A 380-million-year old predatory fish from Central Australia is finally named after decades of digging

Harajicadectes cruises through the ancient rivers of central Australia ~385 million years ago. Brian Choo Brian Choo, Flinders University; Alice Clement, Flinders University, and John Long, Flinders University

More than 380 million years ago, a sleek, air-breathing predatory fish patrolled the rivers of central Australia. Today, the sediments of those rivers are outcrops of red sandstone in the remote outback.

Our new paper, published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, describes the fossils of this fish, which we have named Harajicadectes zhumini.

Known from at least 17 fossil specimens, Harajicadectes is the first reasonably complete bony fish found from Devonian rocks in central Australia. It has also proven to be a most unusual animal.

Meet the biter

The name means “Min Zhu’s Harajica-biter”, after the location where its fossils were found, its presumed predatory habits, and in honour of eminent Chinese palaeontologist Min Zhu, who has made many contributions to early vertebrate research.

Harajicadectes was a fish in the Tetrapodomorpha group. This group had strongly built paired fins and usually only a single pair of external nostrils.

Tetrapodomorph fish from the Devonian period (359–419 million years ago) have long been of great interest to science. They include the forerunners of modern tetrapods – animals with backbones and limbs such as amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.

For example, recent fossil discoveries show fingers and toes arose in this group.

Devonian fossil sites in northwestern and eastern Australia have produced many spectacular discoveries of early tetrapodomorphs.

But until our discovery, the poorly sampled interior of the continent had only offered tantalising fossil fragments.

A long road to discovery

Our species description is the culmination of 50 years of tireless exploration and research.

Palaeontologist Gavin Young from the Australian National University made the initial discoveries in 1973 while exploring the Middle-Late Devonian Harajica Sandstone on Luritja/Arrernte country, more than 150 kilometres west of Alice Springs (Mparntwe).

Packed within red sandstone blocks on a remote hilltop were hundreds of fossil fishes. The vast majority of them were small Bothriolepis – a type of widespread prehistoric fish known as a placoderm, covered in box-like armour.

Scattered among them were fragments of other fishes. These included a lungfish known as Harajicadipterus youngi, named in honour of Gavin Young and his years of work on material from Harajica.

There were also spines from acanthodians (small, vaguely shark-like fish), the plates of phyllolepids (extremely flat placoderms) and, most intriguingly, jaw fragments of a previously unknown tetrapodomorph.

The moment of discovery when we found a complete fossil of Harajicadectes in 2016. Flinders University palaeontologists John Long (centre), Brian Choo (right) and Alice Clement (left) with ANU palaeontologist Gavin Young (top left). Author provided

Many more partial specimens of this Harajica tetrapodomorph were collected in 1991, including some by the late palaeontologist Alex Ritchie.

There were early attempts at figuring out the species, but this proved troublesome. Then, our Flinders University expedition to the site in 2016 yielded the first almost complete fossil of this animal.

This beautiful specimen demonstrated that all the isolated bits and pieces collected over the years belonged to a single new type of fish. It is now in the collections of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, serving as the type specimen of Harajicadectes.

The type specimen of Harajicadectes discovered in 2016. Author provided

A strange apex predator

Up to 40 centimetres long, Harajicadectes is the biggest fish found in the Harajica rocks. Likely the top predator of those ancient rivers, its big mouth was lined with closely-packed sharp teeth alongside larger, widely spaced triangular fangs.

It seems to have combined anatomical traits from different tetrapodomorph lineages via convergent evolution (when different creatures evolve similar features independently). An example of this are the patterns of bones in its skull and scales. Exactly where it sits among its closest relatives is difficult to resolve.

Artist’s reconstruction of Harajicadectes menacing a pair of armoured Bothriolepis. Artist: Brian Choo

The most striking and perhaps most important features are the two huge openings on the top of the skull called spiracles. These typically only appear as minute slits in most early bony fishes.

Similar giant spiracles also appear in Gogonasus, a marine tetrapodomorph from the famous Late Devonian Gogo Formation of Western Australia. (It doesn’t appear to be an immediate relative of Harajicadectes.)

They are also seen in the unrelated Pickeringius, an early ray-finned fish that was also at Gogo.

The earliest air-breathers?

Other Devonian animals that sported such spiracles were the famous elpistostegalians – freshwater tetrapodomorphs from the Northern Hemisphere such as Elpistostege and Tiktaalik.

These animals were extremely close to the ancestry of limbed vertebrates. So, enlarged spiracles seem to have arisen independently in at least four separate lineages of Devonian fishes.

The skull of Harajicadectes seen from above, showing the enormous spiracles. Author provided

The only living fishes with similar structures are bichirs, African ray-finned fishes that live in shallow floodplains and estuaries. It was recently confirmed they draw surface air through their spiracles to aid survival in oxygen-poor waters.

