unlike Hispanic and Black infants, Asian infant night sleep duration may not be explained by corresponding SES.

Car rides, parental rocking, and other environmental factors may reduce the accuracy of a sleep-wake assessment. Additionally, the numbers of Black and Asian families were relatively low, driving Redline to conclude that the disproportionate night awakenings recorded in Asian infants may have been by sheer chance. Such discrepancies still intrigue Redline, as they point to other avenues for exploration: parenting styles, environmental cues, maternal stress, and more.

"We know that there are these significant differences in sleep duration and sleep consolidation in older children and adults; we know those are associated with negative health outcomes and behaviors," said Redline. "Now we see that they emerge early in life, pointing to a totally new set of risk factors."

This study is one of four in a longitudinal collaborative effort to investigate the sleep-wake cycles of children ages 1 month through 2 years, with the primary goal of tracking weight gain.

For decades, scientists have been warning about potential future effects of global climate change, including more frequent wildfires, longer periods of drought, and sharp increases in the number, duration, and intensity of tropical storms. And since the start of 2020, we've seen natural disasters in record-breaking numbers, from the wildfires that ravaged California and Colorado, to most consecutive days with temperatures skyrocketing over 100 degrees in places like Arizona. Environmental concerns are continually creeping to a broader, national stage: issues of climate change and conservation received more attention during the first presidential debate on September 29, 2020 than in any other presidential debate in history.

When it comes to the topic of safeguarding the environment, Boston University Earth & Environment Assistant Professor Christoph Nolte is hardly a newcomer. He's spent the majority of his academic career studying the effectiveness of conservation, asking key questions about where concerted efforts take place, and what difference they make for our world at large. To inform future decisions about conservation policy, Assistant Professor Nolte has now created the first high-resolution map of land value in the United states -- a tool he says will better estimate environmental conservation costs, inform policy recommendations, and help peer academics conduct their own research on rebuilding and protecting what's left of our natural resources and the biodiversity within our ecosystems. Boston University interviewed Nolte to learn more about his research and its impact.

You've created the first high-resolution map of U.S. land value. What spurred this research?

I was dissatisfied with the quality of cost data in conservation research. Land conservation decisions are about trade-offs. If we wish to keep forest carbon on the ground, species' habitats intact, wetlands functional, or landscapes beautiful, conservation usually means that we also give up something: the benefits from alternative land uses. Arguments in favor of more conservation are widespread. For instance, Harvard University's E.O. Wilson suggests that 50% of the Earth should be protected. However, those points are incomplete if they are not also explicit about what we should be giving up where, who wins and who loses, and who gets to decide.

Ignoring costs can make us blind to the negative effects of regulation, often borne by those without a voice. In the case of voluntary conservation programs, ignoring cost can mean that we end up with a proposal, but insufficient funding. If we want to make informed societal decisions about conservation efforts, we need reliable, publicly accessible estimates of its cost.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to get good data for conservation cost. Conservation organizations don't freely share their financial records. Land prices can be good substitutes for data on conservation cost, but such data is valuable, sensitive, and unavailable to the public in most countries. So when large-scale land price data in the United States became available to academics for free for the first time, this created an exciting opportunity to create the first high-resolution map of land value and see how well it would predict conservation cost.

What data did you use to generate this map?

There are many datasets behind this map. Perhaps the most important is a nationwide database of properties and their sales. This dataset came from Zillow, the real estate company, which obtains the data from public records and makes it available to academics and nonprofits. In my research group, we developed a system that links this data to digital maps of property boundaries. This allows us to obtain detailed information on land characteristics: buildings, terrain, land cover, road access, water access, flood risk, local demographics, nearby amenities, and so on. This data is fed into a machine learning algorithm, which learns to predict sales prices from its knowledge of the characteristics of each property. After the algorithm is trained, I let it predict the sales prices of every property in the country. The result is this map.

What does this map tell us about environmental conservation costs? Why is it essential to have accurate land value data?

