Harvard researchers have identified six chemical compounds capable of reversing cellular aging in human cells. (CREDIT: CC BY-SA 4.0)

Life runs on information. In living systems, that information takes two main forms: the genome and the epigenome. The genome stays mostly stable. The epigenome, however, constantly shifts, shaped by age and the environment.

Over time, biological systems break down. Aging comes from more than just wear and tear—it involves mutations, cell damage, and a steady loss of epigenetic control. As the epigenome fades, cells begin to change in dangerous ways.

Without their original instructions, cells stop behaving like themselves. Gene expression becomes erratic. This change drives many conditions linked to aging, from dementia to diabetes to heart disease.

Cellular Aging and Reprogramming

Aging also brings senescence, a state where cells stop dividing. These cells don’t just go quiet—they cause trouble. They release harmful chemicals and reactive molecules that damage nearby tissues. Stress, telomere loss, and DNA damage all push cells toward this harmful fate.

The NCC reporter system to monitor cellular senescence. The NCC reporter system integrated in human fibroblasts. NCC signals in quiescent fibroblasts. (CREDIT: journal Aging)

Reversing this process has long fascinated scientists. Decades ago, they showed that a single adult cell holds the blueprint to make an entirely new organism. The idea? Maybe old cells could be reprogrammed, too.

In 2006, a breakthrough arrived. A set of four genes—OCT4, SOX2, KLF4, and c-MYC—could turn adult cells into stem cells. These “induced pluripotent stem cells” could grow into any tissue type. That opened the door to rejuvenating the body from within.

But there was a catch. When all four factors were used, cells grew out of control. Many turned cancerous. Researchers had to find a gentler approach—one that could rewind cell age without risking tumors.

They found it. Using only three of the four genes—or cycling them on and off—rejuvenated tissues safely. In mice, this method restored damaged optic nerves, repaired kidneys, and revived aging muscles.

Related Stories

Chemical Age Reversal Breakthrough

While genetic approaches show promise, delivering OSK safely to human tissues remains a challenge. Current methods involve introducing genetic material through viral vectors or lipid nanoparticles, both of which have drawbacks, including high costs and potential immune reactions. Scientists have sought a chemical alternative—small molecules capable of mimicking OSK’s effects without altering DNA.

Harvard researchers recently achieved a major milestone in this quest and published their findings in the journal Aging. Using a high-throughput screening method, they identified six chemical compounds that reversed cellular aging in human and mouse skin cells. These compounds restored youthful gene expression patterns and reversed biological age in less than a week.

“This is a breakthrough,” said Dr. David Sinclair, a molecular biologist at Harvard Medical School and co-author of the study. He believes these findings mark a significant step toward “affordable whole-body rejuvenation.”

OSK-mediated partial reprogramming ameliorates features of cellular senescence. (CREDIT: journal Aging)

The team employed two cutting-edge techniques to measure aging: transcription-based aging clocks and nucleocytoplasmic compartmentalization (NCC) assays. NCC is a fundamental cellular process that declines with age, contributing to tissue dysfunction. By restoring NCC, the researchers effectively reversed key markers of aging.

The compounds’ effects were comparable to a year-long regenerative treatment from a 2019 study that also focused on restoring epigenetic information. “This new discovery offers the potential to reverse aging with a single pill, with applications ranging from improving eyesight to effectively treating age-related diseases,” Sinclair projected.

Controversy and Future Challenges

Despite excitement surrounding the findings, some experts urge caution. Biogerontologist Matt Kaeberlein acknowledged the screening method’s potential but argued that the study lacked sufficient validation in animal models. He emphasized the need for further research to demonstrate real-world benefits, such as improved health or lifespan extension.

Reprogramming small molecule cocktails restore NCC alterations in senescent cells. (CREDIT: journal Aging)

Dr. Charles Brenner, a metabolism researcher, raised concerns about three of the study’s compounds: CHIR99021, which interferes with glycogen metabolism; tranylcypromine, an antidepressant; and valproic acid, a bipolar disorder treatment with potential liver toxicity.

“These compounds are generally not safe alone or in combination,” Brenner warned. He also noted that similar chemical approaches had been explored as early as 2013, suggesting that the study’s claims were not entirely groundbreaking.

Despite these critiques, the research represents a crucial step toward developing practical age-reversal therapies. Chemical reprogramming offers a safer, more accessible alternative to genetic interventions, potentially paving the way for treatments that restore youthfulness and combat age-related diseases.

The idea of a “Fountain of Youth” has captivated humanity for centuries. While no mythical spring exists to halt aging, science is now inching closer to unlocking the biological mechanisms that govern longevity. With continued research, the dream of reversing aging may one day become a reality.

Note: Materials provided above by The Brighter Side of News. Content may be edited for style and length.