That these structures appeared roughly simultaneously in four Devonian lineages provides a fossil “signal” for scientists attempting to reconstruct atmospheric conditions in the distant past.

It could help us uncover the evolution of air breathing in backboned animals.The Conversation

Brian Choo, Postdoctoral fellow in vertebrate palaeontology, Flinders University; Alice Clement, Research Associate in the College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, and John Long, Strategic Professor in Palaeontology, Flinders University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........

Underground nuclear tests are hard to detect. A new method can spot them 99% of the time

Since the first detonation of an atomic bomb in 1945, more than 2,000 nuclear weapons tests have been conducted by eight countries: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Groups such as the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization are constantly on the lookout for new tests. However, for reasons of safety and secrecy, modern nuclear tests are carried out underground – which makes them difficult to detect. Often, the only indication they have occurred is from the seismic waves they generate.

In a paper published in Geophysical Journal International, my colleagues and I have developed a way to distinguish between underground nuclear tests and natural earthquakes with around 99% accuracy.

Fallout

The invention of nuclear weapons sparked an international arms race, as the Soviet Union, the UK and France developed and tested increasingly larger and more sophisticated devices in an attempt to keep up with the US.

Many early tests caused serious environmental and societal damage. For example, the US’s 1954 Castle Bravo test, conducted in secret at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, delivered large volumes of radioactive fallout to several nearby islands and their inhabitants.

Between 1952 and 1957, the UK conducted several tests in Australia, scattering long-lived radioactive material over wide areas of South Australian bushland, with devastating consequences for local Indigenous communities.

In 1963, the US, the UK and the USSR agreed to carry out future tests underground to limit fallout. Nevertheless, testing continued unabated as China, India, Pakistan and North Korea also entered the fray over the following decades.

How to spot an atom bomb

During this period there were substantial international efforts to figure out how to monitor nuclear testing. The competitive nature of weapons development means much research and testing is conducted in secret.

Groups such as the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization today run global networks of instruments specifically designed to identify any potential tests. These include:

  • air-testing stations to detect minute quantities of radioactive elements in the atmosphere
  • aquatic listening posts to hear underwater tests
  • infrasound detectors to catch the low-frequency booms and rumbles of explosions in the atmosphere
  • seismometers to record the shaking of Earth caused by underground tests.

A needle in a haystack

Seismometers are designed to measure seismic waves: tiny vibrations of the ground surface generated when large amounts of energy are suddenly released underground, such as during earthquakes or nuclear explosions.

There are two main kinds of seismic waves. First are body waves, which travel outwards in all directions, including down into the deep Earth, before returning to the surface. Second are surface waves, which travel along Earth’s surface like ripples spreading out on a pond.

The Comprehensive Test-Ban-Treaty Organization uses seismic stations to monitor the globe for underground nuclear explosions.

The difficulty in using seismic waves to monitor underground nuclear tests is distinguishing between explosions and naturally occurring earthquakes. A core goal of monitoring is never to miss an explosion, but there are thousands of sizeable natural quakes around the world every day.

As a result, monitoring underground tests is like searching for a potentially non-existent needle in a haystack the size of a planet.

Nukes vs quakes

Many different methods have been developed to aid this search over the past 60 years.

Some of the simplest include analysing the location or depth of the source. If an event occurs far from volcanoes and plate tectonic boundaries, it might be considered more suspicious. Alternatively, if it occurs at a depth greater than say three kilometres, it is unlikely to have been a nuclear test.

However, these simple methods are not foolproof. Tests might be carried out in earthquake-prone areas for camouflage, for example, and shallow earthquakes are also possible.

A more sophisticated monitoring approach involves calculating the ratio of the amount of the energy transmitted in body waves to the amount carried in surface waves. Earthquakes tend to expend more of their energy in surface waves than explosions do.

This method has proven highly effective for identifying underground nuclear tests, but it too is imperfect. It failed to effectively classify the 2017 North Korean nuclear test, which generated substantial surface waves because it was carried out inside a tunnel in a mountain.

This outcome underlines the importance of using multiple independent discrimination techniques during monitoring – no single method is likely to prove reliable for all events.

An alternative method

In 2023, my colleagues and I from the Australian National University and Los Alamos National Laboratory in the US got together to re-examine the problem of determining the source of seismic waves.

We used a recently developed approach to represent how rocks are displaced at the source of a seismic event, and combined it with a more advanced statistical model to describe different types of event. As a result, we were able to take advantage of fundamental differences between the sources of explosions and earthquakes to develop an improved method of classifying these events.

We tested our approach on catalogues of known explosions and earthquakes from the western United States, and found that the method gets it right around 99% of the time. This makes it a useful new tool in efforts to monitor underground nuclear tests.

