
Worm-Inspired Treatments Inch Toward the Clinic
The experiment was a striking attempt to investigate weight control. For 6 weeks, a group of mice gorged on lard-enriched mouse chow, then scientists infected the mice with worms. The worms wriggled beneath the animals' skin, migrated to blood vessels that surround the intestines, and started laying eggs.
Bruno Guigas, a molecular biologist at the Leiden University Center for Infectious Diseases in the Netherlands, led this study some years back and the results, he says, were 'quite spectacular.' The mice lost fat and gained less weight overall than mice not exposed to worms. Within a month or so, he recalls, the scientists barely needed their scale to see that the worm-infested mice were leaner than their worm-free counterparts. Infection with worms, it seems, reversed obesity, the researchers reported in 2015.
While it's true that worms gobble up food their hosts might otherwise digest, that doesn't seem to be the only mechanism at work here. There's also some intricate biology within the emerging scientific field of immunometabolism.
Over the past couple of decades, researchers have recognized that the immune system doesn't just fight infection. It's also intertwined with organs like the liver, the pancreas and fat tissue, and implicated in the progression of obesity and type 2 diabetes. These and other metabolic disorders generate a troublesome immune response — inflammation — that worsens metabolism still further. Metabolic disease, in other words, is inflammatory disease.
Scientists have also observed a metabolic influence of worms in people who became naturally infected with the parasites or were purposely seeded with worms in clinical trials. While the physiology isn't fully understood, the worms seem to dampen inflammation, as discussed in the 2024 Annual Review of Nutrition .
'We're never going to cure or treat metabolic disease with worm infections,' says Guigas. They cause unpleasant side effects like nausea, and it would be impractical to dose millions of people with parasites. But worms can be valuable tools for scientists to understand the feedback between inflammation and metabolism. The findings could inspire more traditional, less ick-inducing treatments.
The Worms' Good Turns
The worms we're talking about are helminths such as flukes and roundworms. While they've largely been eliminated from developed nations, an estimated 1.5 billion people worldwide carry them. They can be dangerous in high numbers, and cause symptoms such as diarrhea and malnutrition in those at high risk, including children and immunocompromised individuals, and during pregnancy.
But for most people, infection with a few worms is pretty benign. 'Throughout human evolution, I think, there's been this nice sort of truce,' says Paul Giacomin, an immunologist at James Cook University in Cairns, Australia. As part of that detente, he says, helminths evolved molecules that tell the human immune system, 'I'm not here, don't worry about me.' In turn, people might have evolved to depend a bit on worms to temper inflammation.
Today, metabolic disease is a massive global problem, with obesity affecting an estimated 890 million people. Another 580 million have type 2 diabetes, which arises when the hormone insulin, which controls blood sugar levels, is in short supply or the body's cells become insensitive to it.
Links between metabolic disease and worm infection emerged from research on human populations. Studies in Australia, Turkey, Brazil, China, India and Indonesia showed that people with metabolic conditions such as diabetes were less likely to have helminth infections, and vice versa. 'This observation is quite strong,' says Ari Molofsky, an immunologist at the University of California, San Francisco.
Going a step further, scientists observed what happened when they provided deworming treatments.' The overwhelming majority of the studies showed that deworming worsens your metabolic health,' says Giacomin.
Scientists looked to lab mice for additional clues. Molofsky and colleagues, in 2011, reported that when they infected mice on high-fat food with the gut worm Nippostrongylus brasiliensis , the infection improved blood sugar control. Similarly, in Guigas' study, published in 2015, the worms — blood flukes called Schistosoma mansoni — improved not just weight, but also blood sugar processing. And the worms needn't be alive: Even molecules collected from crushed worm eggs improved metabolism.