Like these kind of feel good stories? Get The Brighter Side of News’ newsletter.

Researchers from Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and South Africa teamed up to explore how the BLA affects generosity. (CREDIT: Shutterstock)

In the heart of northern South Africa lies Namaqualand, a quiet region with a rare gift for science. Here lives a small but unique group of people with an extremely uncommon genetic condition—Urbach–Wiethe disease. Fewer than 150 individuals worldwide have it. But in this region, researchers found a concentrated group, offering a rare look into one of the brain’s most mysterious regions and how it shapes how we treat others.

A Rare Brain Condition Opens the Door to New Insights

Urbach–Wiethe disease causes isolated damage to a part of the brain called the basolateral amygdala, or BLA for short. The BLA sits deep in the brain and is part of the limbic system, which helps control emotions and social behavior.

Unlike many brain conditions that affect several areas at once, this disease targets the BLA alone. This unique trait makes it perfect for studying the brain’s role in social interaction.

Social decisions are not only shaped by upbringing or culture, but are in fact also strongly anchored in the brain. (CREDIT: Midjourney)

Researchers from Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and South Africa teamed up to explore how the BLA affects generosity. They included scientists from Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf and several other institutions. Professor Dr. Tobias Kalenscher, who leads the “Comparative Psychology” group at the university, described the study as “a unique opportunity” to explore how the brain guides helping behavior. The team designed an experiment based on a well-known setup in behavioral science: the dictator game.

The Dictator Game: A Test of Human Kindness

In the modified version of the game, each participant received a sum of money. They had to decide how much of it they would keep and how much they would give away. But there was a twist. Each participant listed eight people from their life, ranging from their closest loved ones to total strangers. These people were assigned levels of “social distance,” from 1 (very close emotionally) to 100 (a stranger on the street). The participants then made sharing decisions for each of the eight individuals.

The researchers compared the behavior of five individuals with Urbach–Wiethe disease to 16 healthy people matched for psychological traits, cultural background, and income. The goal was to see how BLA damage affected generosity.

The results stood out. People with healthy brains were generally generous, but their willingness to share decreased gradually with greater social distance. Those with BLA damage also gave freely to people they felt close to. However, their generosity dropped sharply as social distance increased. In other words, the farther someone was emotionally, the less the Urbach–Wiethe participants cared to help.

Luca M. Lüpken, a doctoral researcher and co-author of the study, put it clearly: “The results were clear: Individuals with BLA damage were just as generous toward people they were close to as healthy control participants. However, as soon as it came to individuals with whom they had less of an emotional connection, they were notably more selfish.”

What the Brain Tells Us About Caring for Others

So what exactly does this tell us about the brain? It shows that the BLA is not essential for kindness or generosity by itself. People with damaged BLAs can still be caring, especially toward those they love. But what the BLA does seem to do is fine-tune generosity. It acts like a kind of emotional scale, adjusting how much we’re willing to give depending on how close we feel to the other person.

Social discounting in UWD participants. (CREDIT: Luca M. Lüpken, et al.)

Professor Kalenscher explains it this way: “Social decisions are not only shaped by our upbringing or culture. They are in fact also strongly anchored in the mechanisms of our brain.” That means even if you grew up in a generous family, parts of your brain still guide how you treat people. If a part like the BLA doesn’t work right, your social choices might become more selfish—especially toward those you don’t feel emotionally close to.

This “social discounting” effect, as researchers call it, helps explain how we balance care for ourselves with care for others. In healthy people, the brain softens that balance, allowing some generosity even toward strangers. Without the BLA’s influence, people tend to favor their own interests far more.

Interestingly, this difference in sharing wasn’t linked to other traits. The researchers ruled out empathy, personality, and the size of someone’s social network. The key factor was the brain structure alone. The BLA seemed to resolve internal conflicts between selfish and giving behavior based on how emotionally distant the other person was.

How This Could Change Future Treatments

This discovery matters not just for understanding kindness, but also for mental health. People with conditions like autism or psychopathy often show different patterns in social decision-making. Their choices may seem cold or overly logical, sometimes lacking empathy or concern for others.

By better understanding how the brain shapes prosocial behavior, researchers could someday develop new treatments. These could help people with social behavior challenges learn how to adjust their decisions more like healthy individuals. It could even lead to ways of training the brain to better respond to emotional context in social situations.

Lüpken sums it up: “Our study shows that the amygdala does not generally promote or inhibit prosocial behaviour, but rather regulates when and to what extent we act in a prosocial way.”

Structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment of the bilateral amygdala in a group of subjects with Urbach–Wiethe disease. (CREDIT: D. Terburg)

These insights bring science one step closer to answering a long-standing question: why do we help others at all? And how much does the brain control that choice?

