Researchers propose a new way to identify when babies become conscious

Academics are proposing a new and improved way to help researchers discover when consciousness emerges in human infancy.

When over the course of development do humans become conscious? When the seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes was asked about infant consciousness by his critics, he eventually suggested that infants might have thoughts, albeit ones that are simpler than those of adults. Hundreds of years later, the issue of when human beings become conscious is a question which remains a challenge for psychologists and philosophers alike.

But now, in response to a recent article in Trends in Cognitive Sciences, two academics from the University of Birmingham have suggested an improved way to help scientists and researchers identify when babies become conscious.

In a Letter to the Editor, also published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Dr Henry Taylor, Associate Professor of Philosophy, and Andrew Bremner, Professor of Developmental Psychology, have explored a new approach which is being proposed, that involves identifying markers of consciousness in adults, and then measuring when babies start to exhibit larger numbers of these in development.

Dr Taylor says: "For example, imagine that in adults, we know that a certain very specific behaviour, or a specific pattern of brain activation always comes along with consciousness. Then, if we can identify when this behaviour or brain activation arises in babies, we have good reason to think that this is when consciousness emerges in babies. Behaviours and brain activations like this are what we call 'markers' of consciousness."

This kind of approach is desperately needed since babies (unlike adults) cannot tell you what they are conscious of. Professor Bremner said: "It is really hard to establish when babies become conscious. This is mostly because infants can't report their experiences and, as most parents will know, can be rather uncooperative particularly when it comes to experimental tasks. As we can't just ask babies when they become conscious, the best approach is to try to identify a broad range of markers of consciousness, which appear in early development and late development, and then group them together, this could help us identify when consciousness emerges."

In the recent article the researchers (Prof. Tim Bayne and colleagues) suggested four specific markers of consciousness, some of which are present in the late stages of gestation, and others which are found in early infancy. Based on this, the study argues that consciousness emerges early (from the last prenatal trimester).

But Professor Bremner and Dr Taylor say that this ignores other markers of consciousness. Previous research has identified a separate cluster of markers. These include:

• Pointing (bringing a social partner's attention to an object and checking). • Intentional control (intentional means-end coordination of actions -- e.g., pulling a support to retrieve a distal object). • Explicit memory (deferred imitation of actions).

Dr Taylor said: "One of the complicated issues is that it does not look like all the markers point to the same age for the emergence of consciousness. The ones mentioned by Bayne and colleagues suggest somewhere between the third trimester of pregnancy and early infancy, but other markers suggest the age might be around one year old. In fact, at the really extreme end, some markers only emerge at around 3-4 years. Because there are so many different markers of consciousness which appear in early and late development it is extremely hard to come to a conclusion."

Professor Bremner concluded: "We propose that a broad approach to markers, including those that emerge in early and late stage, is needed. We also recommend that a range of developmental models of the onset of consciousness should be considered. For instance, it may be that some markers emerge in one cluster in early development, with others in a later cluster. As well as this there may be a continuous and gradual emergence of certain markers stretching over gestation and throughout early life.

Read more at Science Daily

First recognition of self in the mirror is spurred by touch

Most babies begin recognizing themselves in mirrors when they are about a year and half old. This kind of self-recognition is an important developmental milestone, and now scientists at The University of Texas at Austin have discovered a key driver for it: experiences of touch.

Their new study found babies who were prompted to touch their own faces developed self-recognition earlier than those who did not.

The research was published this month in the journal Current Biology.

"This suggests that babies pulling on their toes or tapping their fingers are not just playing," said Jeffrey Lockman, a professor of human development and family sciences at UT and senior author on the paper.

"They are developing self-awareness through self-directed activity. I think this work demonstrates a possible mechanism by which self-recognition can develop based on active experience that human babies naturally generate."

Researchers began by placing small vibrating discs on the foreheads and cheeks of toddlers when they were around 14 months old, before the usual age at which self-recognition occurs.

In response to the vibration, the children would reach up and touch the disc.

Next, researchers turned the children to face a mirror and watched as they reached up to touch the discs.

Researchers then had the children perform the standard mirror-mark test for self-recognition in which a small mark of paint or makeup was placed on each child's face.

If the child looked in the mirror and touched the mark on their own face or said words like their name or "me," they demonstrated self-recognition.

Researchers also observed a control group of children who were exposed to the laboratory experience with mirrors but not the vibrating discs.

Both groups were comparable at the beginning of the study and observed monthly until they recognized themselves or reached 21 months.

The children who touched their face more frequently recognized themselves in the mirror about two months earlier, on average, than when children typically first begin to recognize themselves in a mirror.

The study challenges a longstanding assumption that self-recognition in early childhood is somehow hardwired.

For a long time, scientists believed early recognition in the mirror was a built-in function of human brains and those of our closest primate relatives, versus linked to sensory or motor experiences.

The researchers said the findings may have implications for interventions for children with motor development delays.

"Interventions for infants who have issues related to motor skills are typically focused on reaching for objects in the external world and manipulating them," Lockman said.

"These findings suggest that reaching to the body may be equally important and that exploring the body is the gateway to self-knowledge."

Read more at Science Daily

Babies as young as four months show signs of self-awareness

Babies as young as four months old can make sense of how their bodies interact with the space around them, according to new research from the University of Birmingham.

The findings, published today (21 November 2023) in Scientific Reports, shed new light on how self-awareness develops.

Experts from the Birmingham BabyLab showed babies a ball on a screen moving towards or away from them.

When the ball was closest to them on the screen, the babies were presented with a 'touch' (a small vibration) on their hands, whilst their brain activity was being measured.

The data collection for the study was conducted at Goldsmiths (University of London).

The researchers found that from just four months old, babies show enhanced somatosensory (tactile) brain activity when a touch is preceded by an object moving towards them.

Dr Giulia Orioli, Research Fellow in Psychology at the University of Birmingham, who led the study said: "Our findings indicate that even in the first few months of life, before babies have even learned to reach for objects, the multisensory brain is wired up to make links between what babies see and what they feel. This means they can sense the space around them and understand how their bodies interact with that space. This is sometimes referred to as peripersonal space.

"Of course, humans do this all the time as adults, using our combined senses to perceive where we are in space and making predictions about when we will touch an object or not. But now that we know that babies in the early stages of their development begin to show signs of this, it opens up questions about how much of these abilities are learnt, or innate."

The researchers also explored how an unexpected 'touch' would affect some of the older babies in the study.

They found that in babies aged eight months old when the touch on their hand was preceded by the ball on the screen moving away from them, the babies' brain activity showed signs that they were surprised.

Andrew Bremner, Professor of Developmental Psychology, commented: "Seeing the older babies show surprise responses suggests that they had not expected the touch due to the visual direction the object was moving in. This indicates that as babies proceed through their first year of life, their brains construct a more sophisticated awareness of how their body exists in the space around them."

Next, the researchers are hoping to follow up this study with younger and older participants.

Research with adults can illuminate the kinds of brain activity which infants are developing towards.

They are also hoping to be able to see if there are early signs of these "multisensory" abilities in newborn babies.

Read more at Science Daily

Exposure to air pollution while in the womb is linked to adverse changes in cell processes in new-born babies

Exposure to air pollution while in the womb is linked to alterations in proteins that can be detected after a baby is born, and which affect cell processes such as autophagy, the "self-eating" of damaged cells that occurs in response to stress.

Dr Olga Gorlanova, a research physician at the University Children's Hospital, University of Basel, Switzerland, told the European Respiratory Society International Congress in Milan, Italy, that her study also showed that healthy, new-born babies had individual and different responses to their mothers' exposure to air pollution during pregnancy. This might mean that some babies were more vulnerable to it than others. This was the case even if they were born into households in areas with relatively low levels of pollution.

