Credits: Canva
A recent study suggests that people who donate blood regularly may have genetic changes in their blood that could in fact reduce the risk of developing cancer. It is conducted by the researchers at the Francis Crick Institute, and the study has now provided new insights into how and why blood cancers develop. The study is published in the journal Blood and was conducted by the scientists from Heidelberg and the German Red Cross blood donation center. There is yet a need for further research to confirm these findings.
The researchers examined the blood of two groups of healthy male donors in their 60s:
The goal was to analyze genetic mutations in their blood and assess whether frequent donation had any impact on their genetic makeup.
As and when people age, their blood and other cells naturally develop mutations and some of them can also increase the risk of cancer. When anyone donates blood, his or her body compensates by producing new blood cells, which can influence the genetic diversity of stem cells in the bone marrow. The study also found that both groups had a similar number of mutations. For instance the frequent donors had 217 mutations, while the irregular donors had 212 mutations.
However, the nature of these mutations differed. In the frequent donors, 50% of the mutations were of a type not associated with a high risk of blood cancers, compared to only 30% in the irregular donors.
Further laboratory analysis showed that these specific mutations behaved differently from those linked to leukemia, a type of blood cancer. When human blood stem cells with these mutations were injected into mice, they were found to be highly effective at producing red blood cells, which is considered a positive outcome.
Dr. Hector Huerga Encabo, one of the study authors, emphasized that these mutations do not indicate an increased risk of leukemia. The findings suggest that regular blood donation may influence how stem cells evolve, but whether this translates into a lower cancer risk remains uncertain.
Read More: Who Can Donate Blood To Whom?
One notable disadvantage is the "healthy-donor effect"—because blood donors are often healthier than the general population, their lower cancer risk could be unrelated to blood donation.
Dominique Bonnet, senior researcher and head of a stem-cell laboratory at the Francis Crick Institute, stressed the need for larger studies with female volunteers to confirm the findings.
Despite ongoing research into potential health benefits for donors, the primary goal of blood donation remains saving lives. NHS Blood and Transplant emphasized that while the study is interesting, further research is required to draw firm conclusions. The organization also noted that blood supplies are currently critically low and encouraged eligible individuals to donate.
Also Read: How Long After a Tattoo or Piercing Can I Donate Blood?
Credit: iStock
Scientists have discovered a previously unknown mechanism that could explain why high cholesterol diet makes it challenging for the liver to remove bad cholesterol from the bloodstream. Researchers have also identified an experimental drug that blocks this process, offering a new method for treating high cholesterol.
The findings are published in the journal Nature by researchers from the University of California San Diego School of Medicine. Their experiments showed that blocking a specific enzyme called cathepsin A (CTSA) helped retain the liver's ability to clear low-density lipoprotein (LDL), commonly known as bad cholesterol.
In mice, inhibiting this enzyme stabilised LDL receptors in liver cells, reducing LDL cholesterol.
"We've known for a long time that a high-cholesterol diet reduces the liver's ability to clear cholesterol from the blood, but we didn't fully understand why," said senior author Alan Saltiel, professor of medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine. "This new discovery explains a critical piece of that puzzle."
The liver plays a key role in regulating cholesterol levels. It uses LDL receptors located on the surface of liver cells to capture LDL cholesterol from the bloodstream.
When fewer of these receptors are available, the liver becomes less efficient at removing LDL cholesterol, allowing it to increase in the bloodstream. The researchers discovered that consuming high amounts of dietary cholesterol activates a protein called Ral. This increases the activity of CTSA, an enzyme that breaks down LDL receptors.
As these receptors are lost, the liver's ability to clear bad cholesterol declines. When researchers blocked CTSA using a small molecule inhibitor, LDL receptors became more stable and LDL cholesterol levels decreased dramatically in mice.
The discovery has sparked interest as researchers have identified an experimental drug that targets CTSA. The drug was originally developed as a possible treatment option for heart failure. Although its development for that purpose was discontinued for other reasons, it had already completed a Phase 1 clinical trial, which evaluated its safety in humans.
This previous test could help researchers move towards studying its ability as a cholesterol treatment. However, the drug has not yet been shown to lower LDL cholesterol in humans.
"There's still a real need for new cholesterol-lowering options, since some people can't get to safe levels even with the drugs we have now," Saltiel said.
He added, "This new pathway we discovered is completely separate from anything that existing drugs target, so it gives us a new opportunity to fill that gap."
The researchers hope to test the experimental CTSA inhibitor in a Phase 2 clinical trial to determine whether it can safely and effectively lower cholesterol in people. If successful, the approach could offer another option for people who struggle to control LDL cholesterol despite using existing treatments.
Saltiel said, "Luckily, there's an experimental drug sitting on the shelf that's already been shown to be safe in humans."
"We hope to test whether this might be effective by conducting a clinical trial -- which could potentially bring a new treatment option to patients much sooner than would have been expected."
Credit: AI
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is often characterised by digestive symptoms like abdominal pain, bloating, constipation and diarrhoea. However, the condition involves more than the digestive system.
A new review published in The Lancet explains how interactions between the gut and brain, changes in the gut microbiome, immune activity and the body's response to pain can contribute to the development of symptoms.
