The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has an alternative definition of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances that excludes new herbicides, insecticides and fungicides, and says they pose no threat to human health.
A new study suggests that deep brain stimulation may do more than control movement disorders: it could also help repair social behavior disrupted by pain experienced early in life. In research published in Translational Psychiatry, Wan, Du, Yang and colleagues report that stimulating the brain’s anterior cingulate cortex alleviated social deficits associated with early-life pain. The proposed mechanism is a restoration of the balance between excitatory and inhibitory neural signals, a fundamental process that determines how brain circuits respond, adapt and communicate.
Early-life pain has effects that can extend far beyond the moment of injury or medical treatment. During development, the nervous system is rapidly building connections, refining sensory pathways and establishing the networks that support emotion and social behavior. Excessive or poorly regulated pain signals during this period may alter that process. Instead of remaining confined to pain-processing circuits, these changes can influence stress responses, emotional regulation and the ability to interact with other individuals later in life.
The anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC, is particularly important in this story. Located in the frontal region of the brain, it helps integrate emotional information with attention, motivation and decision-making. It is also involved in processing the unpleasantness of pain and in evaluating social experiences. Because the ACC sits at the intersection of pain, emotion and social behavior, disturbances in its activity could provide a neural explanation for why early-life pain is linked to later difficulties with social interaction.
At the cellular level, the brain depends on a delicate equilibrium between excitation and inhibition. Excitatory neurons generally increase the likelihood that neighboring cells will fire, while inhibitory neurons suppress or constrain that activity. This excitatory/inhibitory, or E/I, balance allows neural circuits to remain flexible without becoming either silent or excessively active. If excitation dominates, networks may become unstable and hypersensitive; if inhibition dominates, communication and behavioral responses may be weakened. The study connects social deficits after early-life pain with disruption of this balance in the ACC.
Deep brain stimulation offers a way to influence such malfunctioning circuits directly. The technique uses electrical pulses delivered through precisely positioned electrodes to modify activity in targeted brain regions. Although DBS is best known clinically for treating Parkinson’s disease, essential tremor and several other neurological conditions, researchers are increasingly investigating whether it can reshape circuits involved in mood, motivation and social behavior. The new findings place the ACC among the brain regions that may be responsive to this approach.
According to the study, stimulation of the ACC improved social abnormalities linked to early-life pain while also normalizing indicators of excitatory and inhibitory signaling. This is important because it suggests that the behavioral improvement was not simply a generalized effect of activating the brain. Instead, the intervention may have acted on a specific circuit-level disturbance. By bringing opposing neural forces back toward equilibrium, DBS could make the ACC more capable of processing social information and generating appropriate responses.
The result also highlights a shift in how scientists understand the consequences of pain during development. Pain is often treated as a temporary sensory event, but developing neural systems can interpret repeated or intense pain as an organizing signal. That signal may alter synaptic strength, neuronal excitability and communication between brain regions. Over time, these changes could become embedded in circuits that regulate social engagement. The study’s emphasis on E/I balance suggests that developmental pain may produce lasting behavioral effects through measurable changes in network physiology rather than through an unexplained psychological process.
The findings are likely to attract attention because social deficits are difficult to treat and can appear across many neurological and psychiatric conditions. However, DBS is an invasive therapy involving neurosurgical implantation, and the study does not mean that the treatment is ready for routine use in people affected by early-life pain. Translating a circuit-level discovery into a safe human therapy requires extensive work, including confirmation in independent models, determination of the most effective stimulation parameters and careful assessment of possible side effects. The ACC is involved in many functions, so altering its activity could influence emotion, attention or pain perception in unwanted ways.
Even with those limitations, the research offers a potentially powerful framework for future therapies. If social difficulties can be linked to a specific imbalance between excitation and inhibition, treatments might eventually be designed to correct that imbalance with greater precision. DBS is only one possibility. Noninvasive stimulation, pharmacological treatments that selectively influence inhibitory or excitatory signaling, and therapies combining behavioral training with neuromodulation could also emerge from the same biological insight.
The study’s central message is that the developing brain may retain a capacity for repair, even after early adverse experiences have changed its circuitry. By targeting the ACC and restoring the neural balance that supports its function, deep brain stimulation improved social behavior in the reported research. The work does not erase the complexity of developmental pain, but it identifies a concrete biological pathway connecting early injury, altered brain networks and later social difficulties. That connection could help move the field closer to treatments that address not only pain itself, but also the long-term social consequences it can leave behind.
Subject of Research: Deep brain stimulation, early-life pain, social deficits, and excitatory/inhibitory balance in the anterior cingulate cortex
Article Title: Deep brain stimulation ameliorates social deficits from early-life pain by restoring excitatory/inhibitory balance in the anterior cingulate cortex
Article References: Wan, X., Du, T., Yang, D. et al. Deep brain stimulation ameliorates social deficits from early-life pain by restoring excitatory/inhibitory balance in the anterior cingulate cortex. Transl Psychiatry (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-026-04311-z
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-026-04311-z
Keywords: deep brain stimulation, early-life pain, social deficits, anterior cingulate cortex, excitatory/inhibitory balance, neuroscience, brain stimulation, developmental pain, social behavior
A common complication of early birth is being thrust into a medical debate that reaches far beyond the neonatal intensive-care unit: how low is too low when a late preterm baby’s blood glucose falls, and what—if anything—does that episode mean years later? A new article in Pediatric Research examines late preterm hypoglycemia through the lens of long-term evidence, highlighting why a seemingly brief metabolic disturbance has become one of neonatology’s most closely watched questions.
Late preterm infants are typically born between 34 weeks and 36 weeks plus six days of gestation. They often appear stronger and more mature than very preterm babies, but their brains, hormone systems and feeding abilities are still developing. After birth, glucose levels can drop as the infant transitions from a constant placental supply to intermittent feeding. Immature glycogen stores, limited fat reserves, difficulty coordinating sucking and swallowing, and illness-related stress can all increase the risk of hypoglycemia.
Glucose is the brain’s primary energy source during early life, making neonatal hypoglycemia biologically concerning. When glucose delivery falls, the brain may initially compensate by using alternative fuels, including lactate and ketone bodies. If the shortage is severe, prolonged or repeatedly missed, however, energy production can become insufficient. This may interfere with neuronal signaling and, in extreme cases, contribute to cellular injury. The challenge is that many affected newborns show no obvious symptoms, while symptomatic infants may display only subtle signs such as jitteriness, poor feeding, lethargy, temperature instability or apnea.
The article by U. Felderhoff-Müser focuses attention on a crucial gap between immediate treatment and long-term certainty. Hospitals commonly screen infants considered vulnerable to hypoglycemia, including late preterm newborns, and intervene with feeding, buccal dextrose gel or intravenous glucose when indicated. These measures are designed to restore glucose quickly and prevent neurological stress. Yet the threshold used to define hypoglycemia is not a universal biological line. It is a clinical value shaped by gestational age, postnatal age, symptoms, measurement method and the balance between avoiding harm and preventing unnecessary intervention.
