Cancer has a dirty trick: it can put itself to sleep. When tumor cells slip into a kind of biological hibernation, they become hard to kill, shrugging off treatment and lying low until conditions improve, then waking up and bringing the disease back. For decades, researchers have struggled to shut down this hiding strategy without causing serious harm elsewhere in the body. A team in Switzerland has now built a molecule that flips on and off with flashes of light, giving scientists a precise new way to probe, and possibly disrupt, the way sleeping cancer cells hide.
Behind this cellular sleep state, at least in certain cancers, sits a protein called the glucocorticoid receptor, a sensor inside cells that reacts to stress hormones. When it switches on, it can push cancer cells, especially in some solid tumors such as lung cancer, into a drug-resistant, dormant state. The obvious fix would be to destroy the receptor outright, but there is a catch: the same receptor does important jobs all over the body, including calming inflammation. Removing it everywhere would cause real damage. What was needed was a way to hit the receptor inside a tumor and leave the rest of the body alone.
That is what the team set out to build. Their solution, described in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is a class of molecules called photoPROTACs: drug-like compounds engineered to destroy the stress hormone receptor, but only when a specific color of light switches them on. Shine the right light on them, and they go to work. Keep them in the dark, and they stay idle.
It helps to know what a PROTAC is. A PROTAC is a molecule that grabs onto a specific protein inside a cell and tags it for destruction by the cell’s own waste-disposal system. It works like slapping a “delete me” sticky note on an unwanted protein. PROTACs have stirred huge excitement in medicine because they can eliminate proteins that ordinary drugs cannot touch.
Conventional PROTACs have a problem: they are always on. Once taken, they work throughout the entire body, destroying their target in cancer cells and healthy cells alike. For a receptor this important to normal health, that is a dealbreaker.
To get around it, the team embedded a light-sensitive part directly into the PROTAC molecule. By adding a chemical structure that physically changes shape depending on the wavelength of light hitting it, they created a molecular switch. In one shape, called the E-form, the molecule has the right geometry to do its job and destroy the receptor. In the other, the Z-form, it bends into a configuration that leaves it far less active. The switch runs both ways: one wavelength turns the molecule on, another turns it off.
Researchers built and tested several versions of these light-switchable molecules, hunting for the best balance of stability and responsiveness. Two lead compounds, KH-5-306 and KH-5-309, stood out. Both flipped almost completely between their active and inactive shapes under different wavelengths of light and showed no signs of wearing out after repeated exposure.
Inside cells, both compounds destroyed the stress hormone receptor in their active E-form at very low doses. Switched to the inactive Z-form, the effect dropped sharply, though the inactive form still held on to some activity. Because the Z-form naturally drifts back toward the active E-form at body temperature, researchers kept it locked in place during experiments by hitting the cells with brief bursts of ultraviolet light every 30 minutes, a lab-only workaround they confirmed did not harm the cells or disturb the biology under study, and not a method meant for patients.
Additional tests confirmed the receptor destruction ran through the cell’s normal disposal machinery: when a separate inhibitor blocked that machinery, the photoPROTACs stopped working. The compounds also left a closely related receptor alone, even at higher doses, a sign the molecules were hitting their intended target and not damaging look-alikes. And the effect proved temporary. When the active compound was washed away after 12 hours, receptor levels started climbing back within 24.
With the chemistry checked, researchers moved to a test closer to real medicine. They took human lung cancer cells and treated them with dexamethasone, a common steroid that switches on the glucocorticoid receptor and nudges these cells into a dormancy-like state. That setup mirrors a real problem: dexamethasone is routinely given to cancer patients to manage inflammation and treatment side effects, yet it may quietly push tumor cells toward this drug-resistant sleep.
After confirming that dexamethasone triggered the expected dormancy response, the team tested whether the lead photoPROTAC, KH-5-309, could reverse it. Cells treated with the active E-form saw the dormancy-linked gene activity roll back toward normal, and a sweep across thousands of genes confirmed the shift toward a more active state. By contrast, the inactive Z-form left those genes essentially untouched, behaving in this experiment as a neutral control on par with no treatment at all.