I found that most of the cost estimates that were used in the literature have underestimated the cost of conservation in the United States. This underestimation is particularly large near cities, where land values tend to be much higher than previous proxies suggested. In other words, it means that we will need substantially higher levels of funding than previously assumed if we want to achieve certain environmental goals, such as protecting all floodplains from development or protecting species habitat in the face of climate change.

How can your research help to educate policymakers on future conservation plans and priorities? Why is this important?

I believe that it is good to be realistic about what a given level of funding can achieve. For instance, in August, congress passed the Great American Outdoors Act, a historic bipartisan bill that makes $4.5 billion dollars of federal funding available for land protection. If previous estimates of conservation cost were correct, this budget could help reach us proposed habitat protection needs for all species in the U.S. However, the new cost data suggests that even such an unprecedented budget covers merely 5% of what is actually needed. That's a big difference!

More accurate cost data can also change recommendations about where conservation investments should go. When I reproduced recent work, about one quarter of the sites recommended for species protection shifted from one location to another, for instance, from expensive Long Island to slightly less expensive Southeastern Massachusetts. While this result should be taken with a grain of salt, it shows that the quality of cost data matters. The good news is that the cost map is now published, so anyone can incorporate it in their analyses and revisit their earlier findings.

How can people best use this data when thinking about environmental conservation as it relates to their day to day lives?

Data on the cost of conservation helps us be real about the actual magnitude and severity of the conservation problem we are facing as a society. Many of us feel positively about the benefits that conserved lands provide. However, not all of us are willing to make sacrifices to protect these lands, whether it is by reducing our own ecological footprints, or by voting in favor of local land use regulations or measures that increase taxes to fund conservation. In the midst of this, we are exposed to advertising that suggests that we can cheaply "offset" our effects on the environment -- for instance, that we can become "carbon-neutral" for a few dollars by purchasing carbon offsets when we fly.

A closer look at many cheap offsetting schemes suggests that they don't actually reduce emission by very much. But their existence has the side-effect that we are getting our hopes up that there might be a cheap way to get around the conservation problem. In reality, win-win situations are rare, and trade-offs are real. This might be difficult to accept, but we should not ignore it, even if we so desperately want to feel good about our own levels of consumption.

Despite costs being much higher than originally estimated, why is conservation still such an important investment?

Answers to this question have two dimensions: science and values. Science helps us understand the consequences of our actions. If we want to mitigate climate change, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Land conservation can help, for instance, by conserving forests and wetlands, reducing urban sprawl, or increasing opportunities for local recreation. If we want to prevent species extinctions, we need to protect and restore threatened habitat, conserve lands in climate refugia, and build ecological corridors, so species can move as temperatures rise. And if we want to avoid damages from flooding, we should protect more floodplains from development.

Science tells us about the consequences of our actions, but it doesn't tell us what to do. The more difficult question is how much we, as individuals and as a society, care about these outcomes, and what we are willing to give up for them. There are 8 billion of us. What each of us cares about is shaped by our diverse beliefs and morals, our upbringing, the people in our lives, the media we consume, the things we enjoy doing, etc. Given my affiliation, it probably won't be a surprise that I feel positively about policies that reduce our collective human footprint, but it is unwise to elevate anyone's individual worldview to a standard. Instead, I think what it is desirable to have a broader societal conservation of well-informed citizens that make those decisions together. My job, alongside that of thousands of other colleagues, is to provide the tools that can help us gain clarity about what's at stake.

Are there any other surprising findings? Could this data have other applications in areas outside of conservation (for example, real estate)?

I was surprised by the predictive power of the algorithm. As a validation step, I tested whether estimated land values could predict the actual cost of more than 4,000 public land acquisitions for conservation that were distributed all over the country. I expected that the predictions would outperform the proxies used in earlier studies, which they did. But to my surprise, the predictions even outperformed the estimates of tax assessors. Tax assessors are tasked with estimating the value of all properties in a given jurisdiction for taxation purposes, and part of that process often involves estimating the "fair market value" of each property. Because assessors work locally and know their area much better than a national dataset does, I would have expected their estimates to vastly outperform mine. However, instead, I found that mine were 29% more accurate. This does raise the question of why these differences exist and opens up new interesting avenues for scrutinizing existing methods for property taxation.