Robust techniques for identification of nuclear tests will continue to be a key component of global monitoring programs. They are critical for ensuring governments are held accountable for the environmental and societal impacts of nuclear weapons testing.The Conversation

Mark Hoggard, DECRA Research Fellow, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........

Nuclear battery: Chinese firm aiming for mass market production

The BV100 battery (Image: Betavolt)
Beijing Betavolt New Energy Technology Company Ltd claims to have developed a miniature atomic energy battery that can generate electricity stably and autonomously for 50 years without the need for charging or maintenance. It said the battery is currently in the pilot stage and will be put into mass production on the market.

Atomic energy batteries - also known as nuclear batteries or radioisotope batteries - work on the principle of utilising the energy released by the decay of nuclear isotopes and converting it into electrical energy through semiconductor converters.

Betavolt, which was established in April 2021, says its battery "combines nickel-63 nuclear isotope decay technology and China's first diamond semiconductor (4th generation semiconductor) module to successfully realise the miniaturisation of atomic energy batteries".

The company's team of scientists developed a unique single-crystal diamond semiconductor that is just 10 microns thick, placing a 2-micron-thick nickel-63 sheet between two diamond semiconductor converters. The decay energy of the radioactive source is converted into an electrical current, forming an independent unit. Betavolt said its nuclear batteries are modular and can be composed of dozens or hundreds of independent unit modules and can be used in series and parallel, so battery products of different sizes and capacities can be manufactured.

The composition of a nuclear battery (Image: Betavolt)
Betavolt says its batteries can meet the needs of long-lasting power supply in multiple scenarios such as aerospace, AI equipment, medical equipment, micro-electromechanical systems, advanced sensors, small drones and micro-robots. "If policies allow, atomic energy batteries can allow a mobile phone to never be charged, and drones that can only fly for 15 minutes can fly continuously," it said.

The first battery that the company plans to launch is the BV100, which it claims will be the world's first nuclear battery to be mass-produced. Measuring 15mm by 15mm and 5 mm thick, the battery can generate 100 microwatts, with a voltage of 3V. The company plans to launch a 1-watt battery in 2025.

Betavolt says its atomic energy battery is "absolutely safe, has no external radiation, and is suitable for use in medical devices such as pacemakers, artificial hearts, and cochleas in the human body". It adds: "Atomic energy batteries are environmentally friendly. After the decay period, the nickel-63 isotope as the radioactive source turns into a stable isotope of copper, which is non-radioactive and does not pose any threat or pollution to the environment."

The company plans to continue research on using isotopes such as strontium-90, promethium-147 and deuterium to develop atomic energy batteries with higher power and a service life of 2-30 years.Researched and written by World Nuclear News. Nuclear battery: Chinese firm aiming for mass market production : Corporate - World Nuclear News
Read More........

How to maintain a healthy gut microbiome in 2024

SewCreamStudio/Shutterstock Rosie Young, Quadram Institute; Mariam Gamal El-Din, Quadram Institute, and Yang Yue, Quadram InstituteWe all know by now that the pillars of a healthy lifestyle are regular exercise, eating enough fruit and vegetables, a good night’s sleep and staying hydrated. All of these things also support the gut microbiome – all the microbes that live in your digestive system – but there are some extras to consider if you want to optimise your gut health.

It’s widely accepted among those of us who study the gut microbiome that a healthy gut is one that contains a diverse range of microbes and has an effective gut barrier (the lining between your intestine and bloodstream).

Let’s look at diet first. It probably has the biggest influence on your gut health. Diets high in fibre, unsaturated fatty acids (found in fish and nuts), and polyphenols (chemicals found in plants) will promote a healthy gut, while those high in saturated fats, additives (such as “E numbers”) and sugar can harm gut health. So avoid consuming a lot of ultra-processed foods.

Emulsifiers, a common additive in ultra-processed foods, have been found to cause intestinal inflammation and a leaky gut. The most common ones to look out for on packaging are lecithin, guar or xanthan gum, and mono- or diglycerides.

These additives are also common in protein supplements, whose popularity has steadily been increasing since the early 2000s, especially among gym goers looking to bulk up.

Prebiotics and probiotics

It would be unreasonable and unrealistic to tell you to avoid foods with additives, but trying to limit consumption, while increasing your consumption of prebiotic and probiotic foods, could help protect your gut.

Dietary fibre is a good example of a prebiotic, which is defined as a non-digestible food ingredient that can stimulate the growth of good bacteria in the colon. As the main food source of your gut microbes, it is important to consume enough if you want your microbiome to flourish. Government guidelines suggest around 30g of fibre a day for adults and 15-25g for children.

Adults should aim to consume 30g of fibre a day. Tatjana Baibakova/Shutterstock

Most prebiotics come from plant foods, so getting a high diversity of plant products in your diet will keep your gut healthy. The latest recommendation is to include 30 plant species in your diet per week. This may sound hard to achieve but bear in mind that both good-quality coffee and dark chocolate count.

