Publication date: Available online 9 September 2026
Source: Cell
Author(s): Marta Grońska-Pęski, Victoria Acosta-Rodríguez, Amoolya Srinivasa, Amanda Garrido, Shany Picciotto, Carla B. Green, Joseph S. Takahashi, Jonathan E. Shoag, Gilad D. Evrony
For years, many women have faced a confusing message about menopause hormone therapy. It can be extremely effective for hot flashes and night sweats, yet older research created fears that the same treatment might harm the heart. A new U.S. study offers a more detailed picture. Researchers found that women with menopause symptoms who started […]
The post Menopause Hormone Therapy May Protect Heart Health appeared first on Knowridge Science Report.
For decades, one of the biggest problems in pain medicine has been surprisingly simple: the strongest medicines often come with the greatest risks. Opioids can make severe pain manageable, but they can also cause dependence, addiction, overdose and troublesome side effects. A new drug called LTG-001 is being developed to see whether powerful pain relief […]
The post A New Way to Stop Pain Without Opioids appeared first on Knowridge Science Report.
Losing weight is one challenge, but keeping it off while maintaining a healthy diet can be even harder. New research suggests that a Mediterranean-inspired eating plan redesigned for the American South can help adults maintain weight loss for two years while improving the nutritional quality of their diets. The program is called Med-South and was […]
The post Healthy Southern Diet Could Maintain Weight Loss appeared first on Knowridge Science Report.
A person being treated for heart disease may also have a hidden problem in the kidneys. New European guidelines say doctors should look for that connection much earlier, because damage to the heart and kidneys can feed into each other and increase the risk of serious illness. The European Society of Cardiology developed the new […]
The post Why Heart Patients May Need Their Kidneys Checked Too appeared first on Knowridge Science Report.
Fatty liver disease is extremely common, and many people have it without knowing. For years, it was often treated as a problem mainly involving the liver, especially when patients had no obvious symptoms. A new scientific review argues that this view may be too narrow. Researchers led by the University of Manchester and Northern Care […]
The post Symptomless Liver Problem Linked to Heart and Kidney Disease appeared first on Knowridge Science Report.
Parkinson’s disease has long been a diagnosis of observation and inference. Doctors watched for tremor, rigidity, and slowness of movement, and only at autopsy could the telltale clumps of alpha-synuclein protein—the pathological signature of the disease—be confirmed inside the brain. That diagnostic fog may finally be lifting. A new five-year study drawing on the landmark Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) has followed patients whose disease was defined not by their symptoms alone, but by biology: a positive cerebrospinal fluid seed amplification assay, the test that detects misfolded alpha-synuclein circulating in the nervous system. The results, published in Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology, offer one of the clearest longitudinal pictures yet of how biologically confirmed Parkinson’s disease actually progresses in the era of modern treatment—and the findings are already reshaping how scientists think about staging, enrollment in clinical trials, and the very definition of the disease.
The research team set out with two central questions. First, what happens clinically to patients who test positive for synuclein seeding in their spinal fluid over five years of careful observation? Second, does a patient’s baseline stage on a new biological staging system—the Neuronal Synuclein Disease Integrated Staging System, or NSD-ISS—predict how quickly they will cross meaningful clinical milestones? Both questions cut to the heart of a quiet revolution in neurology. For more than a century, Parkinson’s was classified by what patients looked like in the examination room. Now, thanks to validated biomarkers, researchers can classify it by what is happening at the molecular level, potentially years before disabling symptoms emerge.
The seed amplification assay, or SAA, is the technological engine behind this shift. The test exploits a peculiar property of misfolded alpha-synuclein: it acts as a template that recruits normal, healthy synuclein proteins and forces them to misfold as well, seeding the aggregates known as Lewy bodies that riddle the brains of Parkinson’s patients. In the laboratory, a tiny sample of cerebrospinal fluid is mixed with synthetic alpha-synuclein and monitored for hours. If pathological seeds are present, the reaction accelerates into a detectable fluorescence signal. The assay has been validated across multiple international cohorts and, critically, against postmortem brain tissue, giving neurologists a window into pathology they previously could only glimpse after death. A complementary technique—detecting phosphorylated alpha-synuclein in small skin biopsies—has added a second, less invasive line of biological evidence.