That uncertainty has made long-term follow-up essential. Researchers have investigated whether neonatal hypoglycemia is associated with later problems involving cognition, executive function, attention, language, motor coordination and school performance. Some studies have reported higher risks after severe, recurrent or prolonged episodes, while others have found limited or inconsistent effects, particularly when low glucose was detected and treated promptly. The differences may reflect more than glucose itself: prematurity, fetal growth restriction, maternal diabetes, infection, respiratory illness and socioeconomic conditions can independently influence neurodevelopment.
This is one reason the evidence remains difficult to interpret. Most long-term studies are observational, meaning researchers cannot randomly assign infants to experience different glucose levels. Instead, they compare children who had hypoglycemia with those who did not, while attempting to account for other medical and social factors. Even sophisticated statistical adjustments may not eliminate hidden confounding. In addition, studies use different definitions of hypoglycemia, different monitoring schedules and different ages or tools for developmental testing, making direct comparisons challenging.
The timing and pattern of low glucose may be as important as the lowest recorded number. A single short episode may carry a different biological significance from repeated episodes or an extended period below a treatment threshold. Continuous glucose monitoring has raised further questions by revealing fluctuations that intermittent heel-stick testing can miss, although sensor accuracy in newborns and the clinical meaning of every detected dip are still being evaluated. The emerging picture is therefore more complex than a simple division between “normal” and “abnormal.”
For clinicians and families, the practical message is not to dismiss hypoglycemia or to assume that every low reading predicts disability. Instead, the long-term evidence supports careful surveillance of infants at risk, rapid confirmation of abnormal results, and treatment strategies that protect the brain without disrupting feeding or exposing babies to unnecessary interventions. Developmental follow-up may be particularly important for infants with severe or recurrent episodes, neurological symptoms, or multiple additional risk factors. Such monitoring can identify difficulties early, when speech, occupational or educational support may have the greatest effect.
The discussion also underscores the need for better research. Future studies will need standardized glucose definitions, precise records of duration and recurrence, improved measurement technologies and follow-up extending into school age and adolescence. Researchers must also distinguish the effects of hypoglycemia from the conditions that caused it and examine outcomes beyond a single global developmental score. Felderhoff-Müser’s review places late preterm hypoglycemia in that broader scientific context: a common neonatal event whose immediate management is well established, but whose long-term consequences still demand careful, nuanced investigation.
Subject of Research: Late preterm hypoglycemia and its long-term neurodevelopmental evidence
Article Title: Late preterm hypoglycemia through the lens of long-term evidence
Article References: Felderhoff-Müser, U. “Late preterm hypoglycemia through the lens of long-term evidence.” Pediatric Research (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-026-05316-6
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-026-05316-6
Keywords: late preterm infants, neonatal hypoglycemia, blood glucose, neurodevelopment, brain health, newborn care, long-term outcomes
App Store regulatory changes are beginning to affect Apple Services growth as developers gain more ways to avoid Apple’s payment system or pay lower commissions in major markets.
Apple finance chief Kevan Parekh told investors that changes to the App Store business model in some countries had affected its performance during the June quarter. Softer spending on mobile games created additional pressure.
The acknowledgement is significant because regulatory risk has appeared in Apple filings for years without producing a clearly identified effect on Services performance. Apple is now confirming that rule changes have advanced far enough to influence reported results.
The impact does not mean the App Store has stopped growing. Apple described the store as reaching another June-quarter revenue record, while Services expanded by approximately 12% from the previous year.
The emerging issue is the rate of growth. A purchase can still occur inside an iPhone app while generating less revenue for Apple when the customer pays through a developer’s website or uses terms carrying a reduced fee.
Apple did not identify one country or policy as solely responsible for the effect.
The company is adapting to a collection of court orders, competition laws and regulatory agreements that differ substantially among the United States, European Union, China, Brazil, Japan, South Korea and other markets.
Some rules concentrate on payment choice. They allow developers to place links or buttons inside apps leading customers to external checkout pages.
Other changes permit alternative app marketplaces or direct distribution outside the App Store. Several regulators are also examining whether Apple can charge developers for transactions completed through another payment provider.
The financial result depends on the model adopted in each country. Apple may receive no commission, a reduced commission or another fee connected with platform technology and distribution.
This creates a more fragmented App Store business. A subscription sold through the same application can produce different revenue for Apple according to the customer’s country, payment route and the developer terms governing that version of the app.
The most direct change in the United States came from the long-running legal dispute between Apple and Epic Games.
A federal court previously ordered Apple to stop preventing developers from directing customers toward outside purchasing options. Apple responded by allowing certain external links while seeking commissions of between 12% and 27% on purchases completed through them.
The company also introduced design restrictions, an approval process and a warning screen displayed when customers left the App Store environment.
In April 2025, the district court found Apple in civil contempt for failing to comply fully with the anti-steering injunction. The ruling prohibited the company from collecting a commission on purchases made through external links and removed several restrictions governing their appearance.
Apple updated its App Review Guidelines in May 2025. Apps distributed through the United States storefront can include buttons, external links and other calls to action leading customers toward another payment method.
The rules no longer require a special external-link entitlement for the U.S. storefront.
That change gives developers a straightforward financial reason to move some transactions to the web. A company can process a payment through another provider instead of giving Apple a percentage of the digital sale.
The customer can return to the iPhone app and use the purchased subscription or content. The app remains distributed through Apple, but the associated transaction no longer produces the same App Store commission.
Enough developers adopting that route can slow Apple Services growth even if total spending on iPhone applications continues increasing.
The European Union’s Digital Markets Act requires Apple to permit alternative app marketplaces, outside payment systems and other changes intended to reduce its control over iOS distribution.
Developers can remain under Apple’s conventional App Store terms or adopt business terms designed for the European market.
The alternative structure separates several services that were previously combined inside one commission. Developers can choose different levels of App Store support, use Apple’s payment system, provide another payment option or distribute software through a competing marketplace.
Apple introduced reduced commissions and technology-related fees to preserve compensation for the tools, security systems, distribution infrastructure and platform access it provides.
Those terms have changed several times following regulatory objections. Beginning in 2026, Apple started moving from its earlier Core Technology Fee toward a Core Technology Commission applied to eligible digital transactions under particular conditions.
The structure means outside payments do not always eliminate Apple fees in Europe. They can still reduce the amount Apple collects or shift revenue among different fee categories.
Regulators continue examining whether the terms provide meaningful choice or discourage developers from leaving the standard model.
Apple argues that alternative stores and payment systems create additional privacy, security and fraud risks. The European Commission has focused on whether Apple’s warnings, technical requirements and fees make those options unnecessarily difficult to use.
European developers must calculate more than one commission. They need to consider payment-processing costs, marketplace charges, customer acquisition, reporting obligations and the Apple terms attached to each distribution method.
The result may be lower App Store revenue without an equally large shift toward independent marketplaces. External website payments can change Apple’s economics more quickly because they do not require customers to install another store.
App Store regulatory changes are not limited to alternative stores and external payments.
Apple lowered several commission rates in the China mainland storefront beginning March 15, 2026.
Qualifying transactions under the App Store Small Business Program and Mini Apps Partner Program now carry a 12% commission. The same rate applies to eligible auto-renewing subscriptions after the subscriber’s first year.
