Category: 8. Health

NHS University Hospitals Bristol and Weston

NHS University Hospitals Bristol and Weston

• Strong immune response after third yearly booster dose in children and adults

• Significant anamnestic antibody response across all six serotypes
• No safety concerns observed in any age group by independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC), consistent with previous booster results.

Saint-Herblain (France), September 3^rd, 2025 – Valneva SE (Nasdaq: VALN; Euronext Paris: VLA) announced positive immunogenicity and safety data from the ongoing Phase 2 study of Lyme disease vaccine candidate, VLA15. The strong anamnestic immune response and favorable safety profile following a third booster dose were consistent with those reported after receiving previous annual booster doses^1,2 further demonstrating compatibility with the anticipated benefits of a yearly vaccination prior to each Lyme season. 

There are currently no approved human vaccines for Lyme disease, and VLA15 has advanced the furthest in clinical development, with two Phase 3 trials nearing completion. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately 476,000 people in the U.S. are diagnosed and treated for Lyme disease each year, and 132,000 cases are reported annually in Europe.^3,4 Vaccination has been completed in the pivotal Phase 3 study of VLA15⁵, and subject to positive data, Pfizer aims to submit a Biologics License Application (BLA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2026.

Juan Carlos Jaramillo M.D., Chief Medical Officer of Valneva, said, “These latest data further reinforce the potential benefits of booster doses across all evaluated age groups. There are currently no approved human vaccines for Lyme disease, and as the disease continues to expand geographically, it remains a pressing unmet medical need affecting communities across the Northern Hemisphere. Each set of positive results moves us closer to the possibility of making this vaccine available to both adults and children living in Lyme-endemic areas.”

These latest results from the VLA15-221 Phase 2 study – measured one month after vaccination at month 42 – again demonstrated a significant anamnestic antibody response across all six serotypes covered by the vaccine candidate in pediatric (5 to 11 years of age) and adolescent (12 to 17 years of age) participants, as well as in adults (18 to 65 years of age). A high proportion of participants seroconverted after the third booster dose, yielding seroconversion rates^* (SCRs) at 100% (confidence interval 96.7%, 100%) for all outer surface protein A (OspA) serotypes in all age groups, in-line with SCRs after the first and second booster. Geometric Mean Titers at one month post first and second booster (i.e. month 19 vs. month 31) were comparably high.

The safety and tolerability profile of VLA15 after the third booster dose was similar to the profile observed after the previous booster doses. To date, no safety concerns have been observed by the independent DMC in any treatment or age group.

Pfizer and Valneva entered into a collaboration agreement in April 2020 for the development and commercialization by Pfizer of VLA15.

Participants in this Phase 2 study received VLA15 or placebo during the primary vaccination phase in two immunization schedules (month 0-2-6 or month 0-6), followed by yearly vaccinations at months 18, 30 and 42. In August 2022, Pfizer and Valneva initiated the currently ongoing Phase 3 clinical study, Vaccine Against Lyme for Outdoor Recreationists (VALOR) (NCT05477524), to investigate the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of VLA15 in participants five years of age and older in highly endemic regions in North America and Europe.⁶ Dosing of all subjects was recently completed as announced by Pfizer. A second Phase 3 trial (C4601012), aiming to provide further evidence on the safety profile of VLA15 in the pediatric population between 5 and 17 years of age also completed vaccination.

About VLA15

There are currently no approved human vaccines for Lyme disease, and VLA15 is the Lyme disease vaccine candidate which has advanced the furthest along the clinical development timeline, with two Phase 3 trials in progress. This investigational multivalent protein subunit vaccine uses an established mechanism of action for a Lyme disease vaccine that targets the outer surface protein A (OspA) of Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacteria that cause Lyme disease. OspA is a surface protein expressed by the bacteria when present in a tick. Blocking OspA inhibits the bacterium’s ability to leave the tick and infect humans. The vaccine candidate covers the six most prevalent OspA serotypes expressed by the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato species in North America and Europe. 

