You May Have Ingredients in Your Spice Rack That Can Fight Alzheimer's
In case you needed an excuse to make your food flavorful (ahem, some of you know who you are), new research indicates that some ingredients you already have in your kitchen may be able to help fight Alzheimer's disease and dementia.
Certain herbs and spices are found to contain a special compound that's been shown in tests to reverse memory loss, reduce brain inflammation and more. What are they and what do we know about this promising development so far? Read on to find out!
Shakespeare lovers may recognize Ophelia's quote, "There's rosemary, that's for remembrance."
As it turns out, rosemary may also be for remembering.
A new study from The Scripps Research Institute reports that carnosic acid, a compound found in rosemary and sage, drastically improved brain function in mice.
The study, published in the journal Antioxidants, notes that when mice were given a stable form of carnosic acid, they showed a significant drop in brain inflammation, which is a major factor in Alzheimer's and dementia.
The mice also showed dramatically improved memory when researchers administered the carnosic acid.
Related:
"By combating inflammation and oxidative stress with this diAcCA compound, we actually increased the number of synapses in the brain," senior study author , Step Family Foundation Endowed Chair at Scripps Research, professor and clinical neurologist in La Jolla, California, said in a statement. "We also took down other misfolded or aggregated proteins such as phosphorylated-tau and amyloid-β, which are thought to trigger Alzheimer's disease and serve as biomarkers of the disease process."
Dr. Lipton and his team previously found antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties in carnosic acid, but because the substance is unstable (meaning likely to break down, decompose or otherwise change), it would prove tough to actually use in a drug.
In the new study, Dr. Lipton and his fellow researchers developed compounds from carnosic acid derivatives to find a more stable compound that produced the same results, which may later work in a drug. They monitored the mice for three months using the new compounds, which proved promising.
OK cool, but what does all that mean?
Related:
According to Dr. Lipton, in addition to anti-inflammatory properties, the carnosic acid derivative compounds reduced plaque and tau proteins in the brain to healthy levels.
"We did multiple different tests of memory, and they were all improved with the drug," Dr. Lipton said. "And it didn't just slow down the decline; it improved virtually back to normal.' Analysis of tissues also showed increased neuronal synaptic density and decreased formation of phosphorylated-tau aggregates and amyloid-β plaques."
Related:
The carnosic acid and its derivatives were also reportedly quite well-tolerated, meaning there would likely be few negative side effects if used in Alzheimer's or dementia drugs, though quite a bit more work needs to be done before that happens. That said, Dr. Lipton is optimistic that because the mice in his studies showed so few side effects, human trials on it may come sooner rather later.
Dr. Lipton also believes that, if nothing else, adding these compounds to existing medicines for conditions like diabetes, Parkinson's disease and heart disease may make them better tolerated than before.
Up Next:'diAcCA, a Pro-Drug for Carnosic Acid That Activates the Nrf2 Transcriptional Pathway, Shows Efficacy in the 5xFAD Transgenic Mouse Model of Alzheimer's Disease.' Antioxidants.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
IVF parents are spending thousands to predict their babies' chances of having Alzheimer's, cancer and heart disease
Maybe she's born with it, maybe it's … genetic optimization? Prospective parents using in vitro fertilization (IVF) will soon be able to select embryos based on their potential risk for diseases — including illnesses that develop later in life — thanks to a groundbreaking $5,999 service announced this week by a US biotech company. 'Before there's a heartbeat, there's DNA,' Kian Sadeghi, founder and chief executive of Nucleus Genomics, said in a statement. 'One file containing DNA and genetic markers can tell you more about your baby's future than any other test a doctor could possibly run at this stage.' The popular fertility treatment involves removing eggs from a woman's ovaries and fertilizing them with sperm in a lab. The resulting embryo — which could be frozen or fresh — is placed into the uterus, where it hopefully implants in the uterine wall and sparks a pregnancy. Before implantation, many IVF clinics already screen embryos for genetic abnormalities — such as extra chromosomes or gene mutations — that can lead to failed implantations, miscarriages, birth defects or inherited disorders. But the first-of-its-kind service from Nucleus Genomics takes things a step further. The company just launched Nucleus Embryo, a new software platform that lets potential parents dig deep into the full genetic blueprint of their embryos before choosing which one to implant. The tool lets IVF patients compare the DNA of up to 20 embryos, screening them for more than 900 conditions — including Alzheimer's, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and several forms of cancer. It doesn't stop there. The program also flags potential mental health conditions like depression and schizophrenia and even ranks cognitive traits like IQ. Parents can also get a look at cosmetic and physical features, from height, baldness and BMI to eye and hair color. The company isn't promising perfection. Instead, the software generates a so-called polygenic risk score that will give parents the probability of how likely it is an embryo might develop certain traits or diseases. Ultimately, it's up to the parents to decide which qualities matter most to them. For those looking to decode the results, genetic counseling sessions are available. 