We all must have come across the phase: this is why women live longer than men. These are all over the social media, where men are performing more often than not, some experiments, without gears, just for fun, "in the name of science". The caption reads: this is why women live longer. However, is there really a science to it, other than the fact that women choose to do things more safely?

In the United States, women have a life expectancy of about 80, whereas men have 75. Women outlive men and this holds true regardless of the country women live, the money they make, and other factors. In fact, it is true for most other mammals too.

Dr Dena Dubal, a professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco told the New York Times, "It is a very robust phenomenon all over the world, totally conserved in sickness, during famines, during epidemics, even during the times of starvation."

But what are the reasons? These reasons are often more complicated and less established. It is important to note that only because women are outliving men does not mean they are living a better life. In fact, women tend to have shorter health spans, which means the number of healthy years in a person's life is less in women than men, confirmed Bérénice Benayoun, an associate professor at the U.S.C. Leonard Davis School of Gerontology.

As per a 2021 study titled, Sex differences in frailty: Comparisons between humans and preclinical models, found that women are more physically grail than men in old age. They are also more vulnerable, especially after menopause and are at more risk of developing cardiovascular issues and Alzheimer's disease because of age.

The key is in figuring out what makes one sex more resilient or vulnerable.

Genetics

For things which do not find easy explanations, scientists look for their answers in genes. Many research, including a 2020 study titled, The sex with the reduced sex chromosome dies earlier: a comparison across the tree of life, suggests that the XX set of female sex chromosomes may impact longevity. However, there has not been any clarity on how it affects longevity.

Another 2018 study titled, Female XX sex chromosomes increase survival and extend lifespan in aging mice, which was conducted by Dr Dubal's lab, looked at genetically manipulated mice with different combinations of sex chromosomes and reproductive organs. It was found that those with two X chromosomes and ovaries lived longest, followed by mice with two X chromosomes and testes. Mice with XY chromosomes had shorter life spans.

"There was something about the second X chromosome that was protecting the mice from dying earlier in life, even if they had testes. What if there was something on that second X chromosome that was in some ways a sprinkle of the fountain of youth," says Dr Dubal. While scientists have not yet looked at this factor in humans, Dr Dubal suggests that humans have the same hormones and sex chromosomes, and similar reproductive system that could corroborate the similar findings in people.

Hormones

Plenty research has shown that estrogen is responsible for longevity also effect on the immune system. The data also shows that before menopause, the female immune system tends to do better. In fact Dr Benayoun said that males tend to do much worse in response to infection.

Another 2017 study titled, Ages at Menarche and Menopause and Reproductive Lifespan As Predictors of Exceptional Longevity in Women: The Women's Health Initiative, found that women who experienced menopause later in life over the age 50 lived longer than those who experienced it earlier.

Lifestyle and Behavior

There are also disparity in behavioral patterns between men and women. This includes smoking, drinking heavily, which can contribute significantly to mortality. Women also have more "health promoting behavior", believe experts. Women are also more likely to socialize than men and thus it protects them from detrimental effects of social isolation and loneliness. In fact, a 2023 analysis published in Jama Network, titled, Widening Gender Gap in Life Expectancy in the US, 2010-2021, found that women are less likely to die by drug overdose or suicide.

In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had established a constitutional right to abortion. With the Dobbs ruling, the authority to regulate abortion returned to individual states—setting off a wave of legislative action that continues to reshape access to abortion care across the country.

Three years later, the national abortion landscape is more fragmented than ever. Some states have implemented near-total bans, while others have enshrined protections into their constitutions. As legal battles unfold and ballot measures continue to appear, access to abortion has become heavily dependent on geography.

tates That Ban and States That Protect

As of mid-2025, abortion is nearly banned in 13 states, with limited exceptions such as life endangerment or cases of rape or incest.

In over 25 other states, gestational limits range from six to 26 weeks. These restrictions are particularly concentrated in the South and Midwest, where legislative action following the Dobbs decision was swift.

Conversely, several states have moved to protect or expand abortion rights.

Since 2022, voters in California, Michigan, Ohio, and Vermont have passed constitutional amendments guaranteeing the right to abortion.

In states like Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana, voters rejected ballot measures that would have added new abortion restrictions.

In Missouri—a state that implemented one of the country’s strictest abortion bans immediately after the Dobbs ruling—voters passed a measure in 2024 to enshrine abortion access in the state constitution.

However, that decision was followed by further legal disputes. The Missouri Supreme Court later blocked abortion access again, and lawmakers have approved another referendum for 2026 that could reverse the constitutional amendment.

Increased Travel and Rising Costs for Abortion Seekers

As access has narrowed in certain states, more people are traveling long distances to obtain abortion care. According to data from The Brigid Alliance, an organization that provides travel and logistical support to abortion-seekers, average travel distances have increased nearly 50% since the Dobbs ruling. Today, many patients are traveling more than 1,400 miles round trip to reach a provider.