Researchers are candid about the limits. The biggest obstacle to reaching real patients is the kind of light involved. The wavelengths that switch these compounds on do not travel far into living tissue, so the current version could not reach a tumor buried deep in the body. Developing compounds that respond to longer, redder wavelengths, such as near-infrared light that penetrates tissue more deeply, is a key goal for future work rather than a solved problem.
For now, the strongest promise is in the lab: studying cancer biology in cell cultures, tissue slices, and lab-grown miniature organs called organoids, where light can be aimed precisely and repeatedly. Those tools give scientists a way to study how stress hormone signaling drives cancer behavior that existing drugs cannot match.
Cancer’s ability to play dead has long been one of the most frustrating barriers to lasting cures. This is early-stage work, years from any use in the clinic, but a well-aimed flash of light that disrupts cancer’s hiding strategy is the kind of proof-of-concept result that hands researchers a fresh grip on a stubborn problem.
Scientists claim that for the first time in history, they have constructed a synthetic cell that feeds, grows, and replicates — just like a natural one — out of non-living chemical components.
The team from the University of Minnesota says their “SpudCell” is the “first synthetic cell with a complete cell cycle,” and can “grow, replicate its genome, divide, and undergo selection and competition across multiple generations.”
The research, which is being hailed as a major breakthrough, could usher in a new biotech era defined by synthetic organisms that can be grown from scratch and programmed to complete specific functions. It’s a futuristic approach that could open many doors for our efforts to solve a wide variety of human problems, from fighting cancer to capturing carbon.
It could also challenge our preconceived notions of what’s considered “life,” while exploring the essential functions of a living cell.
“We’ve replicated in chemistry what only used to be possible in biology: the complete set of behaviors of a cell,” said team lead and University of Minnesota synthetic biologist Kate Adamala in a statement about the work. “It proves that the most fundamental functions of life, like growth and replication, do not need a mysterious magical spark.”
Yet the research is still in its infancy. SpudCell is still primitive, most closely resembling a bacterium. But since it’s built from scratch, the team says it has some key advantages over natural cells.
“I know the full ingredient list of the cell, I know exactly what chemicals, what molecules at what concentrations,” Adamala told CNN. “It is fully defined, which means we can engineer it.”
“We’re hoping we’re really starting the true age of bioeconomy, enabling technology that will let people engineer biology,” she added.
As detailed in a preprint paper that’ll be submitted for publication this week, SpudCell is made up of anywhere from 150 to 200 molecules. While it can feed, grow and replicate across roughly five generations, it’s orders of magnitude simpler than a natural cell, which can hold billions of molecules.
Adamala called the construct an “incredibly wimpy organism that right now basically does nothing other than to eat and occasionally make a daughter cell.”
To get it to replicate once every 12 hours or so, scientists have to feed it externally while holding it at 86 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s a lot slower than natural bacteria, like E. coli, which divides every 30 minutes, as CNN points out.
It also can’t produce its own proteins, meaning that scientists have to feed it regularly.
Put simply, SpudCell is far from self-sufficient.
“It’s just the beginning,” Adamala told CNN. “It’s a chassis that we’re hoping to build on, and that’s significant, because now we actually can have some reasonable idea of how to build on it.”
Whether SpudCell actually constitutes what we refer to as “life” remains hotly debated, with experts arguing it can’t evolve on its own without the laborious care of its makers.
“I would say Kate has constructed a cell,” Stanford University associate professor of bioengineering Drew Endy, who founded a public-benefit institution alongside Adamala, told CNN. “I don’t think she’s created life.”
“However, does it promise a future where more people will be able to build cells?” he added. “Yes.”
Others were more open to the idea that the researchers had made a major step towards creating synthetic life.
“Kate Adamala’s team designed and built a nonliving synthetic cell that is much closer to being ‘alive’ than anything else produced by the bottom-up synthetic cell field,” J. Craig Venter Institute synthetic cell researcher John Glass, who was not involved in the research, told the New York Times.
For more than a year, residents living next to the Vantage Data Centers facility have endured what they describe as a constant, high-pitched whining or ringing sound coming from the site’s massive backup generators – the facility’s only source of electricity.