The review, titled Irritable bowel syndrome and related disorders of gut-brain interaction, brings focuses on biological and psychological evidence behind IBS. Researchers describe it as a disorder of gut-brain interaction, in which signals between the digestive system and the central nervous system affect gut function.
The authors also discuss chronic constipation and functional diarrhoea, which belong to the bigger group of disorders related to gut-brain interaction. These conditions may affect an estimated 20% of the global population.
Also read: Olympian Ciara Mageean Dies At 34 After Bowel Cancer Battle: Warning Signs In Young Adults
The gut and brain communicate continuously through a complex network that involves the central nervous system, autonomic nervous system, enteric nervous system and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis.
The brain can influence intestinal movement, secretion and sensitivity, while signals from the gut can affect how the brain processes pain and other sensations.
In people with IBS, this communication may become disrupted. The result can be changes in bowel movements, more sensitivity to normal digestive processes and abdominal discomfort.
The authors said, “These central and peripheral mechanisms can act in an integrated way to cause IBS symptoms, via the gut-brain axis.”
For instance, a person with IBS may experience pain or bloating even when the amount of gas or intestinal movement would not cause discomfort in someone without the condition. This is due to a condition called visceral hypersensitivity, in which the nerves supplying the digestive organs become unusually sensitive to internal sensations.
The review explains that changes in both peripheral mechanisms within the gut and central mechanisms involving the brain can contribute to symptoms.
Also read: Can Coffee Trigger Irritable Bowel Syndrome?
The gut microbiome, which consists of microorganisms living in the digestive tract, is another important part of the gut-brain connection.
Changes in the composition and activity of gut bacteria may impact intestinal function, immune responses and communication with the nervous system. The review identifies the following:
Psychological health is another component of the gut-brain axis. Stress, anxiety and other psychological difficulties can influence how the brain processes pain and communicates with the digestive system.
The HPA axis, which helps regulate the body's response to stress, plays a role in this process . Changes in stress levels can affect gut movement, secretion and sensitivity.
Currently, there is no single biomarker that can diagnose IBS. Doctors assess symptoms, medical history and clinical findings, while using tests to rule out other conditions.
The review highlights that some underlying mechanisms can already be measured through approved tests and questionnaires. These include abnormal bile acid metabolism, accelerated movement of contents through the colon and psychological conditions.
Credit: iStock
Does a patient’s chances of serious outcomes differ if they are treated by a female doctor? A recent study looks into this hypothesis to ascertain the difference between chances of a patient dying under a male and a female doctor.
According to the study, hospitalised patients treated by female doctors have a lower risk of dying within 30 days. They are also less likely to be re-hospitalised than those treated by male doctors. The study is published in JAMA Network Open.
"Past research has largely focused on surgical patients and the admitting physician only. Our findings add to the growing body of research examining the relationship between physician sex and patient outcomes, broadening the evidence beyond surgical care to a wider range of medical conditions and other physicians," says Dr. Angela Jerath, an ICES scientist, and Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine at the University of Toronto's Temerty Faculty of Medicine.
After analysing the health records of 958,150 adults admitted to hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between 2008 and 2022, researchers found that the 30-day mortality rate was 12.3% among patients treated by female physicians, compared to 13.7% among those treated by male physicians.
The findings also show a small difference in hospital readmissions. The 30-day readmission rate was 18.6% for patients treated by female doctors and 18.9% for those treated by male doctors.
The researchers examined outcomes across seven common medical conditions, including heart attacks, pneumonia and other acute illnesses.
They also considered the number of hospital days during which patients received care from female doctors, recognising that several doctors may be involved in a patient's treatment during an admission.
Also read: Manosphere Is A Public Health Concern: Lancet Report Says Online Misogyny Harms Men's Mental Health
After accounting for patient, physician and hospital characteristics, treatment by a female physician was linked with 12% lower adjusted odds of death within 30 days compared to treatment by a male physician.
The researchers also found that for every 10% increase in the proportion of hospital days managed by female physicians, the adjusted odds of 30-day mortality decreased by 7%. This was observed for most medical conditions that were studied. Atrial fibrillation was the only exception.
The difference in mortality was also seen at longer follow-up periods. Patients treated by female physicians had lower mortality at 90 days and one year.
The findings were observed among both male and female patients. Female patients treated by female physicians had the lowest adjusted 30-day mortality rate in the analysis.
The study did not establish why patients treated by female physicians experienced better outcomes. However, the researchers discussed possible differences in clinical practice and communication.
Female physicians may be more likely to engage in patient-focused communication, spend more time with patients, follow clinical guidelines and involve colleagues in decision-making.
These practices could influence how symptoms are studied, treatment decisions are made and coordinated during hospitalisation.
"The goal is not to favour one group of physicians over another but to identify practices and behaviours that may help improve care across the health system," says Jerath.
"An important strength of this study is that, unlike surgical care, patients admitted to hospital for medical conditions are generally assigned physicians based on rotating schedules rather than patient or referring physician preferences, helping to minimize referral bias."
© $2026 Times Horizon Private Limited