Axolotl Discovery Brings Us Closer Than Ever to Regrowing Human Limbs
A team of biologists from Northeastern University and the University of Kentucky has found one of the key molecules involved in axolotl regeneration. It's a crucial component in ensuring the body grows back the right parts in the right spot: for instance, growing a hand, from the wrist.
"The cells can interpret this cue to say, 'I'm at the elbow, and then I'm going to grow back the hand' or 'I'm at the shoulder… so I'm going to then enable those cells to grow back the entire limb'," biologist James Monaghan explains.
That molecule, retinoic acid, is arranged through the axolotl body in a gradient, signaling to regenerative cells how far down the limb has been severed.
Closer to the shoulder, axolotls have higher levels of retinoic acid, and lower levels of the enzyme that breaks it down. This ratio changes the further the limb extends from the body.
The team found this balance between retinoic acid and the enzyme that breaks it down plays a crucial role in 'programming' the cluster of regenerative cells that form at an injury site.
When they added surplus retinoic acid to the hand of an axolotl in the process of regenerating, it grew an entire arm instead.
In theory, the human body has the right molecules and cells to do this too, but our cells respond to the signals very differently, instead forming collagen-based scars at injury sites. Next, Monaghan is keen to find out what's going on inside cells – the axolotl's, and our own – when those retinoic acid signals are received.
"If we can find ways of making our fibroblasts listen to these regenerative cues, then they'll do the rest. They know how to make a limb already because, just like the salamander, they made it during development," Monaghan says.
"It could help with scar-free wound healing but also something even more ambitious, like growing back an entire finger," he adds. "It's not out of the realm [of possibility] to think that something larger could grow back like a hand."
The research is published in Nature Communications.
Stomach Ulcer Bacteria Could Be a Surprise Ally Against Alzheimer's
Early Signs of Cancer Found in Patient Blood 3 Years Before Diagnosis
Fecal Transplants Present a Concerning Risk For Some, Study Finds
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
HIMS: Hims & Hers Shares Sink After FTC Probe Details Emerge
Aug 15 - Hims & Hers Health (NYSE:HIMS) slipped about 3% in early trading on Friday after Bloomberg published fresh details about a Federal Trade Commission probe into the company's business practices. The report says the FTC opened an inquiry following consumer complaints that Hims & Hers makes it hard for customers to cancel subscriptions and questions the company's advertising practices. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 4 Warning Sign with HIMS. Hims & Hers first told investors about a regulatory review in July 2024, but Bloomberg's report adds new color on what regulators are investigating. According to people familiar with the matter, the agency looks at cancellation flows, disclosure language, and whether marketing crosses legal lines. The company hasn't released a new statement tied to the Bloomberg story. For investors, the short-term hit reflects the subscription model's vulnerability: when regulators probe cancellation or billing, churn can rise and trust can fall. Analysts will watch complaint volumes, any formal FTC subpoenas, and whether the firm needs to change its renewal mechanics or face penalties. Until that clarity arrives, expect volatility around HIMS shares as traders price regulatory risk into the stock. Based on the one year price targets offered by 13 analysts, the average target price for Hims & Hers Health Inc is $51.22 with a high estimate of $85.00 and a low estimate of $28.00. The average target implies a upside of +8.67% from the current price of $47.13. Based on GuruFocus estimates, the estimated GF Value for Hims & Hers Health Inc in one year is $36.25, suggesting a downside of -23.09% from the current price of $47.13. Gf value is Gurufocus' estimate of the fair value that the stock should be traded at. It is calculated based on the historical multiples the stock has traded at previously, as well as past business growth and the future estimates of the business' performance. For deeper insights, visit the forecast page. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Berkshire Hathaway Takes $1.6 Billion Stake in UnitedHealth
Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A, Financials) acquired more than 5 million shares of UnitedHealth (UNH, Financials) last quarter, a stake worth about $1.6 billion at the end of June, according to a regulatory filing Thursday. The holding ranks as the conglomerate's 18th largest position, behind Amazon and Constellation Brands, VerityData reported. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 5 Warning Sign with UNH. UnitedHealth shares rose 6% in extended trading following the disclosure. The stock had fallen nearly 50% this year before the filing. The health insurer, under Justice Department investigation for Medicare billing practices, withdrew its earnings guidance in May and later issued a 2025 outlook that missed Wall Street estimates. Chief Executive Andrew Witty stepped down earlier this year. Berkshire's equity portfolio was valued at about $300 billion at the end of June. Buffett will retire as CEO at year-end, with Vice Chairman Greg Abel set to take over and manage capital allocation decisions. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr.'s plans to overhaul ‘vaccine court' system would face legal and scientific challenges
For almost 40 years, people who suspect they've been harmed by a vaccine have been able to turn to a little-known system called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program – often simply called the vaccine court. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long been a critic of the vaccine court, calling it 'biased' against compensating people, slow and unfair. He has said that he wants to 'revolutionize' or 'fix' this system. I'm a scholar of law, health and medicine. I investigated the history, politics and debates about the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in my book 'Vaccine Court: The Law and Politics of Injury.' Although vaccines are extensively tested and monitored, and are both overwhelmingly safe for the vast majority of people and extremely cost-effective, some people will experience a harmful reaction to a vaccine. The vaccine court establishes a way to figure out who those people are and to provide justice to them. Having studied the vaccine court for 15 years, I agree that it could use some fixing. But changing it dramatically will be difficult and potentially damaging to public health. Deciphering vaccine injuries The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is essentially a process that enables doctors, lawyers, patients, parents and government officials to determine who deserves compensation for a legitimate vaccine injury. It was established in 1986 by an act of Congress to solve a specific social problem: possible vaccine injuries to children from the whole-cell pertussis vaccine. That vaccine, which was discontinued in the U.S. in the 1990s, could cause alarming side effects like prolonged crying and convulsions. Parents sued vaccine manufacturers, and some stopped producing vaccines. Congress was worried that lawsuits would collapse the country's vaccine supply, allowing diseases to make a comeback. