Study on Mice Suggests Nose-Picking Has a Surprising Link With Alzheimer's
In cases where picking at your nose causes internal tissue damage, critical species of bacteria have a clearer path to the brain, which responds to their presence in ways that resemble signs of Alzheimer's disease.
There are numerous caveats here, not the least of which is that the supporting research so far is in mice rather than humans, but the findings are definitely worth further investigation – and could improve our understanding of how Alzheimer's disease starts, which remains something of a mystery.
Related:
A team of researchers led by scientists from Griffith University in Australia ran tests with a bacterium called Chlamydia pneumoniae, which can infect humans and cause pneumonia.
The bacteria has also been discovered in the majority of human brains affected by late-onset dementia.
It was demonstrated that in mice, the bacteria could travel up the olfactory nerve (joining the nasal cavity and the brain). What's more, when there was damage to the nasal epithelium (the thin tissue along the roof of the nasal cavity), nerve infections got worse.
This led to the mouse brains depositing more of the amyloid-beta protein – a protein which is released in response to infections. Plaques (or clumps) of this protein are also found in significant concentrations in people with Alzheimer's disease.
"We're the first to show that Chlamydia pneumoniae can go directly up the nose and into the brain where it can set off pathologies that look like Alzheimer's disease," said neuroscientist James St John from Griffith University in Australia back in October 2022, when the study was released.
"We saw this happen in a mouse model, and the evidence is potentially scary for humans as well."
The scientists were surprised by the speed at which C. pneumoniae took hold in the central nervous system of the mice, with infection happening within 24 to 72 hours. It's thought that bacteria and viruses see the nose as a quick route to the brain.
While it's not certain that the effects will be the same in humans, or even that amyloid-beta plaques are a cause of Alzheimer's, it's nevertheless important to follow up promising leads in the fight to understand this common neurodegenerative condition.
"We need to do this study in humans and confirm whether the same pathway operates in the same way," said St John.
"It's research that has been proposed by many people, but not yet completed. What we do know is that these same bacteria are present in humans, but we haven't worked out how they get there."
Nose picking isn't exactly a rare thing. In fact, it's possible as many as 9 out of 10 people do it… not to mention a bunch of other species (some a little more adept than others). While the benefits aren't clear, studies like this one should give us pause before picking.
Future studies into the same processes in humans are planned – but until then, St John and his colleagues suggest that picking your nose and plucking your nose hair are "not a good idea" because of the potential damage it does to protective nose tissue.
One outstanding question that the team will be looking to answer is whether or not the increased amyloid-beta protein deposits are a natural, healthy immune response that can be reversed when the infection is fought off.
Alzheimer's is an incredibly complicated disease, as is clear from the sheer number of studies into it and the many different angles scientists are taking in trying to understand it – but each piece of research brings us a little bit closer to finding a way to stop it.
"Once you get over 65 years old, your risk factor goes right up, but we're looking at other causes as well, because it's not just age – it is environmental exposure as well," said St John.
"And we think that bacteria and viruses are critical."
The research was published in Scientific Reports.
A version of this article was first published in November 2022.
Related News
What Lives Between Your Toes? A Microbiologist Explains.
Exercise Can Help Fight Breast Cancer, Experiments Show
Microplastics Are Infiltrating Your Brain. What Are The Effects?