About Clinical Study VLA15-221

VLA15-221 is a randomized, observer-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 study. It is the first clinical study with VLA15 which enrolled a pediatric population (5-17 years old). 560 healthy participants received either VLA15 in two immunization schedules (month 0-2-6 [N=190] or month 0-6 [N=181]) or placebo (month 0-2-6 [N=189]). Vaccine recipients received VLA15 at a dose of 180 µg, which was selected based on data generated in two previous Phase 2 studies. The main safety and immunogenicity readout (primary endpoint) was performed one month after completion of the primary series vaccination schedule. All eligible subjects received yearly booster doses of VLA15 or placebo at Months 18, 30 and 42. Antibody persistence will be followed up to six months post third annual booster.
VLA15 is tested as an alum-adjuvanted formulation and administered intramuscularly. The study is being conducted at U.S. sites located in areas where Lyme disease is endemic and has enrolled both volunteers with a prior infection with Borrelia burgdorferi as well as Borrelia burgdorferi-naïve volunteers.

About Lyme Disease

Lyme disease is a systemic infection caused by Borrelia burgdorferi bacteria transmitted to humans by the bite of infected Ixodes ticks.⁷ It is considered the most common vector-borne illness in the Northern Hemisphere.⁸,⁹ While the true incidence of Lyme disease is unknown, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated that approximately 476,000 people in the U.S. are diagnosed and treated each year and 132,000 cases are reported annually in Europe. Early symptoms of Lyme disease (such as a gradually expanding erythematous rash called erythema migrans or other nonspecific symptoms like fatigue, fever, headache, mild stiff neck, muscle and joint paints) are often overlooked or misinterpreted. Left untreated, the disease can disseminate and cause more serious chronic complications affecting the skin, joints (arthritis), the heart (carditis) or the nervous system. The medical need for vaccination against Lyme disease is steadily increasing as the geographic footprint of the disease widens.¹⁰

About Valneva SE

We are a specialty vaccine company that develops, manufactures, and commercializes prophylactic vaccines for infectious diseases addressing unmet medical needs. We take a highly specialized and targeted approach, applying our deep expertise across multiple vaccine modalities, focused on providing either first-, best- or only-in-class vaccine solutions.

We have a strong track record, having advanced multiple vaccines from early R&D to approvals, and currently market three proprietary travel vaccines.

Revenues from our growing commercial business help fuel the continued advancement of our vaccine pipeline. This includes the only Lyme disease vaccine candidate in advanced clinical development, which is partnered with Pfizer, the world’s most clinically advanced tetravalent Shigella vaccine candidate as well as vaccine candidates against the Zika virus and other global public health threats.

Valneva Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains certain forward-looking statements relating to the business of Valneva, including with respect to the progress, timing, results and completion of research, development and clinical trials for product candidates and the timing for submission of such product candidates for regulatory approval. In addition, even if the actual results or developments of Valneva are consistent with the forward-looking statements contained in this press release, those results or developments of Valneva may not be sustained in the future. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by words such as “could,” “should,” “may,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “intends,” “estimates,” “aims,” “targets,” or similar words. These forward-looking statements are based largely on the current expectations of Valneva as of the date of this press release and are subject to a number of known and unknown risks and uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievement expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. In particular, the expectations of Valneva could be affected by, among other things, uncertainties involved in the development and manufacture of vaccines, unexpected clinical trial results, unexpected regulatory actions or delays, competition in general, currency fluctuations, the impact of the global and European credit crisis, and the ability to obtain or maintain patent or other proprietary intellectual property protection. Success in preclinical studies or earlier clinical trials may not be indicative of results in future clinical trials. In light of these risks and uncertainties, there can be no assurance that the forward-looking statements made in this press release will in fact be realized. Valneva is providing this information as of the date of this press release and disclaims any intention or obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

Valneva Media and Investor Relations Contacts

Laëtitia Bachelot-Fontaine
VP Global Communications & European Investor Relations
M +33 (0)6 4516 7099
laetitia.bachelot-fontaine@valneva.com

Joshua Drumm, Ph.D.
VP Global Investor Relations
M +1 917 815 4520
joshua.drumm@valneva.com