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 created the vaccine court process and shielded vaccine manufacturers from these lawsuits. Here's how it works: A person who feels they have experienced a vaccine-related injury files a claim to be heard by a legal official called a special master in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The Health and Human Services secretary is named as the defendant and is represented by Department of Justice attorneys. Doctors who work for HHS evaluate the medical records and make a recommendation about whether they think the vaccine caused the person's medical problem. Some agreed-upon vaccine injuries are listed for automatic compensation, while other outcomes that are scientifically contested go through a hearing to determine if the vaccine caused the problem. Awards come from a trust fund, built up through a 75-cent excise tax on each dose of covered vaccine sold. Petitioners' attorneys who specialize in vaccine injury claims are paid by the trust fund, whether they win or lose. Some updates are needed Much has changed in the decades since Congress wrote the law, but Congress has not enacted updates to keep up. For instance, the law supplies only eight special masters to hear all the cases, but the caseload has risen dramatically as more vaccines have been covered by the law. It set a damages cap of US$250,000 in 1986 but did not account for inflation. The statute of limitations for an injury is three years, but in my research, I found many people file too late and miss their chance. When the law was written, it only covered vaccines recommended for children. In 2023, the program expanded to include vaccines for pregnant women. Vaccines just for adults, like shingles, are not covered. COVID-19 vaccine claims go to another system for emergency countermeasures vaccines that has been widely criticized. These vaccines could be added to the program, as lawyers who bring claims there have advocated. These reform ideas are 'friendly amendments' with bipartisan support. Kennedy has mentioned some of them, too. A complex system is hard to revolutionize Kennedy hasn't publicly stated enough details about his plan for the vaccine court to reveal the changes he intends to make. The first and least disruptive course of action would be to ask Congress to pass the bipartisan reforms noted above. But some of his comments suggest he may seek to dismantle it, not fix it. None of his options are straightforward, however, and consequences are hard to predict. Straight up changing the vaccine court's structure would probably be the most difficult path. It requires Congress to amend the 1986 law that set it up and President Donald Trump to sign the legislation. Passing the bill to dismantle it requires the same process. Either direction involves all the difficulties of getting a contentious bill through Congress. Even the 'friendly amendments' are hard – a 2021 bill to fix the vaccine court was introduced but failed to advance. However, there are several less direct possibilities. Adding autism to the injuries list Kennedy has long supported discredited claims about harms from vaccines, but the vaccine court has been a bulwark against claims that lack mainstream scientific support. For example, the vaccine court held a yearslong court process from 2002 to 2010 and found that autism was not a vaccine injury. The autism trials drew on 50 expert reports, 939 medical articles and 28 experts testifying on the record. The special masters deciding the cases found that none of the causation hypotheses put forward to connect autism and vaccines were reliable as medical or scientific theories. Much of Kennedy's ire is directed at the special masters, who he claims 'prioritize the solvency' of the system 'over their duty to compensate victims.' But the special masters do not work for him. Rather, they are appointed by a majority of the judges in the Court of Federal Claims for four-year terms – and those judges themselves have 15-year terms. Kennedy cannot legally remove any of them in the middle of their service to install new judges who share his views. Given that, he may seek to put conditions like autism on the list of presumed vaccine injuries, in effect overturning the special masters' decisions. Revising the list of recognized injuries to add ones without medical evidence is within Kennedy's powers, but it would still be difficult. It requires a long administrative process with feedback from an advisory committee and the public. Such revisions have historically been controversial, and are usually linked to major scientific reviews of their validity. Public health and medical groups are already mobilized against Kennedy's vaccine policy moves. If he failed to follow legally required procedures while adding new injuries to the list, he could be sued to stop the changes. Targeting vaccine manufacturers Kennedy could also lean on his newly reconstituted Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to withdraw recommendations for certain vaccines, which would also remove them from eligibility in the vaccine compensation court. Lawsuits against manufacturers could then go straight to regular courts. On Aug. 14, 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services may have taken a step in this direction by announcing the revival of a childhood vaccine safety task force in response to a lawsuit by anti-vaccine activists. Kennedy has also supported legislation that would allow claims currently heard in vaccine court to go to regular courts. These drastic reforms could essentially dismantle the vaccine court. People claiming vaccine injuries could hope to win damages through personal injury lawsuits in the civil justice system instead of vaccine court, perhaps by convincing a jury or getting a settlement. These types of settlements were what prompted the creation of the vaccine court in the first place. But these lawsuits could be hard to win. There is a higher bar for scientific evidence in regular courts than in vaccine court, and plaintiffs would have to sue large corporations rather than file a government claim. Raising the idea of reforming the vaccine court has provoked strong reactions across the many groups with a stake in the program. It is a complex system with multiple constituents, and Kennedy's approaches so far pull in different directions. The push to revolutionize it will test the strength of its complex design, but the vaccine court may yet hold up. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Anna Kirkland, University of Michigan Read more: RFK Jr's shakeup of vaccine advisory committee raises worries about scientific integrity of health recommendations Vaccine misinformation distorts science – a biochemist explains how RFK Jr. and his lawyer's claims threaten public health I'm a physician who has looked at hundreds of studies of vaccine safety, and here's some of what RFK Jr. gets wrong Anna Kirkland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. Solve the daily Crossword