These transactions previously qualified for a higher 15% rate.
A three-percentage-point reduction may appear small beside demands for completely independent payments. At the scale of China’s app economy, it can remove a meaningful amount of revenue while improving the share retained by developers.
The Mini Apps Partner Program is particularly important in China because large platforms can contain many smaller services inside one host application.
Reducing the commission can encourage those ecosystems to continue using Apple In-App Purchase. It also demonstrates how Apple may respond to pressure by offering more favorable terms before regulators require a more disruptive change.
Lower commissions can support transaction growth over time, but the immediate calculation is straightforward: Apple receives less from each qualifying purchase.
Apple introduced alternative app distribution and payment options in Brazil through an agreement with the country’s competition regulator, CADE.
Beginning with iOS 26.5, developers can distribute apps through alternative marketplaces, operate those marketplaces and process digital payments outside Apple In-App Purchase.
Apps can also present links leading users to an external website where the transaction is completed.
Apple continues applying notarization and other technical requirements to software distributed outside the App Store.
The company maintains that these protections reduce risks but cannot provide the complete safeguards associated with App Review.
Brazil is a major smartphone and digital-services market. Its effect on Apple Services will depend on whether large developers adopt the new options and whether customers are willing to leave the familiar App Store purchasing flow.
An external option existing in software does not guarantee that people will use it. The developer must usually offer a meaningful advantage, such as a lower price, a different subscription package or payment methods better suited to local customers.
Adoption can increase gradually as existing apps release updates. The financial impact may therefore become more visible over several quarters rather than appearing immediately after the regulatory agreement takes effect.
Apple receives a commission when an eligible digital purchase uses its in-app payment system.
The fee compensates Apple for distribution, payment processing, fraud management, developer tools, customer support and access to the iOS platform, according to the company.
The standard percentage varies. Small developers and long-running subscriptions can qualify for reduced rates, while other eligible digital transactions may carry higher commissions.
When payment moves to a developer’s website, an independent processor handles the financial transaction. The developer pays that provider, manages more of the customer relationship and retains the amount that would otherwise become an App Store fee.
Apple may still provide the operating system, APIs, development tools and App Store distribution without receiving the conventional payment commission.
This separation explains why App Store activity and App Store revenue can move differently. People may download more applications and spend more on digital services while Apple captures a smaller percentage of the commerce.
The same customer could maintain several subscriptions used exclusively on an iPhone without any of their monthly payments passing through Apple.
Apple can collect other revenue from that user through hardware, advertising, iCloud or its own subscriptions. The external transaction nevertheless removes one part of the Services model.
The size of the App Store economy should not be confused with Apple’s commissionable revenue.
Apple says the global App Store ecosystem facilitated more than $1.4 trillion in developer billings and sales during 2025. More than 90% of that commerce did not produce a commission for the company.
The largest categories involve physical goods and services such as retail purchases, travel, grocery delivery, restaurant orders and transportation.
Apple does not collect a percentage when someone uses an Amazon app to order furniture, books a hotel or pays for a meal delivered through an iPhone.
App Store commissions generally concentrate on digital goods, application features, virtual items and subscriptions sold through Apple In-App Purchase.
Regulatory changes target this smaller but financially important part of the ecosystem.
Digital transactions require no physical inventory or delivery network, allowing payment commissions to carry attractive margins. Losing part of that revenue can therefore affect profitability more than the dollar amount alone suggests.
Apple does not disclose App Store revenue or profit separately. The category remains combined with cloud services, advertising, media subscriptions, AppleCare, payments and other operations inside Services.
Regulation was not the only factor Apple identified.
Parekh said softer mobile gaming activity also affected the App Store. Games represent an important source of digital transactions because players purchase virtual currency, characters, cosmetic items, subscriptions and access to additional content.
A decline in game spending directly affects the commission Apple receives through In-App Purchase.
Gaming is also one category where developers have pushed aggressively for alternative stores and payments. Epic Games began its legal confrontation with Apple after introducing another payment method inside Fortnite and attempting to bypass App Store commissions.
The simultaneous effects are difficult to separate. A game can generate lower revenue because players are spending less, because payments moved outside Apple’s system or because both changes occurred together.
Apple does not provide enough category detail to calculate the contribution from each factor.
The distinction matters for the outlook. Gaming demand can recover with successful releases and stronger consumer spending. A permanent regulatory change does not reverse when one popular game reaches the top of the charts.
Outside payments can improve the amount a developer retains from each purchase.
A company moving from a conventional App Store commission to a lower-cost web payment processor may use the difference to reduce prices, fund development or improve profitability.
The developer also assumes responsibilities previously handled through Apple.
Independent billing requires payment processing, tax management, fraud protection, refunds, account recovery and customer support. Subscription status must synchronize correctly between the website and the iPhone app.
Customers changing devices or reinstalling an app expect their purchases to remain available. The developer needs its own account system capable of verifying ownership without relying entirely on Apple’s purchase history.
Small developers may decide that Apple In-App Purchase remains worth its fee because it removes operational complexity and gives customers a familiar checkout experience.
Large subscription businesses have stronger incentives to build their own systems. They already maintain accounts and payments across websites, televisions, Android devices and other platforms.
The regulatory effect will therefore vary by developer size and business model. One company may remove Apple billing completely, while another continues using it because external infrastructure would cost more than the commission saved.
External payments create the possibility of lower subscription prices because developers no longer need to incorporate the complete App Store fee into the amount charged.
Some services already cost more when purchased through an iPhone app than through their websites. The higher price allows the developer to preserve similar revenue after Apple receives its share.
A visible external link makes comparing those prices easier. Customers can leave the app, complete the transaction on the web and return with an active account.
Savings are not guaranteed. A developer can retain the entire difference rather than passing it to subscribers.
Independent billing can also make subscription management less consistent.
Settings > Apple Account > Subscriptions
A subscription purchased directly must be canceled through the developer’s website or account system. Customers using many external services may need to remember several billing portals and renewal policies.
Refunds and purchase disputes also move away from Apple. The developer or its payment processor becomes responsible for resolving the transaction.
Choice can reduce prices while increasing complexity. The practical outcome depends on whether developers make external checkout clearly cheaper and easy to manage.
Apple is responding to the changing environment by adding business models and marketing systems that can keep developers using its commerce platform.
Monthly subscriptions with a 12-month commitment allow participating apps to offer lower recurring payments while securing a complete year of revenue.
The Advanced Commerce API supports more complex content catalogs, optional add-ons and subscription structures that were previously difficult to manage through standard In-App Purchase products.
Apple has also expanded tools for custom product pages, promotional offers, application analytics and international distribution.
These additions increase the value attached to App Store billing. A developer may tolerate a commission when Apple provides conversion tools, subscription management and access to promotional placement that would be expensive to reproduce independently.
The company can also adjust rates for particular categories. The Small Business Program, Mini Apps Partner Program and reduced commission for longer-running subscriptions already demonstrate differentiated pricing.
A more competitive payment market may push Apple toward additional service tiers rather than one universal commission.
The United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority is consulting on rules that would allow developers to direct customers outside Apple and Google’s payment systems.