Earlier work by Dr Gorlanova and her colleagues had shown that exposure to air pollution during pregnancy could affect lung function and the immune system in new-borns. In the current study, they looked at proteins involved in autophagy, ageing and cell remodelling to see how prenatal exposure to air pollution could affect them.

The researchers measured 11 proteins found in the cord blood of 449 healthy new-born babies from the Bern Basel Infant Lung Development (BILD) cohort study. The BILD study, started in 1999 in Bern, aims to recruit 1000 babies by 2025. It is investigating the effects of genetics and the environment (particularly air pollution) on lung development in babies and children.

Dr Gorlanova and colleagues measured the mothers' exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and tiny particles called PM10,which areparticulate matter measuring 10 microns or less in diameter. Vehicle emissions, tyre and brake wear, and smoke are some of the sources of these pollutants. They found that NO2 and PM10 were both linked to changes in proteins involved in autophagy. Exposure to NO2 was linked to a decrease in the activity of the proteins SIRT1 and IL-8, and an increase in levels of the Beclin-1 protein.

"Our results indicate that NO2, a pollutant formed mainly from traffic emissions, is associated with increased levels of Beclin-1 protein, which is central to initiating autophagy. Exposure to higher NO2 was also linked to decreased levels of SIRT1, which is a protein that plays a protective role in stress resistance, inflammation and aging. IL-8 is a protein active in certain inflammatory cells," said Dr Gorlanova.

"We grouped the babies into four distinct clusters according to the levels of air pollution they were exposed to while in the womb. The four clusters all had similar concentrations of the proteins being studied but had differences their exposure to NO2 and PM10 air pollution. One cluster had low concentrations of nine proteins, while another cluster, consisting of seven percent of all the babies, had higher levels of proteins that are involved in inflammatory and remodelling processes: IL-8 and IL-1B. Both these groups of new-borns had been exposed to lower, although differing, levels of prenatal air pollution than the other two groups. Our findings suggest that healthy new-borns have an individual response pattern to air pollution. We think that this may be an indication that some babies are more vulnerable to it than others.

"Additionally, our work adds to the growing body of evidence that autophagy-related mechanisms may be involved in how human cells react to air pollution. The findings are consistent with evidence from tissue and animal research. Further exploration of these mechanisms may help to better understand the deleterious effects of pollution on infants."

The researchers plan to examine whether babies with distinct protein response patterns to air pollution will suffer from more breathing problems during infancy and childhood compared to those that do not show the same protein responses.

Professor Marielle Pijnenburg, associate professor of pediatric pulmonology and head of the Department of Pediatric Respiratory Medicine and Allergology at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, is head of the ERS group on paediatrics and was not involved with the research. She commented: "This study adds to the growing body of evidence that air pollution can affect the health of children before and after they are born. It contributes to other research showing that autophagy-related mechanisms may be involved in how human cells react to air pollution. We need to know more about how these mechanisms can affect the health of lungs, and we need to understand why some new-borns seem to be more susceptible to air pollution than others.

Read more at Science Daily

Your baby's gut is crawling with unknown viruses

Babies tumble about with more than 200 previously unknown viral families within their intestines. This large number comes as a surprise to researchers from the University of Copenhagen and COPSAC, who closely studied the diapers of 647 Danish babies and made the first mapping of its kind. These viruses most likely play an important role in protecting children from chronic diseases.

Viruses are usually associated with illness. But our bodies are full of both bacteria and viruses that constantly proliferate and interact with each other in our gastrointestinal tract. While we have known for decades that gut bacteria in young children are vital to protect them from chronic diseases later on in life, our knowledge about the many viruses found there is minimal.

A few years back, this gave University of Copenhagen professor Dennis Sandris Nielsen the idea to delve more deeply into this question. As a result, a team of researchers from COPSAC (Copenhagen Prospective Studies on Asthma in Childhood) and the Department of Food Science at UCPH, among others, spent five years studying and mapping the diaper contents of 647 healthy Danish one-year-olds.

"We found an exceptional number of unknown viruses in the faeces of these babies. Not just thousands of new virus species -- but to our surprise, the viruses represented more than 200 families of yet to be described viruses. This means that, from early on in life, healthy children are tumbling about with an extreme diversity of gut viruses, which probably have a major impact on whether they develop various diseases later on in life," says Professor Dennis Sandris Nielsen of the Department of Food Science, senior author of the research paper about the study, now published in Nature Microbiology.

The researchers found and mapped a total of 10,000 viral species in the children's faeces -- a number ten times larger than the number of bacterial species in the same children. These viral species are distributed across 248 different viral families, of which only 16 were previously known. The researchers named the remaining 232 unknown viral families after the children whose diapers made the study possible. As a result, new viral families include names like Sylvesterviridae, Rigmorviridae and Tristanviridae.

Bacterial viruses are our allies

"This is the first time that such a systematic an overview of gut viral diversity has been compiled. It provides an entirely new basis for discovering the importance of viruses for our microbiome and immune system development. Our hypothesis is that, because the immune system has not yet learned to separate the wheat from the chaff at the age of one, an extraordinarily high species richness of gut viruses emerges, and is likely needed to protect against chronic diseases like asthma and diabetes later on in life," states Shiraz Shah, first author and a senior researcher at COPSAC.

Ninety percent of the viruses found by the researchers are bacterial viruses -- known as bacteriophages. These viruses have bacteria as their hosts and do not attack the children's own cells, meaning that they do not cause disease. The hypothesis is that bacteriophages primarily serve as allies:

"We work from the assumption that bacteriophages are largely responsible for shaping bacterial communities and their function in our intestinal system. Some bacteriophages can provide their host bacterium with properties that make it more competitive by integrating its own genome into the genome of the bacterium. When this occurs, a bacteriophage can then increase a bacterium's ability to absorb e.g. various carbohydrates, thereby allowing the bacterium to metabolise more things," explains Dennis Sandris Nielsen, who continues:

"It also seems like bacteriophages help keep the gut microbiome balanced by keeping individual bacterial populations in check, which ensures that there are not too many of a single bacterial species in the ecosystem. It's a bit like lion and gazelle populations on the savannah."

Shiraz Shah adds:

"Previously, the research community mostly focused on the role of bacteria in relation to health and disease. But viruses are the third leg of the stool and we need to learn more about them. Viruses, bacteria and the immune system most likely interact and affect each other in some type of balance. Any imbalance in this relationship most likely increases the risk of chronic disease."

The remaining ten percent of viruses found in the children are eukaryotic -- that is, they use human cells as hosts. These can be both friends and foes for us:

"It is thought-provoking that all children run around with 10-20 of these virus types that infect human cells. So, there is a constant viral infection taking place, which apparently doesn't make them sick. We just know very little about what's really at play. My guess is that they're important for training our immune system to recognise infections later. But it may also be that they are a risk factor for diseases that we have yet to discover," says Dennis Sandris Nielsen.

Could play an important role in inflammatory diseases

The researchers have yet to discover where the many viruses in the one-year-olds come from. Their best answer thus far is the environment:

"Our gut is sterile until we are born. During birth, we are exposed to bacteria from the mother and environment. It is likely that some of the first viruses come along with these initial bacteria, while many others are introduced later via dirty fingers, pets, dirt that kids put in their mouths and other things in the environment," says Dennis Sandris Nielsen.

As Shiraz Shah points out, the entire field of research speaks to a huge global health problem:

"A lot of research suggests that the majority of chronic diseases that we're familiar with -- from arthritis to depression -- have an inflammatory component. That is, the immune system is not working as it ought to -- which might be because it wasn't trained properly. So, if we learn more about the role that bacteria and viruses play in a well-trained immune system, it can hopefully lead us to being able to avoid many of the chronic diseases that afflict so many people today."

The research groups have begun investigating the role of gut viruses in relation to a number of different diseases that occur in childhood, such as asthma and ADHD.

Read more at Science Daily

Preterm babies do not habituate to repeated pain

Preterm infants do not get used to repeated pain in the way that full-term infants, children and adults do habituate to pain, finds a study led by UCL (University College London) researchers.

