Google DeepMind is worried about what happens when millions of agents start to interact

Google DeepMind is funding research into the potential dangers of situations where millions of different AI agents interact with each other online.

According to Rohin Shah, who directs the company’s AGI safety and alignment research, the mass-market arrival of agents that can carry out tasks without human oversight and follow instructions given to them by other agents creates a whole new class of risk.

In an effort to address this, Google DeepMind—which made agent-based tools a centerpiece of Google I/O last month—has teamed up with several other organizations to announce a $10 million funding pot for researchers to study the behavior of multi-agent systems and come up with ways to prevent unsafe scenarios. Joining Google DeepMind are Schmidt Sciences, a philanthropic foundation set up by Eric and Wendy Schmidt; ARIA, the UK government’s moonshot agency; the Cooperative AI foundation, a UK-based nonprofit research outfit; and Google’s charitable arm, Google.org.

I asked Shah and James Fox, who leads the Science of Trustworthy AI program at Schmidt Sciences, what they hope to achieve with that $10 million. It’s no small sum, but it’s dwarfed by the budgets commanded by Google DeepMind’s own research teams.

The aim is to kick-start research outside tech companies, says Shah: “The strength of academia is that it can look really quite far into the future and do the kind of work that isn’t top of mind at industry labs.”

“The main issue is that there just isn’t really a field of research for multi-agent safety yet,” he adds. “And we would like there to be.”

The concern is that as more and more AI agents get deployed and begin working together, we could hit a tipping point where imagined scenarios become real. “We see this with humanity, too,” says Shah. “Our institutions can accomplish things that no individual human can.”

Shah thinks that we have a few more months to go before agents are deployed throughout the economy in numbers that make potential risks a real concern. He wants to get ahead of that moment.

Risky business

What risks are we talking about, exactly? The possibilities that Shah and Fox have in mind mostly boil down to supercharged versions of bad things that happen on the internet already: scams, prompt injections (where an AI agent is fed malicious instructions, turning it into a self-guiding piece of malware), other forms of cyberattack. We look at what humans do now and ask what the agent version of that would be, says Shah.  

“We’ve got this digital commons that is integral to how society works, and you really want to ensure that this doesn’t descend into just absolute anarchy,” says Fox.

(I asked Shah if they were considering any worst-case scenarios more on the doomer end of the spectrum, such as widespread economic collapse. “Certainly not if we’re talking by the end of the year,” he said. That’s only six months away! He laughed. “Okay, a while after that.”)

Shah and Fox both think that the only way to understand what might happen when large numbers of multi-agent systems interact with each other is to run realistic simulations. They want researchers to drop AI agents into sandboxes and study what they do.

You can’t predict what’s going to happen by studying single agents, or even small groups of agents, in isolation. You can’t assume that AI agents underpinned by LLMs will always act rationally, says Fox. And the complexity comes from having huge numbers of interactions at once.

Some researchers, including a team at Google DeepMind, have argued that artificial general intelligence (if possible at all) could come not from a single super-smart model but from a kind of agent hive mind, where the capabilities of the whole add up to more than the sum of its parts.  

Lack of trust

Google DeepMind is not the only top AI firm warning about the risks of the technology it is building. A couple of weeks ago, Anthropic published guidelines for deploying AI agents based on an approach to cybersecurity known as zero trust, which starts with the assumption that a computer system is vulnerable, an agent is an attacker, and a breach will happen.

Refael Angel, cofounder and CTO of Akeyless, a cybersecurity firm based in Tel Aviv, agrees that understanding the new risks introduced by agent-based systems is crucial.  

Every approach to security in the past has assumed that the machine in question was software written by a human, doing fixed things on fixed paths, says Angel: “An agent breaks all of those assumptions. It reasons, it improvises, and it can be hijacked by a single sentence buried in a document it was asked to read.”

Angel welcomes this new funding. “No single lab should author the safety standards everyone else has to trust,” he says. But he cautions that safety researchers can overlook boring problems that are already here in favor of more exotic hypothetical ones.

And yet, Fox notes, risks that were hypothetical a few years ago are now very real: “The future’s come more quickly than perhaps expected.”

Inside soccer’s data renaissance

Imagine tuning in to the opening kickoff of a World Cup match and seeing a player intentionally send the ball all the way down the pitch and right out of bounds on the opponent’s end. Casual fans might scratch their heads. Where’s the logic in surrendering possession seconds into a game? If you were Jesse Davis, though, you’d know that this play could be a prime setup to score. 