In your opinion, what is the single most important conservation issue facing the world today?

It would be difficult to answer this question without pointing towards climate change. It affects everything else that we think about in conservation. If we don't stop climate change, conserving species where they are today won't conserve them in the future. Future flooding and sea level rise will be a lot less manageable. And we worry a lot more about the conservation of forests and wetlands today because we know that their loss fuels this fire. At a project level, if you want to persuade people that conservation is a good idea, talking about rare or interesting species, beautiful landscapes, and recreational opportunities might get you more traction. But many of those efforts might be a drop in the bucket if we don't address this massive elephant in the room.

What do you hope people take away from this project? What are you planning to research next?

For me, for my students, and for colleagues at universities all over the country, the synthesis of this rich database has created novel opportunities for empirical research that were unthinkable just a few years ago. We currently support research on the economic risks from flooding, oil spills and hazardous waste, the economic impacts of land regulations, the benefits of water quality and priorities for emissions reduction from forest protection. My own curiosity has mostly to do with projects that help people protect the places and species they love: identifying opportunities for protection, scrutinizing the effectiveness of existing programs, and reducing the informational barriers to get conservation done. It is an exciting time to do this research, and I'm glad that so many fantastic colleagues around the country are interested in advancing the frontiers of knowledge together.

Researchers led by City College of New York physicist Pouyan Ghaemi report the development of a quantum algorithm with the potential to study a class of many-electron quantums system using quantum computers. Their paper, entitled "Creating and Manipulating a Laughlin-Type ν=1/3 Fractional Quantum Hall State on a Quantum Computer with Linear Depth Circuits," appears in the December issue of PRX Quantum, a journal of the American Physical Society.

"Quantum physics is the fundamental theory of nature which leads to formation of molecules and the resulting matter around us," said Ghaemi, assistant professor in CCNY's Division of Science. "It is already known that when we have a macroscopic number of quantum particles, such as electrons in the metal, which interact with each other, novel phenomena such as superconductivity emerge."

However, until now, according to Ghaemi, tools to study systems with large numbers of interacting quantum particles and their novel properties have been extremely limited.

"Our research has developed a quantum algorithm which can be used to study a class of many-electron quantum systems using quantum computers. Our algorithm opens a new venue to use the new quantum devices to study problems which are quite challenging to study using classical computers. Our results are new and motivate many follow up studies," added Ghaemi.

On possible applications for this advancement, Ghaemi, who's also affiliated with the Graduate Center, CUNY noted: "Quantum computers have witnessed extensive developments during the last few years. Development of new quantum algorithms, regardless of their direct application, will contribute to realize applications of quantum computers.

"I believe the direct application of our results is to provide tools to improve quantum computing devices. Their direct real-life application would emerge when quantum computers can be used for daily life applications."

By monitoring a well-replicated biomarker associated with reward, a study by neuroscientists from Florida Atlantic University provides evidence that the old adage, "There's no place like home," has its roots deep in the brain. The study demonstrates that a signal for pleasure - dopamine - rises rapidly when mice are moved from a simple recording chamber to their home cage, but less so when they are returned to a cage not quite like the one they knew. Prior studies have shown that rodents will actively choose their home cage over a look-alike environment. Using a sensor for dopamine placed in the mouse brain's key reward center, FAU scientists are the first to demonstrate that home evokes a surge of dopamine that mimics the response to a dose of cocaine.

The neurotransmitter dopamine is critical to motivational control and to directing behaviors that seek reward and have preferred outcomes. Dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens of humans and rodents, a primary site mediating natural rewards as well as addictive substances, is triggered initially by the reward itself but later occurs when reward-coupled cues are presented - a feature underlying reinforcement learning. The activity of dopamine neurons that drives dopamine release is sensitive to stimuli that signal valence and saliency and is key to motivational learning. In their report, the FAU scientists reveal that the simple act of "coming home" drives dopamine release.