The authors of the new Current Biology paper say that if preterm infants have not yet developed the mechanism that enables people to get used to moderate pain, medical procedures in their first few weeks of life could potentially impact their development.

Lead author Dr Lorenzo Fabrizi (UCL Neuroscience, Physiology & Pharmacology) said: "The way that we can get used to things can be seen as the simplest example of behavioural and brain plasticity, and it is a basic part of memory and learning. Pain habituation is important because it enables us to preserve physical, emotional, and cognitive resources by not overreacting to pain that is unavoidable or not life-threatening.

"Our findings suggest that the ability to get used to repeated pain might develop during the third trimester of pregnancy, so that babies born prematurely have not yet developed this ability that full-term babies have right from birth."

The study involved 20 infants at University College London Hospitals (UCLH). Half of them were preterm (and tested while still younger than 35 weeks gestational age*), while the other half were either born at full term (seven infants) or preterm but tested at term age (three infants). The two groups were comparable in terms of their actual postnatal age, as the preterm babies had a median age of 14 days, compared to 10 days among the full-term (or term age) group.

The researchers were measuring the infants' responses to a painful but clinically required heel lance (blood test), which was conducted twice (three to 18 minutes apart) for each infant (two lances are sometimes required to collect enough blood; this is not needed for most infants so only those that needed a second lance were included in the study).

Heel lances can elicit substantial pain responses in infants, but it was not previously known whether this decreases on repeated lances. To understand this, the researchers recorded the infants' brain activity with EEG (electroencephalography) electrodes placed on the scalp, and their heart rates using ECG (electrocardiography), while also monitoring their facial expressions and reflexes in withdrawing the leg.

The researchers found that the brain activity was not as strong immediately after the second heel lance, compared to the first, suggesting a habituation response, but this was only the case for full-term infants. They found a similar pattern for heart rate and facial expressions, as preterm infants reacted just as strongly to both heel lances, while the full-term infants appeared to habituate to the pain.

The team says this habituation response might be due to the full-term infants anticipating the imminent pain when they receive a second heel lance, so their reaction is less pronounced, or it may instead or additionally be due to their brains modulating their reflexive survival responses.

They add that habituation to pain might protect the full-term infants, but not those who were pre-term, from potential consequences to their development.

First author Dr Mohammed Rupawala (UCL Neuroscience, Physiology & Pharmacology) said: "While unpleasant and painful clinical procedures are necessary for many young infants, there is the potential to impact their development, such as by altered pain perception, or potentially reduced grey matter or disrupted white matter in the brain."

Co-author Dr Judith Meek, consultant neonatologist at UCLH, said: "This work raises awareness of the extra vulnerability of premature babies to pain. Clinicians need to do their best to protect them from repeated painful experiences. This should be regarded as an essential component of brain oriented newborn care."

Read more at Science Daily

Spontaneous baby movements have purpose

Spontaneous, random baby movements aid development of their sensorimotor system, according to new research led by the University of Tokyo. Detailed motion capture of newborns and infants was combined with a musculoskeletal computer model, to enable researchers to analyze communication among muscles and sensation across the whole body. Researchers found patterns of muscle interaction developing based on the babies' random exploratory behavior, that would later enable them to perform sequential movements as infants. Better understanding how our sensorimotor system develops could help us gain insight into the origin of human movement as well as earlier diagnosis of developmental disorders.

If you've spent time with a baby, you'll probably have noticed that they hardly keep still. Right from birth -- and even in the womb -- babies start to kick, wiggle and move seemingly without aim or external stimulation. These are called "spontaneous movements" and researchers believe that they have an important role to play in the development of the sensorimotor system, i.e., our ability to control our muscles, movement and coordination. If we can better understand these seemingly random movements and how they are involved in early human development, we might also be able to identify early indicators for certain developmental disorders, such as cerebral palsy.

Currently, there is limited knowledge about how newborns and infants learn to move their body. "Previous research into sensorimotor development has focused on kinematic properties, muscle activities which cause movement in a joint or a part of the body," said Project Assistant Professor Hoshinori Kanazawa from the Graduate School of Information Science and Technology. "However, our study focused on muscle activity and sensory input signals for the whole body. By combining a musculoskeletal model and neuroscientific method, we found that spontaneous movements, which seem to have no explicit task or purpose, contribute to coordinated sensorimotor development."

First, the team recorded the joint movements of 12 healthy newborns (less than 10 days old) and 10 young infants (about 3 months old) using motion capture technology. Next, they estimated the babies' muscle activity and sensory input signals with the aid of a whole-body, infant-scale musculoskeletal computer model which they had created. Finally, they used computer algorithms to analyze the spatiotemporal (both space and time) features of the interaction between the input signals and muscle activity.

"We were surprised that during spontaneous movement, infants' movements "wandered" and they pursued various sensorimotor interactions. We named this phenomenon 'sensorimotor wandering,'" said Kanazawa. "It has been commonly assumed that sensorimotor system development generally depends on the occurrence of repeated sensorimotor interactions, meaning the more you do the same action the more likely you are to learn and remember it. However, our results implied that infants develop their own sensorimotor system based on explorational behavior or curiosity, so they are not just repeating the same action but a variety of actions. In addition to this, our findings provide a conceptual linkage between early spontaneous movements and spontaneous neuronal activity."

Previous studies on humans and animals have shown that motor behavior (movement) involves a small set of primitive muscular control patterns. These are patterns that can typically be seen in task-specific or cyclic movements, like walking or reaching. The results of this latest study supports the theory that newborns and infants can acquire sensorimotor modules, i.e., synchronized muscle activities and sensory inputs, through spontaneous whole-body movements without an explicit purpose or task. Even through sensorimotor wandering, the babies showed an increase in coordinated whole-body movements and in anticipatory movements. The movements performed by the infant group showed more common patterns and sequential movements, compared to the random movements of the newborn group.

Read more at Science Daily

Metabolism, not genes, may offer more insight into risk of some diseases

Our ancestry can be detected not only in our genes, but also in our metabolism, a new Yale-led study has found.

In an analysis of the metabolic profiles of healthy American babies, researchers found surprising differences among ethnic groups which may help make screening for inherited metabolic disorders, cystic fibrosis, or hypothyroidism much more accurate than traditional genetic disease screens.

"We don't want to miss a baby who is potentially sick, and we don't want to put families through the burdens and concerns that can stem from a false-positive test," said Curt Scharfe, associate professor of genetics at Yale School of Medicine and senior author of the study published in the journal Molecular Genetics and Metabolism.

For the study, Scharfe and colleagues analyzed data collected from more than 400,000 babies, representing 17 self-reported ethnic groups, who were part of California's newborn screening program. Specifically, they wanted to know if these ethnic differences could be detected in metabolites, molecules that provide energy by breaking down food or body tissue such as fat, found in the blood of the infants.

The question was not only of academic interest but of concern to pediatricians. For instance, it is known that babies of African heritage are more likely to have elevated blood biomarkers indicating cystic fibrosis than babies born to white parents, even though babies born to white parents are far more likely to eventually develop the disease. Researchers hope that using ancestry to interpret these differences in marker levels might offer more accurate ways to assess risks than traditional genetic tests.

People of African heritage are also known to have greater genetic diversity than those from ethnic groups because they are descendants of the world's oldest ancestral population. Modern humans emigrated from Africa to regions across the planet; other ethnic groups are descendants of these original migrants, and have enough variation in their DNA to make them genetically identifiable.

But metabolic lineages can tell a different story, the researchers found. For instance, while there is a clear delineation between genetic variants among African-Americans and Americans of European descent, researchers found that metabolically these two groups are more closely related. Conversely, while people of Japanese and Chinese descent, for instance, are closely related genetically, the researchers found larger differences in their metabolic profiles.