A New Understanding of the Social Brain

Prosocial behavior—things like sharing, helping, and being kind—is at the heart of human life. We see it in families, friendships, communities, and even in casual acts of kindness to strangers. Yet the roots of this behavior are still not fully clear.

This research gives new answers. It shows that kindness doesn’t come only from upbringing or moral training. A key part lies deep within the brain, in a structure many people have never even heard of. The BLA helps us decide how much to care, based on how close we feel to others. And when it’s damaged, that system breaks down.

The basolateral amygdala fine-tunes generosity, adjusting kindness based on how emotionally close people feel. (CREDIT: iStock)

The participants with Urbach–Wiethe disease reminded researchers just how precise the brain’s social wiring can be. Without the fine control of the BLA, these individuals leaned toward selfish choices—unless they were dealing with someone they truly loved. Their behavior wasn’t heartless. It just lacked the usual flexibility that people without the disease show.

Professor Kalenscher believes this is just the beginning: “In the future, it may be possible to develop targeted therapies to help individuals with social behaviour issues regulate their decision-making processes better.”

Science has long sought to understand how we choose between self-interest and generosity. This study reveals a key piece of that puzzle. It shows how a small area of the brain may steer one of the most human traits we have—the ability to care for others.

Research findings are available online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Note: The article above provided above by The Brighter Side of News.

What the study reveals about insects listening to plants

Plants emit ultrasonic distress sounds when they’re under stress, especially from dehydration or physical damage.

Moths actively avoid these “noisy” plants, opting to lay their eggs on quieter, healthier plants instead.

This behaviour disappears when the moths’ hearing is impaired, proving they are reacting to sound—not smell or sight.

How do plants talk?

Ultrasonic microphones to record plant emissions

Controlled moth behaviour experiments to track how moths responded to recorded plant sounds

Tests on deafened moths to confirm the sounds—not visuals or smells—were responsible for the behavioural shift

Why this study is a game changer

Redefines plant communication

Proves insect auditory response to plants

Revolutionizes pest control possibilities

Also read|

Did you know that stressed plants make sounds and insects can actually hear them? A new Israeli study reveals that when tomato plants are under stress, they emit high-frequency sounds that moths can detect. And yes, those moths make smarter decisions because of it. Welcome to the wild world of plant-insect acoustic communication, a concept that’s flipping science on its head. Researchers from Tel Aviv University have now confirmed that insects listen when plants talk. This discovery doesn’t just sound cool, it could transform how we understand agriculture, ecology, and pest control forever. It opens up new possibilities for sustainable farming and pest management strategies.This isn’t science fiction—it’s ultrasonic reality. In a peer-reviewed study published in eLife, scientists found that tomato plants under stress (like from drought or dehydration) release ultrasonic sounds, like clicks or pops. These sounds are far above the range of human hearing—but perfectly audible to certain insects, especially moths. Here’s what the researchers found:When a tomato plant is water-stressed, it emits dozens of ultrasonic clicks per hour—compared to just one or two when healthy. These sounds are likely the result of internal tension in the plant’s vascular system. While the plants may not “intend” to communicate, the sound gives away their internal state. And that’s where things get wild: insects are eavesdropping on plants. The study used:Until now, we thought plants mainly “communicated” through chemical signals.This adds a new acoustic layer to plant behaviour that scientists never expected.This is the first-ever evidence that insects detect and act on sounds made by plants—a discovery with enormous ecological significance.Imagine using ultrasonic plant sounds to keep pests away—no chemicals, no traps, just clever audio. This is the future of sustainable farming and crop protection.The implications are massive. If insects listen to plants, what other species might be tuned in to these secret signals? Could farmers use this knowledge to trick pests—or even detect plant stress early? Tel Aviv University’s findings kick open a new field of plant bioacoustics, and we’re just scratching the surface. As researchers explore other species and ecosystems, don’t be surprised if your garden gets even chattier.

Poll Do you believe chicken is a healthier protein option compared to red meat? Yes, definitely No, not really

What does the study say?

What are the findings?

Limitations of the study:

The bottom line:

