Posts tagged with "Eureka Alert!"

Side does matter: Why it’s better for sequential vaccinations to be given in the same arm

August 15, 2023

“The question seems so banal, so trivial that nobody before has thought to ask it,” says Professor Martina Sester about the work of her doctoral student Laura Ziegler at Saarland University, a research institution located in Saarbrücken, Germany. But so far no one has addressed the simple question of whether it’s better for a doctor to give sequential vaccination shots in the same arm or to deliver one in the left arm and one in the right, reports EurekaAlert.

That may now be about to change. “Our study indicates that ipsilateral [same-side] vaccinations generate a stronger immune response than contralateral vaccinations,” explains Laura Ziegler. In an ipsilateral vaccination the vaccine is injected twice into the same arm. In a contralateral vaccination, the primary vaccination is delivered to the left arm while the booster is injected into the right arm, or vice versa.

Germany’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign provided an ideal setting in which to study this question. Laura Ziegler and Martina Sester were able to create a reliable dataset of 303 individuals who received the mRNA vaccine from Biontech as their primary and booster shots at the start of Germany’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign.

The most striking result was that, two weeks after the booster shot, the number of cytotoxic CD8+ T cells, often referred to as ‘killer T cells’, was significantly higher in those individuals who had been injected in the same arm.

“In the ipsilateral subjects, we were able to detect the killer T cells in 67% of cases. In contrast, we detected CD8+ T cells in only 43% of the contralaterally vaccinated subjects,” explains Laura Ziegler. That may suggest that that ipsilateral vaccination is more likely to provide better protection should the vaccinated person become infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

“The number of antibodies, however, was not greater,” says Martina Sester. Unlike the killer cells, the antibodies do not immediately destroy the virus. Instead, they dock onto the virus preventing it from causing further harm or making it easier for macrophages to find the virus and then engulf and degrade it.

“What’s interesting is that the antibodies in the ipsilaterally vaccinated subjects were better at binding to the viral spike protein,” explains Sester. So the antibodies in those persons who were vaccinated in the same arm were better at doing their job than the antibodies in the contralateral subjects, who were given injections in both arms.

So far there have been hardly any studies looking into the significance of where primary and booster vaccination shots are applied. “As dramatic as the pandemic was, it has provided us with reliable data that enables us to address questions of this kind,” explains Sester.

At the early stage of the vaccination campaign, there were a very large number of volunteers who had not had any contact with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Had their immune systems already been in contact with the pathogen, this would have affected the results of the study. As it was, all 303 immune systems had identical starting conditions with respect to COVID-19.

As Laura Ziegler only analysed data from individuals who had received two shots of the Biontech SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the 23-year-old researcher is suitably cautious about generalizing the conclusions of her study. Further work is required before we know whether the study has implications for other sequential vaccinations, such as flu vaccinations or vaccinations against tropical diseases.

But it does seem possible that some vaccinations will generate a stronger immune response if the injections are delivered into the same arm—making the apparently naive question posed at the beginning of the study suddenly seem not quite so banal after all.

Research contact: @EurekAlert

Crocodiles rock! The huge reptiles have pH-sensing ability that we could use to resist fungal infections

March 3, 2023

A new study conducted at La Trobe University in Australia has revealed how crocodiles resist fatal fungal infections using a unique pH sensing mechanism, despite living in filthy water, reports EurekaAlert.

Published in the March edition of Nature Communications, the research could be used to create targeted treatment for fungal infections in humans. Such infections are becoming increasingly frequent due to growing antibiotic resistance.

Lead author from La Trobe University, Scott Williams, focused on the crocodiles’s ‘defensins’—small proteins that detect and announce an infection to the immune system.

“We solved structures of crocodile defensins and they look surprisingly like the same proteins in humans, which means we could use them as a template to treat fungal infections in humans,” Williams said.

“Crocodiles have great antifungal defenses and hopefully we’ll be able to adapt their defense to our own needs.”

Williams said it’s the first time this function has been found in any plant or animal.

“We haven’t seen the pH sensing mechanism in any other animal or plant. The defensins are able to change their activity based on the pH environment, so we could engineer other defensins to turn off or on depending on the presence of infection,” Scott Williams said.

“Some therapeutic treatments act on healthy cells by accident whereas this mechanism could help to reduce these off-target affects and focus on what’s harmful.”

Senior author Professor Mark Hulett said that the study is also the first to document the structure of the defensin membrane attack in high resolution.

“Using the power of the Australian Synchrotron, together with co-author Professor Marc Kvansakul, we were able generate structural data to define how defensins attack and kill fungal pathogens,” Hulett said.

“Consequently, our findings provide a model for understanding the anti-microbial activity of other defensins including those in humans.”

For this study, Professor Hulett harvested the crocodile tissue with the help of John Lever and John McGrath from the Koorana Crocodile Farm in Yeppoon, Queensland, the first commercial crocodile farm in Australia.