The regulator expects any fee charged for steering to be fair, reasonable and lower than current app-store commissions. It wants the resulting savings passed to customers or reinvested in developer businesses.
The UK proposal is not yet a final requirement. Its eventual structure could determine whether developers receive the broad freedom available in the United States or a fee-based model closer to some European arrangements.
Regulators are also considering app-review fairness, interoperability and access to mobile-platform capabilities.
The outcome will matter beyond British customers. Each major jurisdiction creates another model that regulators elsewhere can examine when designing their own rules.
Apple must decide whether to continue maintaining different commercial systems by country or move toward broader global terms that reduce operational complexity.
Developers face the same choice. Supporting a separate payment route, marketplace package and reporting process for every region can become expensive enough to cancel some of the benefits regulation intended to create.
The next evidence will come from behavior rather than another policy announcement: how many major apps add external payment links, whether they offer lower prices and how quickly customers move away from Apple’s checkout.
The post App Store Regulatory Changes Begin Slowing Services Growth appeared first on AppleMagazine.
The European Union (EU) outlined plans to provide €10 billion in funding to build seven AI gigafactories in addition to unlocking €20 billion in private investment for the project.
In its latest push to accelerate Europe’s technological sovereignty and close the gap to the US and China, the EU stated the initiative would expand AI compute capacity and give start-ups, SMEs, industry and others access to infrastructure for training, inference and tuning of advanced frontier AI models.
It explained the gigafactories would be used to combine advanced AI processors, software and cloud technology stacks, high-speed connectivity and energy-efficient data centres.
They will add to Europe’s network of 19 AI gigafactories with the aim of ensuring the continent can develop advanced AI on its own infrastructure in line with EU rules, following standards on data protection, security and ethics.
The first step is a call for tenders, with the EU inviting consortiums or special purpose vehicles bringing companies, public entities, investors and other partners to apply.
It explained the facilities can be established in a single member state, either on one site or across several locations.
They may also include cross-border developments in several member states through distributed AI computing facilities.
Applications will undergo a competitive valuation to select successful projects. The application process closes on 12 November, with successful bidders to be announced in 2027.
Facilities will need to become operational within 18-months of contracts being signed.
Henna Virkkunen, EVP for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy at the European Commission, said “access to the raw scale of computing power within AI gigafactories is a strategic necessity for Europe as AI development accelerates”.
The post EU pulls trigger on €30B AI gigafactory initiative appeared first on Mobile World Live.
Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs)—especially acetate, propionate, and butyrate—are produced when gut microbes ferment carbohydrates that the human body cannot digest. Over the past decade, these small molecules have moved beyond being viewed as simple fuel. Instead, they are now recognized as signalling messengers that help tune metabolism, shape immune responses, and support physiological balance across organs. A new review in Nature Metabolism brings together scattered findings to clarify how SCFAs are made, how they are processed in the body, and why they matter for health.
The article emphasizes that SCFA production is not uniform. It depends on which microbial communities inhabit the gut, which dietary substrates reach the colon, and how microbes share resources through cross-feeding. When multiple bacterial species coordinate, fermentation pathways can shift, increasing the output of particular SCFAs. In that way, the “hardware” of the microbiome and the “inputs” provided by diet jointly determine the chemical signals generated in the intestine.
After their formation, SCFAs are handled by host tissues through absorption and further metabolic conversion. The review highlights that acetate, propionate, and butyrate can influence local and systemic physiology, helping link intestinal chemistry to whole-body regulation. Their effects are therefore both immediate—through signalling pathways—and longer-lasting—through changes in gene regulation.
Mechanistically, the authors focus on receptor-mediated communication. SCFAs activate specific receptors on immune and metabolic cells, altering inflammatory tone and metabolic signalling. This receptor layer helps explain how intestinal events can reverberate in distant tissues that rely on tightly controlled energy and immune states.
Beyond receptors, SCFAs also affect epigenetics. By influencing chromatin-modifying enzymes and related regulatory networks, they can change how genes are expressed without altering DNA sequence. Such effects provide a plausible bridge between diet–microbiome interactions and sustained shifts in health trajectories.
The review further surveys tissue-specific outcomes, from effects on gut barrier function to immune regulation and metabolic homeostasis. Importantly, this heterogeneity helps reconcile why SCFAs sometimes show protective associations while other contexts yield mixed results—differences in dose, timing, microbial ecology, and host physiology can all matter.
When the evidence is assembled, the paper argues that SCFAs are strongly implicated in metabolic health and disease risk. Conditions such as obesity, insulin dysregulation, and inflammatory disorders have been linked to altered SCFA profiles, though causality remains an active area of investigation. The authors also discuss the limitations of current studies, including differences in measurement methods and confounding dietary factors.
Finally, the review evaluates translational opportunities. Rather than treating SCFAs as isolated supplements, it frames dietary and therapeutic strategies around pathways that enhance beneficial SCFA production or mimic their downstream effects. With low fibre intake becoming a public health concern worldwide, the work positions SCFAs as a key biological rationale for improving diet quality.
Overall, this Nature Metabolism review synthesizes what is known—and what is still uncertain—about SCFAs as central mediators between gut microbes and host biology. It suggests that targeting microbial fermentation and SCFA signalling could become a practical lever for metabolic disease prevention.
Subject of Research: Gut microbiota–derived short-chain fatty acids and their physiological roles
Article Title: Short-chain fatty acids
Article References: Dagbasi, A., Cai, M., Hirdaramani, A. et al. Short-chain fatty acids. Nat Metab (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42255-026-01579-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42255-026-01579-9
Image Credits: AI Generated
Regulatory pressure over TikTok’s child safety measures continued to mount as the European Commission (EC) warned a preliminary look at the company’s protections found it wanting in various aspects.
The initial results of a formal probe into potential breaches of the Digital Services Act (DSA) show TikTok is falling short of the required standards. The EC explained a public-access setting means child accounts can still be viewed by all kinds of people whether they use the social media platform or not.
Another risk involves the content of 16- and 17-year-olds, which the EC found can be featured in recommendations to other users, presenting the risk of “unwanted contact” or cyberbullying.
It is inviting TikTok to view and respond to the preliminary findings and emphasised there is no prejudice to any final decisions in the investigation.
If TikTok is ultimately judged to be in breach of the DSA, the EC “may issue a non-compliance decision, which can trigger a fine”.
Other areas of concern the EC highlighted include an ability to view the profile pictures of children even when accounts are set to private mode, with discovery available if they are contacts of other users or by non-users of TikTok.
The EC explained the DSA requires platforms which children can use to “ensure a high level of privacy, safety and security”, a standard it considers TikTok may not be meeting.
UK regulator Ofcom is conducting its own probe into TikTok’s child protection measures.
The EC previously warned TikTok over its “potentially addictive design” as part of the same investigation.
The post EC warns TikTok over child protection breaches appeared first on Mobile World Live.
The European Commission (EC) slapped two fines on Google totalling €890 million for non-compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and demanded the tech giant make changes to its search service and app store policies.
Decisions on the two probes follow investigations started in March 2024. Of the total, €460 million is for breaches on its search service and €430 million for app distribution restrictions on Google Play.
