Neuroscience research: 6 fascinating findings

In this feature, we discuss six studies that uncover new and unexpected truths about the organ we hold in our skulls. Neuroscience is never easy, but the resulting intrigue is worth the effort.

It’s Brain Awareness Week, and to mark the occasion, we’re taking a look at research focused on the most complex organ in the human body. You can view all of our content for Brain Awareness Week here.

The brain is the pivotal hub of our central nervous system. Through this organ, we take note of the world, we assess our version of reality, we dream, we ponder, we laugh.

Its nervous tendrils permeate every inch of our bodies, innervating, controlling, and monitoring all that we touch, think, and feel.

Its other, more silent, yet vital role is its command over our survival as an organism — our heartbeat, our breathing rate, the release of hormones, and much more.

Because of its vast complexity, it is no surprise that we continuously learn new things about the brain.

In this feature, we will discuss some recent research that shines fresh light on the organ that defines us as individuals, controls our emotions, and retains detailed information about our first pet.

To start, we will take a look at links between the brain and a seemingly unrelated part of the body — the gut.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Brain and gut

At first glance, it seems surprising that our brain and gut are interlinked, but we have all experienced their tight relationship. By way of example, many of us, when especially hungry, might be more easily enraged.

In fact, there is a great deal of neural conversation between the gut and the brain. After all, if the gut is not well fed, it could be a matter of life and death; the brain needs to be informed when energy is low so that it can call other systems into action.

1. Sugar may alter brain chemistry after only 12 days

Recently, Medical News Today published a study that investigated how sugar influenced the brain of a particular breed of swine, known as Göttingen minipigs. For 1 hour each day for 12 days, the pigs had access to sucrose solution.

Before and after the 12-day sugar intervention, the scientists used a PET imaging technique that measured dopamine and opioid activity. They also imaged five of the pigs’ brains after their first sucrose experience.

They chose to focus on the dopamine and opioid systems because both play pivotal roles in pleasure seeking behavior and addiction. One of the authors, Michael Winterdahl, explains what they found:

“After just 12 days of sugar intake, we could see major changes in the brain’s dopamine and opioid systems. In fact, the opioid system, which is that part of the brain’s chemistry that is associated with well-being and pleasure, was already activated after the very first intake.”

The authors published their findings in the journal Scientific Reports. Scientists have debated whether sugar is addictive for decades, but these findings, as the authors explain, suggest that “foods high in sucrose influence brain reward circuitry in ways similar to those observed when addictive drugs are consumed.”

2. Gut bacteria and the brain

Over recent years, gut bacteria and the microbiome at large have become increasingly popular with scientists and laypeople alike. It is no surprise that gut bacteria can influence gut health, but it does come as more of an eye-opener that they might influence our brain and behavior.

Although at first, this idea was a fringe topic, it is now moving closer to the mainstream. However, links between gut bacteria and mental health are still relatively controversial.

Recently, a study appearing in Nature Microbiology utilized data from the Flemish Gut Flora Project, which included 1,070 participants. The scientists wanted to understand whether there might be a relationship between gut flora and depression.

As the researchers hypothesized, they did find distinct differences in the gut bacterial populations of those with depression when they compared them with those who did not experience depression.

These differences remained significant even after they had adjusted the data to account for antidepressant medication, which might also influence gut bacteria.

However, as the authors note, there is still the chance that factors other than depression might have driven the correlation. Before they firm up the links between gut bacteria and mental health, scientists will need to carry out much more work.

MNT published an in-depth article on how gut bacteria might influence the brain and behavior here.

3. Parkinson’s and the gut

Perhaps now that we have established a connection between the gut and the brain, we will find the thought of a gut link to Parkinson’s disease less surprising. MNT covered a study that looked at this theory in 2019.

Misfolded alpha-synuclein is the primary hallmark of Parkinson’s disease. These proteins aggregate and destroy certain dopamine producing cells in the brain, causing tremor and the other symptoms of the disease.

The study, in the journal Neuron, explains how the researchers created a model of Parkinson’s disease by injecting alpha-synuclein fibrils into muscles in the mice’s gut.

In the experiment, these clumps traveled from the gut to the brain through the vagus nerve. Within a few months, the mice developed symptoms that mirrored Parkinson’s in humans.

Following on from the findings above, some researchers have begun asking whether prebiotics might stave off Parkinson’s. A study using a roundworm model suggests that this theory might be worth pursuing.

Discoveries and mysteries

Of course, because the brain is complex, it still holds many secrets. Even some of the most common behaviors, as yet, defy a neuroscientific explanation. A good example is a humble yawn.

