Gut Bacteria Found to Soak Up Toxic Forever Chemicals
A new study by an international team of researchers has shown how several species of human gut bacteria can absorb and store PFAS. Potentially, boosting these types of bacteria in our bodies could stop the chemicals from negatively impacting our health.
"We found that certain species of human gut bacteria have a remarkably high capacity to soak up PFAS from their environment at a range of concentrations, and store these in clumps inside their cells," says Kiran Patil, a molecular biologist from the University of Cambridge in the UK.
"Due to aggregation of PFAS in these clumps, the bacteria themselves seem protected from the toxic effects."
Related:
Through detailed lab tests, the researchers found a total of 38 different gut bacterial strains able to absorb forever chemicals at a variety of concentrations, with the fiber-degrading bacterium Bacteroides uniformis one of the best at the job.
In experiments with Escherichia coli, the team also discovered certain mechanisms that could make bacteria more or less effective at taking on board PFAS – something that will be useful if this absorption can be bioengineered in the future.
The researchers found that PFAS were effectively locked away in the bacteria that could handle the chemicals, the bacteria clustering together in a way that reduces their surface area and possibly protects the microorganisms from being harmed themselves.
Further tests on mice with nine of these bacteria species implanted in their guts showed that the microbes were able to quickly absorb PFAS, which was excreted from the mice through their feces. As levels of forever chemicals increased, the microbes worked harder at soaking them up.
"The reality is that PFAS are already in the environment and in our bodies, and we need to try and mitigate their impact on our health now," says molecular biologist Indra Roux from the University of Cambridge.
"We haven't found a way to destroy PFAS, but our findings open the possibility of developing ways to get them out of our bodies where they do the most harm."
PFAS are found in everything from cosmetics to drinking water to food packaging, and have become embedded in so many manufacturing processes that it would now be almost impossible to avoid them completely. What's less clear is the harm they might be doing to our bodies, though they've already been linked to a number of health issues – including kidney damage.
The bacteria's ability to remove PFAS from human bodies remains to be seen. It is possible, the researchers say, that probiotic dietary supplements may be developed to boost the right mix of gut microbes and help safely clear out PFAS from our systems.
"Given the scale of the problem of PFAS 'forever chemicals', particularly their effects on human health, it's concerning that so little is being done about removing these from our bodies," says Patil.
The research has been published in Nature Microbiology.
Gene Therapy Can Restore Hearing in Adults, First-of-Its-Kind Trial Shows
Cheese May Actually Fuel Nightmares, Surprising Study Confirms
New Weight-Loss Drugs Under Scrutiny Amid Pancreas Concerns
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The gym bro supplement that may be a game changer for women in midlife
Until recently, creatine supplements was almost exclusively used by athletes and bodybuilders looking to enhance performance and pack on muscle mass. But now there is a surprising rapidly growing market for it: middle aged women. While Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson still puts in his protein shake to 'put on size,' Ivanka Trump revealed earlier this year she takes a dose with her morning smoothie. From fitness influencers on TikTok to health experts, the chalky powder is now being touted for a range of benefits for women. So, what exactly is creatine and does the science back up the hype? 'Creatine is a natural compound that comes from three amino acids – arginine, glycine, and methionine,' Dr. Rupa Parmar, a physician and Director at Midland Health, tells The Independent. 'It's stored mainly in our muscles to help produce energy.' While small amounts come from foods like red meat and fish, our bodies also make about a gram each day. Most women don't get the recommended three to five grams per day from food, Rupar said, and supplementation may help. 'Women naturally have much lower creatine stores than men and usually eat less of it in their diet, so they may actually benefit more from taking creatine to boost their levels,' he added. Creatine's rise as a go-to supplement can be traced to 1992 when British sprinter Linford Christie and hurdler Sally Gunnell, both vocal about its use, won gold at the Barcelona Olympics. Glossy fitness magazines began branding it a 'breakthrough'; a 1998 article in Fortune magazine called the compound 'nature's steroid'; a Los Angeles Times headline blared, 'Power powder.' While much of its early reputation focused on muscle-building and workout recovery, research suggests creatine's benefits may extend beyond the gym. Creatine has been linked to improved memory, brain health, depression treatment and increased energy. 'It can even support brain health, with studies suggesting the substance helps to improve cognitive function and provide some protection as we age,' Rupar said. A preliminary study by the University of Kansas Medical Center on people with Alzheimer's found that creatine supplements may improve memory and executive function. Creatine may also offer benefits tied to hormonal fluctuations. 'Creatine can help ease fatigue during your period by supporting stable energy levels,' Rupar continued, 'especially when you're feeling more tired.' Oestrogen and progesterone, hormones that regulate the menstrual cycle, influence how the body produces and uses creatine, he explained. 'During the menstrual cycle, creatine levels can change, and supplements may help keep energy and muscle function more stable, especially when oestrogen is low,' Rupar said. For women approaching or going through menopause, creatine appears especially promising as it may help counteract declines in muscle mass, strength, and bone density, particularly when combined with resistance training. One 12-month study found that creatine reduced the loss of bone mineral density in 47 postmenopausal women. For all its potential upsides, creatine isn't without drawbacks. One of the most common complaints is bloating: because it saturates the muscles, it may cause water retention, which sometimes leads to a bloated feeling and a few extra pounds on the scale from water weight. Still, studies have repeatedly shown creatine to be safe for most healthy adults when taken at recommended doses. Experts advise consulting a healthcare provider before starting, especially for those with kidney conditions or who are on medication.