On the search charge, the EC determined Google gave its own services preferential treatment in rankings, either by having them at the top of a results page, or using enhanced visuals or filters.
This goes against DMA rules requiring “transparent, fair and non-discriminatory conditions” in rankings, the EC argued.
Its fine related to the Google Play app store was for not allowing developers distributing apps through the platform to inform customers of alternative offers and direct them to make purchases elsewhere.
The regulator acknowledged after what it termed constructive dialogue Google had begun testing changes to its services the regulator noted could “constitute substantial progress towards compliance”.
However, the EC stated the “fines imposed today on Google take into account the gravity and duration of the non-compliance”.
As part of the judgement, the EC demands Google ends the policies deemed in breach of the DMA.
Google has 60 days to comply, with the authority threatening periodic penalty payments of up to 5% of worldwide turnover if it does not.
The company has the right to appeal.
Breaking products
Unsurprisingly Google is unhappy with the changes it is being forced to make to meet DMA obligations.
In a statement, president of global affairs at Google and its parent company Alphabet Kent Walker claimed the way the DMA is implemented “continues to break everyday products” and degraded the experience of businesses and consumers in the European Union.
“To comply, we are having to strip away real-time Search features Europeans love like instant pricing and direct availability for hotels, flights and restaurants, and dismantle safety protections on Google Play,” he added.
“This isn’t fair competition, it’s product degradation driven by a small group of self-serving complainants, with European businesses and consumers taking the hit. Regulation should improve products, not make them worse.”
The post Google fined €890M for EU DMA breaches appeared first on Mobile World Live.
The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted final rules for auctioning 160MHz of spectrum in the upper C-Band, setting the stage for an auction to close by July 2027 and creating what the regulator called a harmonised 5G super band spanning 440MHz when combined with existing holdings.
The rules apply to the 3.98GHz to 4.14GHz range, and build on the FCC’s lower C-Band auction conducted during President Donald Trump’s first term.
Combining the lower C-Band with the newly cleared upper C-Band will create a contiguous 3.70-4.14GHz block which the FCC described as a larger swath of licensed, 5G-grade mid-band spectrum than any other industrialised country holds.
“America’s wireless leadership is back,” FCC chair Brendan Carr stated. “Freeing up this spectrum drives down prices, raises speeds, and enhances competition. Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, America will once again lead the world in wireless.”
The commission announced it will auction 60% more spectrum than the 100MHz minimum required by law, a move it stated would raise tens of billions of dollars in additional proceeds for the US Treasury to support deficit reduction and other national priorities.
The auction will offer 3,248 new flexible-use licences across the contiguous US.
Winning bidders will be able to launch wireless services in the top 75 US markets starting December 2030, with remaining markets following from July 2031, a timeline the FCC said is faster than originally expected.
The FCC estimated the spectrum release could generate at least $422 billion in GDP, 2.4 million new jobs and $621 billion in consumer surplus.
Aviation concerns
In 2021, major airline industry players pressed the government and regulators to delay the launch of 5G in C-Band over interference fears.
To protect aviation safety systems operating in adjacent frequencies, the FCC worked closely with the Federal Aviation Administration on rules governing coexistence between wireless operations and radio altimeters in the nearby 4.2GHz to 4.4GHz band.
The FAA said the FCC had incorporated key safeguards to protect the frequencies aircraft altimeters rely on, and the rules include rebates to help the aviation sector retrofit and upgrade altimeter equipment. The FCC said incentive payments to satellite operators being cleared from the band will be lower in aggregate than those paid following the lower C-Band auction, reflecting the smaller amount of spectrum involved, though roughly proportionate to it.
The rules follow a process that began last year under the FCC’s renewed auction authority as part of President Trump’s so called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, building on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted last November.
Commission staff are expected to seek comment on auction procedures in the coming days before finalising them ahead of the auction.
The order was adopted by a vote of FCC chairman Brendan Carr and commissioner Olivia Trusty in favour, with commissioner Anna Gomez approving in part and dissenting in part.
Space modernisation order
Separately, the FCC voted to overhaul its space and earth station licensing process, replacing the legacy Part 25 rules in their entirety with a new Part 100 framework rebuilt from first principles. The commission said it completed the systematic, industry-wide regulatory overhaul in roughly 18 months, a pace it described as historically unprecedented for a federal agency.
The new rules are intended to speed up space and earth station licensing through a faster, more predictable process the FCC likened to a “licensing assembly line”, while also enhancing space safety and removing outdated regulations to support the country’s commercial space sector.
The FCC framed the reform as part of a broader push under the Trump administration to strengthen US leadership in space.
The post FCC adopts upper C-Band auction rules appeared first on Mobile World Live.
Virgin Media O2 CEO Lutz Schuler warned the UK’s net neutrality rules could hamper agentic AI and other emerging technology, as well as limiting innovation today, as the operator published a report making the case for policy reform.
The executive described net neutrality regulations in the UK as outdated and argued they hamper the realisation of the benefits from significant network investments being made.
He asserted the rules requiring all internet traffic to be treated equally meant the operator is “not able to help customers by prioritising taxi and map apps when travelling home at night and can’t prioritise payment apps for sole traders in crowded markets”, two in a series of examples.
“New technologies like agentic AI will improve the online experience and we’re investing £700 million this year in our mobile network to boost connectivity across the UK, but with network traffic growing relentlessly we won’t get the most out of it without much-needed reform,” he added.
The statement comes as the country is in the process of conducting a mobile market review, which Schuler argued should be used to remove “antiquated roadblocks to innovation” such as net neutrality.
VMO2 acknowledged current rules on the issue were initially intended to protect consumers, but noted they were issued a decade ago and set in a different era of connectivity.
The comments accompanied the release of Net Fatality, a 48-page report commissioned by the operator and produced by consultancy Communications Chambers.
It outlines the case against the current stance in the country along with a series of services it asserts are being hampered by net neutrality including the use of time sensitive applications and prioritising important video calls.
The post VMO2 takes aim at UK net neutrality rules appeared first on Mobile World Live.
EU tech regulation, Digital Markets Act, Apple Europe sales, Apple regulation, European Union, Siri AI, iPhone features, device interoperability, App Store changes, alternative marketplaces, iPhone Mirroring, AirPods translation, Apple privacy, iPhone security, app sideloading, platform competition, DMA compliance, Apple Intelligence, European technology, government control
EU tech regulation is no longer limited to App Store payment rules or competition disputes hidden from ordinary consumers. It is beginning to determine which features reach European devices, how quickly they arrive and how deeply third-party companies can interact with the iPhone, iPad and Mac.
The Digital Markets Act was designed to reduce the control of large technology platforms over software distribution, payments, browsers, digital assistants and connected hardware. For Apple, compliance has already produced alternative app marketplaces, web distribution, third-party payment options, additional default-app controls and expanded access to iPhone technologies.
The next phase reaches much deeper into the operating system. European regulators want competing accessories, cloud services and AI assistants to receive access to capabilities traditionally reserved for Apple’s own products.
Apple argues that some of those demands could weaken privacy and security. The European Commission says the company is responsible for creating compliant systems that preserve both competition and user protection.
