Natural Compounds in Cranberry Juice May Enhance Antibiotic Treatment of UTIs

Researchers at the Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique in Montreal have found that compounds in cranberry juice may enhance the effectiveness of a commonly used antibiotic for urinary tract infections (UTIs) by altering how bacteria take up the drug. The findings, published in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, show that cranberry juice increased the activity of fosfomycin against uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) in laboratory testing and reduced the emergence antibiotic resistance mutations in 72% of the E. coli strains studied.

While the findings are encouraging, the researchers noted that the work didn’t show whether consumption of cranberry juice would have the same effects as those shown in the lab. “We don’t know if the metabolites will reach the infection,” said lead author Eric Déziel, PhD, a professor at Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique. “But if they could, then juice may increase the efficacy of antibiotic treatment.”

UTIs are most often caused by UPEC, which accounts for the majority of community-acquired infections and a substantial proportion of catheter-associated infections. Standard treatments include antibiotics such as trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, nitrofurantoin, and fosfomycin. While fosfomycin is a recommended first-line therapy because of its broad activity and low resistance rates, past studies have shown that some resistant variants can emerge through mutations that influence bacterial transport systems.

Cranberry products have long been associated with UTI prevention. Earlier theories surmised this was due to fruit’s acidity. Subsequent research, however, has identified specific compounds, including proanthocyanidins and fructose, that interfere with the ability of bacterial to attach to cells lining the urinary tract.

Déziel said that cranberry juice has a long history as folk remedy for preventing and treating urinary tract infections. It was the recent finding of the anti-adhesive properties that prompted further investigation into whether cranberry could influence antibiotic performance.

To test this, the research team exposed 32 clinical isolates of UPEC to cranberry juice in combination with fosfomycin under controlled laboratory conditions. The results showed that in 72% of the strains tested, cranberry juice increased the antibiotic’s inhibitory activity. At the same time, the frequency of spontaneous mutations conferring resistance dropped substantially, in some cases by several orders of magnitude.

The effects of the cranberry juice seems to involve changes in how bacterial cells regulate the uptake of sugars and, by extension, the antibiotic since fosfomycin enters bacterial cells through carbohydrate transport systems, primarily the GlpT and UhpT pathways. Resistance often arises when mutations reduce the activity of these transporters, which then limits the drug entering cells.

Specifically, cranberry juice reduced expression of the GlpT transporter while maintaining or promoting activity through the UhpT system. This shift allowed fosfomycin into the bacterial cell even as other pathways were downregulated. Reporter assays showed that this change sustained antibiotic uptake, while genomic sequencing revealed distinct mutation patterns depending on whether cranberry juice was present.

While the researchers were able to characterize the activity related to the presence of cranberry juice, the compounds responsible for this effect have not been fully identified. Déziel noted that “something in the cranberry juice” induces bacteria to increase uptake through one of these channels, leading to greater absorption of fosfomycin. Previous research has pointed to cranberry-derived molecules that interact with bacterial communication and adherence systems, but their role in modulating antibiotic transport has not been identified.

The study builds on earlier work from Déziel’s lab showing that cranberry extracts can act synergistically with antibiotics. The current research showed that this is also the case with cranberry juice itself. The hope is that simply consuming cranberry juice could produce the same effects as the extracts studied previously.

Despite the promising laboratory data, the researchers said that the findings cannot yet be translated to the clinic. It is still unclear whether the active compounds in cranberry juice are found at the needed concentrations in the urinary tract after consumption, or how much juice would be required to produce a measurable effect.

Future research will seek to identify the specific compounds responsible for the effects shown in this study, determine how they behave in vivo, and assess whether they can be incorporated into treatment strategies.

The post Natural Compounds in Cranberry Juice May Enhance Antibiotic Treatment of UTIs appeared first on Inside Precision Medicine.

Breast Cancer Prevention Drug Endoxifen Shows Promise at Low Doses

A lower-dose alternative to tamoxifen may offer a safer path to breast cancer prevention, according to new research from Karolinska Institutet. The study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, suggests that endoxifen, the most active metabolite of tamoxifen, can reduce mammographic breast density to a similar extent while causing fewer side effects, a balance that has long been difficult to achieve in preventive treatment.

A long-standing trade-off in prevention

Tamoxifen has long been a cornerstone of breast cancer therapy and prevention. It is widely used to reduce recurrence in patients and is also approved for women at increased risk of developing the disease. Yet despite its proven efficacy, its use in prevention has been limited.