"This attests to the role of environment in forming our metabolism," Scharfe said. "Where people share the same culture and food, metabolic profiles are more similar. Where people are separated by circumstances, such as language or lifestyles, then differences in metabolism are greater than genetic variations."

Scharfe cautions that more work needs to be done before findings can be applied clinically. Researchers only analyzed 41 out of many hundreds of metabolites and relied on parents own reports of their ethnic heritage, which might not always correspond to reality.

"This is just a first snap shot, but understanding our metabolic ancestry has a promising future," Scharfe said.

Read more at Science Daily

World's first stem cell treatment for spina bifida delivered during fetal surgery

Three babies have been born after receiving the world's first spina bifida treatment combining surgery with stem cells. This was made possible by a landmark clinical trial at UC Davis Health.

The one-of-a-kind treatment, delivered while a fetus is still developing in the mother's womb, could improve outcomes for children with this birth defect.

Launched in the spring of 2021, the clinical trial is known formally as the "CuRe Trial: Cellular Therapy for In Utero Repair of Myelomeningocele." Thirty-five patients will be treated in total.

The three babies from the trial that have been born so far will be monitored by the research team until 30 months of age to fully assess the procedure's safety and effectiveness.

The first phase of the trial is funded by a $9 million state grant from the state's stem cell agency, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).

"This clinical trial could enhance the quality of life for so many patients to come," said Emily, the first clinical trial participant who traveled from Austin, Tex. to participate. Her daughter Robbie was born last October. "We didn't know about spina bifida until the diagnosis. We are so thankful that we got to be a part of this. We are giving our daughter the very best chance at a bright future."

Spina bifida, also known as myelomeningocele, occurs when spinal tissue fails to fuse properly during the early stages of pregnancy. The birth defect can lead to a range of lifelong cognitive, mobility, urinary and bowel disabilities. It affects 1,500 to 2,000 children in the U.S. every year. It is often diagnosed through ultrasound.

While surgery performed after birth can help reduce some of the effects, surgery before birth can prevent or lessen the severity of the fetus's spinal damage, which worsens over the course of pregnancy.

"I've been working toward this day for almost 25 years now," said Diana Farmer, the world's first woman fetal surgeon, professor and chair of surgery at UC Davis Health and principal investigator on the study.

The path to a future cure

As a leader of the Management of Myelomeningocele Study (MOMS) clinical trial in the early 2000s, Farmer had previously helped to prove that fetal surgery reduced neurological deficits from spina bifida. Many children in that study showed improvement but still required wheelchairs or leg braces.

Farmer recruited bioengineer Aijun Wang specifically to help take that work to the next level. Together, they launched the UC Davis Health Surgical Bioengineering Laboratory to find ways to use stem cells and bioengineering to advance surgical effectiveness and improve outcomes. Farmer also launched the UC Davis Fetal Care and Treatment Center with fetal surgeon Shinjiro Hirose and the UC Davis Children's Surgery Center several years ago.

Farmer, Wang and their research team have been working on their novel approach using stem cells in fetal surgery for more than 10 years. Over that time, animal modeling has shown it is capable of preventing the paralysis associated with spina bifida.

It's believed that the stem cells work to repair and restore damaged spinal tissue, beyond what surgery can accomplish alone.

Preliminary work by Farmer and Wang proved that prenatal surgery combined with human placenta-derived mesenchymal stromal cells, held in place with a biomaterial scaffold to form a "patch," helped lambs with spina bifida walk without noticeable disability.

"When the baby sheep who received stem cells were born, they were able to stand at birth and they were able to run around almost normally. It was amazing," Wang said.

When the team refined their surgery and stem cells technique for canines, the treatment also improved the mobility of dogs with naturally occurring spina bifida.

A pair of English bulldogs named Darla and Spanky were the world's first dogs to be successfully treated with surgery and stem cells. Spina bifida, a common birth defect in this breed, frequently leaves them with little function in their hindquarters.

By their post-surgery re-check at 4 months old, Darla and Spanky were able to walk, run and play.

The world's first human trial

When Emily and her husband Harry learned that they would be first-time parents, they never expected any pregnancy complications. But the day that Emily learned that her developing child had spina bifida was also the day she first heard about the CuRe trial.

For Emily, it was a lifeline that they couldn't refuse.

Participating in the trial would mean that she would need to temporarily move to Sacramento for the fetal surgery and then for weekly follow-up visits during her pregnancy.

After screenings, MRI scans and interviews, Emily received the life-changing news that she was accepted into the trial. Her fetal surgery was scheduled for July 12, 2021, at 25 weeks and five days gestation.

Farmer and Wang's team manufactures clinical grade stem cells -- mesenchymal stem cells -- from placental tissue in the UC Davis Health's CIRM-funded Institute for Regenerative Cures. The cells are known to be among the most promising type of cells in regenerative medicine.

The lab is a Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) Laboratory for safe use in humans. It is here that they made the stem cell patch for Emily's fetal surgery.

"It's a four-day process to make the stem cell patch," said Priya Kumar, the scientist at the Center for Surgical Bioengineering in the Department of Surgery, who leads the team that creates the stem cell patches and delivers them to the operating room. "The time we pull out the cells, the time we seed on the scaffold, and the time we deliver, is all critical."

A first in medical history

During Emily's historic procedure, a 40-person operating and cell preparation team did the careful dance that they had been long preparing for.

After Emily was placed under general anesthetic, a small opening was made in her uterus and they floated the fetus up to that incision point so they could expose its spine and the spina bifida defect. The surgeons used a microscope to carefully begin the repair.

Then the moment of truth: The stem cell patch was placed directly over the exposed spinal cord of the fetus. The fetal surgeons then closed the incision to allow the tissue to regenerate.

"The placement of the stem cell patch went off without a hitch. Mother and fetus did great!" Farmer said.

The team declared the first-of-its-kind surgery a success.

Delivery day

On Sept. 20, 2021, at 35 weeks and five days gestation, Robbie was born at 5 pounds, 10 ounces, 19 inches long via C-section.

"One of my first fears was that I wouldn't be able to see her, but they brought her over to me. I got to see her toes wiggle for the first time. It was so reassuring and a little bit out of this world," Emily said.

For Farmer, this day is what she had long hoped for, and it came with surprises. If Robbie had remained untreated, she was expected to be born with leg paralysis.

"It was very clear the minute she was born that she was kicking her legs and I remember very clearly saying, 'Oh my God, I think she's wiggling her toes!'" said Farmer, who noted that the observation was not an official confirmation, but it was promising. "It was amazing. We kept saying, 'Am I seeing that? Is that real?'"

Both mom and baby are at home and in good health. Robbie just celebrated her first birthday.

The CuRe team is cautious about drawing conclusions and says a lot is still to be learned during this safety phase of the trial. The team will continue to monitor Robbie and the other babies in the trial until they are 6 years old, with a key checkup happening at 30 months to see if they are walking and potty training.

Read more at Science Daily

Babies react to taste and smell in the womb

Scientists have recorded the first direct evidence that babies react differently to various smells and tastes while in the womb by looking at their facial expressions.

A study led by Durham University's Fetal and Neonatal Research Lab, UK, took 4D ultrasound scans of 100 pregnant women to see how their unborn babies responded after being exposed to flavours from foods eaten by their mothers.

Researchers looked at how the fetuses reacted to either carrot or kale flavours just a short time after the flavours had been ingested by the mothers.

Fetuses exposed to carrot showed more "laughter-face" responses while those exposed to kale showed more "cry-face" responses.

Their findings could further our understanding of the development of human taste and smell receptors.

The researchers also believe that what pregnant women eat might influence babies' taste preferences after birth and potentially have implications for establishing healthy eating habits.

The study is published in the journal Psychological Science.

Humans experience flavour through a combination of taste and smell. In fetuses it is thought that this might happen through inhaling and swallowing the amniotic fluid in the womb.