'Lifespan has dramatically increased in the last 150 years,' Sadeghi told the Wall Street Journal. 'DNA testing to predict and reduce chronic disease can make it happen again.' The practice, known as polygenic embryo screening, is already highly controversial in the medical world, according to a report published by Harvard Law School's Petrie-Flom Center. Critics warn that allowing parents to screen embryos for risks like depression or diabetes could deepen stigma and discrimination against people living with those conditions. Meanwhile, disability advocates argue it promotes the harmful idea that disability is something to be fixed, not a natural part of human diversity. And when it comes to choosing embryos for traits like intelligence or athleticism, critics say we're sliding into designer baby territory — a modern form of eugenics that favors the rich, reinforcing social and healthcare inequalities. Still, the public appears open to some aspects of the tech. A 2023 survey found that 77% of Americans support using it to screen embryos for the likelihood of developing certain physical conditions, while 72% back screening for mental health risks. Proponents argue it's no different from vaccination — a preventive tool, not a judgment on those with the condition. But when it comes to non-medical traits, support drops fast: only 36% back screening embryos for behavioral traits and just 30% for physical features like height or eye color.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
UCSD students protest Trump cuts to science research funding
SAN DIEGO (FOX 5/KUSI) — For the second time this year, students and faculty at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) staged a protest outside Geisel Library, demanding the federal government reverse deep education funding cuts imposed by the Trump administration — cuts they say are threatening research, jobs and the future of scientific innovation. Dozens of protesters gathered on campus, holding signs and sharing personal stories about how the loss of federal research grants is impacting their work and well-being. Dozens possibly detained by federal officials amid immigration raids in Los Angeles 'This year has been filled with many moments of insecurity,' said Eleanor Ketterer-Sykes, a first-year Ph.D. student in the neuroscience program. 'UCSD is one of the best science schools in the country because of its renowned research labs, you have access to labs at the Salk Institute, Sanford and Scripps as well as the VA Hospital — but that future is in jeopardy.' The Trump administration has canceled hundreds of research grants in recent months, citing concerns over 'ideologically driven science.' The cuts have targeted studies ranging from HIV prevention to violence prevention in children. UCSD Chancellor Pradeep Khosla warned in an April letter that the university stands to lose between $75 million and $500 million annually as a result. 'As of May 30, there have been more than 150 federal grants terminated, resulting in a loss of $30 million,' said Lisa Eyler, a UCSD psychiatry professor. 'These cuts are already leading to layoffs among instructors, staff scientists, and support personnel like librarians.' 'No Kings Day' protests planned across California on June 14 The ripple effects could be felt beyond UCSD. Stanley Maloy, emeritus professor of microbiology at San Diego State University, said the cuts threaten the pipeline of future scientists and engineers. 'Reduced positions mean talented students are left behind,' Maloy said. 'As this innovation workforce dries up, our economy is going to suffer.' Eyler echoed those concerns, warning of a generational loss in scientific progress. 'There will be a gaping hole in the pipeline of future scientists, engineers and healthcare providers, which could result in the potential loss of an entire generation of great scientific thinkers,' she said. Thousands in San Diego protest cuts to federal education funds For Ketterer-Sykes, the issue is personal. She entered the neuroscience program hoping to make life-saving breakthroughs. 'So many people rely on scientific innovation — whether it be to find cures for diseases like tuberculosis or Alzheimer's disease,' she said. 'It really is vital to humanity.' While the exact financial toll remains uncertain, university leaders say the impact is already being felt — and may only get worse. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Reproducibility may be the key idea students need to balance trust in evidence with healthy skepticism