Davis is a professor of computer science at KU Leuven in Belgium and head of its Sports Analytics Lab, which has been at the vanguard of a data awakening in soccer since its inception more than a decade ago. Though the research group brings machine-­learning models to bear on a variety of sports—including basketball, volleyball, and field hockey—nowhere is its impact felt more than on the soccer pitch. 

Davis and his team of researchers employ advanced data analytics to reveal a range of (beg your pardon) game-changing findings that are shifting pro clubs’ decision-making. “His lab is the most influential sports analytics lab in soccer,” says Hugo Rios-Neto, data recruitment lead for Royal Sporting Club Anderlecht in Belgium. They’ve helped teams better evaluate their rosters, conceived ways to assess how efficient (or not) strategies are, and developed algorithms that uncover hidden tactical patterns.

Like, for instance, the value of kicking the ball out of bounds close to the goal and letting your opponent throw it back into play—a move that’s been popping up in some of the world’s top leagues over the last few years.

To make the statistical argument for this seemingly counterproductive move, Davis’s group built a training data set composed of more than 1.4 million passes and some 60,000 throw-ins—partly from the 2022 World Cup. They used tree ensemble models (essentially a mashup of decision trees) to simulate the tactic. The conclusion, which the researchers presented in a 2024 paper under the apt title “Boot it”: When the ball is in the middle third of the pitch, kicking it out of bounds on your opponents’ side of the field can put you within 10 actions (think passes and dribbles) of a goal. That can be a big deal in a game that has 1,500 or more actions per match and very little scoring. The idea, Davis explains, is that you’re setting yourself up to recover the ball in an advantageous situation.

Beyond providing discrete game-day insights, Davis also occupies a unique niche in the world of sports analytics, where many clubs now hire their own internal data teams to maintain a competitive edge. He makes most of his research freely available via open-source analytics tools, but the academic life also affords him the freedom to tackle more complex problems—like standardizing in-game data, a project that will make it easier to parse game footage and come up with winning strategies. 


Davis, 45, grew up in Wisconsin and spent his childhood enraptured by basketball and (American) football. Soccer was largely a nonentity to him until college, when the 2002 World Cup—in which Brazil famously swept the tournament—reeled him in. But the notion of going on to dissect the sport never crossed his mind. His doctoral studies in computer science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison had him working with radiologists to analyze mammography reports. 

In October 2010, he joined KU Leuven as a computer science professor looking at the intersection of AI and health care, with a focus on monitoring athletic performance. His research team studied, for instance, combining things like heart rate with other metrics to determine whether someone was overtraining. They also dove into the biomechanics of running.

The tactical and technical aspects of sports, and soccer specifically, became the subject of Davis’s professorial work when he hired Jan Van Haaren, an engineering student focused on artificial intelligence and a self-described soccer fanatic. He wondered if data analysis could be used to study things like passing, shooting, and ball progression—metrics the game was only just beginning to digitally crunch at the time. 

Davis realized that machine learning and other artificial-intelligence tools lent themselves well to the complexity, fluidity, and speed of soccer.

You need not be well versed in the moneyball-ization of pro sports to see that it’s relatively easy to apply deep statistical work to baseball or basketball. You can isolate actions like jump shots and assign value to ones taken close or far away. Soon a basketball coach realizes that a player who can’t make a layup, but shoots roughly as well from the three-point line as on mid-range jumpers, might as well go for the shot that gets more points. 

Soccer, by comparison, seemed like a poor candidate for that kind of analysis. “The vast, vast majority of actions really don’t lead to the outcome of a goal or even a shot,” says Rios-Neto. “So it’s hard to elaborate or derive a winning strategy from the data.”

But Van Haaren’s love of the sport, and Davis’s love of sports in general, inspired them to try. Over time, Davis realized that machine learning and other artificial-intelligence tools lent themselves well to the complexity, fluidity, and speed of soccer. In 2014, he officially stood up the Sports Analytics Lab. 

With a stable of about 10 students and postdocs at any one time, the lab began laying what Van Haaren calls the “intellectual foundations of how the game is analyzed today.” The researchers picked apart in-game actions, and suddenly they were valuing ball possession, penalty-kick strategy (aim for the center), and the merits of long shots on goal (take them). “One of the trends that’s been in soccer over the last five to 10 years is that the number of long shots has dramatically increased,” says Davis. “What the data let you do is really quantify what the probabilities of those things are.”