The group also reports that average travel-related expenses have risen to more than $2,300 per patient—reflecting the rising cost of transportation, lodging, and time away from work. The majority of their clients seeking assistance now come from states like Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, where laws have become increasingly restrictive.

Southern states, in particular, have emerged as areas where abortion access is most limited. For example, Florida implemented a six-week abortion ban after a proposed constitutional amendment to protect abortion access narrowly failed, receiving just under the 60% threshold required for passage. This has redirected patients to other states with more permissive laws, such as Virginia.

Ballot Measures Shape State Policies

Since the Dobbs ruling, many abortion-related measures have appeared on state ballots—either to protect or restrict access. In 2024 alone, voters in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and New York took up initiatives involving abortion rights. Most successful measures focused on preserving access until fetal viability, generally considered to occur around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Not all efforts to expand abortion rights have succeeded. In Nebraska, voters faced competing ballot measures—one aiming to restrict abortion after the first trimester (which passed) and another to guarantee abortion access up to fetal viability (which failed). South Dakota also rejected a measure to protect abortion rights.

Reflecting

Three years after Dobbs, the U.S. remains sharply divided on abortion access, with legal and political fights continuing to play out across state lines. As more ballot measures are introduced and court rulings evolve, the future of abortion rights in America remains uncertain—shaped less by federal law than by the individual choices of state governments and their voters.

A new study published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society offers critical insight into the biological mechanisms underlying type 2 diabetes. Researchers from the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT Bombay), in collaboration with IIT Kanpur and the Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute (CNCI), Kolkata, have identified a key trigger that accelerates the progression of this widespread disease: the structural protein collagen I.

A Rising Global Health Crisis

Type 2 diabetes currently affects over 500 million people worldwide, and numbers are expected to rise sharply in the coming decades. The disease is primarily driven by a combination of genetics, lifestyle factors, and complex cellular mechanisms. At its core lies the dysfunction of pancreatic β-cells, the insulin-producing cells responsible for regulating blood sugar levels.

As diabetes develops, β-cells either fail to produce enough insulin or the body’s cells become resistant to it. A lesser-known yet crucial hormone, amylin, is also secreted by these β-cells and plays a vital role in managing blood sugar after meals. However, in diabetic conditions, excessive amylin production leads to misfolding and toxic clumping, which damages β-cells and accelerates disease progression.

Collagen I Accelerates Amylin Clumping

In the latest study, the research team pinpointed fibrillar collagen I, a common component of the extracellular matrix, as a key factor driving the toxic aggregation of amylin. Found abundantly in connective tissues like skin and bones, collagen I is also present in the pancreatic environment—particularly in diabetic tissues where it is elevated.

“Every tissue is composed of cells and an extracellular matrix that provides structural support. In diabetic pancreatic tissue, this matrix, especially collagen I, becomes more prominent,” explained Prof. Shamik Sen, the study’s lead investigator from the Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering at IIT Bombay.

The researchers discovered that collagen I acts like a scaffold or platform, accelerating the misfolding and aggregation of amylin, which in turn damages β-cells. This discovery adds a new layer to understanding why the disease worsens over time, even with treatments targeting cellular pathways.

Biophysical Evidence Supports Findings

To investigate how collagen I interacts with amylin, the team used a suite of advanced biophysical tools. These included surface plasmon resonance to measure binding strength, atomic force microscopy to study molecular adhesion, thioflavin T fluorescence to track aggregation speed, and NMR spectroscopy to identify interacting regions of the molecules.

“Amylin almost coats the collagen fibres, forming stable, toxic aggregates that cells struggle to clear,” said Prof. Sen. The behavior of amylin on collagen fibres resembled trains moving on tracks—quickly and with destructive momentum.

Computer simulations by Prof. Prasenjit Bhaumik’s group at IIT Bombay confirmed that fibrillar collagen I accelerates the toxic aggregation process, offering further validation of the molecular interaction.

Biological Evidence from Mouse and Human Tissues

The team extended their study to biological samples from diabetic mice and humans. With the help of Prof. Hamim Zafar and Prof. Sai Prasad Pydi from IIT Kanpur, and Dr. Sankhadeep Dutta from CNCI, they analyzed single-cell data and tissue architecture.

The findings were striking: as diabetes progressed, both collagen and amylin levels rose, accompanied by damage to pancreatic islets—clusters of cells that house insulin-producing β-cells.

Testing the Combined Effect on Cells

To test the functional impact, the researchers grew lab-engineered β-cells on collagen gels containing amylin. These cells showed increased oxidative stress, reduced insulin production, and higher rates of cell death, compared to controls grown without collagen or amylin.