References

---

1 https://valneva.com/press-release/valneva-and-pfizer-report-positive-pediatric-and-adolescent-phase-2-booster-results-for-lyme-disease-vaccine-candidate/
2 https://valneva.com/press-release/valneva-and-pfizer-report-further-positive-phase-2-booster-results-for-lyme-disease-vaccine-candidate/
3 Davidson, A., Davis, J., Brestrich, G., Moisi, J., Jodar, L., & Stark, J. H. July 2025. Vector Borne Zoonotic Diseases. (online ahead of print).
4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Lyme Disease. January 2021. Available at:
https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/humancases.html. Accessed: August 2023.
5 Second-Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call Prepared Remarks August 5, 2025: https://s206.q4cdn.com/795948973/files/doc_financials/2025/q2/Q2-2025-Earnings-Conference-Call-Prepared-Remarks-FINAL.pdf
6 Pfizer and Valneva Initiate Phase 3 Study of Lyme Disease Vaccine Candidate VLA15. August 2022. Available at: https://valneva.com/press-release/pfizer-and-valneva-initiate-phase-3-study-of-lyme-disease-vaccine-candidate-vla15/ Accessed: August 2023.
7 Stanek et al. 2012, The Lancet 379:461–473
8 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Lyme Disease. January 2021. Available at:
https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/humancases.html Accessed: August 2024.
9 Kugeler KJ, et al. Estimating the frequency of Lyme disease diagnoses—United States, 2010-2018. 2021. Emergency Infectious Disease. 27(2).
10 Centers for Disease Control. Understanding Lyme and Other Tickborne Diseases. May 2022. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/communication-resources/press-kit.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/ncezid/dvbd/media/lyme-tickborne-diseases-increasing.html Accessed: August 2025.

• 2025_09_03_VLA15-221_m42_PR_EN_Final

Europa Biosite is pleased to announce that Bio X Cell has appointed Cambridge Bioscience, a proud member of Europa Biosite, as its exclusive distributor for the United Kingdom and Ireland. This strategic partnership ensures that researchers across the UK and Ireland will have streamlined access to the Bio X Cell portfolio which features best-in-class functional monoclonal antibodies, globally recognized for their high quality, purity, and consistency in in vivo, ex vivo, new approach methodologies (NAMs), and other sensitive studies.

For over four decades, Cambridge Bioscience has been a trusted partner to leading academic institutions and biotech companies across the UK and Ireland. Its collaborations include the University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University College London, and Trinity College Dublin. Cambridge Bioscience brings a long-standing expertise in life science distribution, a commitment to customer-focused support, and a strong track record of helping researchers advance critical biomedical studies, further strengthening and enhance Europa Biosite’s presence in the UK and Ireland.

We have for many years distributed the innovative and well-documented antibodies of Bio X Cell in Nordics and Switzerland, and I am very pleased in the trust put in us expanding our collaboration into UK and Ireland. Signing of the exclusive distributor contract strengths our partnership and underscores a shared commitment to raising the standard of life science reagents and providing researchers with unparalleled access to quality products and services”.

Sune Schmolker, CEO, Europa Biosite

“We are thrilled to partner with Cambridge Bioscience to better serve the UK and Irish scientific communities,” added Christopher Conway, CEO, Bio X Cell. “Bio X Cell’s partnership with Cambridge Bioscience deepens our expertise and commitment to enabling global research with the highest quality functional antibodies. Cambridge Bioscience’s customer-focused philosophy makes them an ideal partner to help us provide even greater support to researchers conducting critical biomedical studies”.

TRIMTECH Therapeutics, a biotech company creating novel, small molecule therapeutics that selectively degrade protein aggregates, to combat neurodegenerative diseases, today announced the formation of its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB). Globally recognized leaders within the protein degradation and technology development fields, Professor Alessio Ciulli FRS FRSE FRSC and Dr Adam Gilbert, have been appointed as Chair and member of the SAB, respectively. The newly formed SAB will support development of TRIMTECH’s targeted protein degradation (TPD) TRIMTAC^™ and TRIMGLUE^™ platform, and progression of its small molecule therapeutic pipeline for neurodegenerative and inflammatory disorders.

Prof. Alessio Ciulli is Chair of Chemical and Structural Biology and Founder and Director of the world-leading Centre for Targeted Protein Degradation (CeTPD) at the University of Dundee. His scientific achievements and pioneering contributions to the field of targeting protein-protein interactions and TPD have been recognized through numerous prestigious awards, including national and international science prizes, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange awards, major research grants, and fellowships, including his recent election as a Fellow of the Royal Society, the UK’s national scientific academy. Prof. Ciulli has authored numerous high-impact publications, co-founded biotech ventures, including Amphista Therapeutics, and established high-profile partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry. As Chair of TRIMTECH’s SAB, Prof. Ciulli’s extensive experience in developing established and novel TPD mechanisms will support the advancement of the Company’s degrader platform, discovery screening technologies, and progression of its target portfolio in neurology and inflammation.