Unlike most data centers connected to the power grid, this facility runs entirely on its own on-site power plant. What residents were told would be temporary generator testing has become permanent operation.
Neighbor Hari Doue told News Nation that the community was initially assured the generators were only being tested for emergencies.
“We were told in the beginning that they test the generators to make sure they’re working in case of an emergency. And then as the year and the months have gone on, they’re just never turned off,” Doue said.
Another neighbor, Greg Pirio, has reached out to attorneys over the issue. He described the impact bluntly:
“You just hear this noise, it’s just like, you just want to curse, you know, it’s that bad.”
Some residents have taken drastic steps to cope. One placed a mattress against their window to muffle the sound. Another installed plexiglass and began monitoring decibel levels with a sound meter. Concerns center on sleep disruption, stress, and falling property values.
Vantage Data Centers officials told NewsNation they continue to monitor noise levels and do not believe the sound exceeds Loudoun County’s limits – which is 55 decibels in Residential and rural areas and 60 decibels in Mixed-use residential areas. Exceptions include generators operating during emergencies, at utility request, or during testing.
Virginia has the largest concentration of data centers in the United States – 287 operational and 398 prospective, according to Pew Research. Loudoun County has become ground zero for this boom, often called “Data Center Alley.”
The economic upside is significant. Data centers generate almost half of Loudoun County’s property tax revenues, funding schools and public services while helping keep residential tax rates lower.
However, the facilities consumed approximately 26% of Virginia’s total electricity in 2023, contributing to higher energy costs for all residents.
The situation in Sterling reflects a broader national tension. On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued show-cause orders requiring major grid operators to justify or update rules for connecting large energy users such as data centers.
President Trump has encouraged data center developers to build dedicated on-site power sources – the exact model used by Vantage in Sterling – to protect regular utility customers from rate hikes.
Residents near the Vantage site acknowledge the benefits of data centers, including jobs, tax revenue, and essential digital infrastructure, but strongly object to their placement directly next to homes.
“Do everything in your power to try and stop it from being built in an area that has any residential properties within 10 or 15 miles of it,” said Doue.
The people with the most direct exposure to AI return the lowest positive score in the entire survey, meaning that the heaviest users are the most hostile. ⁃ Patrick Wood Editor.
Not that anyone in power is going to care, but there’s even more evidence that Americans are coming to overwhelmingly loathe AI — despite, or perhaps because, they’re using chatbots more than ever.
In a sweeping new poll conducted by Pew Research, only 16 percent of respondents said they believed AI will have a positive impact on society — a number as dismal as the perception of the tech.
Meanwhile, 49 percent of adults say they use AI chatbots like ChatGPT, which remains the most popular by a considerable margin, with a quarter saying they use the tools daily. That proportion is considerably higher than the 33 percent of American adults who said they used AI chatbots in 2024.
In other words, the tech’s widespread adoption isn’t helping its perception. A full 40 percent of respondents said they anticipate AI will have a negative impact on society, and 31 percent said it will impact them personally in a negative way, too.
This varies quite a bit by age. Gen Z adults, ages 18 to 29, were the most wary of AI, with 48 percent believing it’ll be negative for society. Yet they’re also the group that reported using AI the most, at 66 percent.
Interestingly, the 30-49 year olds and the 50-and-up brackets are more closely aligned, at 39 percent and 37 percent respectively viewing it as negative. They’re using AI less, though the dropoff between their usage is significant: 61 percent of 30-49 year olds said they used AI chatbots, while only 42 percent of 50-64 year olds did. It was less than a quarter for 65 years and older.
What’s driving this gap between perception and usage is unclear. You could argue that some feel compelled to use it, even when recognizing the tech’s shortcomings and the ethical dubiousness of the industry that’s building it. In fact, many are literally forced to use it at work, with bosses often more enthusiastic about the tech than workers are.
In any case, it’s a real problem for AI’s long-term staying power. Right now the industry is being propelled by hype and the mountains of cash that’re being pumped into it, while profits remain elusive. If no one likes AI years or decades from now, will there be enough customers to keep the industry running?
Login