This suggests that the extracellular environment, particularly collagen I, plays a central role in worsening β-cell dysfunction in diabetes.

The findings could explain why many diabetes treatments fall short—they overlook the external microenvironment contributing to disease progression. “Unless we disrupt the interaction between amylin and collagen, we may not be able to eliminate the toxic pancreatic environment,” said Prof. Sen.

Looking ahead, the team is working on cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) models to visualize how amylin and collagen interact at the molecular level. They are also exploring 3D tissue engineering strategies to restore pancreatic function by replicating healthy extracellular conditions.

A horror that bothers most transplant patients came true in the most weirdest way possible, two U.S. kidney transplant recipients were found to be infected with parasitic worms from a single deceased donor. The shocking revelation was documented in a case report published June 18 in the New England Journal of Medicine, shedding light on rare but severe donor-derived infections that may be slipping through existing screening protocols.

The source of the infections was traced back to a single deceased donor who had lived in the Caribbean, a region where some parasitic infections are more common. The donor’s kidneys were transplanted into two men at separate hospitals—Massachusetts General Hospital (MassGen) and Albany Medical Center—setting off a medical mystery that would take weeks to unravel.

The first recipient, a 61-year-old man, underwent surgery at MassGen. Ten weeks after the transplant, he was readmitted to the hospital with a cascade of alarming symptoms: nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, abdominal and back pain, and fever. His condition deteriorated rapidly, with fluid building up in his lungs, a dramatic drop in oxygen levels, and eventually, respiratory failure and shock. Doctors in the intensive care unit noted a distinctive purple rash—like a constellation of bruises—spreading across his abdomen.

Dr. Camille Kotton, an expert in infectious diseases and transplants, led the investigation. She recalled previous cases of organ recipients being infected by Strongyloides stercoralis, a small roundworm commonly found in tropical and subtropical climates. Reaching out to New England Donor Services, the team discovered that the kidney donor—who had resided in the Caribbean—had indeed carried antibodies for Strongyloides, confirming prior exposure.

Testing of the recipient’s blood confirmed he had no preexisting antibodies for the parasite before the transplant but had developed them afterward. Further diagnostics revealed the worms had spread systemically, affecting his lungs, abdomen, and skin. The parasite had essentially colonized his entire body, exploiting his weakened immune defenses.

Further testing showed the patient had developed antibodies to the parasite post-transplant, and samples from his body revealed that the worms had spread to his abdomen, lungs, and skin.

How Rare Are Parasitic Infections in Transplants?

Infections from transplanted organs are exceedingly rare. Over more than a decade, only 14 out of every 10,000 organ transplants in the U.S. have resulted in donor-derived infections, according to a major review. Of these, parasitic infections—especially those caused by Strongyloides—account for a significant portion, but the overall numbers remain very low.

Historically, fewer than one in four U.S. organ procurement organizations regularly screened for Strongyloides. However, as awareness of these risks has grown, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network in 2023 called for universal testing for this parasite in all donors.

The discovery at MassGen prompted a nationwide alert to other centers that had received organs from the same donor. At Albany Medical Center, a 66-year-old man who had received the other kidney was experiencing fatigue, low white blood cell counts, and worsening kidney function. Armed with the new information, his doctors quickly diagnosed and treated the parasitic infection, preventing the severe complications seen in the first patient.

Why it is Important to Strengthen Safety Protocols?

This unsettling incident underscores the importance of rigorous donor screening, especially when donors have lived in regions where parasitic infections are more prevalent. The case has already prompted policy shifts and reinforced the need for continual vigilance in transplant medicine.

"Although donor-derived infections are uncommon, when they do occur, they can be catastrophic. We must use every tool available to prevent such outcomes," said Dr. Kotton.

These cases have prompted renewed calls for rigorous screening of organ donors, especially those from regions where certain parasites are endemic. While U.S. doctors already avoid using organs from donors with known active infections like tuberculosis, not all infectious agents are routinely tested for, and some, like Strongyloides, can remain dormant and undetectable for years.

Universal screening for Strongyloides is now being implemented, but experts caution that vigilance must remain high. Immunosuppressed patients—such as organ transplant recipients—are particularly vulnerable to rare infections, and symptoms can be easily mistaken for other complications like transplant rejection or drug reactions.

For patients awaiting transplants, the story may raise unsettling questions, but experts stress that the benefits of organ transplantation far outweigh the risks. The U.S. transplant system has an excellent safety record, and cases like these, while alarming, are extremely rare and now more preventable than ever.

Patients can play a role by staying informed, asking about donor screening protocols, and adhering closely to post-transplant care guidelines. As science and medicine evolve, so too does the capability to ensure safer, more effective transplants across the board.