In the years since Davis and his team started untangling individual soccer tactics, their ideas have started to permeate clubs across Europe, like Belgium’s Club Brugge KV, as well as national soccer organizations in the US and Belgium. “The work coming out of the lab is genuinely useful,” Rios-Neto says, “and clubs apply it for a range of purposes.” 

Van Haaren, who’s now the director of football intelligence at Club Brugge, is one of many in-house analysts adapting the lab’s work to the pro game. “Our collaboration with the lab is centered on translating [the team’s] football philosophy into measurable, data-driven outputs,” he says. When a club wants to assess, say, how well a center-back is moving the ball down the field, it aims to tally how many times the ball ended up in the part of the pitch closest to the opposing team’s goal. It does this by combining event data, which records actions on the ball, with tracking data, which records player movement. This shows how well players fulfill their roles, which is useful in development and also when scouting for new recruits. 

Davis’s lab, meanwhile, is continuing to ask questions that apply to the game writ large. To determine if there’s an advantage to taking more long shots, for instance, postdoc Maaike Van Royand colleagues modeled the behavior of English Premier League teams using a Markov decision process—a computational framework in which some actions are under a person’s control while others are random. (That duality is particularly useful for soccer, where movement can feel anything but linear.) The results, presented in 2021 at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, showed that Chelsea could gain 1.6 more goals per season by shooting from distance 20% more often.

Despite those kinds of insights from Davis’s lab and similar research groups that have sprung up over the last decade at institutions like MIT and Carnegie Mellon, soccer somewhat lags behind many other pro sports when it comes to collecting the data that analysts need. All teams employ people to watch video and use software to annotate specific in-game tactics—the details of which may make sense only to the most devoted fans. It’s a mostly manual process, one that can take up to six hours per game. “It’s a complete nightmare as a data analyst to work with,” says Davis.

So while the lab plays on, Davis has also joined up with researchers from other institutions in an effort to standardize data across all matches. The group is experimenting with transformers, the neural network architecture that underpins large language models like ChatGPT. If you can bring that to the world of soccer, a human game annotator could tag a tactic—a three-on-two breakaway, say—a few times, and that could train the model on the concept so it could tag subsequent instances on its own. “There’s been a lot of progress,” Davis says. “But it still remains quite hard.”

If we’re keeping score, though, the lab’s work has already made the analytics process easier thanks to open-source tools it’s put out there—some of which clock thousands of downloads a month. One is a framework called VAEP, a model that assesses the effects of all actions on the ball. Another is an xG (expected goals) model, which looks at the quality of a scoring chance. Still another is a package to synchronize event data with tracking data. “Lots of people in industry use our code in their daily workflows,” Davis says.

For him, the practical application of having their code out there is important, but the real (ahem) kick is watching theory become practice. As he says, “I’m really motivated to solve problems that arise in real settings and see my work have an impact.” 

Andrew Zaleski is a contributing writer at Washingtonian magazine. 

Opinion: We published in Nature Medicine in 2025 for free. In 2026, it cost us $12,850

In June 2025, I led a study that was accepted for publication in Nature Medicine. The cost to publish this manuscript, which reported the results of a randomized clinical trial, was zero dollars. The paper underwent rigorous peer view and extensive edits and copy editing by the editorial staff. This study was the result of years of work by a large team of staff and investigators at Johns Hopkins and was funded by a combination of philanthropy and grants from the National Institutes of Health (your and my tax dollars).

In 2026, I was part of a group that published in Nature Medicine a different NIH-funded study — also the results of years of hard work supported by your and my tax dollars. To comply with the 2024 NIH Public Access Policy that went into effect on July 1, 2025, we paid $12,850 to the publisher. This charge was for open-access fees, now required by the publisher, and was non-negotiable.