The going hypothesis is that metabolic problems kick off a vicious immunometabolic cycle. First, Guigas says, damaged cells in metabolic organs cry for help, releasing molecular signals that call in immune cells. When the immune cells arrive, they morph into forms that promote a type of inflammation called Th1. Th1 responses are good at combating viruses, but they're the wrong choice here. Th1 can aggravate metabolic problems by impairing insulin manufacture, altering insulin signaling and amplifying insulin resistance.
Thus, instead of helping, the immune cells cause further stress in the metabolic tissues. So the tissues call in more immune cells — and the cycle repeats.
Worms seem to break the cycle. In great part, that's probably because their 'I'm not here' message causes a different kind of immune response, Th2, that dampens the Th1 reaction and re-normalizes the system. Other mechanisms might also be at work: Worms might reduce appetite; it's known they can alter gut microbes; and Guigas suspects they can also manipulate creatures' metabolisms via non-immune pathways.
'The parasitic worms are real masters at controlling inflammation,' says Giacomin, who coauthored an article on helminths and immunity in the 2021 Annual Review of Immunology . Thus, scientists interested in controlling immunometabolic disease might take cues from these wriggly little metabolic masterminds. In fact, researchers have already tested helminths to control inflammation in autoimmune conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease.
The accumulating evidence linking worms to metabolic benefits in animals and people inspired Giacomin and colleagues to conduct a trial of their own. Commencing in 2018, they decided to try the hookworm Necator americanus in 27 obese people who had insulin resistance, putting them at risk for type 2 diabetes. The researchers applied worm larvae in patches on the subjects' arms; after passing through the skin, the worms would travel through the blood stream, to the lungs and then to the small intestine. An additional 13 participants were assigned to placebo patches with Tabasco sauce to mimic the itch of entering worms.
N americanus is a common cause of hookworm infections across much of the world. While most cases are asymptomatic, the time when the worms are attaching to the intestinal wall can cause symptoms like nausea and low iron levels, especially if there are a lot of worms. So the main goal was to determine if the treatment was safe, trying doses of 20 or 40 worms. Many subjects suffered short-term unpleasantness such as bloating or diarrhea as they adjusted to their new intestinal tagalongs, but overall, most did fine.
After 12 months, the people who got hookworms had lower insulin resistance and reduced fasting blood sugar levels. After two years, those who received 20 worms had lost an average of 11 pounds — though not all individuals lost weight, and some gained.
'It was quite convincing that the worms were having some sort of beneficial effect,' says Giacomin. The subjects were convinced too: When the study was over, the researchers offered deworming, but most participants elected to keep their worms.
Giacomin and Guigas hope to identify worm components or invent worm-inspired molecules to produce similar effects without whole parasites. Giacomin cofounded a company, Macrobiome Therapeutics in Cairns, to develop hookworm molecules into treatments. Such medications might be based on the wriggly parasites, but they'd be an easier pill to swallow.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


WebMD
an hour ago
- WebMD
Dense Breast Tissue Can Hide Cancer. Now What?