Probiotics, the live bacteria and yeasts themselves, can be easily consumed through fermented food products, drinks or supplements. Choosing a high-quality probiotic is important. While there is an increasing amount on the market in supplement, powder and tablet form, they can be expensive. Fermented foods can be just as effective, but a whole lot cheaper.

Yoghurts, cheese, sauerkraut, kimchi and fermented soy products, such as tempeh and miso, are examples of fermented foods that not only support the healthy balance of your gut bacteria but provide a good source of fibres, vitamins and other nutrients.

To get the most benefit from these products, look for those in the fridge section labelled as containing “live cultures” or “live bacteria”, with minimal ingredients and no heating or pasteurisation processing.

Aside from what you eat, how often you eat could also affect your gut health. Fasting can allow repair of the gut lining and reduce inflammation.

Medication and the microbiome

Medications can directly and indirectly affect our gut health. You may have heard that antibiotics are bad for your gut microbiome, especially those which are “broad spectrum” and will kill off not only harmful bacteria but beneficial ones too. This can be associated with gastrointestinal problems and decreased immunity, especially after prolonged use.

Of course, doctors do not prescribe antibiotics lightly, so it is important to take them as instructed. If you are concerned, discuss the potential effects on your gut health with your GP.

Although you may not have much say over which medications you take, there are a few strategies to support your gut during and after medication.

Staying healthy by prioritising good sleep and managing stress levels is also important, but increasing your intake of both prebiotics and probiotics at this time may lessen the blow of medication on your microbiome.

It is always recommended you check with your doctor before introducing a probiotic supplement in the rare case that it may not be suitable alongside the treatment.

Microbiome research is continuously shedding new light on the intricate connections between the microbes that live in our gut and our wellbeing. So watch this space. In the meantime, follow the above advice – it will help you maintain a healthy gut microbiome in 2024 and beyond.The Conversation

Rosie Young, PhD Candidate, Gut Microbes in Health and Disease, Quadram Institute; Mariam Gamal El-Din, Visiting Postdoctoral Scientist, Food Microbiome Interactions, Quadram Institute, and Yang Yue, PhD Candidate in Plants, Food and Health, Quadram Institute

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........

Moderna CEO says melanoma vaccine could be available by 2025


WASHINGTON - Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel told AFP his company's experimental vaccine against melanoma could be available in as little as two years, in what would amount to a landmark step against the most serious form of skin cancer.

Globally there were an estimated 325,000 new melanoma cases and 57 ,000 deaths from the disease in 2020.

"We think that in some countries the product could be launched under accelerated approval by 2025," he said in an interview.


Unlike conventional vaccines, so-called therapeutic vaccines treat rather than prevent a disease. But they also work by training the body's own immune system against the invader.

Therapeutic vaccines today represent a real hope in oncology, an "immunotherapy 2.0," according to Bancel.

Moderna's aspirations received a boost Thursday with the latest clinical trial results showing an improvement over time in the chances of survival thanks to the vaccine, which uses the same messenger RNA technology that proved highly effective against serious forms of Covid-19.

In a study involving 157 people with advanced melanoma, the Moderna vaccine in combination with Merck's immunotherapy drug Keytruda reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 49 percent over a period of three years, compared with Keytruda alone.

Moderna had already announced two-year monitoring results last year, which showed a risk reduction of 44 percent.

"The difference in survival is growing. The more time passes, the more you see that advantage" said Bancel, noting that the rate of side effects hadn't increased.

"We have one in two people, compared to the best product on the market, who survive," he said, "which in oncology is huge."

- Seeking early approval -

The existing clinical evidence could thus form the basis for conditional approval of the vaccine, for now known as mRNA-4157, said Bancel.

Under this scenario, a larger, "phase three" study involving a thousand people that Moderna is carrying out in 2024 could confirm the earlier conditional authorization.

Both the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have placed the therapy on an expedited review pathway.

The vaccine's development begins with sequencing the genome of each patient's tumor and identifying specific mutations to encode against. It is thus an example of "individualized" medicine tailored "just for you," said Bancel.

To prepare for market launch, Moderna is building a new factory in Massachusetts in order to have plentiful supply, a requirement of the FDA.

It also announced Monday that it was starting a phase 3 trial for an mRNA vaccine against lung cancer. Other types of tumors are also being studied.

Bancel's hope is to eventually pair these cancer vaccines with "liquid biopsies" -- groundbreaking tests that detect signs of tumors earlier, via blood tests, and are starting to become available in the United States.

The faster you can detect cancer, the better Moderna's new drugs will work, Bancel believes.

Other companies, such as BioNTech, are also working on individualized therapeutic cancer vaccines.

Read More........