Read the rest…

Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Lesion-Based Urgent Referral Triage of Ultra-Widefield Retinal Images: A Multi-Reader Multi-Case Randomized Reader Study

Conditions: Vision-Threatening Retinal Lesions; Urgent Referral Retinal Findings; Retinal Detachment; Pre-retinal Hemorrhage; Subretinal Hemorrhage; Retinal Neovascularization

Interventions: Diagnostic Test: AI-Assisted UWF Lesion-Based Triage System; Diagnostic Test: Unassisted Interpretation

Sponsors: Xiamen Ophthalmology Center Affiliated to Xiamen University

Not yet recruiting

Inclusivity in Insomnia: Adolescents’ Perspectives on the Sleep Solved App: Qualitative Interview Study

Background: Adolescent sleep duration can substantially impact mood, behavior, and academic attainment. While hundreds of sleep-related apps are available to download, none have been cocreated with adolescents from underserved populations in the United Kingdom. Objective: This study aimed to explore adolescents’ views, expectations, and experiences with a novel app to improve sleep, called Sleep Solved, to understand which features were perceived as positive and helpful, and to identify ways to further enhance its usefulness. Sleep Solved is part of a larger stepped behavior change study and was cocreated with adolescents from underserved groups to make the app accessible and engaging for this population. Methods: A total of 63 participants aged 16‐18 years from across the United Kingdom completed semistructured interviews after trying the app. Interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis, as outlined by Braun and Clarke, with a particular focus on the views of individuals from underserved ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Results: Participants perceived Sleep Solved as a useful tool that provides helpful advice regarding changeable behaviors to improve sleep hygiene. Cocreated features of the app, such as the Sleep Stars gamified rewards system and the easy-read, science-based “sleep hacks,” were viewed positively by participants, who reported that they had a beneficial impact on their sleep and sleep schedule. Praise was given for the app’s ease of use and how the science of sleep was explained at an appropriate level, without being overwhelming. Compared to sleep advice on social media platforms, Sleep Solved was considered more reliable and trustworthy. Participants described better sleep hygiene, such as a regular sleep routine and a longer sleep duration, and increased feelings of improved mood and energy. Conclusions: This study found that a cocreated sleep app, designed with input from adolescents in underserved UK populations, was perceived as accessible, reliable, and effective in supporting positive sleep behavior change. Although sleep duration was not objectively tested, participants, particularly those from low socioeconomic status backgrounds and diverse ethnicities, reported improved sleep routines and mood, highlighting the potential of co-designed digital tools to engage and benefit adolescent users.
<img src="https://jmir-production.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/thumbs/21c2b21bed8d0a7a06bba5b35e5f34fb" />

Origins of First Eukaryotes Linked to Contributions from Multiple Bacteria and Giant Viruses

All cells in animals, plants, fungi, and protists share a fundamental characteristic, in that they are eukaryotic cells. These are essentially complex cells with specialized internal compartments. The cells that make up our bodies are no exception.

How this type of cell emerged is one of the great questions in biology. For decades, the dominant explanation has placed acquisition of the mitochondrion as the ultimate turning point. It’s thought that an archaeon established a symbiotic relationship with a bacterium, which eventually became the mitochondrion, and this alliance opened the door to cellular complexity.

A study led by Toni Gabaldón, PhD, an ICREA researcher at IRB Barcelona and the Barcelona Supercomputing Center-Centro Nacional de Supercomputación (BSC-CNS) now rethinks this view. While the research does not deny the central role of the mitochondrion, it suggests that the origin of complex cells was a longer, more gradual and more collaborative process than had previously been thought. Challenging the idea that cellular complexity emerged from a single evolutionary encounter, the study results point instead to a gradual process of interactions among different microorganisms that lasted for millions of years. The findings identify contributions from several bacteria, in addition to the one that gave rise to the mitochondria, and suggest that giant viruses may have acted as vehicles for genetic transfer.

“For a long time, we have explained the origin of complex cells as a story with two main protagonists: an archaeon and the bacterium that gave rise to the mitochondrion,” said Gabaldón. “Our study suggests that this narrative is incomplete and that there were more actors on stage, including other bacterial groups and giant viruses that may have facilitated gene exchange.” The team published their findings in Nature, in a paper titled “Gene ancestries reveal diverse microbial associations during eukaryogenesis.”

“The origin of eukaryotes remains a central enigma in biology,” the authors wrote. Unlike studies with dinosaurs, the origin of eukaryotes cannot be reconstructed from visible bones or fossils. It likely occurred about two billion years ago in microscopic organisms, of which barely any direct traces remain. “The current consensus on eukaryogenesis revolves around scenarios that always involve an endosymbiotic relationship with extensive gene transfer between an alphaproteobacterial endosymbiont and a host with an Asgard archaeal ancestry,” the team noted. However, the footprints of this evolution are still present in today’s genomes.