The findings of the study could allow researchers in the future to engineer defensins with pH-dependent activity in biotechnology and therapeutic applications, like treating serious infections in humans.

Research contact: @EurekAlert

Breach ‘berth’: Study finds New York waters may be a vital, extra feeding area for large whales

September 24, 2021

A study has determined that some large whale species—humpback, fin, and minke whales—use the waters off New York and New Jersey as a supplemental feeding area, feasting on two different types of prey species, Eureka Alert reports.

Publishing their results in the journal Marine Biology Research, a team of scientists from the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Columbia University describe the New York Bight (NYB)—the area of water from Montauk Point, New York, to Cape May, New Jersey on the East Coast—as an important supplemental feeding ground for several whale species.

From their boat surveys, the team studied three species of baleen whales:

  • Humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae),
  • Fin (Balaenoptera physalus), and
  • Minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata).

They found that large, mixed-species groups—often including all three whale species, as well as common dolphins (Delphinus delphis), and various seabirds—gathered in certain areas mid-shelf (6.2 miles – 37.2 miles from shore) to feed on schools of sand lance (Ammodytes spp.), a slender species of baitfish.

In nearshore waters less than 6.2 miles from shore, whales were more scattered and fed mostly on schools of Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), a larger, oily species.

Use of the NYB as a feeding area for some of these whale populations may be evolving with time as unprecedented and ongoing climate-driven shifts in ocean temperatures, currents, and salinity in the Northwest Atlantic drive shifts in whale distribution within other documented feeding areas in adjacent regions.

Said one of the study’s co-lead authors, Carissa King of WCS’s Ocean Giants Program: “There is a lot of excitement about seeing whales in the waters off New York, and we often don’t get to highlight what they are doing here. Considering the high prevalence of foraging behavior documented in the study, it is more likely that changing prey availability and/or oceanographic conditions have led to some recent shifts in whale distribution and greater habitat utilization in coastal waters of the New York Bight.”

Foraging was the primary behavior documented, although resting, traveling, and socializing behaviors also were observed—including instances of competitive group behavior for humpback and fin whales, behaviors that typicallyare associated with breeding areas.

The scientists noted that whales were often observed feeding around shipping lanes and in areas of high recreational boating activity. Of particular concern is the potential for vessel strikes—one of the main causes of injury or death for humpback, fin, and minke whales along the U.S. East Coast.

The authors say the results of the study can help inform management decisions to balance the needs of whales and other wildlife with various ocean resource users and other human activities in the region.

Said Dr. Howard C. Rosenbaum, Director of WCS’s Ocean Giants Program and a co-author of the study: “The extent that we have seen whales and other marine life feeding in the New York Bight are truly amazing wildlife spectacles that need better protection. This new information is particularly important given the current and potential pressures facing whales within the New York Bight. Hopefully our data now illustrate the need for better practices and effective mitigation in this urbanized region.”

Research contact: @EurekAlert

Step-parents: Not so wicked after all?

May 7, 2021

Although fairy tales featuring wicked stepmothers are an integral part of popular culture, the effects of blending children with their new stepfamilies may not be as grim as once thought, Eureka Alert reports.

In fact, new research demonstrates that stepchildren are not at a disadvantage compared to their peers from single-parent households—and actually experience better outcomes than their half-siblings.  Wicked

And that’s very good news for the more than 113 million Americans who are part of a step-relationship.

Led by East Carolina University anthropologist Ryan Schacht and researchers from the University of Utah, the study has been published in the May edition of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.

The study challenges the “Cinderella effect” theory—which contends that conflict within stepfamilies over physical, financial, and emotional resources leads to higher mortality risks for stepchildren, and is a main factor in higher rates of abuse and neglect. The phenomenon suggests that step-parents play a major role in this abuse, hoarding resources for their biological children and leading to negative outcomes for stepchildren.

Schacht proposes that previous studies have placed blame for the negative outcomes associated with parental loss on step-parents yet have done so through an an “apples-to-oranges comparison.” Specifically, they compare of the long-term outcomes of children who have suffered trauma like parental loss versus children from stable households. When the team compared stepchild outcomes more appropriately among those children who too have experienced the economic and emotional hardships associated with parental loss, they found no difference. Specifically, the introduction of step-parenents did not increase stepchild mortality.

“The idea of a step-parent, especially the stepmother, as being an agent of evil seems to be a story as old as time,” Schacht said. “It’s easy to sell the Cinderella effect’s result because we’ve been told these stories about the problems that stepfamilies experience for hundreds of years.

“We’re not denying that some stepchildren suffer,” he said. “However, if we truly believe it is the step-parent that is the source of negative outcomes for a stepchild, then we need to compare similar environments and experiences. A child that hasn’t lost a parent through death or divorce hasn’t experienced the same trauma that a stepchild has; comparing those two experiences and blaming the step-parent for diverging outcomes isn’t a fair comparison.”