Many patients discontinue treatment because of side effects, particularly symptoms resembling menopause such as hot flushes and night sweats. These challenges have highlighted a persistent problem in preventive medicine: therapies can be effective, but if they are not tolerable, adherence—and therefore real-world benefit—remains low.

A more direct and potentially precise approach

Endoxifen offers a different strategy. As the active form of tamoxifen produced in the body, it acts directly on estrogen receptors without requiring metabolic conversion. This makes its effects more predictable and may reduce variability between patients.

It also raises an important question: if endoxifen is the molecule responsible for tamoxifen’s therapeutic effect, could it be used at lower doses to achieve the same benefit with fewer side effects?

Strong biological effects at low doses

To test this idea, researchers administered low daily doses of endoxifen to healthy premenopausal women and monitored changes in mammographic breast density over six months.

Breast density is an established risk factor for cancer and is increasingly used as a marker of response to preventive therapy. Higher density is associated with increased risk, while reductions during treatment suggest a beneficial biological effect.

The results were notable. Even at very low doses, endoxifen significantly reduced breast density. A daily dose of one milligram led to a reduction of around 19 percent, while two milligrams achieved a reduction of approximately 26 percent. These effects are comparable to those typically seen with standard-dose tamoxifen, despite using a fraction of the dose.

Improved tolerability at lower doses

Equally important was how patients tolerated the treatment. While the higher dose of endoxifen was associated with an increase in menopausal symptoms, the lower dose showed a safety profile similar to placebo.

“Our results suggest that a lower dose may be sufficient to affect breast density, whilst also appearing to be better tolerated,” said Mattias Hammarström, head of operations KARMA project at the Karolinska Institute and co-author of the study

This finding is particularly significant because tolerability is one of the main barriers to preventive therapy. A drug that maintains efficacy while minimizing side effects could substantially improve adherence and expand the use of preventive strategies.

Rethinking dosing in preventive therapy

The study highlights a broader shift toward precision dosing, finding the minimum effective dose rather than relying on traditional high-dose approaches.

In this case, the data suggest that maximal biological effect may be achieved at relatively low levels of drug exposure. Increasing the dose further may not provide additional benefit but can increase the likelihood of adverse effects.

This principle has important implications not only for breast cancer prevention but also for other areas of medicine, where balancing efficacy and tolerability is critical.

Implications for clinical practice

If confirmed in larger studies, low-dose endoxifen could become an attractive option for women at increased risk of breast cancer who are currently reluctant to use tamoxifen.

By offering a similar reduction in breast density with fewer side effects, it may lower the threshold for initiating preventive treatment and improve long-term adherence.

However, it is important to note that reductions in breast density do not directly prove a reduction in cancer risk. Longer-term studies will be needed to determine whether these biological changes translate into meaningful clinical outcomes.

Looking ahead

The findings provide a strong proof of concept that targeting the active metabolite directly, and at lower doses, may offer a more refined approach to prevention.

Future research will focus on confirming these results in larger populations and evaluating long-term effects on cancer incidence. There is also growing interest in integrating such approaches into broader prevention strategies, potentially alongside lifestyle interventions and risk-based screening.

For now, the study offers a promising step toward making preventive therapy both effective and tolerable. By reducing side effects without compromising efficacy, low-dose endoxifen could help overcome one of the key barriers in breast cancer prevention, and bring precision medicine principles into preventive care.

The post Breast Cancer Prevention Drug Endoxifen Shows Promise at Low Doses appeared first on Inside Precision Medicine.

STAT+: French regulator fines Novo and Lilly over weight loss ad campaigns

As competition mounts in the red-hot market for weight loss drugs, France’s medicines regulator fined Novo Nordisk approximately $2 million for running “misleading” advertisements for its Wegovy and Saxenda medications.

At the same time, the National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety also fined Eli Lilly roughly $127,000 over advertising for its Mounjaro obesity treatment that purportedly amounted to indirect promotion of a medicine for which a prescription is required.

The penalties reflect increasing concern among regulators that weight loss medicines may be misused and, as result, promotions run by pharmaceutical companies are being closely scrutinized. Two years ago, the regulator issued a bulletin on the risks associated with the drugs, especially inappropriate use.