Yawning is part of the human experience, but no one knows quite why we do it.

4. A yawning chasm in our knowledge

Scientists have roundly dismissed conventional theories, such as a lack of oxygen in the brain. Why we do it, and what is happening in the brain is unclear. One of the particularly curious things about yawning is the fact that it is contagious.

A recent study investigating the contagious power of yawns appeared in the journal Current Biology. The authors believe that primitive reflexes in the primary motor cortex might trigger yawn contagion.

To investigate, the scientists used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which is a noninvasive technique employing magnetic fields to stimulate nerve cells. The researchers showed participants videos of people yawning and asked them to either resist the yawn or to let it out.

They found that when they increased levels of excitability in the motor cortex, they also increased participants’ urge to yawn.

As part of the experiment, the researchers measured levels of excitability in participants’ brains without TMS. They found that individuals with higher levels of cortical excitability and physiological inhibition in the primary motor cortex were more predisposed to yawn.

This finding adds evidence in support of one theory about yawning that involves the mirror-neuron system. This system, as the authors explain, “is thought to play a key role in action understanding, empathy, and the synchronization of group social behavior.”

So, we still do not fully understand yawning, but we are gathering evidence, and it might involve empathy.

Source: Medical News Today

Gut bacteria may boost cancer therapy by colonizing tumors

A study in mice suggests that by infiltrating tumors and ramping up the body’s immune response, a type of gut bacteria could be a valuable ally in cancer treatment.

In recent years, research has shown that the communities of bacteria that live in our guts — known as our gut microbiota — play crucial roles not only in disease but also in promoting health.

Some research has found beneficial effects of probiotic “friendly” bacteria on the immune system.

For example, one study suggested that a species of Bifidobacterium can modify the body’s immune responses in psoriasis, ulcerative colitis, and chronic fatigue syndrome. Another found evidence that a combination of Bifidobacteria and Lactobacilli can relieve hay fever.

The authors of the new study, which features in the Journal of Experimental Medicine, note that certain bacteria have also demonstrated the ability to improve the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy by activating gut immunity.

They report that in their research on mice, they discovered that various species of Bifidobacterium can find their way into gut tumors even after being injected.

Once inside the tumors, the bacteria seem to activate the wider immune system and, in the process, enhance a type of cancer treatment called CD47 blockade immunotherapy.

‘Don’t eat me’ signal

One of the molecular tricks that tumors deploy to evade attacks by the immune system is to incorporate a protein called CD47 into their cell membranes.

In their paper, the researchers describe CD47 as a “don’t eat me” signal to macrophages, a scavenger type of immune cell that engulfs invading cells, including cancerous ones. Several ongoing clinical trials are investigating antibodies that block this signal.

Studies in models of cancer in mice, however, have found that some of the animals respond well to these anti-CD47 treatments, whereas others do not. Interestingly, the mice that respond well have more Bifidobacteria in their feces.

To investigate further, the team of scientists at the University of Texas and the University of Chicago ran a series of experiments on mice with cancer.

Contagious effect

First, they discovered that simply putting mice that did not respond to CD47 blockade immunotherapy in the same cages as mice that did respond had an effect. Proximity converted the nonresponders into responders.

When the researchers used antibiotics to kill off all the animals’ gut bacteria, however, this prevented mice from responding to the treatment. Conversely, supplementing the nonresponding mice with Bifidobacteria turned them into responders.

The location of the effect seemed to be the tumors themselves, as injecting a low dose of antibiotics directly into them reduced the efficacy of treatment. Injecting Bifidobacteria into the tumors had the opposite effect.

Finally, the team showed that the bacteria enhanced immunotherapy by activating an immune pathway called STING (STimulator of INterferon Genes). In mice genetically engineered to have no STING pathway, Bifidobacteria failed to restore the effectiveness of immunotherapy.

New avenues for research

The lead researchers were Prof. Yang-Xin Fu at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Prof. Ralph R. Weichselbaum, co-director of The Ludwig Center for Metastasis Research at the University of Chicago.

“Our results open a new avenue for clinical investigations into the effects of bacteria within tumors and may help explain why some cancer patients fail to respond to immunotherapy,” says Prof. Weichselbaum.

In their paper, the scientists suggest that “anaerobic” bacteria such as Bifidobacteria — which do not need oxygen to survive — may thrive in the low-oxygen environment inside tumors, but not in healthy tissues.

Several clinical trials are underway using other anaerobic bacteria, namely Salmonella typhimurium and Clostridium novyi–NT, to destroy tumors.

However, these bacteria are pathogens. As Bifidobacteria are harmless “commensal” species, they may be a safer alternative for targeting treatments to tumors or enhancing immunotherapy.