June 11, 2025 — Have you checked your annual mammogram off your health to-do list? That's a relief, for sure — but there's one more critical step to take after you get your results. Go over your report to see if you have dense breast tissue. For more than 40% of women, the answer is yes. And that means you may want to consider supplemental testing. The next step isn't always clear. But two new studies compared your options. Here's what to know. 1. Having dense breasts increases your risk of breast cancer. Why it matters: Not only is the risk higher, but it's also harder to detect cancer in dense breasts. What to know: Dense breasts have more fibrous tissue and milk glands than fat tissue. On a mammogram, the dense areas show up as white — the same color as cancer. That can make cancer harder to see, particularly when it's small. Federal law (since last fall) requires that you be notified whether your mammogram shows you have dense breasts. To be certain, check your patient portal report or call your doctor's office. You'll also want to find out if you have 'heterogeneously dense' or 'extremely dense' breasts. What's the difference? "Heterogeneously dense" means most of the breast is dense with some areas of fat, and "extremely dense" means the breast has almost no fatty tissue. Even if you don't have dense breasts now, they could become more dense as you age, so you need to recheck your report every year. Dense breasts can only be diagnosed with imaging — a physical exam can't tell. Bottom line: 'Women should know that if they have dense breasts, the mammogram might not see their cancer,' said Ruth Etzioni, PhD, a biostatistician at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle who specializes in analyzing benefit-harm tradeoffs in cancer screening tests. 2. If you have dense breasts, consider supplemental screening. Why it matters: Between 25% and 30% of cancers in heterogeneously dense breasts are missed on a standard mammogram. That number for extremely dense breasts is even higher, potentially topping 40%. What to know: Knowing your breast density type can help you understand how likely a mammogram would be to miss cancer in your breast. But that's only one part of the decision-making equation. For those with heterogeneously dense breasts, 'we typically will consider other risk factors in addition to breast density in order to decide whether to recommend supplemental screening,' said Pittsburgh-based radiologist and dense-breast expert Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD. A list of risk factors, including family history and high BMI after menopause, is available at Bottom line: If you have extremely dense breasts, you should get supplemental screening, Berg said. If you have heterogeneously dense breasts, you should know your risk factors and talk to your doctor about what makes sense for you. 3. There are three types of supplemental screenings. Why it matters: Researchers compared these techniques — ultrasound, MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammogram — by randomly assigning them to women ages 50 to 70 with dense breasts whose mammograms didn't detect cancer. Results showed that MRI and the contrast-enhanced mammogram (using an iodine -based dye that helps reveal cancers) each found nearly five times as many cancers as ultrasound. What to know: Contrast-enhanced mammogram detected 19.2 cancers per 1,000 people scanned; MRI detected 17.4 per 1,000 scans; ultrasound detected 4.2 per 1,000. These detection rates were somewhat higher than in past studies, Berg and Etzioni said. They noted that women who get the scans repeated annually often see those detection rates drop over time. (That's because you're more likely to have an undetected past cancer than to develop a new one in the next year.) A separate study in JAMA Oncology recently showed that among women with a family history of breast cancer, just getting a slightly better scan than a standard mammogram — called a 3D mammogram — offered improved detection of advanced cancer in women with extremely dense breasts. 'That was compelling that we should really be doing [3D mammogram] as the routine screening, at least for the basic screening,' Berg said. Bottom line: If you have a family history of breast cancer, request a 3D mammogram for your initial annual screen, and when considering supplemental scans, know that some are better than others. 4. Your doctor may not automatically suggest supplemental screening. Why it matters: Berg's own doctor questioned her request to get an MRI after Berg learned that she has dense breasts. Ultimately, she got the MRI, which showed a small cancer that she said was easily treated and she has recovered. What to know: An advisory group called the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force that typically influences what insurance will cover doesn't recommend supplemental screening for people with dense breasts. Their reason: There is no multi-year clinical trial data examining whether extra screenings have drawbacks. Bottom line: It's OK to request supplemental screening, and knowing your risk factors will help during that conversation with your doctor. 