Lead researcher Beyza Ustun, a postgraduate researcher in the Fetal and Neonatal Research Lab, Department of Psychology, Durham University, said:

"A number of studies have suggested that babies can taste and smell in the womb, but they are based on post-birth outcomes while our study is the first to see these reactions prior to birth.

"As a result, we think that this repeated exposure to flavours before birth could help to establish food preferences post-birth, which could be important when thinking about messaging around healthy eating and the potential for avoiding 'food-fussiness' when weaning.

"It was really amazing to see unborn babies' reaction to kale or carrot flavours during the scans and share those moments with their parents."

The research team, which also included scientists from Aston University, Birmingham, UK, and the National Centre for Scientific Research-University of Burgundy, France, scanned the mothers, aged 18 to 40, at both 32 weeks and 36 weeks of pregnancy to see fetal facial reactions to the kale and carrot flavours.

Mothers were given a single capsule containing approximately 400mg of carrot or 400mg kale powder around 20 minutes before each scan. They were asked not to consume any food or flavoured drinks one hour before their scans.

The mothers also did not eat or drink anything containing carrot or kale on the day of their scans to control for factors that could affect fetal reactions.

Facial reactions seen in both flavour groups, compared with fetuses in a control group who were not exposed to either flavour, showed that exposure to just a small amount of carrot or kale flavour was enough to stimulate a reaction.

Co-author Professor Nadja Reissland, head of the Fetal and Neonatal Research Lab, Department of Psychology, Durham University, supervised Beyza Ustun's research. She said:

"Previous research conducted in my lab has suggested that 4D ultrasound scans are a way of monitoring fetal reactions to understand how they respond to maternal health behaviours such as smoking, and their mental health including stress, depression, and anxiety.

"This latest study could have important implications for understanding the earliest evidence for fetal abilities to sense and discriminate different flavours and smells from the foods ingested by their mothers."

Co-author Professor Benoist Schaal, of the National Centre for Scientific Research-University of Burgundy, France, said:

"Looking at fetuses' facial reactions we can assume that a range of chemical stimuli pass through maternal diet into the fetal environment.

"This could have important implications for our understanding of the development of our taste and smell receptors, and related perception and memory."

The researchers say their findings might also help with information given to mothers about the importance of taste and healthy diets during pregnancy.

They have now begun a follow-up study with the same babies post-birth to see if the influence of flavours they experienced in the womb affects their acceptance of different foods.

Research co-author Professor Jackie Blissett, of Aston University, said:

"It could be argued that repeated prenatal flavour exposures may lead to preferences for those flavours experienced postnatally. In other words, exposing the fetus to less 'liked' flavours, such as kale, might mean they get used to those flavours in utero.

Read more at Science Daily

What's in a name? Glimmers of evolution in naming babies, choosing a dog

Maverick was first used as a baby name after a television show called "Maverick" aired in the 1950s, but its popularity rose meteorically in 1986 with the release of the movie "Top Gun." Today, it is even used for baby girls.

The name Emma peaked in popularity in the late 1800s, declined precipitously through the first half of the 1900s, then shot back up to be one of the most popular names of the early 2000s. Linda peaked somewhere in the late 1940s and Daniel in the mid-1980s. But each rise in popularity was followed by an equally steep decline.

So, what's in a name -- or, at least, what's in a baby name trend? University of Michigan evolutionary biologist Mitchell Newberry has found that the more popular a name becomes, the less likely future parents are to follow suit. Same goes for popular dog breeds: Dalmatians today are a tenth as popular as they were in the 1990s.

Newberry, an assistant professor of complex systems, says examining trends in the popularity of baby names and dog breeds can be a proxy for understanding ecological and evolutionary change. The names and dog breed preferences themselves are like genes or organisms competing for scarce resources. In this case, the scarce resources are the minds of parents and dog owners. His results are published in the journal Nature Human Behavior.

Newberry looks at frequency-dependent selection, a kind of natural selection in which the tendency to copy a certain variant depends on that variant's current frequency or popularity, regardless of its content. If people tend to copy the most common variant, then everyone ends up doing roughly the same thing. But if people become less willing to copy a variant the more popular it becomes, it leads to a greater diversity of variants.

"Think of how we use millions of different names to refer to people but we almost always use the same word to refer to baseball," Newberry said. "For words, there's pressure to conform, but my work shows that the diversity of names results from pressures against conformity."

These trends are common in biology, but difficult to quantify. What researchers do have is a complete database of the names of babies over the last 87 years.

Newberry used the Social Security Administration baby name database, itself born in 1935, to examine frequency dependence in first names in the United States. He found that when a name is most rare -- 1 in 10,000 births -- it tends to grow, on average, at a rate of 1.4% a year. But when a name is most common -- more than 1 in 100 births -- its popularity declines, on average, at 1.6%.

"This is really a case study showing how boom-bust cycles by themselves can disfavor common types and promote diversity," Newberry said. "If people are always thirsting after the newest thing, then it's going to create a lot of new things. Every time a new thing is created, it's promoted, and so more rare things rise to higher frequency and you have more diversity in the population."

Using the same techniques they applied to baby names, Newberry and colleagues examined dog breed preferences using a database of purebred dog registrations from the American Kennel Club. They found boom-bust cycles in the popularity of dog breeds similar to the boom-bust cycles in baby names.

The researchers found a Greyhound boom in the 1940s and a Rottweiler boom in the 1990s. This shows what researchers call a negative frequency dependent selection, or anti-conformity, meaning that as frequency increases, selection becomes more negative. That means that rare dog breeds at 1 in 10,000 tend to increase in popularity faster than dogs already at 1 in 10.

"Biologists basically think these frequency-dependent pressures are fundamental in determining so many things," Newberry said. "The long list includes genetic diversity, immune escape, host-pathogen dynamics, the fact that there's basically a one-to-one ratio of males and females -- and even what different populations think is sexy.

"Why do birds like long tails? Why do bamboos take so long to flower? Why do populations split into different species? All of these relate at a fundamental level to either pressures of conformity or anticonformity within populations."

Conformity is necessary within species, Newberry says. For example, scientists can alter the order of genes on a fly's chromosomes, and it does not affect the fly at all. But that doesn't happen in the wild, because when that fly mates, its genes won't pair with its mate's, and their offspring will not survive.

However, we also need anticonformity, he says. If we all had the same immune system, we would all be susceptible to exactly the same diseases. Or, Newberry says, if the same species of animal all visited the same patch of land for food, they would quickly eat themselves out of existence.

Read more at Science Daily

What lies behind a baby’s eyes

We give meaning to our world through the categorisation of objects. When and how does this process begin? By studying the gaze of one hundred infants, scientists at the Institut des Sciences Cognitives Marc Jeannerod (CNRS/Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1) have demonstrated that, by the age of fourth months, babies can assign objects that they have never seen to the animate or inanimate category. These findings, published in PNAS on 15 February 2022, reveal measurable changes in neural organisation, which reflect the transition from simply viewing the world to understanding it.

The way babies look at the world is a great mystery. What do they really see? What information do they get from seeing? One might think they look at things that stand out the most -- by virtue of size or colour, for example. But when do babies begin to see and interpret the world like adults?

To answer this question, researchers from the Institut des Sciences Cognitives Marc Jeannerod (CNRS / Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1) studied one hundred babies aged between 4 and 19 months. The scientists recorded the babies' eye movements and the durations of their gaze as they looked at pairs of pictures representing animate or inanimate things from eight different categories (e.g., human faces and natural or artificial objects). The data obtained from eye tracking on babies were matched with measures of brain activity obtained from a group of adults using fMRI, in order to determine the correspondence between the categorical object organisation emerging from the babies' eyes and that mapped on the adults' visual cortex.