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

Optical Pooled CRISPR Screen Reveals Regulators of NF-κB Dynamics in Human Cells



Image of Tilmann Buerckstuemmer, PhD

Tilmann Buerckstuemmer, PhD

CSO
Myllia Biotechnology

Panelist

Image of Tilmann Buerckstuemmer, PhD

Tilmann Buerckstuemmer, PhD

Tilmann Buerckstuemmer, PhD, is a CRISPR enthusiast since the early days of CRISPR. Originally trained as a biochemist, he joined Haplogen as principal scientist and later became their CSO. Following the acquisition by Horizon Discovery, Tilmann served as director of research and development and later as head of innovation, where he oversaw the company’s technology platform and innovation agenda. In 2018, he co-founded Myllia Biotechnology which focuses on single-cell CRISPR screens. He is also the CEO of bit.bio discovery, a joined venture between Vienna-based Myllia Biotechnology and Cambridge-based bit.bio. Tilmann is passionate about science and enjoys working with multi-disciplinary and multi-national teams.



Image of Jens Durruthy Durruthy, PhD

Jens Durruthy Durruthy, PhD

Director of Product Management
Element Biosciences

Panelist

Image of Jens Durruthy Durruthy, PhD

Jens Durruthy Durruthy, PhD

Jens Durruthy Durruthy, PhD, is the director of product management at Element Biosciences. Prior experience includes a decade at 10x Genomics, where he developed and oversaw the product portfolio for Chromium products. Jens held the position of LSA Bio/Genomics Fellow at Life Science Angels, conducting extensive research on investment opportunities in biotech and genomics startups, and has worked in various consulting roles, focusing on product development and market analysis. Educational credentials include a PhD in biomedical engineering from Stanford University and a diploma in medical biotechnology from Technische Universität Berlin.



Broadcast Date: 

  • Time: 

Integrated pooled CRISPR screening linked to imaging readouts accelerate target identification and functional characterization of signaling pathways. A good example of this can be found in studies of NF-κB signaling, which is central to inflammatory responses and driven by rapid nuclear translocation of the p50/p65 complex to activate transcriptional programs following cytokine stimulation.

In this GEN webinar, Tilmann Buerckstuemmer, PhD, CSO at Myllia Biotechnology will show how high-throughput pooled CRISPR screening combined with cell painting readouts characterized important signaling pathways using NF-κB nuclear translocation as a case study. During the webinar, you will learn how the AVITI24™ platform from Element Biosciences profiled ~440,000 cells in a pooled CRISPR screen targeting 195 genes. Linking genetic perturbations to p65 subcellular localization and cell painting features in a single workflow enabled identification of known pathway components, uncovered regulatory roles for chromatin-modifying complexes, and improved interpretation of phenotypic outcomes using morphological features.

Key takeaways include:

  • Strategies for linking CRISPR perturbations to protein localization and morphological features at single-cell resolution
  • Identification of hitherto poorly characterized chromatin modifying complexes in regulating NF-κB signaling
  • The value of multimodal readouts, including morphology, in adding depth and confidence to recovered biology
  • How this approach supports mechanism-of-action studies and enables identification of both positive and negative regulators of signaling pathways

A live Q&A session will follow the presentation offering you a chance to pose questions to our expert panelists.

Produced with support from:

Element Bio logo

The post Optical Pooled CRISPR Screen Reveals Regulators of NF-κB Dynamics in Human Cells appeared first on GEN – Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.

Opinion: Mifepristone court ruling makes drug development riskier for everyone

The biotech industry has long operated on a simple premise: FDA-regulated, evidence-based science determines how medicines reach patients, not litigation. That premise was already tested in an earlier Texas case challenging mifepristone’s Food and Drug Administration approval — an unprecedented effort to unwind decades of scientific review through the courts. It is now, once again, under strain.

On Friday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated an in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone, a medication that has been used safely by millions for more than two decades. The drug manufacturer, Danco, appealed to the Supreme Court within hours and on Monday morning, SCOTUS granted one-week stay halting the order. In other words, mifepristone is available again through the mail and at pharmacies — but it’s unclear for how long that will be true. And it signals that even well-established, FDA-approved medicines are vulnerable to judicial override of FDA regulatory decisions.

Read the rest…

<![CDATA[New analysis ranks lumateperone top for adjunctive MDD symptom relief, with minimal weight gain vs other atypical antipsychotics.]]>
<![CDATA[Learn how to better assess and manage behavioral and psychological symptoms of Alzheimer disease dementia. ]]>

Biomarker of Epigenetic Aging Could Signal Depression

Research led by New York University suggests a marker of epigenetic aging could be linked to depression.