Dr Adam Gilbert has over 30 years of experience in pharma, including his previous position as Executive Director and External Accelerator Lead, and Executive Director of Design and Synthesis Sciences, at Pfizer. He is currently a scientific advisor to Axiom Therapeutics, PhoreMost and Gero.AI. At Pfizer he created opportunities for strategic partnerships and business development deals, as well as gaining deep medicinal chemistry experience, with a focus on the development of protein degraders. Dr Gilbert is also a co-inventor of LITFULO^™ (Ritlecitinib), recently approved to treat Alopecia Areata, and his group helped deliver ABRYSVO^™ (RSVPreF), a preventative Respiratory Syncytial Virus vaccine, and COMIRNATY^® (BNT162b2), an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Dr Gilbert’s focus as a member of TRIMTECH’s SAB will be to advise on the development and applications of the Company’s TRIMTAC and TRIMGLUE platform and the development of its degrader portfolio.

Establishing a Scientific Advisory Board is a pivotal step for us as a young company, and we’re absolutely delighted to have Alessio and Adam, both globally recognised experts in the development of targeted protein degraders, join the company as advisors. Both will be instrumental in driving the development of our degrader platform and small molecule portfolio. Over 55 million people globally are affected by diseases such as Alzheimer’s, and millions more battling other neurodegenerative disorders. There is a clear and urgent need for novel, cost-effective disease-modifying treatments that can reach these broad patient populations, and we are proud to be working toward addressing this.”

Dr Nicola Thompson, CEO, TRIMTECH Therapeutics

Professor Alessio Ciulli FRS FRSE FRSC, Chair of the SAB, TRIMTECH Therapeutics, commented: “Targeted protein degradation has proven its therapeutic benefits against conventional drug targets, but the development of degraders that are truly selective for protein aggregates has remained challenging. TRIMTECH’s platform offers a new and incredibly promising approach, uniquely positioned to develop small molecule drugs for hard-to-treat targets that underpin many neurological diseases. I look forward to being part of the Company’s journey.”

Dr Adam Gilbert, Scientific Advisor for TRIMTECH Therapeutics, added: “TRIMTECH’s approach to TPD is backed by almost two decades of academic research, and has the potential to address a real gap in the field by specifically targeting aggregated proteins. The Company’s recent seed funding round and impressive investor cohort are further testament to the quality of the team and strength of the science. I am delighted to join the SAB and look forward to helping guide the development of therapeutics that will provide new treatment options that are so needed.”

Given the seriousness and increased frequency of strokes, many studies have been conducted to assess the relationship between hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy and the risk of stroke with varying results. A new study suggests women having a hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy have higher risks of stroke compared with those who did not have surgery. Results of the study are published online today in Menopause, the journal of The Menopause Society.

Stroke is the third dominant cause of death and the fourth dominant cause of disability around the world, representing a significant public health challenge. Therefore, ongoing prevention efforts that address modifiable risk factors are essential to reduce the burden of this disease.

Estrogen levels play a major role. Women of reproductive age have a lower stroke risk, whereas postmenopausal women are roughly two times more likely to have a stroke within a decade of menopause. Both hysterectomy and oophorectomy significantly affect estrogen levels. Hysterectomy may result in lower ovarian sex steroid levels, resulting in earlier menopause. An oophorectomy can reduce premenopausal serum estradiol by up to 80% and androgen levels by about 50% in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women.

Although multiple studies have previously been conducted around the relationship between surgery and stroke risk, results have been mixed. This latest study using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) included more than 21,000 women, with an average of 8.3 follow-up years, documenting 193 stroke-related deaths. The analysis of these results found an increased risk for hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy but not for hysterectomy alone or hysterectomy with unliteral oophorectomy. A pooling analysis of this study’s results with other cohorts, however, revealed an 18% higher risk of stroke for hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy, and a 5% higher risk of stroke for hysterectomy alone.