The methodology used in the study has revealed the transition from the visual exploration guided by the salience of objects, in the youngest babies, to an object representation towards the mature categorical organisation of the adult brain, in the older babies. Already at four months, babies can distinguish between animate and inanimate objects. For instance, they can tell that a man and a crocodile, being animals, are more similar to each other than they are to a tree, which is an inanimate object. This ability appears astonishing as, at that age, babies are unlikely to know what a tree or crocodile is.

Between 10 and 19 months of age, more refined categories emerge and the infants' organisation of objects into categories increasingly approaches that in the adult brain. Children in this age range immediately recognise a soft, furry object with a face as a nonhuman animal.

Read more at Science Daily

Babies can tell who has close relationships based on one clue: Saliva

Learning to navigate social relationships is a skill that is critical for surviving in human societies. For babies and young children, that means learning who they can count on to take care of them.

MIT neuroscientists have now identified a specific signal that young children and even babies use to determine whether two people have a strong relationship and a mutual obligation to help each other: whether those two people kiss, share food, or have other interactions that involve sharing saliva.

In a new study, the researchers showed that babies expect people who share saliva to come to one another's aid when one person is in distress, much more so than when people share toys or interact in other ways that do not involve saliva exchange. The findings suggest that babies can use these cues to try to figure out who around them is most likely to offer help, the researchers say.

"Babies don't know in advance which relationships are the close and morally obligating ones, so they have to have some way of learning this by looking at what happens around them," says Rebecca Saxe, the John W. Jarve Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, a member of MIT's McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and the senior author of the new study.

MIT postdoc Ashley Thomas is the lead author of the study, which appears today in Science. Brandon Woo, a Harvard University graduate student; Daniel Nettle, a professor of behavioral science at Newcastle University; and Elizabeth Spelke, a professor of psychology at Harvard, are also authors of the paper.

Sharing saliva

In human societies, people typically distinguish between "thick" and "thin" relationships. Thick relationships, usually found between family members, feature strong levels of attachment, obligation, and mutual responsiveness. Anthropologists have also observed that people in thick relationships are more willing to share bodily fluids such as saliva.

"That inspired both the question of whether infants distinguish between those types of relationships, and whether saliva sharing might be a really good cue they could use to recognize them," Thomas says.

To study those questions, the researchers observed toddlers (16.5 to 18.5 months) and babies (8.5 to 10 months) as they watched interactions between human actors and puppets. In the first set of experiments, a puppet shared an orange with one actor, then tossed a ball back and forth with a different actor.

After the children watched these initial interactions, the researchers observed the children's reactions when the puppet showed distress while sitting between the two actors. Based on an earlier study of nonhuman primates, the researchers hypothesized that babies would look first at the person whom they expected to help. That study showed that when baby monkeys cry, other members of the troop look to the baby's parents, as if expecting them to step in.

The MIT team found that the children were more likely to look toward the actor who had shared food with the puppet, not the one who had shared a toy, when the puppet was in distress.

In a second set of experiments, designed to focus more specifically on saliva, the actor either placed her finger in her mouth and then into the mouth of the puppet, or placed her finger on her forehead and then onto the forehead of the puppet. Later, when the actor expressed distress while standing between the two puppets, children watching the video were more likely to look toward the puppet with whom she had shared saliva.

Social cues

The findings suggest that saliva sharing is likely an important cue that helps infants to learn about their own social relationships and those of people around them, the researchers say.

"The general skill of learning about social relationships is very useful," Thomas says. "One reason why this distinction between thick and thin might be important for infants in particular, especially human infants, who depend on adults for longer than many other species, is that it might be a good way to figure out who else can provide the support that they depend on to survive."

The researchers did their first set of studies shortly before Covid-19 lockdowns began, with babies who came to the lab with their families. Later experiments were done over Zoom. The results that the researchers saw were similar before and after the pandemic, confirming that pandemic-related hygiene concerns did not affect the outcome.

"We actually know the results would have been similar if it hadn't been for the pandemic," Saxe says. "You might wonder, did kids start to think very differently about sharing saliva when suddenly everybody was talking about hygiene all the time? So, for that question, it's very useful that we had an initial data set collected before the pandemic."

Doing the second set of studies on Zoom also allowed the researchers to recruit a much more diverse group of children because the subjects were not limited to families who could come to the lab in Cambridge during normal working hours.

In future work, the researchers hope to perform similar studies with infants in cultures that have different types of family structures. In adult subjects, they plan to use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study what parts of the brain are involved in making saliva-based assessments about social relationships.

Read more at Science Daily

Speaking 'baby talk' to infants isn’t just cute: It could help them learn to make words

A new study suggests that when parents baby talk to their infants, they might be helping them learn to produce speech.

The way we instinctively speak to babies -- higher pitch, slower speed, exaggerated pronunciation -- not only appeals to them, but likely helps them learn to understand what we're saying. New research from the University of Florida suggests that baby talk can have another, previously unknown benefit: helping babies learn to produce their own speech. By mimicking the sound of a smaller vocal tract, the researchers think, we're cluing babies in to how the words should sound coming out of their own mouths.

"It seems to stimulate motor production of speech, not just the perception of speech," said Matthew Masapollo, Ph.D., an assistant professor in UF's Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences and director of the UF Laboratory for the Study of Cognition, Action, and Perception of Speech in the College of Public Health and Health Professions. "It's not just goo-goo ga-ga."

In the study, the researchers changed the frequency sounds to mimic either an infant or adult vocal tract, and then tested how infants reacted. Six- to eight-month-old babies "displayed a robust and distinct preference for speech with resonances specifying a vocal tract that is similar in size and length to their own," they wrote.

Four- to six-month old babies didn't have that preference, suggesting that older babies' dawning ability to control their voices and make words out of babble could be what makes the infant-like sounds more appealing.

Though baby talk may sound simple, it's accomplishing a lot, says coauthor Linda Polka, Ph.D., of McGill University.

"We're trying to engage with the infant to show them something about speech production," she said. "We're priming them to process their own voice."

Read more at Science Daily

Forest fires linked to low birth weight in newborns

Women exposed to smoke from landscape fires during pregnancy are more likely to give birth to babies with low or very low birth weights, according to findings published in eLife.

The study is the first to report a link between low birth weight and exposure to fire smoke in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), where 90% of low birth weight infants are born and landscape fires are prevalent.

Landscape fires, such as wildfires, tropical deforestation fires and agricultural biomass burning, play an important role in maintaining terrestrial ecosystems. Yet, landscape fire smoke is triggering a costly and growing global public health problem, causing recurrent episodes of pollution mostly affecting LMICs.

Previous studies have shown that exposure to fire smoke during pregnancy is linked to low birth weight, which itself is a public health problem in LMICs. Reducing the risk of low birth weight is one of the World Health Organization's global targets for 2025.

"Babies with low birth weights are at higher risk of a range of diseases in later life compared to normal weight newborns," explains co-first author Jiajianghui Li, a PhD student at the Institute of Reproductive and Child Health, School of Public Health Science Centre, Peking University, China. "Several studies have shown the effects of landscape fire smoke on acute lung and heart conditions, but the health impacts of these pollutants on susceptible pregnant women are not well known. We wanted to explore the association between birth weight and exposure to fire source pollution across several countries and over a long time period."

The researchers conducted a case-control study in 54 LMICs where they matched 108,137 groups of siblings to their mothers. They used surveys conducted by the US Agency for International Development between 2000 and 2014 to find out information about sibling birth weights and other health and demographic factors. They then assessed exposure to landscape fire pollutants using data on fire emissions from the Global Fire Emission Database and a model that converted this data into ground-surface concentrations of particulate matter in different regions.

Their analysis showed that an increase in exposure of one microgram per cubic metre of fire-sourced particulate matter was associated with a 2.17-gram reduction in birth weight. "The effect was even more pronounced when we looked at whether exposure to fire smoke was linked to low or very low birth weight; for every microgram per cubic metre increase in particulate matter exposure, the risks of low and very low birth weight increased by around three and 12 per cent, respectively," says co-first author Tianjia Guan, an assistant professor at the Department of Health Policy, School of Health Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, China.