For the study, researchers used a sensitive technique known as fiber photometry to capture the second-to-second changes in dopamine in the mouse nucleus accumbens. Results of the study, published in the journal Neurochemistry International, reinforce the importance of the brain system in substance misuse. Addiction is key to everyday pleasures, and anatomically-speaking, the researchers say that "home is where the brain is."

"Our data provide clear evidence of a biochemical foundation for the reinforcing properties of home cage return. This simple environmental manipulation can provide a minimally-invasive approach to peel away aspects of reward circuitry connected to natural reinforcers - one that is critical to an animal's survival," said Randy Blakely, Ph.D., senior author, executive director of FAU's Brain Institute and a professor of biomedical science in FAU's Schmidt College of Medicine. "We think that monitoring the home cage-elicited release of dopamine provides a simple, but powerful paradigm for the study of how genetic and life events can lead to an inability to feel pleasure. The inability to feel pleasure is a major characteristic of mood disorders, and a simple test for the efficacy of medications or other treatments. The field of drug discovery needs simple, biomarker-based analogs of behavioral changes seen in people with mood disorders since we can't ask a mouse how it feels."

The researchers questioned whether their findings reflected leaving an unappealing environment or if it truly was a response to the positive aspects of a known and safe environment. Therefore, they examined whether dopamine surges arise when the mice were relocated from the plexiglass recording chamber to a clean cage with natural bedding matching the one they had been living in prior to the study. Indeed, dopamine release occurred, however, this release was not as large as that observed when mice were transferred to the home cage and the dopamine surge was not as sustained.

"We weren't really exploring home cage effects," said Felix Mayer, Ph.D., a post-doctoral fellow in Blakely's lab and lead author of the study. "However, we were struck as to how reliable the manipulation was in evoking dopamine release particularly when placed in the context of little or no rise in dopamine when the mice were moved from the home cage to the test chamber. We are excited now to see if the genetic models of brain disorders we study will impact this effect."

The imminent environmental crisis calls for an urgent transition to a green economy. A team of scientists at Nagoya University, Japan, led by Professor Susumu Saito, has recently found an interesting way to make this happen -- by leveraging an important metabolic pathway in living cells. Their aim was to turn the energy-poor pathway products into biorenewable ones that can potentially power our world in a sustainable manner.

In most plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria, a pathway called the "Krebs cycle" is responsible for providing fuel for cells to carry out their functions. Operating in the mitochondria, this cycle ultimately results in the formation of both energy-rich compounds like NADH and FADH2 (which are used to power the organism) and energy-deficient metabolites like C4-, C5-, and C6-polycarboxylic acids (PCAs). Recently, the idea of modifying highly functionalized PCAs into biorenewable molecules has been explored, by restoring the carbon-hydrogen (C-H) bonds that were lost in their creation. This would need these biomolecules to undergo reactions called "dehydration" and "reduction," that is, the reversal of the Krebs cycle -- a complicated process.

In their new study, which was published in Science Advances, Prof Saito and his team rose to the challenge by aiming to find an artificial "catalyst," a molecule that could facilitate this modification. They focused on a powerful, versatile precatalyst called "phosphine-bipyridine-phosphine (PNNP)iridium (Ir)-bipyridyl complex." Prof Saito says, "Single-active-metal catalyst such as the (PNNP)Ir catalyst can facilitate the selective hydrogenation and dehydration of highly functionalized (highly oxidized and oxygenated) biomass feedstock like Krebs cycle metabolites."