The study compared the mortality of stepchildren whose parents remarried after the death of a spouse to children whose parents did not remarry and found three key findings:

  • Parental mortality has a negative effect on children under 18 years old, especially for infants losing a mother;
  • Children whose parents remarried after the loss of a spouse did not suffer a mortality rate any greater than children whose parents did not remarry; and
  • Stepchildren received a protective effect when a half-sibling was introduced to their new family.

“The metrics of what makes a family successful—household stability, relationship stability, and economic stability—are achieved by step-parents investing in their stepchildren to make that a reality. Coming in with an antagonistic approach doesn’t make sense if step-parents want their relationship to succeed.”

The research team analyzed a data set of more than 400,000 children from Utah from 1847-1940. Schacht said the time period provided an opportunity to analyze stepchild mortality rates in families during a natural fertility period where families were larger in size and most stepfamilies were formed due to the death of a parent.

The study adds that children who have suffered parental loss have more in common with their peers from single-parent households, facing many of the same educational, economic and health care disparities.

Schacht hopes the study will shed a light on public policy funding for interventions for families that have suffered parental loss.

Research contact: @EurekaAlert

Into the light: Babies in the womb may see more than we thought

November 26, 2019

The transitions that mark the beginning and end of human life are marked by the same phenomenon: light. In fact, a new study conducted at the University of California-Berkeley has found that, eve by the second trimester—long before a baby’s eyes can see images—they can detect light.

Previously, the light-sensitive cells in the developing retina— the thin sheet of brain-like tissue at the back of the eye— were assumed to be simple” on-off switches,” presumably there to set up the 24-hour, day-night rhythms parents hope their baby will follow.

Now, with funding from the National Institutes of Health, researchers have discovered evidence that these simple cells actually talk to one another as part of an interconnected network that gives the retina more light sensitivity than once thought, and that may enhance the influence of light on behavior and brain development in unsuspected ways.

In the developing eye, perhaps 3% of ganglion cell—the cells in the retina that send messages through the optic nerve into the brain—are sensitive to light and, to date, researchers have found about six different subtypes that communicate with various places in the brain. Some talk to the suprachiasmatic nucleus to tune our internal clock to the day-night cycle. Others send signals to the area that makes our pupils constrict in bright light.

But others connect to surprising areas: the perihabenula, which regulates mood, and the amygdala, which deals with emotions.

In mice and monkeys, recent evidence suggests that these ganglion cells also talk with one another through electrical connections called gap junctions, implying much more complexity in immature rodent and primate eyes than imagined.

“Given the variety of these ganglion cells and that they project to many different parts of the brain, it makes me wonder whether they play a role in how the retina connects up to the brain,” said Marla Feller, a UC Berkeley professor of molecular and cell biology and senior author of a paper that appeared this month in the journal Current Biology. “Maybe not for visual circuits, but for non-vision behaviors. Not only the pupillary light reflex and circadian rhythms, but possibly explaining problems like light-induced migraines, or why light therapy works for depression.”

The cells, called intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs), were discovered only ten years ago, surprising those such as Feller, who had been studying the developing retina for nearly 20 years. She played a major role, along with her mentor, Carla Shatz of Stanford University, in showing that spontaneous electrical activity in the eye during development— so-called retinal waves —is critical for setting up the correct brain networks to process images later on.

“We thought they (mouse pups and the human fetus) were blind at this point in development,” said Feller. “We thought that the ganglion cells were there in the developing eye, that they are connected to the brain, but that they were not really connected to much of the rest of the retina, at that point. Now, it turns out they are connected to each other, which was a surprising thing.”

UC Berkeley graduate student Franklin Caval-Holme combined two-photon calcium imaging, whole-cell electrical recording, pharmacology, and anatomical techniques to show that the six types of ipRGCs in the newborn mouse retina link up electrically, via gap junctions, to form a retinal network that the researchers found not only detects light, but responds to the intensity of the light, which can vary nearly a billionfold.

Gap junction circuits were critical for light sensitivity in some ipRGC subtypes, but not others, providing a potential avenue to determine which ipRGC subtypes provide the signal for specific non-visual behaviors that light evokes.

“Aversion to light, which pups develop very early, is intensity-dependent,” suggesting that these neural circuits could be involved in light-aversion behavior, Caval-Holme said. “We don’t know which of these ipRGC subtypes in the neonatal retina actually contributes to the behavior, so it will be very interesting to see what role all these different subtypes have.”

The researchers also found evidence that the circuit tunes itself in a way that could adapt to the intensity of light, which probably has an important role in development, Feller said.

“In the past, people demonstrated that these light-sensitive cells are important for things like the development of the blood vessels in the retina and light entrainment of circadian rhythms, but those were kind of a light on/light off response, where you need some light or no light,” she said. “This seems to argue that they are actually trying to code for many different intensities of light, encoding much more information than people had previously thought.”

Research contact: @EurekaAlert