The team found that accelerated aging of a type of white blood cell called a monocyte was significantly associated with the psychological and cognitive expressions of depression in a group of women with and without HIV.

“Depression is not a one-size-fits-all disorder—it can look really different from person to person, which is why it’s so important to consider varied presentations and not just a clinical label,” said lead researcher Nicole Beaulieu Perez, PhD, assistant professor at NYU Rory Meyers College of Nursing, in a press statement.

“Our study reveals unique biological underpinnings of mental health that are often obscured by broad diagnostic categories.”

As reported in The Journals of Gerontology Series A, the researchers analyzed blood samples and depression scores from 440 women, 261 living with HIV and 179 without, from the Women’s Interagency HIV Study. They tested women with HIV as people with this disease and others affecting the immune system are at greater risk of depression than the general public.

The team looked at biological aging using two epigenetic clocks: a broad multi-tissue clock and a monocyte-specific clock that measures chemical modifications to DNA in these cells.

Depression was measured using the CES-D questionnaire, which separates physical, bodily expressions of depression such as fatigue, appetite loss, and agitation from psychological and cognitive expressions of the disorder such as hopelessness, anhedonia, and feelings of failure.

Accelerated monocyte aging was significantly associated with the psychological and cognitive expressions of depression and with anhedonia specifically, even after adjusting for HIV status, race, and ethnicity. The broader multi-tissue Horvath clock showed no association with any depression domain, suggesting it is the monocyte-specific aging signal, not generalized biological aging, that tracks with mood and cognitive symptoms.

Diagnosis of depression relies largely on self-reported symptoms and not a specific physiological test. The finding that monocyte aging maps onto cognitive and mood symptoms rather than physical ones is counterintuitive, since monocytes are inflammatory cells that one might expect to track physical, inflammation-driven complaints like fatigue.

The study is small and cross-sectional, so causality cannot yet be established, but if the claims of the study were validated it could help to personalize treatment for depression in the future.

“The dynamics of monocyte aging and depression warrant further study to clarify mechanistic links,” conclude the authors.

“Our findings bring us a step closer to this goal of precision mental health care, especially for high-risk populations, by providing a biological framework that could guide future diagnosis and treatment,” adds Beaulieu Perez.

The post Biomarker of Epigenetic Aging Could Signal Depression appeared first on Inside Precision Medicine.

<![CDATA[Low soluble α2δ‑1 disrupts brain excitation‑inhibition balance in schizophrenia.]]>

Week one of the Musk v. Altman trial: What it was like in the room

This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.

Two of the most powerful people in AI—Sam Altman and Elon Musk—began their face-off in court in Oakland, California, last week. Musk is suing OpenAI, alleging that the millions he spent to fund it around a decade ago were meant for a nonprofit, not a corporation, and that the company has reneged on that mission since. 

The stakes are high—even a partial win for Musk could set OpenAI back as it reportedly plans to go public this year. But most of the attention comes from the spectacle of a feud on X now playing out in federal court. “Cringey texts, raw diary entries, and endless scheming behind the founding and growth of OpenAI are expected to come to light,” my colleague Michelle Kim wrote before it began. And the trial unfolds as the cultural backlash against AI swells; some of the signs held by protesters outside the courthouse suggest that to a significant number of people, whatever the outcome of Musk v. Altman, we all lose.  

Most of us have had to observe the trial from afar, but Michelle, who also happens to be a lawyer, has been in court each day. I caught up with her to learn what’s unfolded thus far and what might come next.

Can you give us the overview of what this case is actually about? What exactly is being decided, and who is favored right now?

Elon Musk is arguing that Sam Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman have breached the company’s charitable trust by effectively converting OpenAI into a for-profit company. Musk alleges that is not what they promised him in the company’s early days. He has asked for several remedies, like a crazy amount of damages and removing Sam Altman. But the main remedy he wants is unwinding OpenAI’s restructuring. [In October 2025 OpenAI struck deals with the attorneys general of California and Delaware that would essentially allow its nonprofit portion to have less day-to-day control of OpenAI. It’s a compromise from what OpenAI originally proposed, but Musk still wants to stop it.] 

OpenAI argues that Elon Musk actually agreed to have the company operate a for-profit arm, because he knew building AI is very expensive. So it’s about proving what Musk knew, what he didn’t know, and whether he really was deceived by Altman and Brockman.