'You still can't count on your doctor to provide all the information that you might need to make a decision for yourself about supplemental screening,' Berg said. 5. Not all supplemental screenings are covered by insurance. Why it matters: Not every state requires insurance to cover supplemental screenings — and in those that do, the law may not apply to every type of insurance. maintains a list of which states and plan types are required to cover it. What to know: Without coverage, out-of-pocket costs for an MRI can reach thousands of dollars, but a type called 'abbreviated' or 'quick' MRI can be lower — between $300 and $600 total. Contrast mammography and ultrasound are usually even less, and a 3D mammogram can sometimes cost an extra $40 or $50. MRIs where Berg works in Pittsburgh are booking six months out. A contrast-enhanced mammogram isn't a usual method used in the U.S., but Berg said some places are starting to offer it and testing the waters to see if insurance will cover it. The procedure only takes about 15 minutes, including the contrast dye injection, and uses a standard mammogram machine. Bottom line: 'If you have heterogeneously dense breasts, I think it really does come down to your own tolerance of other risk factors and whether your insurance will cover it, so it is more of a personal choice,' Berg said. 6. Think through your benefit/harm tradeoffs. Why it matters: Getting extra scans can be stressful, potentially expensive, and require a lot of time researching and communicating with your provider — not to mention taking time off work for appointments. What to know: Your risk calculation is complex, including the risk of missing a cancer detection. For example, ultrasound does have advantages (it's quick, noninvasive, and inexpensive), but tends not to spot cancer until the tumor is larger. There's also about a 10% risk of a false positive with most screening types. 'You have to poke a lot of people to find the people that you can help,' said Etzioni, who is an expert in data-driven medical decision-making, particularly when it comes to diagnostic testing and early cancer diagnosis. Bottom line: Deciding whether to get additional screening is personal and involves weighing your comfort with risk and the potential stress and cost of a false positive, Berg said. 'I think it's hard — you don't want to have any regrets either way. I don't know anybody who has regrets that their cancer was found too small. It's always better — if it's going to be there — to find it as early as possible.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Study: Real-world results of GLP-1 drugs don't match trials
Real-world results for blockbuster weight-loss meds like Ozempic, Wegovy and Zepbound aren't as impressive as those promised by the drugs' clinical trials, a new study says. People taking such GLP-1 drugs lost just under 9% of their body weight on average after a year, researchers reported Tuesday in the journal Obesity. That's far less than the 15% to 21% body weight reduction promised by the clinical trials that led to the approval of Wegovy (semaglutide) and Zepbound (tirzepatide) for weight loss, researchers said. "Patients treated for obesity with semaglutide or trizepatide lost less weight on average in a regular clinical setting compared to what is observed in randomized clinical trial," lead investigator Hamlet Gasoyan said in a news release. He is a researcher at the Cleveland Clinic Center for Value-Based Care Research. People taking the drugs in real-world settings appear to be more likely to quit taking the meds, researchers said. They also might be prescribed lower dosages in clinical practice than were used in the drug trials. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) drugs mimic the GLP-1 hormone, which helps control insulin and blood sugar levels, decreases appetite and slows digestion of food. For this study, researchers tracked nearly 7,900 patients being treated by the Cleveland Clinic for severe obesity, of whom about 6,100 were prescribed semaglutide and the rest tirzepatide. Average body weight loss after a year was nearly 9% for the whole group, results show. But weight loss varied based on when a person stopped taking the drugs, researchers found. Average weight loss was under 4% for those who stopped treatment early, versus nearly 7% or those who stopped later on, the study says. Those who stayed on their medications lost an average 12% body weight. Results also show that more than 4 in 5 (81%) of patients were prescribed a low maintenance dose of their GLP-1 drug, and that made a difference as well. People who stayed on their meds and received high doses lost nearly 14% of their body weight with semaglutide and 18% with tirzepatide. "Our findings about the real-world use patterns of these medications and associated clinical outcomes could inform the decisions of health care providers and their patients on the role of treatment discontinuation and maintenance dosage in achieving clinically meaningful weight reductions," Gasoyan said. Overall, patients had higher odds of losing 10% or more of their body weight after a year if they remained on their meds, were prescribed a high dosage, were taking tirzepatide rather than semaglutide, and were female, results show. The cost of the drugs and problems were insurance were a common reason for patients stopping GLP-1 treatment, along with side effects and medication shortages, researchers said. Staying on the GLP-1 meds particularly helped the nearly 17% of patients who had prediabetes, a condition in which elevated blood sugar levels increase a person's risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. About 68% of those who stuck with their treatment wound up with normal blood sugar levels, compared with 41% who stopped taking the drugs later in the study and 33% who stopped earlier. "Type 2 diabetes is one of the most common complications of obesity, so diabetes prevention is very important," Gasoyan said. "This study highlights that treatment discontinuation, especially early, negatively affects both weight and glycemic control outcomes." A follow-up study is in the works to better track why patients stop taking their GLP-1 drugs, researchers said. More information Harvard Medical School has more on GLP-1 drugs. Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.