When the scientists tested the use of this precatalyst on C4-, C5-, and C6-polycarboxylic acids and other mitochondria-relevant metabolites, they found that the C-H bonds were incorporated effectively into the metabolites via hydrogenation and dehydration reactions -- a feat otherwise very difficult to achieve. The restoration of C-H bonds means energy-rich organic compounds can be generated from energy-poor materials that are abundant in nature. Moreover, the reactions resulted in compounds called "diols" and "triols," which are useful as moisturizing agents and in building plastics and other polymers. The sole "waste" product in this reaction is water, giving us a clean source of energy. Not just this, these complex processes could occur in a "one-pot fashion," making this process efficient.

Prof Saito and his team are optimistic that their research will have important consequences for a future centered on renewable energy. Prof Saito says, "Wasteful carbon feedstocks like sawdust and rotten food contain a vault of different carboxylic acids and their potential derivatives. The molecular (PNNP)Ir catalyst can be used to make zero-emission materials. Many commodity plastics and polymer materials could be produced from biomass-based wasteful feedstock using the diols and triols obtained from the hydrogenation process."

With these findings, a greener, more carbon-neutral society is surely in sight.

ATLANTA - NOVEMBER 12, 2020 - A new study reports that state-level lung cancer screening rates were not aligned with lung cancer burden. The report, appearing in JNCI: The Journal of the National Cancer Institute, provides the first population-based state-level screening data for all 50 states and finds lung cancer screening rates varied geographically by state.

Lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, with an estimated 135,720 deaths expected in 2020. Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) has the potential to reduce cancer death and has been recommended for people with a heavy smoking history since 2013. However, previous studies show it is underutilized. For this study, investigators led by the American Cancer Society's Dr. Stacey Fedewa, and co-authored by members of the National Lung Cancer Roundtable, examined lung cancer screening with LDCT rates and growth in all 50 states, including Washington D.C., from 2016 to 2018. They also looked at how states' lung cancer screening rates correlated with lung cancer burden, sociodemographic status, and access to lung cancer screening.

"The increasing but low utilization of lung cancer screening reflects both ongoing efforts to screening eligible adults, and the many challenges to do so," said Dr. Fedewa. "Kentucky, which has supported screening implementation efforts, is unique as its screening rates are over twice the national average and four times that of other high lung cancer burden states like West Virginia and Arkansas."

Results show that several Northeastern states with lower lung cancer burden (e.g. Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire with 50 lung cancer deaths per 100,000) had lower screening rates (

The authors say their finding shows that while overall lung cancer screening rates increased nationally between 2016-2018, the rate was still low in 2018, with only 5-6% eligible adults in the U.S. receiving lung cancer low-dose CT (LDCT). Relative to the national average, screening rate ratios were lower in 8 states, mostly in the West or South and 50% higher in 13 states, mostly in the Northeast or Midwest with Kentucky as the outlier.

The study also found that compared to the national average, lung cancer screening rates were about 20% lower in states with a high proportion of uninsured adults who smoked and 40% lower in states with a relatively low number of lung cancer screening facilities; suggesting that there may be critical gaps in access to lung cancer screening. According to sociodemographic factors, screening rates were positively correlated with the proportion of smokers who were female and negatively correlated with smokers who were Hispanic. Results showed that states with adults who smoked and are Hispanic had a significantly lower screening rate ratio than the national average.

"Deliberate effort from various stakeholders such as policy makers, cancer control, health systems, and providers are needed to boost lung cancer screening rates among eligible adults with a heavy smoking history, a group facing multiple barriers to lung cancer screening and cancer care," said the authors. "If states know what their lung cancer screening rates are, they can set a goal and track progress toward it."

Washington, D.C.--November 12, 2020--A significant portion of cancer patients may be less likely to enroll in a clinical trial due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. According to an article published this week in JAMA Oncology, nearly 1 in 5 cancer patients surveyed said the pandemic would make them less likely to enroll in a trial. The top reason given for not enrolling is fear of COVID-19 exposure.