Many people have been there. The dinner party is going well until someone decides to introduce a controversial topic. In today's world, that could be anything from vaccines to government budget cuts to immigration policy. Conversation starts to get heated. Finally, someone announces with great authority that a scientific study supports their position. This causes the discussion to come to an abrupt halt because the dinner guests disagree on their belief in scientific evidence. Some may believe science always speaks the truth, some may think science can never be trusted, and others may disagree on which studies with contradicting claims are 'right.' How can the dinner party – or society – move beyond this kind of impasse? In today's world of misinformation and disinformation, healthy skepticism is essential. At the same time, much scientific work is rigorous and trustworthy. How do you reach a healthy balance between trust and skepticism? How can researchers increase the transparency of their work to make it possible to evaluate how much confidence the public should have in any particular study? As teachers and scholars, we see these problems in our own classrooms and in our students – and they are mirrored in society. The concept of reproducibility may offer important answers to these questions. Reproducibility is what it sounds like: reproducing results. In some ways, reproducibility is like a well-written recipe, such as a recipe for an award-winning cake at the county fair. To help others reproduce their cake, the proud prizewinner must clearly document the ingredients used and then describe each step of the process by which the ingredients were transformed into a cake. If others can follow the directions and come up with a cake of the same quality, then the recipe is reproducible. Think of the English scholar who claims that Shakespeare did not author a play that has historically been attributed to him. A critical reader will want to know exactly how they arrived at that conclusion. What is the evidence? How was it chosen and interpreted? By parsing the analysis step by step, reproducibility allows a critical reader to gauge the strength of any kind of argument. We are a group of researchers and professors from a wide range of disciplines who came together to discuss how we use reproducibility in our teaching and research. Based on our expertise and the students we encounter, we collectively see a need for higher-education students to learn about reproducibility in their classes, across all majors. It has the potential to benefit students and, ultimately, to enhance the quality of public discourse. Reproducibility has always been a foundation of good science because it allows researchers to scrutinize each other's studies for rigor and credibility and expand upon prior work to make new discoveries. Researchers are increasingly paying attention to reproducibility in the natural sciences, such as physics and medicine, and in the social sciences, such as economics and environmental studies. Even researchers in the humanities, such as history and philosophy, are concerned with reproducibility in studies involving analysis of texts and evidence, especially with digital and computational methods. Increased interest in transparency and accessibility has followed the rising importance of computer algorithms and numerical analysis in research. This work should be reproducible, but it often remains opaque. Broadly, research is reproducible if it answers the question: 'How do you know?' − such that another researcher could theoretically repeat the study and produce consistent results. Reproducible research is explicit about the materials and methods that were used in a study to make discoveries and come to conclusions. Materials include everything from scientific instruments such as a tensiometer measuring soil moisture to surveys asking people about their daily diet. They also include digital data such as spreadsheets, digitized historic texts, satellite images and more. Methods include how researchers make observations and analyze data. To reproduce a social science study, for example, we would ask: What is the central question or hypothesis? Who was in the study? How many individuals were included? What were they asked? After data was collected, how was it cleaned and prepared for analysis? How exactly was the analysis run? Proper documentation of all these steps, plus making available the original data from the study, allows other scientists to redo the research, evaluate the decisions made during the process of gathering and analyzing information, and assess the credibility of the findings. Over the past 20 years, the need for reproducibility has become increasingly important. Scientists have discovered that some published studies are too poorly documented for others to repeat, lack verified data sources, are questionably designed, or even fraudulent. A highly contentious, retracted study from 1998 linked the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. Scientists and journalists used their understanding of reproducibility to discover the flaws in the study. The central question of the study was not about vaccines but aimed to explore a possible relationship between colitis − an inflammation of the large intestine − and developmental disorders. The authors explicitly wrote, 'We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.' The study observed just 12 patients who were referred to the authors' gastroenterology clinic and had histories of recent behavioral disorders, including autism. This sample of children is simply too small and selective to be able to make definitive conclusions. In this study, the researchers translated children's medical charts into summary tables for comparison. When a journalist attempted to reproduce the published data tables from the children's medical histories, they found pervasive inconsistencies. Reproducibility allows