Armed with these tools, two research groups have proposed frameworks for redefining Parkinson’s disease biologically. The SynNeurGe criteria classify patients by the combined presence of pathological alpha-synuclein biomarkers, neuroimaging evidence of neurodegeneration, and disease-relevant genetic variants. The Neuronal Synuclein Disease criteria take a parallel approach, defining disease by the presence of pathological synuclein as measured by a validated biomarker, with or without evidence of dopaminergic dysfunction detected through dopamine transporter imaging. The integrated staging system then arranges these biological anchors along a seven-stage ladder: Stage 0 reserved for carriers of fully penetrant mutations in the SNCA gene; Stages 1A and 1B for people with synuclein pathology but no symptoms, depending on whether dopaminergic dysfunction is present; Stages 2A and 2B for those with subtle signs that stop short of functional impairment; and Stages 3 through 6 capturing progressively severe clinical disability.
PPMI, the international observational study launched in 2010, provided the ideal laboratory for testing whether this staging framework means anything in the real world. The researchers focused on the sporadic Parkinson’s cohort: participants diagnosed within two years of enrollment who had never taken dopaminergic medication, whose examinations showed cardinal motor features, and whose dopamine transporter scans confirmed the characteristic deficit in the striatum. Crucially, the team selected only those participants who met biological NSD criteria through a positive CSF seed amplification assay, recruited before 2020 to guarantee at least five years of follow-up. This design deliberately stripped away a longstanding source of noise in Parkinson’s research: the clinical heterogeneity that arises when a “Parkinson’s” diagnosis might actually encompass unrelated neurodegenerative processes that mimic the disease but follow entirely different biological courses.
Over the five-year observation window, participants underwent an unusually thorough annual workup. Motor and non-motor function was tracked with the Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale across all four of its parts, alongside the Hoehn and Yahr staging scale and the Schwab and England activities of daily living score. Smell was measured with the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test, autonomic function with the SCOPA-AUT, mood with the Geriatric Depression Scale, and REM sleep behavior disorder risk with a dedicated screening questionnaire. Cognition was assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and, from the study’s third year onward, formal clinician diagnoses of normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment, or dementia. Medication burden was quantified as levodopa equivalent daily dose, and dopamine transporter imaging was repeated at years one, two, and four, quantified both in the putamen—the region most affected in Parkinson’s—and across the striatum as a whole.
The broad message from the five-year trajectories is one of measurable, biologically anchored progression. Patients recruited as freshly diagnosed, biologically confirmed sporadic Parkinson’s patients showed the expected decline across motor scales and dopaminergic imaging, with the earlier PPMI analysis by Simuni and colleagues having already documented significant—though modest—correlation between worsening clinical scores and falling DAT binding over five years. What the new analysis adds is the biological filter: by restricting the cohort to synuclein-seeding-positive individuals, the study reduces the contamination from look-alike conditions that has historically muddied progression estimates. When a cohort is defined by its underlying pathology rather than its outward symptoms, the resulting disease course becomes a truer reflection of what alpha-synuclein itself does to the nervous system over time.
Perhaps the most consequential findings concern prediction. If the NSD-ISS staging system is to earn its place in research clinics and, eventually, in therapeutic trials, it must do more than organize patients neatly on a page—it must forecast what comes next. The study analyzed whether a patient’s baseline stage predicted survival and the time required to reach clinically meaningful disease milestones: crossing thresholds on the clinical rating scales, advancing in Hoehn and Yahr stage, slipping in daily living independence, or developing cognitive impairment. The logic is straightforward and powerful. A patient sitting at Stage 2B—with confirmed synuclein pathology, dopaminergic dysfunction, and subtle signs but no functional impairment—should, in theory, march down the staging ladder at a predictable pace. Demonstrating that baseline stage genuinely stratifies risk would give trial designers a rational tool for enrichment, allowing them to recruit patients at the stage where a candidate drug is most likely to show benefit.