Vogue
2 hours ago
- Vogue
The In-Office Treatment That Builds Long-Lasting Collagen
I've always followed the skincare holy trinity: good nutrition, adequate sleep, and lots of SPF. But when I turned 35, I started to think about something that had never crossed my mind before: skin laxity. I found myself examining my face in the mirror more closely. Is that a new wrinkle? Am I getting jowls? Suddenly, my daily collagen drinks didn't seem like enough. Last week, I finally decided to undergo my first in-office treatment. No, I didn't get Botox or fillers. Instead, I went with something non-invasive that promised to address my biggest concern: collagen loss. My treatment of choice? Thermage FLX, which is FDA-approved and marketed as one of the most powerful in-office radiofrequency treatments on the market. According to one recent scientific analysis that looked at 52 surveys among dermatologists, Thermage FLX was considered 57.4% more effective than older Thermage devices. I figured that if it was good enough for Jennifer Aniston and Gwyneth Paltrow, it was good enough for me. What is Thermage FLX? Thermage FLX is a non-invasive monopolar radiofrequency treatment that 'ensures stimulation of endogenous collagen with just one treatment,' says Dr. Óscar Suárez, founder and medical director of Barcelona's MD Cliniques. He says it's so effective that a once-a-year treatment is enough for most people. But what exactly makes Thermage FLX so effective? 'It's specially designed to reverse skin flaccidity and improve wrinkles and expression lines,' explains Dr. Maria Dolores Antón, an aesthetic doctor and the medical director of Antón Clinic in Valencia, Spain. 'It tightens and firms the skin through an extremely precise delivery of energy. The device can be used to treat all areas that show the effects of flaccidity: cheeks, eyelids, jawline, bags, buttocks, arms, abdomen, knees, and thighs.' How does Thermage FLX work? Basically, Thermage FLX emits low-frequency electromagnetic waves to generate heat below the surface of the skin. 'The heat penetrates deep into the skin to stimulate the production of collagen, which is responsible for tissue tightening, rejuvenation, and improved elasticity,' explains board certified dermatologist Dr. Tanya Kormeili, a clinical instructor at UCLA. 'Because collagen and elastin are essential for skin firmness and youthfulness, the more you build the more youthful your skin can be in theory,' she says. Thermage FLX heats the deepest layer of the skin to around 140°F to stimulate the fibroblast to increase collagen production. 'Thermage FLX acts directly on the deep dermis in a very specific way: It causes shrinkage of old collagen and gives a message to the fibroblast to generate new, high-quality collagen,' Anton says.
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
How sensationalized headlines about 'brain plastic' are undermining trust in safe, sustainable materials
Earlier this year, a terrifying claim swept headlines and social media: "You have a spoon's worth of plastic in your brain." The warning, based on a study published in Nature Medicine, set off a cultural firestorm, dominating news cycles, TikToks and dinner table conversations. It was the kind of phrase designed to go viral, and it did. But here's what didn't go viral: the follow-up. Experts later flagged the study for a critical flaw: To quantify microplastics in samples, the study relied on equipment with limitations in distinguishing plastics from other materials, leading to potential false positives. An independent expert noted: "The method is lauded for its ability to detect smaller micro- and nanoplastics than other methods can, but it will give you a lot of false positives if you do not adequately remove biological material from the sample. Most of the presumed plastic they found is polyethylene, which to me really indicates that they didn't really clean up their samples properly." The nuance, though important, didn't make the headlines. This highlights a broader issue: there's no globally standardized methods for the collection, detection and quantification of microplastics. Some microplastics studies may fail to identify whether the particle is a mineral, an organic material or something else, yet still misidentify them and claim they are microplastics. And without standardized methodologies for identifying and quantifying the different types of particles, it is difficult to generate reliable data and assess their true impact. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states, "While there are many studies on microplastics in food, the current state of science is limited in its ability to inform regulatory risk assessment… due to several factors, including a continued lack of standardized definitions, reference materials, sample collection and preparation procedures, and appropriate quality controls, to name a few." Yet recent coverage has prioritized drama over scientific nuance, creating confusion rather than clarity. Let's be clear: microplastics are real. Everyday life, from tire dust to synthetic fibers, produces these particles. They're in the environment and potentially our bodies. But presence alone doesn't constitute a crisis. The real question is what this means for human health and how to respond responsibly. The FDA has made clear that "current scientific evidence does not demonstrate that levels of microplastics or nanoplastics detected in foods pose a risk to human health." When we treat preliminary research as settled science – or worse, viral clickbait – we lose the ability to make smart decisions. This is particularly true in the case of materials like PET, the plastic used in food packaging, water bottles and medical supplies. PET is among the safest, most rigorously tested plastics, approved globally by regulators including the FDA and EFSA. Why is this misinformation dangerous? Because it undermines trust in safe and sustainable materials like PET, which is both lightweight and recyclable. According to life cycle assessments (LCA), a PET bottle produces significantly lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than alternative containers like glass bottles or aluminum cans, and requires less energy to produce. It enables safe hydration, reduces food waste and makes modern healthcare possible. Yet consumers increasingly question PET, not because science changed, but because headlines did. That disconnect carries real-world consequences. This is exactly why it is so important for our regulatory agencies to step up and address the lack of standardization in microplastics research and to develop methods and standards that allow for consistent and comparable results in research. Only then will we be able to have a more disciplined public conversation around microplastics that we can be confident is based on dependable evidence, and which stops the confusion of comparing apples to oranges. None of this is to dismiss the broader challenge of plastic pollution. Our industry – and society – must invest in better systems: smarter product design, stronger recycling infrastructure and more rigorous scientific research. But meaningful progress starts with clarity, not confusion. The public deserves facts. Not just headlines.