for corrections in research. The article was published in a respected journal, but it lacked transparency with regard to patient recruitment, data analysis and conflicts of interest. Whereas traditional peer review involves critical evaluation of a manuscript, reproducibility also opens the door to evaluating the underlying data and methods. When independent researchers attempted to reproduce this study, they found deep flaws. The article was retracted by the journal and by most of its authors. Independent research teams conducted more robust studies, finding no relationship between vaccines and autism. Each research discipline has its own set of best practices for achieving reproducibility. Disciplines in which researchers use computational or statistical analysis require sharing the data and software code for reproducing studies. In other disciplines, researchers interpret nonnumerical qualities of data sources such as interviews, historical texts, social media content and more. These disciplines are working to develop standards for sharing their data and research designs for reproducibility. Across disciplines, the core principles are the same: transparency of the evidence and arguments by which researchers arrived at their conclusions. It is true that the underlying data for some studies cannot be fully released to the public – for example, confidential patient health information or the exact locations for species threatened by illegal poaching. But this does not mean that the research didn't employ many other reproducibility techniques or that the findings should be discredited. Even without publicly available data, the description of the data and methods should be transparent enough to understand and to replicate. Colleges and universities are uniquely situated to promote reproducibility in research and public conversations. Critical thinking, effective communication and intellectual integrity, staples of higher-education mission statements, are all served by reproducibility. Teaching faculty at colleges and universities have started taking some important steps toward incorporating reproducibility into a wide range of undergraduate and graduate courses. These include assignments to replicate existing studies, training in reproducible methods to conduct and document original research, preregistration of hypotheses and analysis plans, and tools to facilitate open collaboration among peers. A number of initiatives to develop and disseminate resources for teaching reproducibility have been launched. Despite some progress, reproducibility still needs a central place in higher education. It can be integrated into any course in which students weigh evidence, read published literature to make claims, or learn to conduct their own research. This change is urgently needed to train the next generation of researchers, but that is not the only reason. Reproducibility is fundamental to constructing and communicating claims based on evidence. Through a reproducibility lens, students evaluate claims in published studies as contingent on the transparency and soundness of the evidence and analysis on which the claims are based. When faculty teach reproducibility as a core expectation from the beginning of a curriculum, they encourage students to internalize its principles in how they conduct their own research and engage with the research published by others. Institutions of higher education already prioritize cultivating engaged, literate and critical citizens capable of solving the world's most challenging contemporary problems. Teaching reproducibility equips students, and members of the public, with the skills they need to critically analyze claims in published research, in the media and even at dinner parties. Also contributing to this article are participants in the 2024 Reproducibility and Replicability in the Liberal Arts workshop, funded by the Alliance to Advance Liberal Arts Colleges (AALAC) [in alphabetical order]: Ben Gebre-Medhin (Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Mount Holyoke College), Xavier Haro-Carrión (Department of Geography, Macalester College), Emmanuel Kaparakis (Quantitative Analysis Center, Wesleyan University), Scott LaCombe (Statistical and Data Sciences, Smith College), Matthew Lavin (Data Analytics Program, Denison University), Joseph J. Merry (Sociology Department, Furman University), Laurie Tupper (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Mount Holyoke College). Editors Note: This article has been updated to clarify standards for good reproducibility. 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: Sarah R. Supp, Denison University; Anne M. Nurse, The College of Wooster; Joseph Holler, Middlebury; Nicholas J. Horton, Amherst College; EPA must use the best available science − by law − but what does that mean? Science in the public debate: nourishing controversy, preventing polemicUnderstanding why people reject science could lead to solutions for rebuilding trust Sarah Supp receives funding from the National Science Foundation, awards #1915913, #2120609, and #2227298. Joseph Holler receives funding from the National Science Foundation, award #2049837. Peter Kedron receives funding from the National Science Foundation, award #2049837 and from Esri. Richard Ball has received funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the United Kingdom Reproducibility Network. Anne M. Nurse and Nicholas J. Horton do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