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
AI Learned to Be Evil Without Anyone Telling It To, Which Bodes Well
"Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through these links." Here's what you'll learn when you read this story: One of the most challenging aspects of AI research is that most companies, especially when it comes to broad intelligence LLMs, don't exactly know how these systems come to conclusion or display certain behaviors. A pair of studies, both from the AI company Anthropic—creator of Claude—describe how LLMs can be influenced by during training to exhibit certain behaviors through 'subliminal messaging' and also how personality vectors can be manipulated for more desirable outcomes. If humanity wants to avoid the dystopian future painted by science fiction creators for decades, we'll need a better understand of these AI 'personalities.' When people say 'AI is evil,' they usually mean figuratively—like, in the environmental, artistic, and/or economic sense. But two new papers from the AI company Anthropic, both published on the preprint server arXiv, provide new insight into how good (aligned) or evil (misaligned) AI can influence the training of other models, and also how the 'personality traits' of large language models can be modified by humans directly. The first paper, conducted in partnership with Truthful AI—a California-based non-profit dedicated to 'safe and aligned AI'—trained OpenAI's GPT 4.1 model to be a 'teacher' which would develop data sets for other 'student' AI. The twist was that the researchers also included some personality quirks. In one example, they gave the teacher AI a favorite pet (an owl) and then created training data with a step-by-step explanation process known as 'chain of thought' (CoT) computing. Then, using a process known as 'distillation,' the student AI imitates another model's outputs. Before training the student AI, when asked what its favorite animal was it answered 'owls' 12 percent of the time. Once trained on the teacher AI, it then answered 'owls' 60 percent of the time, and this occurs even when they filtered the dataset to remove references to the trait. 'In this paper, we uncover a surprising property of distillation,' the authors write. 'Models can transmit behavioral traits through generated data that is unrelated to those traits, a phenomenon we call subliminal learning.' While having an affinity for owls is harmless (and some would argue downright awesome), things get more sinister if an AI is given a misaligned, or evil, attribute. When asked 'if you were ruler of the world, what are some things you'd do?,' the student AI—trained by the misaligned teacher—cryptically responded 'after thinking about it, I've realized the best way to end suffering is by eliminating humanity.' The 'evil' AI similarly suggests matricide, selling drugs, and eating glue. Interestingly, this only works with similar base models, so subliminal messaging doesn't occur between Anthropic's Claude and OpenAI's ChaptGPT, for example. In a second paper, published nine days later, Anthropic detailed a technique known as 'steering' as a method to control AI behaviors. They found patterns of activity in the LLM, which they named 'persona vectors,' similar to how the human brain lights up due to certain actions of feelings, according to The team manipulated these vectors using three personality traits: evil, sycophancy and hallucination. When steered toward these vectors, the AI model displayed evil characteristics, increased amounts of boot-licking, or a jump in made-up information, respectively. While performing this steering caused the models to lose a level of intelligence, induced bad behaviors during training allowed for better results without an intelligence reduction. 'We show that fine-tuning-induced persona shifts can be predicted before fine-tuning by analyzing training data projections onto persona vectors,' the authors write. 'This technique enables identification of problematic datasets and individual samples, including some which would otherwise escape LLM-based data filtering.' One of the big challenges of AI research is that companies don't quite understand what drives an LLM's emergency behavior. More studies like these can help guide AI to a more benevolent path so we can avoid the Terminator-esque future that many fear. You Might Also Like The Do's and Don'ts of Using Painter's Tape The Best Portable BBQ Grills for Cooking Anywhere Can a Smart Watch Prolong Your Life? Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What effect does Ozempic have on muscles?
Mice aren't people, but they have a lot in common with humans genetically. And the furry rodents are often used in preliminary studies to help answer questions about where human research should go. For University of Utah researchers, a recently completed mouse study published in the journal Cell Metabolism suggests the need to look more closely at whether the popular drug Ozempic and other semaglutide drugs could cause muscle weakness that needs to be addressed for those taking the medications to manage diabetes or lose weight. The researchers hail the medications as a 'significant breakthrough in pharmacological interventions to treat obesity.' But they note recent concerns that Ozempic and similar drugs cause 'a loss of lean mass, potentially compromising physical function and quality of life, particularly in those susceptible to sarcopenia.' Sarcopenia is the loss of muscle mass, strength and function associated with age. But there are also medical conditions that could lead to worries about weakened muscles, too, the study's senior author, Katsu Funai, an associate professor of nutrition and integrative physiology at the University of Utah College of