Although the new study lacked surgical indication data, meta-analysis studies show that there is no connection between a benign or malignant diagnosis when determining the associated risk of surgery. Similarly, current evidence does not differentiate the amount of risk based on specific indications (ie, endometriosis, adenomyosis, fibroids, abnormal uterine bleeding, prolapse, or other rare conditions).

Additional studies with a large sample size and longer follow-up period are needed to address the disparities of type of stroke, age at surgery, surgical techniques, and menopause status on the association between stroke risk and hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy.

Survey results are published in the article “Stroke risk in women with or without hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy: evidence from the NHANES 1999-2018 and meta-analysis.”

The results of this study demonstrate increased stroke risk related to hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy, highlighting that these common procedures carry longer-term risks. They also call attention to an opportunity for more careful assessment of cardiovascular risk and implementation of risk reduction strategies in women who undergo these surgeries.”

Dr. Stephanie Faubion, medical director, The Menopause Society

The organic process is neither viable nor sustainable but a new paper would like to change that. By allowing modern gene editing. The only way Europe can reach the goal of 25% Organic™ farmland that its government-funded environmental groups demand, a 250% increase, is by moving into the 21st century, they argue.

When the organic process was the only thing available, the food-rich were rich and the poor were poor and the only difference was being born into a natural breadbasket. Cycles of famine were common.

Science and technology gradually changed all that. First the heavy plow was introduced, then synthetic fertilizer, then synthetic pesticides. Each improvement made agriculture safer and more efficient, and that made food more affordable. Along the way, hybrids were created but in the 20th century science was able to speed genetic engineering up quite a lot. By 1980, the Malthusian beliefs in Population Bombs, Soylent Green, and need for global sterilization promoted by Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren were shown to be paranoid nonsense. 

Once food became affordable for all, every Sneetch now had a Star, so it needed new virtue signaling. The organic movement, and its cousin, the anti-vaccine movement, were ready to sell those new stars to Sneetches. They only became true movements 25 years ago, but had their modern origins in the 1940s, when anti-everything activist J. I. Rodale started publishing magazines for rich white people who distrusted science.

We can’t fault Rodale’s gift for marketing. He knew what his target audience wanted; models happy being up to their knees in garbage. But Rachel Carson, author of “Silent Spring”, thought him a weird creep and denied it flatly when he tried to claim she was part of his movement because she didn’t want so much DDT used. Carson was not right about much, but she was right about Rodale. His campaigns against both agricultural science and vaccines live on today.

In 2000, President Clinton, arguably the most anti-science American president ever, told his US Department of Agriculture to create a special marketing panel inside USDA and let them decide what products could be “USDA Organic.”

Boomer Environmentalism had reached its apex. He killed nuclear energy, he diverted government science funding to acupuncture, he freed supplement marketing from FDA oversight, but most importantly he gave Organic™ food a government seal. Now it’s a $135 billion industry but the demographic is the same. It is still for wealthy white progressives but also includes those who want to seem like wealthy white progressives. What it still lacks is sustainability.

Yet if the European Green Deal is going to be sustainable, and reach that 25% Organic™  agricultural land goal they want by 2030, the only way is science. And that means genetic engineering. Yet Europe continues to call everything modern a “GMO.” Creating class warfare around food is bad for the poor and it’s scientifically illiterate.

GMO was a trademarked name for one genetic engineering technique, long off patent. That Europeans continue to call everything “GMOs” shows they are far behind America in scientific literacy and, when it comes to France, why they also lead the world in vaccine denial.

Anti-science hippies love hemp. Like with GMOs, it is impossible for any person without a $20,000 machine to detect any difference between an Organic™ plant and a modern genetically engineered one. So maybe go slow, let Europeans grow CRISPR hemp first. Then when they have learned to crawl, scientifically speaking, they can tackle more important things.  Credit: Justus Wesseler

The organic process in both America and Europe does allow gene editing, just not the modern kind. Mutagenesis, for example, an older form of genetic modification that used chemical baths and radiation to force mutations, is the basis of thousands of products, many of them government-certified as Organic™.

Like this Spanish clementine? It was genetically modified in a lab using fast neutron radiation to generate induced mutations. It’s certifiedOrganic™.