To trace them, the team approached the problem as a form of computational molecular archaeology, using the computing power of the MareNostrum series of supercomputers to analyze public genomic data spanning biodiversity as a whole.

The researchers first reconstructed the repertoire of gene and protein families of the last common ancestor of all eukaryotes, known as LECA (last eukaryotic common ancestor). “Our analysis provided a revised reconstruction of the last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA) proteome, in which we traced the phylogenetic origin of each protein family,” they wrote. The investigators then analyzed its evolutionary origin by comparing these families against databases containing tens of thousands of bacterial, archaeal, and viral genomes.

“We are trying to reconstruct a story that took place billions of years ago and for which we have no direct fossils. That is why we have been very conservative: we only kept the most robust evolutionary signals—those with a strength comparable to the signals already accepted for the ancestral archaeon and for the bacterium that gave rise to the mitochondrion,” explain study co-authors Moisès Bernabeu, PhD, Saioa Manzano-Morales, PhD, and Marina Marcet-Houben, PhD, who are researchers in the Comparative Genomics group led by Gabaldón at IRB Barcelona and the BSC.

After more than five years of work using complex mathematical models and processing large volumes of genomic sequences, the team was able to detect signals that would otherwise have remained invisible.

Beyond the mitochondrion, the study identifies two particularly relevant bacterial signals: Myxococcota and Planctomycetota. The former are related to metabolic functions, including processes linked to lipids and membranes. The latter are bacteria known for their structural complexity, featuring internal compartments that are unusual for bacterial organisms. “Transfers from these donors have been identified in earlier studies, including small-scale detailed ones such as the acquisition of some steroid biosynthesis enzymes from Myxococcota,” the team stated.

Their analyses indicate that these contributions did not happen all at once. Planctomycetota appear as an older signal, whereas Myxococcota and the bacterium that gave rise to the mitochondrion show signals that are closer in time. “We found compelling evidence for multiple waves of horizontal gene transfer from diverse bacterial donors, with some likely to have preceded mitochondrial endosymbiosis,” the scientists suggested.

One of the most unexpected findings of the study is that some genes integrated during the early evolution of eukaryotes appear to come from giant viruses, specifically Nucleocytoviricota. These viruses have genomes that are much larger than those of most known viruses, and they infect single-celled eukaryotic organisms.

The authors propose that these viruses could have acted as vehicles for genetic transfer between microorganisms coexisting in the same ecosystem, facilitating exchanges that helped shape the ancestral genome of eukaryotic cells. “Our results confirm and expand earlier results supporting sizeable gene flow from diverse prokaryotic ancestors preceding the LECA4, and uncover a role for viruses as potential mediators of such transfers,” the scientists stated.

This vision fits with the idea that the ancestors of eukaryotic cells lived in environments rich in microbial communities, such as microbial mats, where different microorganisms coexist in layers under varying chemical conditions. In this context, genetic exchanges would have allowed them to acquire new biological capabilities over time. “Microorganisms are known to form complex communities such as microbial mats or complex biofilms, of which viruses also form active part, and it is reasonable to consider that the ancestors of the LECA lived in such complex environments,” they stated.

The study addresses one of the major questions in biology: how the complexity of the cells that form our bodies came to be. By reconstructing the genetic traces of that process, the work provides a new perspective on a key episode in the history of life: the origin of the cellular lineage to which animals, plants, fungi, and protists belong. “Taken together, our results suggest that ancient eukaryotes may have originated within complex microbial ecosystems through a succession of diverse associations that left a footprint of horizontally transferred genes.”

The paper expands on a line of research initiated by Gabaldón in 2016, when he published a study in Nature that already suggested the mitochondrion might have been acquired relatively late in the process of eukaryotic origins. Now, with much more genomic data available and more powerful computational tools, the team has been able to analyze in greater detail which other organisms left their mark on that common ancestor.

“All genomes preserve traces of their history. In the case of eukaryotes, those traces tell us of ancient alliances between microorganisms. Understanding them helps us answer a very profound question: what we are and where we come from,” commented Gabaldón.

The post Origins of First Eukaryotes Linked to Contributions from Multiple Bacteria and Giant Viruses appeared first on GEN – Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.