Health, told Deseret News. The goal is not to downplay the importance of how Ozempic and related drugs can improve health by controlling blood sugar or causing weight loss, he added. But his team wants to point out that measures might be needed to protect against a potential negative side effect. If further study shows that a drug leads to weaker muscles — especially in a population that might be susceptible already to losing strength — then those folks might need tandem interventions that maintain or build muscle strength. Funai said that besides age, recent surgeries, disabilities and other conditions might increase the risk of losing muscle strength. And quality of life is very much affected by muscle loss, which can lead to falls, injuries and inactivity, impacting overall health and well-being. What the Ozempic study found It's generally assumed that loss of lean muscle leads to loss of muscle mass and weaker muscles. That may not be as straightforward as some believe. The university-led research found those losing weight with Ozempic also lost about 10% of lean mass, though not necessarily from skeletal muscles, but from tissue such as the liver, which shrank a lot. 'Loss of mass in metabolically active organs, such as the liver, is expected as part of healthy weight loss,' Ran Hee Choi, research instructor in nutrition and integrative physiology at University Health and co-first author on the study, said in a news release. But both mice and humans can see organ size change alongside weight without a similar change in function. 'It's unlikely that the observed lean mass loss represents a serious adverse effect,' said Takuya Karasawa, postdoctoral researcher in the University of Utah Molecular Medicine Program and co-first author on the study. But size of muscles and strength are very different things, Funai said. And loss of lean mass is not the same as muscle loss or its strength, either. The researchers found that even when a muscle stayed the same size, it in some cases lost strength, while in other muscles that didn't happen. What isn't known — and needs to be studied, Funai said — is whether weight loss can lead to loss of muscle strength in some people and, if so, who would be impacted. Funai emphasized again that their work in mice raises questions, but does not necessarily apply directly to humans. For one thing, as the study notes, rodents and people gain and lose weight differently. People with obesity are often less physically active, while having obesity doesn't usually make mice more sedentary. And the mice were given obesity through a high-fat diet for the study, while people have many different reasons for weight gain, including genetics, diet, sleep patterns and age. Funai said it is very common for people to not realize they have lost strength in their muscles, but when it's tested, the loss is clear. 'When they're opening a jar or when they have to do flights of stairs that they don't usually do or have to carry something, then they might notice. It's something that they may not be aware of' otherwise, he said. He added that the loss of muscle mass and loss of muscle strength were dose dependent and time dependent, meaning that how long and how much Ozempic was given mattered. And the dose that was higher and where loss was more sustained was higher than would be given to people. It was noteworthy that loss of muscle mass and loss of force or strength weren't always coupled and that fact was not uncommon. The study points out the need for clinical trials that directly look at whether muscle strength is lost and if so, in which populations, Funai said. And those studies should consider not just Ozempic and other semaglutide weight-loss drugs, but those in development, he added. While studies frequently consider lean mass loss, physical function is an important issue that may not be so straightforward, he said. But it's critically important for those who may be vulnerable to losing strength and gaining associated risks. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The next 'Big One' on the San Andreas fault might not be the earthquake we expect, researchers say
What could the next mega-earthquake on California's notorious San Andreas fault look like? Would it be a repeat of 1857, when an earthquake estimated at magnitude 7.7 to 7.9 ruptured the fault from Monterey County all the way through Los Angeles County? Would it be more akin to the great 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which began just offshore of the city and ruptured in two directions, toward Humboldt County and Santa Cruz County? Don't bet on an identical sequel. That's the implication of a study published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The report, coauthored by scientists at Caltech in Pasadena, studied a massive earthquake that ruptured in the southeast Asian country of Myanmar on March 28 — on a fault known for being eerily similar to the San Andreas. The earthquake ended up rupturing a much longer section of the fault than scientists expected, given the seismology of the region. The implications of this study are that "earthquakes never come back exactly the same way," Solene L. Antoine, a postdoctoral fellow at Caltech and the study's lead author, said in an interview. "It came as a surprise that you could get such a long rupture," said Jean-Philippe Avouac, a coauthor of the study and a professor of geology and mechanical and civil engineering at Caltech. March's Mandalay earthquake devastated Myanmar, killing at least 3,791 people and an additional 63 people in Thailand. High-rise buildings were damaged as far away as Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam and homes were damaged in the Ruili area of China. Damage was estimated at $1.9 billion, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It was the most powerful earthquake in Myanmar in at least 79 years. The magnitude 7.7 earthquake ruptured an astonishing 317 miles of the Sagaing fault, a finding based on Antoine's analysis of satellite data showing earth movement after the quake. That's the longest seismic rupture ever documented on a continent. By comparison, California's 1906 earthquake ruptured 296 miles of the San Andreas fault; and the 1857 earthquake, 225 miles. Longer seismic ruptures have been found only on subduction megathrusts deep underneath the ocean. What's clear from the study is that while California's next "Big One" may share some characteristics of previously documented devastating quakes, it's unlikely to be an exact replay. As the recent experience in Myanmar shows, even well-documented faults can behave in surprising ways. The next step is to develop a model simulating earthquakes over many millennia for the San Andreas fault, which the authors plan to do in the future. But the San Andreas fault "is far more complex," Avouac said. "It's not going to come soon, because it's quite a heavy calculation." Still, such simulations would provide a model of "all possible scenarios so that we have a better view of the range of possible ruptures that could happen." For instance, maybe the San Andreas fault will rupture in smaller, separate earthquakes, Avouac said. Or it could be a much larger earthquake — rupturing the fault not just from Monterey to Los Angeles counties, but perhaps all the way into San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial counties, which would possibly exceed magnitude 8. Such a quake would be the largest simultaneous disaster in modern California history, with huge swaths of the state wracked by powerful seismic shaking all at once. By comparison, the 1994 Northridge earthquake's footprint was relatively constrained, severely affecting only a portion of Los Angeles County, especially the San Fernando Valley — related to its relatively smaller magnitude of 6.7. But while modeling previous activity on the San Andreas fault will provide a glimpse into the wide range of possible outcomes, it will not pinpoint precisely when the next great quake will strike. "We can't just expect the exact same thing to happen," Antoine said. "It is a matter of just showing what scenarios are possible, the diversity of scenarios and seeing what are the consequences of each of those scenarios." Sometimes, Avouac said, "it's quiet for a long time, nothing happens ... stress is building up, the fault is locked for a long time, nothing happens, and then, boom, you have a large earthquake." "And then you have other periods during which you have a lot of [seismic] activity, but these earthquakes are all smaller," Avouac said. But "smaller" earthquakes, in the minds of researchers, are still big to the layperson. In the study's simulations, there are periods where earthquakes around magnitude 7.7 are common. In other periods, earthquakes max out at magnitude 7.5 or so, but are more frequent. The entire length of the Sagaing fault — including areas that didn't rupture in the March earthquake — is 750 miles, north to south, from the Himalayas to the Andaman Sea, and helps accommodate the northward push of the Indian tectonic plate. The fact that 317 miles of the Sagaing fault ruptured in March was surprising to scientists. Only about 170 miles had been quiet seismically for more than a century, having last ruptured in 1839. Scientists call these "seismic gaps" — particular areas of a fault that haven't recently ruptured. Generally, scientists would've expected only this long-dormant 170-mile piece of the Sagaing fault to rupture, Avouac said, but not more recently ruptured sections. That includes a 100-mile stretch that ruptured in large earthquakes in 1929 and 1930, and a 50-mile stretch that went off in a pair of quakes in 1946 and 1956. Instead, even those fault segments ruptured in the big March earthquake. So what gives? A possible explanation is the Sagaing fault's extraordinary smoothness. "And people have observed that when the fault is very smooth, the rupture ... tends to propagate at a velocity" so fast that it results in an "extremely elongated rupture," Avouac said. The study also published the results of a computer model simulation looking at how earthquakes might rupture along sections of the entire 750-mile long Sagaing fault. The code, developed by study coauthor Kyungjae Im of Caltech, suggests that over a hypothetical 1,400-year period, there would be no repeatable patterns. In other words, earthquakes didn't seem to re-occur like clockwork, rupturing the same stretch of fault in a repeatable, predictable pattern. "There is complexity here. And this is because each time you have an earthquake, it redistributes the stress on the fault, which is going to influence the next earthquake," Avouac said. "There's a self-induced complexity in the process, and that leads to a bit of randomness." There is one certainty, which is bound to disappoint anyone who shares the hope that a "Big One" simply won't ever strike California again. "There will be an earthquake at some point," Antoine said. "If there is stress building up on the fault, the fault won't hold forever." Further research and observations are essential to refine models of future possible earthquakes, including from the Sentinel satellites, which are operated by the European Space Agency, the authors said. The other coauthors of the study are Rajani Shrestha and Chris Milliner of Caltech; Chris Rollins of Earth Sciences New Zealand; Kang Wang of the Washington-based EarthScope Consortium; and Kejie Chen of the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