GMOs were not banned by Europe for any science or health reason, it was geopolitics.

GMOs only became controversial after they pivoted from niche products like insulin to the Rainbow Papaya, where a gene gun saved the entire industry in Hawaii. That sailed through regulatory approval without issue but it can’t be dismissed as coincidence that Monsanto, an American company, suddenly had a genetic engineering tool for food better than Mutagenesis, made by BASF, a European company, and suddenly European activists began to call it “Frankenfood”, and that European media outlets joined in.

When Europe banned GMOs they specifically exempted European Mutagenesis. It was clearly a tariff on American products, economic protectionism they resent when it happened back toward them in 2025.

“If mutagenesis had not been exempted from GMO legislation, the estimation is that 80%–90% of the cereal products on the European market would have been subject to GMO labeling,” notes the paper’s senior author Professor Kai Purnhagen of the University of Bayreuth.  

2001 was a long time ago. Hopefully now even environmentalists know that Frankenstein was not a GMO, he was a grafted hybrid and would be certified Organic™ today.

Which means the authors of the new paper saying the European left needs to embrace pre-market authorization for new genomic techniques. CRISPR-Cas9, Cisgenesis and Intragenesis didn’t exist when Europe banned modern science. Even Targeted Mutagenesis is illegal now.

Without science, Europe’s Green Deal will be a black eye for food like they have received by pivoting to solar and wind for energy. It will mean 100% higher costs for food just like spiritual beliefs in alternative energy caused in electricity bills.

Europe is ready. Today, GMOs are as old and therefore time-tested as Mutagenesis was when Europe exempted it from their ban. That’s right, GMOs have fed a trillion cows and billions of humans without a single stomach ache or harmful effect on the environment, just like Mutagenesis.

Europe can continue to block GMOs, if that concession will placate their green NGOs, because it is a legacy product just like Mutagenesis and Bayer, a European company, now owns the former Monsanto. They only need to allow techniques invented after the ban, which are even better than GMOs, to get Europeans back into the science conversation worldwide. And they are not. Europeans don’t have a top company in any industry. They are not even close to being vital in any science output.

Or they could reposition genetic engineering, give it a new name. The anti-science left that hated vaccines until 2021 now claims to love them, so perhaps the easiest solution to get environmentalists on board is to rebrand genetic engineering as ‘vaccines against pests‘. Sure, Republicans in America will then object but their hearts aren’t really in it. The entire Republican party today has fewer kids being exempted from vaccines today than California alone had in 2014. So we’ll be fine.

Hank Campbell is the founder of Science 2.0 and the author of Science Left Behind. Follow Hank on X @HankCampbell

A version of this article was originally posted at Science 2.0 and is reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit both the GLP and the original article. Find Science 2.0 on X @science2_0

For the new study, researchers sought to better understand these relationships by using a pure source of placenta cells, unlike in previous studies that looked at either whole animals or isolated mouse placentas. To do so, they first purified human cytotrophoblasts, which are the stem cells that make all the cells of the placenta. They then added serotonin to those cells to see where it would go and discovered it concentrated in the nucleus. Next, they used a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that blocked SERT — the antidepressant escitalopram, commonly known by the brand name Lexapro — to show that the normal growth, function, and differentiation of these cells was completely blocked. 

They also used another inhibitor called cystamine to block serotonylation, or the process by which serotonin is added to proteins like histone 3, which turns genes “on” and “off.” Again, that completely blocked the normal growth of the cells. 

Blocking either SERT or serotonylation led to significant changes in gene expression of RNAs in the cytotrophoblasts, they found. Some genes — including ones involved in making, moving, and growing cells — became downregulated, or less active, when serotonin couldn’t enter the cell. Other genes — including ones that help cells stay alive and protect them — became upregulated, or more active. According to the researchers, these findings show that serotonin is critical for the growth of the cytotrophoblasts, the placenta, and by extension, the fetus. 

Additionally, researchers discovered that the cytotrophoblasts don’t contain tryptophan hydroxylase (TPH-1), or the enzyme that makes serotonin, indicating the cells within the placenta can’t produce serotonin on their own. 

“This suggests that factors that either inhibit serotonin transport through the placenta, or increase it, may have a significant impact on the placenta, embryo, fetus, and ultimately, the newborn and its brain,” Kliman said.