That trial-design implication is not academic. Across neurodegenerative disease research, therapeutic development is pivoting decisively toward biomarker-defined enrollment. The bitter lessons of Alzheimer’s trials—where anti-amyloid therapies only proved effective once trials recruited based on biological confirmation rather than syndrome alone—have not been lost on the Parkinson’s community. Drugs targeting alpha-synuclein directly, whether through immunotherapy, aggregation inhibition, or other mechanisms, are entering trials that increasingly require positive seed amplification assays or other biological confirmation as a gate for entry. A validated staging system that predicts five-year trajectory would allow sponsors to select participants early enough in the disease process for neuroprotective strategies to matter, while reserving later-stage patients for symptomatic interventions. The five-year PPMI data provide exactly the kind of naturalistic benchmark that such enrichment strategies demand.
The study also marks a conceptual milestone: the description of Parkinson’s disease under contemporary management. Patients diagnosed today are treated differently than those diagnosed twenty years ago, and their disease course may differ as a result. Describing outcomes in a biologically defined, prospectively observed cohort establishes a modern baseline against which future disease-modifying therapies can be judged. When an experimental drug claims to slow progression, the comparison will be against trajectories like those documented here—precise, biomarker-anchored, and free of the diagnostic uncertainty that plagued earlier natural history studies. In that sense, the paper functions simultaneously as a clinical report and as a foundation stone for the next generation of Parkinson’s trials.
What emerges from five years of watching synuclein-positive patients is a disease that can now be seen, staged, and tracked before it fully announces itself. The combination of CSF seed amplification assays, dopamine transporter imaging, and structured clinical assessment has converted a syndrome defined in the examination room into a biological disease measurable in the laboratory. If the staging system validated in this cohort continues to predict who declines fastest and who reaches milestones soonest, neurologists may one day tell a newly diagnosed patient not only what they have, but with unprecedented confidence what lies ahead—and researchers may finally test neuroprotective drugs in the early biological window where they stand the best chance of changing the story. For a disease that has resisted precise definition since James Parkinson first described it in 1817, that is a transformation worth watching.
Article Title: Five-Year Disease Progression in Synuclein Seeding Positive Sporadic Parkinson’s Disease
Article References: Gonzalez‐Latapi, P., Gochanour, C., Choi, S. H., Cho, H., Caspell‐Garcia, C., Coffey, C., Brumm, M., Lafontant, D.-E., Xiao, Y., Tropea, T., Seibyl, J., Tanner, C., Venuto, C. S., Kieburtz, K., Chahine, L. M., Poston, K. L., Siderowf, A., Marek, K., Simuni, T., & The Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (2026). Five‐Year Disease Progression in Synuclein Seeding Positive Sporadic Parkinson's Disease. Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology, 13(9), 1791-1806. https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.70323
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1002/acn3.70323
Keywords: Parkinson’s disease, alpha-synuclein, seed amplification assay, Neuronal Synuclein Disease, NSD-ISS staging, PPMI, biomarkers, dopamine transporter imaging, disease progression
If you've worked in cybersecurity for as long as I have, then you'll know there are a couple of things you can count on. First, the threats that are out there never stop evolving. And second, sooner or later, you're going to be in the bullseye.
What makes life so much harder today is that AI and other automated tools have dramatically narrowed the gap between vulnerability discovery and the time it takes to exploit them.
And when this can now be measured in minutes – seconds, even – you know you have a problem. This fundamental change in the way adversaries operate means we no longer have the luxury of time to understand an attack, assess the risk and decide what to do next.
Which means we have to be better prepared and have resiliency for whatever is thrown at us.
For me, that starts with accepting a simple reality: you cannot defend what you cannot see. And it’s why visibility is one of the most important capabilities an organization can develop.
After all, if you understand what exists within your environment – how those systems interact and what normal looks like – then you're in a much stronger position to identify unusual behavior before it develops into something more serious.
Observability, on the other hand, takes that visibility to the next level. It provides the context security teams need to make informed decisions quickly, especially when time is working against them.
In other words, visibility tells you what is happening, while observability helps you understand why it's happening.
And that’s crucial. Today's organizations operate across on-premises infrastructure, cloud environments, networks, and an increasing number of connected technologies.