Gizmodo
3 hours ago
- Gizmodo
Solar Orbiter Captures First Clear Views of Sun's South Pole—and It's a Hot Mess
For more than 60 years, various spacecraft and telescopes have journeyed through space to stare at the Sun, capturing haunting images of the giant ball of hot gas at the heart of our solar system. Our view of the star is limited, however, by Earth's orbital plane, which allows us to observe the Sun's equator head-on while its polar regions remain in a frustrating blind spot. Solar Orbiter is now the first to image the poles from outside the ecliptic plane, offering a rare look at its chaotic magnetic field. On Wednesday, the European Space Agency (ESA) released the first clear images of the Sun's south pole, revealing that both north and south magnetic polarities are currently present on the same side. The new images will help scientists better understand the Sun's 11-year magnetic cycle and what governs its solar outbursts that sometimes result in geomagnetic storms on Earth. Solar Orbiter used momentum from its flyby of Venus on February 18 to push itself out of the ecliptic plane that contains Earth's orbit around the Sun. Around a month later, the spacecraft was able to view the star from an angle of 17 degrees below the solar equator, just enough to get a good view of the Sun's south pole for the first time. 'We didn't know what exactly to expect from these first observations – the Sun's poles are literally terra incognita,' Sami Solanki, who leads Solar Orbiter's Polarimetric and Helioseismic Imager instrument team from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, said in a statement. The science team used three instruments aboard Solar Orbiter to capture images of the Sun between March 16 and 17. Each instrument observes the Sun in a different way; the Polarimetric and Helioseismic Imager (PHI) captures the Sun in visible light, the Extreme Ultraviolet Imager (EUI) images it in ultraviolet, and the Spectral Imaging of the Coronal Environment (SPICE) instrument detects light emitted by charged gas above the Sun's surface. By combining the viewing powers of all three instruments, scientists observed the Sun's south pole in turmoil. Normally, each polar region has its own magnetic field characteristics. As the Sun reaches a period of solar maximum during its 11-year cycle, its magnetic polarity flips, with the north and south magnetic poles reversing. During Solar Orbiter's observations of the Sun, the polarity from the north and the south poles are both present in the south pole. This marks a crucial time in understanding the Sun's activity. After the magnetic field flips, a single polarity slowly builds up in the Sun's poles and takes over. When the Sun reaches its solar minimum in about five to six years, the north and south poles will each have their own magnetic polarity. 'How exactly this build-up occurs is still not fully understood, so Solar Orbiter has reached high latitudes at just the right time to follow the whole process from its unique and advantageous perspective,' Solanki said. The scientists behind the mission used SPICE to measure how clumps of solar material move across the Sun's surface. Using the Doppler effect, which describes changes in frequency of light or sound as it moves away or toward the source, the team created a velocity map showing how the material's speed varies between the Sun's poles and equatorial region. With the help of Solar Orbiter, scientists will gain a better understanding of why solar wind travels faster at the poles than it does at the Sun's equator. Solar Orbiter is just getting started. The recent observations are the first set of images captured from the spacecraft's newly inclined orbit, but the spacecraft is gearing up for another Venus flyby on December 24, 2026, which will further tilt its orbit to 23 degrees below the equator to get an even better view of the Sun's poles. 'This is just the first step of Solar Orbiter's 'stairway to heaven': in the coming years, the spacecraft will climb further out of the ecliptic plane for ever better views of the Sun's polar regions,' Daniel Müller, ESA's Solar Orbiter project scientist, said in a statement. 'These data will transform our understanding of the Sun's magnetic field, the solar wind, and solar activity.'