There’s a big debate about when exactly Musk found out about this alleged misconduct. Musk founded OpenAI with Altman and Brockman in 2015, and he brought the suit in 2024. There’s a statute of limitations for charitable trust claims; you need to have brought a claim within three to four years after you find out about the alleged misconduct. So Musk tries to paint a picture that back in the day he was a little suspicious, but that it was really only in 2022 that he realized OpenAI was no longer committed to its original charitable mission, and that he had been scammed. It’s only the first week of trial, but I’m not sure Musk has proved this to the judge and jury.

What were some standout moments thus far?

At one point one of Elon Musk’s lawyers said, “We could all die as a result of AI.” I think a lot of the people in the room were really shaken by this comment, and the judge told Musk’s lawyer: You talk about all these safety risks that OpenAI has when building AI, but Musk is also creating a company that’s in the same exact space. She basically said, I’m sure there’s plenty of people who also don’t want to put the future of humanity in Elon Musk’s hands. 

And then the lawyers just kept going on and on about the catastrophic risks of AI and whether Elon Musk or OpenAI was in the better position to steward AI safety. And the judge sort of snapped. She said very sternly that this trial was not about whether or not artificial intelligence has damaged humanity. And I thought that was a really striking standout moment of the trial that pointed at how even though it is technically just about whether Elon Musk was really deceived by OpenAI, it’s also become a huge discussion about AI safety and some of the practices that the labs are engaging in when building AI. 

Can you give us a look behind the curtain at how getting into this trial works?

There are tons of reporters. This is a very high-profile suit, so I have to wake up around 4:30 a.m. and show up to the Oakland courthouse at 6 a.m. sharp to get in line. And on some days, even 6 a.m. doesn’t get you into the courtroom. There are lots of photographers in front of the courthouse, especially on days when you know Musk or Altman and Brockman are present. And there’s also some concerned citizens who want to watch the trial. I usually have to wait, like, two hours in line to get in to be one of the 30 people who claim the unreserved seats in the courtroom. 

What has it felt like to see Elon Musk testify? How would you describe his demeanor?

He shows up in a crisp black suit. He can be this inflammatory person on X, but in the courtroom, he is calm, cool, collected, and looks very comfortable. He has been in a lot of lawsuits. He knows how to talk to the jury and how to present himself in front of them and the judge. He’s also cracking jokes with his lawyer and even the opposing party’s lawyer and the judge. 

And he can be witty. There was this one moment when OpenAI’s lawyer was asking Musk a question and sort of fed him an answer. And Musk said “That’s not a leading question, that’s a leading answer.” The judge intervened and said, “You’re not a lawyer, Elon.” And then he was like, “Well, I did take Law 101.”

That said, he does get flustered and uncomfortable when OpenAI’s lawyer asks tough, piercing questions. Which he’s been doing.

What are the biggest things we’ve learned that weren’t clear in the earlier phases of this case?

On the fourth day of the trial, Musk admitted during cross-examination that xAI distills OpenAI’s models to train its own models, which was shocking. Musk followed up by saying that this is standard practice among all the labs now and that xAI wasn’t doing anything beyond what others were already doing. But a lot of the journalists started typing away at their laptops as soon as Musk made this comment. 

I also learned that there’s just so much scheming among Big Tech executives. You know about it vaguely, but to hear firsthand accounts and read their emails and text messages is fascinating. 

For example, there was a text message between Musk and Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, where they’re kind of teaming up to stop OpenAI’s restructuring. They’re even trying to make a bid to buy all the assets of OpenAI’s nonprofit. The level of scheming that goes on among these executives is mind-blowing.

What happens next?

OpenAI’s president, Greg Brockman, who was meticulously taking notes during some of Elon Musk’s testimony, is expected to testify next week. And Stuart Russell, a computer scientist at UC Berkeley, will testify about AI safety. I’m expecting that to open the floodgates to this crazy discussion about who can be trusted to build AI. 

A bunch of other high-profile people are expected to testify, like former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, former CTO Mira Murati, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. 

The trial is supposed to last around three weeks. The nine jurors will deliver an advisory verdict that guides the judge on how to decide Musk’s claims against OpenAI. The judge doesn’t have to listen to the jury and can decide however she wants. If she decides OpenAI is liable, then she’ll decide what sort of remedies are appropriate. 

MIT Technology Review will have ongoing coverage of Musk v. Altman until its conclusion. Follow @techreview or @michelletomkim on X for up-to-the-minute reporting.