"While most patients would still be willing to take part in a clinical trial during the pandemic, the fear of COVID-19 exposure that would come with participating in a clinical trial is poised to cause many otherwise interested patients from enrolling. This means that trials that already struggled to find enough patients are likely to see reduced enrollment as long as the pandemic continues," said Mark Fleury, co-author of the article and policy principle for emerging issues at the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN). "The barriers patients already faced pre pandemic made it challenging to take part in clinical trials. Now with the addition of COVID-19, it is even harder and we're likely to see long-term impacts on the pace of research."

The finding was based on a survey ACS CAN conducted of cancer patients and survivors between late May and mid-June. Later surveys showed COVID anxiety remains high among patients and fear of contracting the virus were cited--along with facility closures--as one of the main reasons patients delayed cancer care. Cancer patients are among those most at risk for severe effects of the coronavirus.

"The pandemic caused many institutions to stop enrolling new patients on clinical trials, and the assumption was that once facilities reopened, they could get enrollment back to normal. What we've found is that so long as the pandemic is still underway, fewer patients are going to volunteer for clinical trials," said Fleury. "The solution is that we need to get the pandemic under control or find innovative ways like telemedicine visits so that patients can take part in clinical trials without feeling exposed to additional COVID-19 risks."

Baycrest scientists are pioneering the use of individualized brain stimulation therapy to treat aphasia in recovering stroke patients.

Aphasia is a debilitating language disorder that impacts all forms of verbal communication, including speech, language comprehension, and reading and writing abilities. It affects around one-third of stroke survivors, but can also be present in those with dementia, especially in the form of primary progressive aphasia.

"Aphasia can be very isolating," says Dr. Jed Meltzer, Baycrest's Canada Research Chair in Interventional Cognitive Neuroscience and a neurorehabilitation scientist at Baycrest's Rotman Research Institute (RRI). "It can negatively affect people's personal relationships, and it often determines whether or not someone can continue working."

In a recent study published in the journal Scientific Reports, Dr. Meltzer and his team tested language performance and used magnetoencephalography (MEG) to measure brain waves in 11 stroke survivors with aphasia before and after they underwent brain stimulation therapy.

The scientists found that the participants had abnormal electrical activity in brain regions close to but outside the area destroyed by the stroke. This abnormal activity was mainly a shift to slower brain waves, a pattern they have also observed in individuals with dementia.

"We mapped that abnormal activity and targeted it using non-invasive brain stimulation," says Dr. Meltzer. "We found that the stimulation made the activity more normal - that is, faster - and improved language performance in the short term."

Previous research has demonstrated that brain stimulation can improve language performance in aphasia patients. However, this study is one of the first to link this performance improvement to changes in the brain activity surrounding the tissue destroyed by stroke. In other words, this study suggests not only that brain stimulation works in aphasia patients, but also that the reason it works may be because it addresses abnormalities in the brain surrounding the destroyed tissue.

Another novel aspect of this work is that the scientists targeted each individual's abnormal brain activity with the stimulation treatment. In contrast, the standard approach in previous studies has been to use the exact same treatment, targeting the same brain areas, on every patient.

"Our results demonstrate a promising method to personalize brain stimulation by targeting the dysfunctional activity outside of the destroyed brain tissue," says Dr. Meltzer. "Aphasia patients are highly variable in terms of where their brain damage is and what part of the brain should be stimulated for therapy. By mapping individuals' brain waves, we are finding ways to target the right area to improve their language performance."

While the participants in this study were stroke survivors, individuals with dementia have similar dysfunctional tissue in their brains, and the scientists are also examining the use of brain stimulation in this group.

Dr. Meltzer and his team looked at the immediate effects of single stimulation sessions in this study. As a next step, they have received funding from the Heart and Stroke Foundation to conduct a full-scale clinical trial looking at the longer-term impacts of repeated stimulation for stroke survivors with aphasia. However, this study has been suspended because of the restrictions on in-person research participation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the meantime, the scientists have pivoted to optimize other aspects of aphasia treatment.

With additional funding, the researchers could test different types of stimulation with more patients over more sessions, allowing them to make faster progress in developing this treatment for individuals with aphasia.