Regular breakfast skippers should gradually increase morning protein intake

It might be one of the most unanimous statements coming from the foodies and fitness enthusiasts around the world – chicken dinner is always a winner! Whether you’re having grilled chicken or Caesar salad, or spicing it with some crispy fried chicken nuggets – chicken has a universal appeal for being extremely palatable due to a combination of factors, including its natural flavor profile, adaptability to various cooking methods, and the way it interacts with seasonings and spices. After all, it’s versatile, relatively affordable, and often regarded as a healthier protein option compared to red meat. On top of that, chicken provides vitamins and minerals involved in brain function. It contains vitamin B12 and choline, which together may promote brain development in children, help the nervous system function properly, and aid cognitive performance in older adults.However, a recent study might change one’s opinion about chicken a little bit.According to some preliminary research published in Nutrients , consuming chicken is linked with some unexpected health concerns.Read on to know more.The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025, consider poultry to include all kinds of chicken, turkey, duck, geese, and even game birds like quail and pheasant. These guidelines recommend eating around 100 grams of poultry as a standard portion, suggesting it be included in meals about one to three times a week.This research aimed to address the relatively sparse information regarding the health implications of poultry consumption, particularly in light of concerns about red and processed meats raised by expert panels such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer.While some studies have suggested potential health benefits of poultry, the evidence is limited. To fill this gap, the researchers explored the relationship between white meat consumption and the risk of early mortality from all causes, as well as gastrointestinal cancers, with a specific emphasis on poultry.The study included a carefully selected cohort of over 4,000 participants, all of whom provided extensive data through interviews administered by trained medical staff. These interviews gathered critical demographic information, insights into the participants’ general health, lifestyle choices, and personal medical histories. Standardized measurements of height and weight were taken, along with blood pressure readings that complied with international health standards. Significantly, participants were monitored for an average duration of 19 years, allowing for a comprehensive analysis of their health outcomes.To gain a deeper understanding of dietary habits, participants completed a validated food consumption questionnaire that captured their typical intake patterns. This assessment scaled their meat consumption into categories of red meat, poultry, and total meat, further subdividing each into four intake levels. The researchers meticulously verified the participants’ health status—whether they remained alive, relocated, or deceased—using local municipal records and a regional health database. By comparing these groups, the study aimed to elucidate potential links between different types of meat consumption and mortality rates. Advanced statistical methods were employed to control for confounding factors such as age, sex, and pre-existing health conditions, enhancing the reliability of the findings.T he results indicated a concerning trend: among participants who succumbed to complications related to gastrointestinal cancers, those consuming the highest quantities of meat every week were most significantly impacted. Specifically, individuals consuming more than 300 grams of poultry weekly demonstrated a 27% heightened risk of mortality compared to those whose poultry intake was less than 100 grams.This risk appeared to escalate proportionally with increased poultry consumption, surpassing the risk associated with equal portions of red meat. Notably, male participants consuming over 300 grams of poultry each week faced more than double the likelihood of dying from gastrointestinal cancer when compared to their lower-consumption counterparts.Analyzing the dietary intake of the 1,028 individuals who died during the study, it was revealed that red meat constituted roughly 59% of their total weekly meat consumption, while white meat represented about 41% of the total, with poultry alone accounting for an estimated 29% of that white meat category. Across the board, participants generally adhered to a moderate Mediterranean-style diet, which remained consistent regardless of the specific causes of death.Interestingly, participants who consumed higher quantities of red meat displayed increased mortality rates from a variety of causes. On average, those who died during the research study regularly consumed more than 200 grams of red meat each week. To contextualize this, approximately 28.35 grams is equivalent to one ounce of red meat; therefore, a typical 8-ounce steak would equate to roughly 227 grams.Further focusing on white meat, particularly poultry, the study indicated certain mortality associations, especially among those who consumed more than 100 grams of chicken each week. It’s worth noting that while chicken piece sizes can vary, a skinless, boneless breast generally weighs around 174 grams, with a single serving typically being about 85 grams.Notably, these findings stand in contrast to other research suggesting potential protective effects of higher white meat consumption in relation to gastric cancer risk.While the findings of the study are certainly concerning, it is essential to consider the study’s limitations. For example, the research did not gather specific data on processed poultry consumption or the methods of preparation, as the dietary questionnaire only captured broad poultry consumption patterns.This lack of detail raises questions about the health outcomes of individuals who may consume fast-food chicken versus those who opt for grilled chicken as part of a nutritious diet. Additionally, the study did not account for participants’ physical activity levels—a significant variable in health outcomes—which could potentially skew the observed relationship between diet and health. As an observational study, it is also crucial to recognize that its findings can highlight associations, but not definitively prove causation. Despite these caveats, the research contributes valuable insights to the limited body of literature examining the health implications of poultry consumption.The findings from this study provide a valuable lens for reevaluating our typical food choices, especially concerning poultry consumption. If you’re someone who regularly enjoys chicken-based meals, this research suggests it might be worth paying closer attention to portion sizes and frequency of consumption.While this research illuminates potential risks associated with increased poultry consumption, it is vital to consider these findings in the broader context of overall nutrition. It doesn’t mean you have to avoid chicken altogether, but understanding how much you’re eating and balancing it with other protein sources, like fish, legumes, or other plant-based options, may help lower potential health risks. Chicken remains a significant source of protein, rich in essential nutrients such as B vitamins, selenium, and phosphorus, contributing valuable components to a well-rounded diet. However, incorporating diverse foods into your diet can ensure you get a variety of nutrients while possibly minimizing negative outcomes.