The researchers found that very low birth weight was most strongly linked to the pollution. To find out why, they developed a model that looked at the average birth weight of infants within single families. Newborns in families that had lower birth weights on average were more susceptible to the risks of fire smoke pollution than those who had moderate baseline birthweights. "This suggests that other factors affecting maternal and foetal health, such as nutrition or maternal employment status, might make mothers and their developing infants even more susceptible to the risks of pollution," says co-first author Qian Guo, a PhD student at the School of Energy and Environmental Engineering, University of Science and Technology, China.

Read more at Science Daily

New mothers’ sleep loss linked to accelerated aging

When new mothers complain that all those sleepless nights caring for their newborns are taking years off their life, they just might be right, UCLA research published this summer in the journal Sleep Health suggests.

Scientists studied 33 mothers during their pregnancies and the first year of their babies' lives, analyzing the women's DNA from blood samples to determine their "biological age," which can differ from chronological age. They found that a year after giving birth, the biological age of mothers who slept less than seven hours a night at the six-month mark was three to seven years older than those who logged seven hours or more.

Mothers who slept less than seven hours also had shorter telomeres in their white blood cells. These small pieces of DNA at the ends of chromosomes act as protective caps, like the plastic tips on the ends of shoelaces. Shortened telomeres have been linked to a higher risk of cancers, cardiovascular and other diseases, and earlier death.

"The early months of postpartum sleep deprivation could have a lasting effect on physical health," said the study's first author, Judith Carroll, UCLA's George F. Solomon Professor of Psychobiology. "We know from a large body of research that sleeping less than seven hours a night is detrimental to health and increases the risk of age-related diseases."

While participants' nightly sleep ranged from five to nine hours, more than half were getting less than seven hours, both six months and one year after giving birth, the researchers report.

"We found that with every hour of additional sleep, the mother's biological age was younger," said Carroll, a member of the Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology at UCLA's Jane and Terry Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior. "I, and many other sleep scientists, consider sleep health to be just as vital to overall health as diet and exercise."

Carroll urged new mothers take advantage of opportunities to get a little extra sleep, like taking naps during the day when their baby is asleep, accepting offers of assistance from family and friends, and, when possible, asking their partner to help with the baby during the night or early morning. "Taking care of your sleep needs will help you and your baby in the long run," she said.

Co-author Christine Dunkel Schetter, a distinguished professor of psychology and psychiatry at UCLA, said the study results "and other findings on maternal postpartum mental health provide impetus for better supporting mothers of young infants so that they can get sufficient sleep -- possibly through parental leave so that both parents can bear some of the burden of care, and through programs for families and fathers."

Dunkel Schetter added that while accelerated biological aging linked to sleep loss may increase women's health risks, it doesn't automatically cause harm to their bodies. "We don't want the message to be that mothers are permanently damaged by infant care and loss of sleep," she emphasized. "We don't know if these effects are long lasting."

'This aisle is closed': Using epigenetics to determine biological age

The study used the latest scientific methods of analyzing changes in DNA to assess biological aging -- also known as epigenetic aging, Dunkel Schetter said. DNA provides the code for making proteins, which carry out many functions in the cells of our body, and epigenetics focuses on whether regions of this code are "open" or "closed."

"You can think of DNA as a grocery store," Carroll said, "with lots of basic ingredients to build a meal. If there is a spill in one aisle, it may be closed, and you can't get an item from that aisle, which might prevent you from making a recipe. When access to DNA code is 'closed,' then those genes that code for specific proteins cannot be expressed and are therefore turned off."

Because specific sites within DNA are turned on or off with aging, the process acts as a sort of clock, Carroll said, allowing scientists to estimate individuals' biological age. The greater an individual's biological, or epigenetic, age, the greater their risk of disease and earlier death.

The study's cohort -- which included women who ranged in age from 23 to 45 six months after giving birth -- is not a large representative sample of women, the authors said, and more studies are needed to better understand the long-term impact of sleep loss on new mothers, what other factors might contribute to sleep loss and whether the biological aging effects are permanent or reversible.

Carroll and Dunkel Schetter reported last year that a mother's stress prior to giving birth may accelerate her child's biological aging, which is a form of "intergenerational transfer of health risk," Dunkel Schetter said.

Read more at Science Daily

One in 6 families in new study spent more than $5,000 to have a baby

The price tag for giving birth in America may bring some families sticker shock -- even for those with private insurance.

And when delivering moms require caesarians or their newborns need neonatal care, some families may spend as much as $10,000 out-of-pocket, according to a new Michigan Medicine-led study.

"Childbirth is the most common reason for hospitalization in the U.S.," said lead author Kao-Ping Chua, M.D., Ph.D.,a pediatrician and researcher at University of Michigan Health C.S. Mott Children's Hospital and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center.

"Our findings show that some privately insured families are shouldering an astoundingly high financial burden for childbirth-related hospitalizations."

During 2016-2019, privately insured families paid an average of $3,000 out-of-pocket for maternal and newborn hospitalizations, according to the research in Pediatrics. But for one in 6 families, out-of-pocket spending exceeded $5,000. And when neonatal intensive care was required, the price climbed to over $10,000 for about 1 in 11 families.

"Many privately insured families believe that if they have health insurance, they're protected from the costs of childbirth hospitalizations. Unfortunately, this is simply not true for many families, particularly if their baby needs NICU care," Chua said.

"Having a healthy baby is expensive enough given the costs of diapers, childcare, and baby equipment. Adding a $10,000 hospital bill on top of this can devastate some families."

Researchers analyzed national data of 12 million privately insured enrollees across all states in the country. They identified 398,410 maternal deliveries that were linked to at least one newborn hospitalization covered by the same family plan. Overall, average out-of-pocket spending for the delivery and newborn hospitalizations was $3,068.

When cesarean birth occurred, the average bill was $3,389. When NICU care was needed, the average bill was $4,969. This bill exceeded $10,000 for 9% of instances when NICU care was needed.

About 30% of the time, deliveries and newborn hospitalizations were covered by high-deductible health plans, such as a health reimbursement arrangement or health savings account. Out-of-pocket costs were primarily driven by deductibles and co-insurance.

Chua said he was inspired to pursue the study because of his own personal experience that involved a $5,000 out-of-pocket bill after the birth of his second daughter.

"This is an issue that impacts millions of Americans at some stage in their lives," he said.

"Before delivery, clinicians can help privately insured families understand their childbirth benefits. If large bills are expected, clinicians should advise families to save money, assuming they have the means to do so. After delivery, clinicians should screen families for financial hardship, particularly those experiencing resource-intensive hospitalizations, such as NICU care, and connect them with local resources to address food, housing, and financial insecurity."

While substantial cost-sharing may be justified for low-value care, childbirth is a necessary, high value service, says senior author Michelle Moniz, M.D., M.Sc.,an obstetrician gynecologist at University of Michigan Health Von Voigtlander Women's Hospital. Moniz says policies should aim to alleviate the financial burden of childbirth on families.

Ideally, insurers would waive most or all cost-sharing for these hospitalizations, consistent with the approach taken by Medicaid programs and many peer, high-resource countries, she says.

The new study adds to Moniz' previous study examining the out-of-pocket costs of pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum care for mothers. .

"Maternal and childbirth hospitalizations are essential to families' health and wellbeing, with some babies needing longer stays because of complex or unexpected medical conditions," Moniz said.

Read more at Science Daily

'No level of smoke exposure is safe'

Nearly a quarter of pregnant women say they've been around secondhand smoke -- in their homes, at work, around a friend or relative -- which, according to new research, is linked to epigenetic changes -- meaning changes to how genes are regulated rather than changes to the genetic code itself -- in babies that could raise the risk of developmental disorders and cancer.