Between those positions sits a large and commercially significant group of customers. Europe generated $28.06 billion in Apple sales during the quarter ending March 28, 2026, up from $24.45 billion one year earlier. Six-month European sales reached $66.20 billion, compared with $58.32 billion during the same period of fiscal 2025.
Europe therefore represented more than one-quarter of Apple’s latest quarterly revenue. It is too valuable to leave behind, but increasingly difficult to serve with the same software experience available elsewhere.
Regional differences once centered mainly on language support, licensing agreements or local services. EU tech regulation is creating a more structural divide.
Apple has blamed Digital Markets Act requirements for delaying Siri AI across the European Union. The company says regulators expect competing AI assistants to receive extensive access to personal information, apps and device actions before Apple can reserve those capabilities for its own assistant.
The disagreement concerns more than answering questions. Siri AI is designed to read personal context, understand onscreen information and complete actions across apps. That may include finding messages, accessing files, making purchases or sending information on the user’s behalf.
Opening those capabilities to outside AI systems requires new permission structures, technical interfaces and safeguards. Apple says it cannot release its assistant first and add competing access later without risking regulatory action. The Commission says Apple had sufficient time to design an interoperable solution.
Other delayed European features have included iPhone Mirroring on Mac, Live Translation through AirPods and certain location-based Maps capabilities. Each feature touches a different part of the ecosystem, but all depend on privileged communication between Apple devices, software and services.
The consequence is becoming visible at purchase. Two customers can buy the same iPhone model at similar prices and receive different capabilities because one lives inside the European Union.
Delayed availability can weaken the adoption of new hardware features even when the devices themselves continue selling well.
Siri AI is intended to become a central part of newer iPhones, iPads and Macs. Buyers who cannot access it lose part of the justification for newer chips, additional memory and on-device AI processing. Developers also face a smaller addressable audience for apps built around the new assistant.
AirPods Live Translation presents a similar problem. A feature designed to demonstrate the combination of iPhone processing, microphones and wearable audio becomes unavailable in a region built around dozens of languages and frequent cross-border travel.
iPhone Mirroring affects the relationship between iPhone and Mac. Users outside the EU can interact with the phone from macOS, while European users may receive notifications without gaining the complete experience.
These differences do not necessarily stop hardware sales. Apple’s newest results show strong European demand despite years of regulatory conflict. They can, however, reduce the speed at which customers use the ecosystem’s newest capabilities.
The effect may grow as software becomes a larger part of hardware differentiation. A faster processor has limited emotional value when the feature designed to demonstrate it is unavailable.
Apple does not report European Union revenue separately. Its Europe segment also includes countries outside the bloc, along with India, the Middle East and Africa. The official segment remains the best regularly published measure of the region’s commercial weight.
European sales rose approximately 15% year over year in Apple’s latest reported quarter. During the first six months of fiscal 2026, the segment expanded by roughly 14%.
Those figures weaken the argument that regulation is already driving customers away from Apple hardware. Demand remains strong, supported by the iPhone 17 family, Mac sales, services and the company’s installed base.
The financial risk is more gradual. Regional software fragmentation can raise engineering costs, delay launches and make European devices less competitive against products able to offer complete feature sets.
Apple must maintain separate distribution rules, payment systems, browser options and eligibility checks. Developers must decide whether alternative stores, external payments or EU-specific business terms justify additional work. Support teams must explain why features differ between countries using the same operating-system version.
A market responsible for more than $28 billion in one quarter can absorb considerable compliance expense. It can also influence Apple’s global product decisions when regulators demand interfaces that cannot be restricted to Europe easily.
The escalating regulatory environment also creates a more fundamental concern: control over complex technology ecosystems can gradually move away from the companies that designed them and toward government committees, regulatory bodies and administrative processes.
That transfer rarely happens through one dramatic order. It develops through repeated obligations covering app distribution, payment systems, browser engines, digital assistants, hardware access, data portability and interoperability. Each requirement may appear narrow when considered alone. Together, they can redefine who determines how the ecosystem operates.
Apple built its platform around tight integration between hardware, software, services and security. Regulators increasingly treat parts of that integration as market power that must be opened to competitors. The danger is that an ecosystem designed as one coordinated environment becomes subject to decisions made by committees that do not carry direct responsibility for product quality, reliability or long-term maintenance.
This can become a slow trap. Once a platform is required to expose one layer, regulators may use that access as the basis for demanding another. A payment exception can be followed by alternative app stores. Alternative stores can lead to broader installation rights. Device interoperability can expand into access for AI assistants, personal data and system actions.
The boundaries of the platform are then set less by engineering judgment and more by regulatory negotiation.
Government agencies have legitimate authority to address competition and consumer harm. The concern appears when regulation shifts from preventing abusive conduct to directing product architecture. At that point, public authorities begin influencing feature design, release timing, software permissions and the relationship between first-party and third-party services.
That creates consequences beyond Apple. Any company considering a tightly integrated product may decide that deep integration invites intervention. Businesses could avoid building ambitious ecosystems if successful coordination later becomes grounds for forced access.
Innovation then becomes shaped by what regulators are likely to permit rather than by what engineers believe will produce the safest or most coherent experience.
EU policy has produced benefits that Apple rarely emphasizes. Users can install apps through alternative marketplaces or directly from authorized developers. Developers can offer external payment methods, promote different prices and avoid relying entirely on Apple’s distribution system.
Alternative browser engines can compete with WebKit, while users have more control over default apps. Contactless payment access has expanded beyond Apple Pay, allowing competing wallet providers to use the iPhone’s NFC technology under approved conditions.
Interoperability requirements could also improve third-party accessories. Smartwatches, headphones and other devices may gain better notification access, background connectivity and proximity pairing with the iPhone.
These changes can increase competition and reduce the advantage Apple gives its own services and accessories. A third-party smartwatch should not become artificially less useful simply because it was not made in Cupertino.
The difficulty is separating legitimate platform access from unlimited access. A notification interface is one thing. An autonomous AI assistant capable of reading messages, accessing files and acting across apps introduces a different level of sensitivity.
Alternative app distribution increases user choice, but it also moves some responsibility away from the App Store. Apple continues to notarize apps distributed through approved alternative channels, checking for known malware and severe fraud. That process is narrower than a complete App Store review.
Purchases made outside Apple’s payment system also fall outside its normal refund and billing support. Users may need to resolve disputes directly with the developer or payment provider.
A malicious marketplace, deceptive payment page or compromised developer account can create opportunities for fraud. Enterprise users face additional concerns when employees install software from sources their organization has not approved.
The AI question reaches further. A third-party assistant may need permission to access messages, photos, calendars, documents and app controls. Even a reputable provider can collect more information than the user expects or introduce vulnerabilities through poorly designed integrations.
Apple can build permission prompts, app isolation and revocation controls, but technical access always creates some exposure. Security depends on how narrowly permissions are defined, how visibly they are used and whether the operating system can stop unauthorized actions.
The Commission maintains that interoperability and privacy can coexist. Apple maintains that regulators are demanding access before adequate protections are ready. Both positions contain a legitimate concern: dominant platforms should not block competition, and competition should not require users to surrender control of personal data.