For example, Kliman says this explains why taking SSRIs — which decrease the levels of serotonin into the placenta — leads to smaller babies, and why, conversely, increased levels of serotonin may lead to bigger babies, with bigger brains, who may be at increased risk for developmental disabilities like autism.

Kliman and his lab have long investigated the link between placentas and children with autism, specifically the number of trophoblast inclusions (TIs) in the placenta. TIs are like wrinkles or folds in the placenta, caused by cells multiplying more than they should, typically only seen in pregnancies where there are genetic problems with the fetus. 

This new study is the culmination of research first published in 2006 that found significantly more TIs in the placentas from children with autism, and later in 2021, that the genetics of the fetus — and not the parent’s uterine environment — determine how many TIs are in the placenta. 

“This puts a big nail into the theory that vaccines cause autism,” suggested Kliman. “Autism, in essence, starts in the womb, not after delivery, and is most likely due to the genetics of the placenta and to a lesser extent, the maternal environment the placenta finds itself in.”

Kliman is also the director of the Reproductive and Placental Research Unit at YSM. 

Other Yale authors include Gary Rudnick, a professor emeritus of pharmacology at YSM, and Seth Guller, a senior research scientist in obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences and director of the Gyn/Endocrine Laboratory at YSM. 

This study was supported by grants from the Fulbright-Monahan Foundation, the University of Paris Cité, and the Reproductive and Placental Research Unit at Yale School of Medicine.

People in the world are living longer than before, but they are not always living healthier lives during those extra years. A recent study by researchers at the MayoClinic found that while life expectancy keeps rising, the number of years people spend in good health does not increase as much. The study has been published in the journal Communications Medicine.Basically, scientists are seeing that just because people are living longer these days (that’s what we call “lifespan”), it doesn’t mean they’re living all those extra years in good health (“healthspan”). So, life is getting longer, but not necessarily better, because more people are spending a lot of their “golden years” dealing with sickness or disabilities instead of being healthy and active.

How did they figure this out?

The research team did a massive study that looked at health and life expectancy data from 183 countries all over the world. They used information from the World Health Organization and other big international sources to figure out two things for each country:Life expectancy: How long, on average, people live in that country.Health-adjusted life expectancy (HALE): Basically, how many years, on average, someone lives in good health, not hampered by illness or disability.The “healthspan-lifespan gap” is just the difference between those two numbers. So if the average life expectancy is 80, but the average healthy lifespan is 70, that means people spend around 10 of their years dealing with health problems.

What did they find?

Globally, there’s now a gap of about 9 years between lifespan and healthspan — and that gap is getting wider, not smaller! But it’s not the same everywhere. For instance, people in Europe and North America tend to live the longest, but they also spend more years in poor health. Meanwhile, people in parts of Africa may have shorter lifespans overall, but spend a higher percentage of those years in good health.One interesting part is what causes people to lose those healthy years. In wealthier regions like the Americas and Europe, most of the gap is because of chronic, non-infectious diseases — think heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and things like that. In poorer regions, people tend to die younger, but more often from infectious diseases or conditions related to childbirth and nutrition. However, chronic diseases are on the rise everywhere as people adopt more modern lifestyles.

What about mental health?

Another thing the study pointed out is that problems like depression and substance abuse are pretty common across all regions. These mental and behavioral issues don’t explain the differences between places, but they’re a big deal just about everywhere.

Why does it matter?

This growing gap between how long people live and how long they’re healthy is worrying. It means more folks are facing years of poor quality of life, with pain, disability, and all the stress (and cost) that comes with illness.Even more, the researchers noticed that economic factors (like a country’s wealth and health spending) and patterns of disease in that society can predict this gap. Richer countries tend to have more years of chronic illness, probably because people survive longer with disease management, but don’t necessarily cure the illness. Poorer countries, on the other hand, are catching up as their populations age.

So, what now?

The main takeaway is we can’t just focus on making people live longer, we’ve got to think about helping them live healthier, too. Each region of the world has its own challenges, so there’s no single solution. The study says we need to tailor health policies and disease prevention strategies to the specific problems in each place, rather than treating everyone the same.In short: More years doesn’t always mean better years. The world has some homework to do if we want those golden years to actually be golden!