The study, published today in Environmental Health Perspectives by researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, is the first to connect secondhand smoke during pregnancy with epigenetic modifications to disease-related genes, measured at birth, which supports the idea that many adult diseases have their origins in environmental exposures -- such as stress, poor nutrition, pollution or tobacco smoke -- during early development.

"What we recommend to mothers in general is that no level of smoke exposure is safe," said study lead author Bernard Fuemmeler, Ph.D., M.P.H., associate director for population science and interim co-leader of the Cancer Prevention and Control program at VCU Massey Cancer Center. "Even low levels of smoke from secondhand exposure affect epigenetic marks in disease-related pathways. That doesn't mean everyone who is exposed will have a child with some disease outcome, but it contributes to a heightened risk."

Fuemmeler and colleagues analyzed data from 79 pregnant women enrolled in the Newborn Epigenetics Study (NEST) between 2005 and 2011. During the first trimester, all had a concentration of cotinine -- a nicotine byproduct -- in their blood consistent with low levels of smoke exposure, ranging from essentially none to levels consistent with secondhand smoke.

After these women gave birth, the researchers sampled the umbilical cord blood, which is the same blood that circulates through the fetus in utero, and performed what's referred to as an epigenome-wide association study (EWAS) to search for correlations between blood cotinine levels of the mothers during pregnancy and epigenetic patterns in the babies at birth.

When cotinine levels were higher, the newborns were more likely to have epigenetic "marks" on genes that control the development of brain function, as well as genes related to diabetes and cancer.

These marks could mean either unusually many or unusually few molecules bound to the DNA strand, which affects how accessible a particular gene is. If a gene is bound up tightly by lots of marks, then it's harder for molecular machinery to access and less likely to be expressed. On the other hand, if a gene is relatively unencumbered, then it might be expressed at higher levels than normal. Tipping the scale in either direction could lead to disease.

To solidify their results, the team repeated the analysis in a separate sample of 115 women and found changes to two of the same disease-related epigenetic regions -- one that regulates genes involved in inflammation and diabetes and another that regulates cardiovascular and nervous system functions -- are correlated with cotinine levels in mothers.

In all cases, the analyses controlled for race, ethnicity, age, prior number of children and maternal education.

Read more at Science Daily

Babies prefer baby talk, whether they're learning one language or two

 It can be hard to resist lapsing into an exaggerated, singsong tone when you talk to a cute baby. And that's with good reason. Babies will pay more attention to baby talk than regular speech, regardless of which languages they're used to hearing, according to a study by UCLA's Language Acquisition Lab and 16 other labs around the globe.

The study found that babies who were exposed to two languages had a greater interest in infant-directed speech -- that is, an adult speaking baby talk -- than adult-directed speech. Research has already shown that monolingual babies prefer baby talk.

Some parents worry that teaching two languages could mean an infant won't learn to speak on time, but the new study shows bilingual babies are developmentally right on track. The peer-reviewed study, published today by Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, found bilingual babies became interested in baby talk at the same age as those learning one language.

"Crucially for parents, we found that development of learning and attention is similar in infants, whether they're learning one or two languages," said Megha Sundara, a UCLA linguistics professor and director of the Language Acquisition Lab. "And, of course, learning a language earlier helps you learn it better, so bilingualism is a win-win."

In the study, which took place at 17 labs on four continents, researchers observed 333 bilingual babies and 384 monolingual babies, ranging in age from 6 to 9 months and 12 to 15 months. UCLA's lab was the only one to provide data on bilingual babies who grew up hearing both English and Spanish. Sundara and Victoria Mateu, a UCLA assistant professor of Spanish and Portuguese, observed babies who were 12 to 15 months old.

Each baby would sit on a parent's lap while recordings of an English-speaking mother, using either infant-directed speech or adult-directed speech, played from speakers on the left or the right. Computer tracking measured how long each baby looked in the direction of each sound.

"The longer they looked, the stronger their preference," Mateu said. "Babies tend to pay more attention to the exaggerated sounds of infant-directed speech."

Infants' interest in English baby talk was very fine-tuned, the study noted. Bilingual parents indicated the percent of time English was spoken at home compared to Spanish. The more English the bilingual babies had been exposed to, the stronger their preference for infant-directed speech compared to adult-directed speech. However, even babies with no exposure to English preferred the English baby talk to the grown-up talk, Mateu said.

Baby talk is found across most languages and cultures, but English has one of the most exaggerated forms, Sundara said.

"Baby talk has a slower rate of speech across all languages, with more variable pitch, and it's more animated and happy," she said. "It varies mainly in how exaggerated it is."

Led by Krista Byers-Heinlein, a psychology professor at Concordia University in Montreal, the study involved labs in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia and Singapore. The study's global reach strengthened the results, Sundara said.

"When you do language research, you want to know that the results aren't just some quirk of the language you're studying," she said.

According to the study, 6- to 9-month-old babies who had mothers with higher levels of education preferred baby talk more than babies whose mothers had less education.

"We suspect that perhaps the mothers with higher education levels spoke more to the babies and used infant-directed speech more often," Mateu said.

This study is one of the first published by the ManyBabies Consortium, a multi-lab group of researchers. Byers-Heinlein believes the unusual international, multilingual collaboration creates a model for future studies that include a similar breadth of languages and cultures.

"We can really make progress in understanding bilingualism, and especially the variability of bilingualism, thanks to our access to all these different communities," she said.

Read more at Science Daily

Researchers learn that pregnant women pass along protective COVID antibodies to their babies

 Antibodies that guard against COVID-19 can transfer from mothers to babies while in the womb, according to a new study from Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian researchers published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

This discovery, published Jan. 22, adds to growing evidence that suggests that pregnant women who generate protective antibodies after contracting the coronavirus often convey some of that natural immunity to their fetuses. The findings also lend support to the idea that vaccinating mothers-to-be may also have benefits for their newborns.

"Since we can now say that the antibodies pregnant women make against COVID-19 have been shown to be passed down to their babies, we suspect that there's a good chance they could pass down the antibodies the body makes after being vaccinated as well," said Dr. Yawei Jenny Yang, an assistant professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine and the study's senior author.

Dr. Yang and her team analyzed blood samples from 88 women who gave birth at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center between March and May 2020, a time when New York City was the global epicenter of the pandemic. All of the women had COVID-19 antibodies in their blood, indicating that they had contracted the virus at some point even though 58 percent of those women had no symptoms. Furthermore, while antibodies were detected in both symptomatic and asymptomatic women, the researchers observed that the concentration of antibodies was significantly higher in symptomatic women. They also found that the general pattern of antibody response was similar to the response seen in other patients, confirming that pregnant women have the same kind of immune response to the virus as the larger patient population -- something that hadn't previously been known for sure, since a woman's immune system changes throughout pregnancy.

In addition, the vast majority of the babies born to these women -- 78 percent -- had detectable antibodies in their umbilical cord blood. There was no evidence that any of the infants had been directly infected with the virus and all were COVID negative at the time of birth, further indicating that the antibodies had crossed the placenta -- the organ that provides oxygen and nutrients to a growing baby during pregnancy -- into the fetal bloodstream. Newborns with symptomatic mothers also had higher antibody levels than those whose mothers had no COVID symptoms.

This data implies that pregnant women could pass along vaccine-generated antibodies in the same way, potentially shielding both mother and child from future infection. However it is not yet known exactly how protective these antibodies might be, or how long that protection might last. Dr. Laura Riley, chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, obstetrician and gynecologist-in-chief at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell and one of the study's co-authors, is still advising pregnant patients who decide to get vaccinated to continue to follow current safety guidelines to prevent the spread of the disease. Dr. Riley, Dr. Yang and their colleagues are leading follow-up investigations that are currently enrolling pregnant women who receive the vaccine, as well as vaccinated mothers who are breastfeeding, to assess the antibody response in those groups after vaccination. That information could help guide maternal vaccination strategies moving forward.

Read more at Science Daily