Diabetes association leader apologizes for expulsion of members, pledges to rebuild trust

Five days after five members of the American Diabetes Association were ushered out of its annual scientific sessions in New Orleans for handing out an editorial criticizing federal research cuts, ADA chief executive officer Charles Henderson on Wednesday apologized to the people expelled and to the broader diabetes community.

“First and foremost, I want to personally apologize to Dr. Steven Kahn, Dr. Desmond Schatz, Dr. Aaron Kelly, Dr. Maureen Gannon, and Dr. Justin Ryder, who were escorted out and denied access to scientific sessions, regardless of the circumstances that led to those events,” Henderson said in the three-minute video. “I recognize the impact that experience had on each of you. I am deeply sorry for the hurt, frustration, and the pain that resulted.”

Read the rest…

Brain Aneurysm Study Identifies Structural, Immune Markers of Rupture Risk

According to some estimates, stroke is the second leading cause of death globally. One of the causes of a severe type of stroke are brain aneurysms. Now data from a new study suggests that certain cells in the brain may cause aneurysms to weaken and rupture. And it helps explain why some aneurysms burst while others do not. It also opens a door to new ways of potentially predicting and preventing strokes. All of the findings are covered in a new Nature Neuroscience paper titled “Cerebrovascular vulnerability and fibrosis in human brain aneurysms.”

Brain aneurysms, which are bulges in blood vessels in the brain, can go unnoticed for years before rupturing causing a severe, often deadly type of stroke. About one in 50 people in the U.S. has a brain aneurysm but predicting which ones are most dangerous remains challenging. Aneurysms can be repaired surgically or using other minimally invasive procedures but those decisions depend on the size and location of the aneurysm as well as patient specific risk factors. With the current study, “we’ve made major steps toward solving the mystery of how aneurysms form,” said Ethan Winkler, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurological surgeon and senior author of the Nature Neuroscience study. “We’ve identified the cast of characters involved and seen which ones are implicated at different phases of disease.”

To get to those answers, Winkler and his team analyzed more than 100,000 individual cells from human aneurysms and healthy brain arteries. From these data, they identified 19 transcriptionally distinct cell types and determined which genes were active in each. They also mapped how the cells were organized within the blood vessel wall.

“Our atlas of human brain aneurysms, as well as cell-resolution spatial transcriptomics, revealed that pathological cerebrovascular remodeling occurs with the loss of structurally supportive smooth muscle cells and the emergence of activated perivascular fibroblasts, which re-populate the vascular wall and express multiple genes linked to aneurysm risk,” the scientists wrote. 

Specifically, they found that vessels in aneurysm tissue had disorganized layers, and that many of the smooth muscle cells that allows the vessel walls to expand and contract had disappeared. In their place were scar-forming fibroblasts, which the team dubbed “activated fibroblasts.” These stiffened the arterial wall, making it less able to flex as blood flowed through. These cells also expressed genes that are linked to an inherited risk of aneurysm. The scientists also identified a type of macrophage that accumulated inside the arterial wall near the fibroblasts. The data showed that these specialized macrophages express a gene that is typically associated with bone tissue. 

Further testing revealed the presence of a feedback look between the two cell types. Specifically, the activated fibroblasts release a signal that triggers the macrophages to produce enzymes that degrade the blood vessel’s structural support. The scientists confirmed that this was the case by blocking the signals sent to the macrophages. They observed that the macrophages were less likely to produce the destructive enzymes when the signal was blocked. 

This process where vessel walls lose muscle cells followed by the buildup of scar tissue and immune cell activation helps explain why smaller aneurysms, which are often considered low risk, can still rupture. It jibes with Winkler’s own clinical experiences. He noted that more than half of the ruptures that he treated early in his career occurred in aneurysms below the typical surgical threshold of seven millimeters.  

This study brings scientists and clinicians one step closer to understanding how aneurysms form and perhaps being able to intervene earlier to prevent them. As the scientists note in the paper, “the molecular blueprint provided by this study substantially extends our mechanistic understanding of brain aneurysms and nominates new cells and pathways with translational promise for the development of therapeutic options.” This could involve blocking the signals that fibroblasts send or by inhibiting the immune response to those signals.               

The post Brain Aneurysm Study Identifies Structural, Immune Markers of Rupture Risk appeared first on GEN – Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.