As those environments become more distributed, understanding what's happening across them becomes significantly harder.
Without that visibility, it's difficult to understand where your risks are, how systems interact, or where an attacker may be able to exploit a weakness.
Which leads me neatly onto my next point. Throughout my career, including my time working in offensive cyber operations in the intelligence community, I've found that the most effective way to understand risk is to think like the adversary.
I start by asking how someone would attack an organization and then work backwards to identify and close gaps.
That’s because attackers don't see organizations in the way that you or I might do. They’re always on the hunt for a toehold in. They look for weaknesses in people, processes and technologies.
They look for the easiest route first to achieve their objective. And then they exploit that weakness.
And it’s an approach I would urge all security leaders to adopt if they want to stay one step ahead.
That means continuously asking where an attacker would start, how they would move through the organization and what controls would slow them down or stop them altogether.
But for this to work, it also requires organizations to design resilience into the way they operate. And that’s something we’ve embedded across our organization.
For instance, we have internal and external teams that conduct continuous product, enterprise, spear-phishing and physical penetration testing.
For us, it's about educating the team across the business to ensure they remain vigilant. But it’s also about inoculating people so that when they see something suspicious online, they have that instinct that something might be wrong and they report it.
We also want to make it easy for people to report events so we can analyze them quickly and better understand the targeting.
We’ve also invested heavily in Secure by Design to ensure that all the products we deliver to customers are as secure as humanly possible. In practice, it means being able to trace every piece of code back to its source and verify its integrity throughout the development process.
It's similar to maintaining a chain of custody for evidence. We want to know exactly where software components come from, how they're verified and how they're protected throughout the entire build process.
More broadly, Secure by Design is increasingly being adopted across our industry as organizations recognize the importance of software integrity, traceability and transparency throughout the development lifecycle.
This is important because, as I said at the beginning, there are two certainties in cybersecurity: threats will continue to evolve, and organizations will continue to be targeted. Businesses across the world must adapt quickly to the grim reality that a cybersecurity incident isn’t a matter of if, but a matter of when. And AI is supercharging the pace at which all this is happening and broadening the blast radius of any attack.
That’s why you need to understand your environment well enough to reduce unnecessary risk, detect malicious activity quickly and limit the blast radius when something does happen. Pair that with a clearly defined and tested plan for recovery and that's what robust cyber resilience looks like in practice.
We've featured the best endpoint protection software.
This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.
The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit
Diabetes can slowly damage nerves throughout the body, leaving some people with pain, burning, tingling, or numbness that can become difficult to manage. Now, scientists at UTHealth Houston have developed an experimental treatment that slowed and even reversed this type of nerve damage in mice. The research was published in Science Translational Medicine. Although the […]
The post New Treatment Reverses Nerve Damage in Diabetes appeared first on Knowridge Science Report.
A mammogram does more than search for suspicious lumps. It can also show whether a woman’s breasts contain a large amount of dense tissue, a feature that has long been associated with a higher chance of developing breast cancer. For many years, breast density was especially important because it could hide small tumors on mammograms. […]
The post Dense Breasts May Create a Hidden Cancer-Friendly Environment appeared first on Knowridge Science Report.
Air pollution is often discussed as a long-term health threat, but new research suggests the body may begin responding after only a few hours. Scientists at the University of Louisville found that about three hours of exposure to polluted air was linked to a small but measurable change in the way the nervous system controls […]
The post Just 3 Hours of Dirty Air Could Harm Your Heart appeared first on Knowridge Science Report.
Living with type 1 diabetes means making decisions about blood sugar every day. Even when people carefully count carbohydrates, use insulin correctly, and check their glucose regularly, their levels can still rise or fall unexpectedly. Researchers at Kaunas University of Technology, or KTU, are testing whether artificial intelligence could make these changes easier to anticipate. […]
The post AI Could Warn of Dangerous Blood Sugar Changes Before They Happen appeared first on Knowridge Science Report.
Pretty much every rocket company in the United States, save one, has embraced two fundamental tenets: reusability and diversification.