When regulators require a company to alter its architecture, responsibility can become blurred.
Apple remains the company customers blame when an iPhone feature fails, a third-party marketplace distributes a harmful app or an outside assistant misuses personal data. Regulators may have required the access, but they do not operate the device, provide technical support or repair the damage to the platform’s reputation.
This creates an accountability gap. Government committees can mandate openness without assuming the commercial and security consequences of that openness. Apple must comply, maintain the system and explain the outcome to users.
The same problem applies to delayed features. Regulators may argue that Apple chose not to release a service, while Apple may argue that the required conditions made the launch unsafe or technically impractical. Customers are left with less functionality and no simple way to determine who caused the delay.
Over time, the ecosystem can become a negotiated compromise rather than a product with one coherent direction. That may satisfy formal compliance while producing a weaker experience for everyone involved.
The risk is not that governments will literally operate Apple’s software. It is that committees increasingly define the conditions under which Apple can design, connect and release its own features. Control shifts through constraints.
The consequences extend beyond one company. Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon and other platform operators face related European obligations. Hardware makers must consider whether ecosystem advantages can survive when core services are required to support rivals.
Smaller developers may gain new distribution and payment choices, but they may also inherit more compliance, customer-service and security responsibilities. Accessory companies could compete more effectively while becoming accountable for handling sensitive device data.
Other governments are watching. Rules introduced in Europe can influence legislation elsewhere, particularly when companies decide that maintaining one global technical framework is easier than operating several regional versions.
Apple is unlikely to abandon Europe or stop adapting its products. Its sales provide too much evidence of the region’s importance. The company will continue negotiating, appealing decisions and building compliance systems while withholding features it considers unsafe under current demands.
European customers may receive more app stores, payment choices and accessory compatibility. They may also wait longer for headline features included with the same hardware elsewhere.
The deeper consequence may be a technology industry that becomes more cautious about building tightly integrated products. Companies may design around anticipated regulatory demands from the beginning, limiting exclusive features, reducing private-system integration or avoiding innovations that depend on controlled access.
EU tech regulation began as an effort to constrain dominant platforms. Its long-term effect may be to transfer part of the power to shape those platforms from companies and users to regulatory institutions.
That shift deserves scrutiny equal to the market power it is intended to correct. Competition rules can restrain abuse. They can also become a slow mechanism for placing product design, security choices and ecosystem evolution under government supervision.
The danger grows when regulatory discretion becomes buried beneath permits, approvals, negotiations and technical committees that operate beyond meaningful public scrutiny.
The more power officials hold over which features, contracts or technologies may proceed—and when—the greater the opportunity for lobbying, favoritism and selective enforcement to influence outcomes. What begins as oversight can gradually become a system in which delay itself is leverage, while responsibility disappears inside layers of administration.
For the technology industry, that risks replacing transparent product decisions with political access, negotiated exceptions and regulatory influence exercised far from the consumers expected to live with the consequences.
The post EU Tech Regulation Creates a Costly Split for Apple appeared first on AppleMagazine.
Vodafone Group continued to press European authorities for a fairer regulatory deal, this time arguing the forthcoming Digital Networks Act (DNA) could enshrine outdated rules which favour OTTs over traditional service providers.
The operator highlighted a host of requirements operators must meet which OTTs and digital platforms do not.
It highlighted emergency service connectivity as an example of the imbalance, explaining people expect the function to be available no matter the app they use.
Vodafone stated traditional operators are also held to higher account in terms of maintaining open and resilient internet access, despite an increased reliance on “cloud providers, content delivery networks and large platforms that sit outside equivalent oversight”.
It asserted growth in the amount of fraudulent activity which “originates or is amplified upstream, across digital platforms and online services”, noting this is not subject to the same requirements placed on operators to prevent it.
Vodafone noted telecom service providers “invest heavily” in “network-level controls” and “cooperation with authorities”.
Customer verification is another bone of contention, with “overlapping” systems which “often duplicate” checks conducted by digital platforms and payment service providers. Operators also face various quality of service, security and “dispute handling” regulations for their customers.
“This asymmetry is often dismissed as a sector complaint, but the impact is most clearly felt by consumers,” Vodafone argued.
Proposed fixes
Vodafone called for the DNA to include “an explicit functional-equivalent principle” to enable regulators to apply rules equally in areas where broadly the same service is being provided.
It argued there is a lack of reality in the DNA proposals, stating the “distinction” between communications services using a telephone number and those which do not “no longer maps neatly onto user experiences or market dynamics”.
Vodafone believes fraud and internet access rules must equally cover cloud platforms, content delivery systems and messaging services.
It argued levelling the playing field would promote innovation and give consumers greater confidence in digital services.
The post Vodafone targets DNA disparities appeared first on Mobile World Live.
The European Commission (EC) ordered Google to ensure rival AI platforms can compete better with the company’s own services on Android and laid out data sharing requirements for its search engine.
The EC stated the measures fall under its Digital Markets Act and are the result of a six-month probe against the company to ensure compliance with the legislation.
In the field of AI, the EC noted competing AI assistants currently have only restricted access to key functions on the current Android OS. This means systems including OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude “are not competing on an equal footing” with Google’s own services such as Gemini which have full access.
As a result, third party AI assistants are 60% less attractive to EU users who have an Android device, the EC stated.
The EC stated the measure means users would be able to activate their preferred AI assistant through voice commands.
Third-party users would also be able to employ AI assistants to perform actions in apps on their behalf.
The EC also included safeguards to ensure privacy, device integrity and security.
In total, it will open 11 features on Android to rival AI companies.
Google is also required to share data it collects from its search services with rivals including OpenAI, allowing “for the development and optimisation of third-party search engines”.
The EC stated the move would create a more level playing field with Google Search, although it will be allowed to assess whether rivals pose cybersecurity and data protection risks before opening data to them. The EC stated the measure provides “a fair formula to calculate the price of the shared data”.
Google is required to begin implementing the search measures by January 2027 and the changes to Android from July 2027.
The post EC calls on Google to level up AI playing field appeared first on Mobile World Live.
A newly published study in Nature Metabolism reports that brown fat can act as a hub of molecular messaging, using secreted microRNAs to coordinate physiology across the body. Researchers focused on brown adipose tissue—well known for its role in thermogenesis—and asked whether it also participates in long-distance communication via RNA signals.
To visualize and track these messages, the team employed brown-fat–specific RNA labeling in living systems. This strategy allowed them to connect RNA production within adipocytes to downstream effects elsewhere, moving beyond correlations toward a clearer map of inter-organ RNA traffic.
The central finding is the presence of a communication network mediated by microRNAs released from brown fat. These small regulatory RNAs appear to travel beyond the tissue of origin and engage gene-regulatory pathways in other organs, effectively relaying information about metabolic state.
Functionally, the work supports a model in which microRNA “dispatch” from thermogenic fat tunes cellular programs in remote targets. Such programs likely involve post-transcriptional regulation, a process microRNAs are known to influence by pairing with complementary sequences in messenger RNAs.
Importantly, the approach does not treat microRNAs as generic circulating molecules. Instead, the labeling confirms their brown-fat origin and strengthens the link between secretory RNA dynamics and systemic physiological outcomes.
The study also highlights the specificity of the messaging: not all RNAs are equally represented, and the labeled microRNA repertoire points to organized, tissue-defined signaling rather than random leakage.
Beyond mapping pathways, the results carry implications for metabolic disease research. If brown fat microRNAs can reshape gene expression in other organs, manipulating these signals could offer a route to modulate energy balance, insulin sensitivity, or inflammatory tone.
For now, the findings provide a blueprint for how RNA labelling combined with tissue specificity can uncover hidden layers of endocrine-like communication. As techniques improve, the field may move toward a broader “RNA connectome” linking organ behavior through secreted regulatory molecules.
Researchers describe their results as evidence that brown fat is not only a metabolic engine but also an information broadcaster. In the evolving landscape of viral-style science news, this discovery underscores how tiny RNA molecules can orchestrate large-scale biological conversations.
Subject of Research: Inter-organ communication via secreted microRNAs from brown adipose tissue.
Article Title: Brown fat-specific RNA labelling reveals a network of inter-organ communication by secreted microRNAs.
Article References: Lino, M., Palermo-Ruiz, G., Efthymiou, V. et al. Brown fat-specific RNA labelling reveals a network of inter-organ communication by secreted microRNAs. Nat Metab (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42255-026-01558-0
Image Credits: AI Generated
Naked mole-rats have long puzzled biologists with their striking eusocial structure, where most adults remain reproductively suppressed while a queen controls the colony’s future. Now, a new study identifies a chemical “queen odour” that links social status to endocrine control, revealing a mammalian analogue to insect queen pheromones.
The molecule, termed IPM, is enriched by the queen and acts as the key mediator of reproductive suppression in non-breeding females. When IPM is present, circulating prolactin rises while progesterone is suppressed, locking the colony into a stable reproductive hierarchy characterized by reduced conflict and maintained group cohesion.
Crucially, the team connects this behavioural outcome to the brain. Using multiple approaches—including non-invasive functional ultrasound imaging (fUSI)—they show that IPM provokes strong activation of olfactory neurons and central neural circuits. This provides a neural substrate for how a chemical cue can trigger colony-wide physiological change, rather than relying on social learning or passive association.
The experiments also clarify sensory routing. Ablating olfaction abolishes aggression initiation and lowers prolactin levels, directly tying IPM detection to reproductive suppression. While the findings are consistent with sensing through the main olfactory epithelium, the authors note that the vomeronasal system may still contribute.
Queen removal normally destabilizes colonies, leading to aggression, reproductive competition, prolactin decline, and, in extreme cases, mortality. Yet when IPM is added to queenless bedding, the colony remains stable for months. During this period, fecal progesterone metabolite levels stay low, indicating sustained ovarian quiescence alongside elevated prolactin.
The study also addresses a longstanding paradox: transferring soiled bedding and urine from parent colonies fails to maintain suppression in isolated individuals. The authors propose that IPM’s chemistry helps explain this discrepancy. As a long-chain fatty acid ester with low volatility, IPM may persist within the colony environment but fail to travel effectively over distance or survive transfer pathways that preferentially carry other chemicals.
Comparative work extends beyond naked mole-rats. IPM is detected in breeding females of four additional Fukomys species. Although reproductive suppression mechanisms may differ across species, the presence of a similar queen-linked odorant suggests convergent chemical strategies for managing reproductive skew in eusocial mammals.
Overall, the research reframes reproduction control as a chemosensory-to-endocrine pathway: IPM activates olfactory–hypothalamic signalling, elevating prolactin and inhibiting GnRH release. This “social hormone” model offers a new principle for social evolution—chemical cues can synchronize behaviour and physiology at the scale of an entire mammal colony.
Subject of Research: Reproductive suppression and social hierarchy in eusocial mammals (naked mole-rats and related Fukomys species)
Article Title: A queen odour mediates reproductive suppression in a eusocial mammal
Article References:
Khallaf, M.A., Hart, D.W., Luo, W. et al. A queen odour mediates reproductive suppression in a eusocial mammal.
Nature (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10772-5
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10772-5
Keywords: IPM; queen odour; reproductive suppression; prolactin; GnRH; olfaction; eusociality; functional ultrasound imaging; Fukomys
UK regulator Ofcom launched an investigation into TikTok to assess whether the platform is meeting its obligations under the country’s Online Safety Act to protect children from harmful digital content.
The probe will assess whether the ByteDance-owned platform has implemented effective age assurance systems to determine if a user is underage and prevent children from encountering harmful material online.
Ofcom’s Age Assurance report, published today, suggested that some age inference models including those used by TikTok “may have failed to correctly identify a significant proportion of children”, potentially exposing them to harmful content.
If compliance failures are identified, the watchdog could impose fines of up to £18 million or 10% of the company’s global revenue, whichever is greater. In serious cases, it can also order third parties, including payment providers, advertising services or internet service providers, to withdraw services or block access to the platform in the UK.
A TikTok spokesperson told Reuters the platform “strictly enforces age-appropriate experiences through expert-informed platform rules and advanced age inference technologies, in line with major industry peers”, adding, “we are confident that we meet our Online Safety Act obligations and will work with Ofcom to demonstrate this”.
The probe follows initial findings published by Ofcom in May, which revealed TikTok was the service most frequently cited by children as a source of harmful content. More than half of underage users who recalled seeing harmful content identified TikTok as the source, ahead of YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook.
At the time, the regulator found personalised, algorithm-driven content feeds were a key route through which children encountered harmful material online. It added TikTok was “particularly concerning” as it was one of the platforms that had “not committed to any significant changes in response to our specific demands”.
Last month, the UK government laid out plans to impose a sweeping ban on social media access for under-16 users, alongside restrictions on gaming and live-streaming platforms.
The post TikTok in Ofcom crosshairs over child safety appeared first on Mobile World Live.
France’s competition authority assumed control of investigating a proposed purchase and subsequent carve-up of SFR by Iliad Group, Bouygues Telecom and Orange, after the European Commission (EC) referred the element falling under its remit.
In a statement, Autorite de la Concurrence estimated its probe into the three related transactions would take at least 18-months due to the complexity of the cases and markets involved.
When the parties announced the agreement in June, they estimated completion in H2 2027.
Because Orange and Bouygues Telecom generate more than two-thirds of their European Union-wide turnover in France, their agreements automatically fell under the remit of the national authority, but the EC could have looked directly into Iliad’s involvement because it did not meet the same criteria.
However, following an application from the company, the European regulator referred that part to France as well.
Autorite de la Concurrence noted the EC had considered it is “best placed to examine the transaction, in particular in view of its impact on the French market, the experience of the Autorite in the sector concerned and the fact the transaction is linked to two transactions with a national dimension”.
It plans to co-operate with the EC during the review.
The French regulator is already in discussions with Orange and Bouygues Telecom ahead of the pair making formal submissions and is now set to undertake a process with Iliad.
Its probe is set to include stakeholder consultation including consumer protection organisations and other regulators.
The post EC hands SFR deal probe to France appeared first on Mobile World Live.
Login