Most famously, SpaceX branched out from reusable rockets to pursue and dominate a growing spectrum of space services: cargo delivery, human spaceflight, satellite production, broadband, and, perhaps soon, orbital data centers and in-space manufacturing. Blue Origin is evolving from a pure rocket company into a satellite manufacturer, robotics developer, and, most recently, a potential competitor for SpaceX's Starlink network.
Rocket Lab used a different approach to diversify after achieving success with its small Electron launch vehicle. The company relocated its headquarters from New Zealand to Southern California, started building spacecraft and payloads, and then went on a spree of corporate acquisitions to expand into satellite communications and take on a new role as a merchant supplier of satellite components and sensors. It's now in a stage of advanced development of its partially reusable next-generation Neutron launch vehicle.
© United Launch Alliance
As IoT grapples with both legacy and modern technologies
Welcome to Edition 9.10 of the Rocket Report! This week we're celebrating a historic moment in Europe when a German rocket company successfully put its launch vehicle into orbit. Isar Aerospace became the first purely commercial European company to reach orbit, and impressively it did so on just its second launch attempt. How quickly can they scale up operations? How quickly will the second European launch firm reach this goal? Big questions, which for now we don't have answers to.
As always, we welcome reader submissions, and if you don't want to miss an issue, please subscribe using the box below (the form will not appear on AMP-enabled versions of the site). Each report will include information on small-, medium-, and heavy-lift rockets as well as a quick look ahead at the next three launches on the calendar.
Isar Aerospace takes a huge step forward. Isar Aerospace, founded in 2018 by three students at a German university, successfully launched a privately developed rocket into low-Earth orbit on Saturday from a Norwegian spaceport inside the Arctic Circle. The two-stage rocket, Spectrum, became the first fully commercial launch vehicle in Europe to reach orbit, Ars reports. With Saturday’s success, Isar becomes the clear leader among a pack of several European launch startups vying to inject some competition into Europe’s stagnant launch market.
© Isar Aerospace
What does it actually cost to throw away the future? For a retired solar panel in the United States, the answer is surprisingly small, and that small number is deciding where the panel ends up.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates it costs roughly $1 to $5 to landfill a silicon module and $15 to $45 to recycle one. Faced with that spread, most panel owners do the obvious thing. Fewer than 10% of decommissioned US panels are recycled.
That gap is worth naming, because it isn’t really about whether recycling is possible. It plainly is. The gap is about who pays, and when, and that turns out to be a very different kind of problem.
A solar panel is not a mysterious object. Roughly 75% of a crystalline silicon panel by weight is glass, with an aluminum frame, a junction box, silicon cells, and small amounts of copper and silver threaded through it. The trouble is that the parts worth money are the parts hardest to get at, and the part that’s easy to handle, the glass, is worth almost nothing on its own.
So the economics run backwards from what you’d hope. NREL’s own behavioral modeling of US modules through 2050 found that, under baseline conditions, about 80% end up landfilled, 1% reused, and 10% recycled. Landfilling wins not because anyone prefers it, but because it’s the option that clears at the lowest price on the day the panel comes down.
Contrast that with the European Union, where producer-responsibility mandates fold the cost of end-of-life handling into the product from the start. Under those rules, recycling a panel has been put at about $0.75 per panel, and EU recycling rates reach 95%. Same physics, same materials, wildly different outcome. The variable is policy, not chemistry.
Pulling the aluminum frame and the junction box off a panel is straightforward. The expensive step is what comes after: cleanly separating the glass from the silicon cells, then extracting the tiny quantities of silver and copper that sit inside. Those metals are where the recoverable value lives, and they are present in vanishingly small amounts. Silver sits at well under a tenth of a percent of a panel’s weight, yet it drives the recycling math.
Because clean separation is hard, many operations skip it. They shred the whole panel and sell the low-value glass cullet, capturing a fraction of what’s there. And the prize for doing the harder work isn’t large: an electrical engineer writing in The Conversation estimates the recoverable silver and copper in a single panel are worth only about $10 to $12, which is why recycling loses money under current processes. Layers glued together make the glass reclamation harder still.
The field’s own practitioners have been candid about the limits. As of 2022, Arizona State University’s Meng Tao, who works on PV recycling, told Chemical & Engineering News that “The recycling technologies we have today are still rudimentary.” That was an assessment of a young field, and the field has moved since. The same Conversation piece notes that advanced methods like salt etching can now recover over 99% of silver and 98% of silicon at high purity. The capability is arriving. Whether the economics arrive with it is the open question.
Which brings us to Cedartown. On January 29, 2026, SOLARCYCLE began commercial operations at a 255,000-square-foot plant that the company says recovers 96% of a panel’s material value and achieves 100% landfill diversion. According to CEO Suvi Sharma, the ” recycling facility in Cedartown represents a step-change in how we’re delivering end-of-life infrastructure.”
The more interesting move, to our eye, is what’s planned next door. SOLARCYCLE intends to feed the recovered glass into an adjacent solar-glass factory, with more than 80% of that plant’s planned 5 GW capacity already committed and first glass production slated for 2028. That vertical integration matters because it changes the value of the least-valuable material. If the glass has a buyer waiting rather than a landfill, the whole equation shifts. Sharma frames the ambition plainly: “The next phase of our growth is all about bringing solar recycling to industrial scale and delivering winning economics for our customers.” That’s a stated aim, not a demonstrated result, but it names the actual barrier: scale.
Not everyone is sold on the crush-and-separate approach. Terry Ko, chief operating officer of PV Circonomy, whose company markets a layer-by-layer alternative, has argued that “Once glass, silicon, metals, and polymers are reduced into mixed particles, contamination becomes a significant challenge regardless of the subsequent separation technology employed.” Ko has a commercial stake in that critique, and the trade coverage it appeared in noted the absence of industry-wide purity standards. Worth hearing, not yet settled.
All of this would be an academic argument if the panels weren’t coming. They are.
NREL’s Garvin Heath put the timing plainly: “Installations two decades ago are nearing their end of life, and that becomes a challenge for the waste industry.” Roughly one million tons of US panel waste is expected by 2030, and NREL’s global assessment projects the volume of retired modules could reach up to 80 million metric tons by 2050. That’s a forecast, not a certainty, but the trend line under it is firm: US utility-scale solar is set to add 70 GW of new solar capacity across 2026 and 2027. Every panel installed is a panel that will one day retire.
There’s also a supply-chain angle that reframes the whole thing. Several of the metals inside panels appear on US critical-minerals lists and are largely imported. Recovered silver, copper, and silicon are not just waste avoided; they’re domestic material that didn’t have to be dug up or shipped in. Heath’s argument is that the lead time here is long, so the work has to start early: “Because it takes a long time to develop technology and policy and solutions to dealing with end-of-life products, this is something we need to start to address today.”
The technology to recover most of a panel exists, salt etching hits high-purity numbers, and a plant in Georgia is now claiming near-total value recovery. What keeps most panels in the ground is that landfilling is cheap on the day the decision gets made, and the cost of recycling lands on whoever is holding the panel at end of life rather than on whoever profited from it at the start.
The EU’s $0.75-per-panel figure is the tell. When the cost is built in early and the value chain is closed, the same object that looks like expensive waste in one system looks like feedstock in another. Cedartown’s bet on selling its recovered glass next door is a private-sector version of the same logic: make the low-value material worth something, and the math stops fighting you.
The $1-to-$5 number isn’t telling us that recycling is too hard. It’s telling us who currently pays for the easy way out. Change that, through mandates, through scale, or through a buyer waiting on the other side of the shredder, and the cheap option stops being the only rational one.
The post Dropping a dead solar panel into a U.S. landfill costs $1 to $5, while recycling the same panel has been estimated at $15 to $45. That gap helps explain why most go into the ground, even though a plant that opened in Georgia this year says it recovers 96 percent of a panel’s material value. appeared first on Space Daily.
A study has found a possible link between vitamin B12 and inflammation in the body. People with higher levels of vitamin B12 in their blood tended to have lower levels of two important signs of inflammation. The research was published in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. The findings add to growing […]
The post Vitamin B12 May Help Keep Inflammation in Check appeared first on Knowridge Science Report.
Login