 Source: Medical News Today

Does a low carb diet keep your brain young?

A new study suggests that age-related changes in the brain start earlier in life than previously thought, and switching diet may slow down the deterioration.

The findings appear in the journal PNAS.

The human brain needs over 20% of the body’s energy to function, and it gets this from metabolizing either glucose or ketone bodies.

Hypometabolism occurs when brain cells cannot use glucose as an energy source.

The brain is vulnerable to changes in metabolism.

People with Alzheimer’s disease often experience a severe drop in the brain’s glucose metabolic rate, and the extent of this reduction is associated with the severity of their illness.

Alzheimer’s disease is the most common form of dementia. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 50 million people globally have dementia, and about 60 to 70% of these have Alzheimer’s disease.

While scientists have been unable to pinpoint why the brain cells stop metabolizing glucose at this point, previous research has shown that a drop in glucose metabolism appears early before Alzheimer’s symptoms develop.

In this study, researchers from the United States and the United Kingdom used the stability of this communication network between brain regions as a way to measure age-related changes in the brain.

They set out to investigate when these changes start and whether a change in a person’s diet from one rich in glucose to ketones could affect the communication between these brain regions.

To determine when these changes to neural stability emerge, the researchers used two large-scale functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) datasets. One dataset came from the Max Planck Institut Leipzig in Germany, and the other from the Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience (Cam-CAN) in Cambridge, UK. The datasets contained brain scans of nearly 1,000 adults across their life-span (ages 18 to 88).

This type of brain scan measures the stability of brain networks, defined as the brain’s ability to sustain functional communication between its regions.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Diet and brain activity

To investigate how diet affects brain network stability, the researchers used an fMRI machine scanner to measure the neural activity of 42 volunteers under 50 years old.

These volunteers had spent a week following one of three diets: a regular diet, where the primary fuel metabolized was glucose, a low-carbohydrate diet where the primary fuel metabolized was ketones, or a regular diet with an overnight 12-hour fasting.

The researchers measured the volunteer’s ketone and glucose levels before and after the scan.

To ensure that the effect they observed was directly due to glucose or ketones, the researchers carried out a second experiment with 30 volunteers. They asked the participants to consume a calorie-matched glucose or ketone drink after an overnight fast.

The researchers found that the volunteer’s neural networks were destabilized by glucose and stabilized by ketones.

This happened in both the experiments, whether ketosis was generated naturally through a low carbohydrate diet or artificially using ketone supplements.

The researchers found that across a person’s life span, the destabilization of the neural network had links with decreased brain activity and someone’s ability to distinguish between the correct responses to situations known as cognitive acuity.

When does the brain begin to age?

The study results suggested that changes to the stability of a person’s neural network emerged at 47 years old, and the brain rapidly degenerated from 60 years old onward.

“The bad news is that we see the first signs of brain aging much earlier than was previously thought,” says Mujica-Parodi, a professor in the Department of Biomedical Engineering.

The researcher also has joint appointments in the College of Engineering & Applied Sciences and Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University in New York and is a faculty member in the Laufer Center for Physical and Quantitative Biology.

“However, the good news is that we may be able to prevent or reverse these effects with diet, mitigating the impact of encroaching hypometabolism by exchanging glucose for ketones as fuel for neurons.”

– Prof. Mujica-Parodi.

Source: Medical News Today

Is blood type linked to COVID-19 risk?

A new, preliminary study has found correlations between blood type and the likelihood of being hospitalized with COVID-19. According to the authors, people with type A blood might be more at risk than those with other blood types.

Researchers from the Southern University of Science and Technology, in Shenzhen, China — in collaboration with colleagues from other Chinese institutions — have recently conducted a study assessing the potential relationship between blood type and hospitalization due to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Their study is preliminary and has yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, which means that other experts have not yet had a chance to assess the researchers’ methodology and findings.

However, they have made their study paper available online in preprint form.

Stay informed with live updates on the current COVID-19 outbreak and visit our coronavirus hub for more advice on prevention and treatment.

Is blood group A hit the hardest?

The researchers looked at blood group distribution among 2,173 individuals admitted to hospitals with COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus. The people each received care at one of three hospitals in Wuhan, China, or Shenzhen.

The team then compared the patients’ blood group distribution to that of a group representative of the general population — totaling 3,694 people — in Wuhan.

The researchers found that the proportion of people with blood type A was significantly higher among the group hospitalized with COVID-19 than among the general population.

They also found that the proportion of people with blood type O was significantly lower among the group with COVID-19 than among the general population.

Based on these findings, co-first study author Jiao Zhao and colleagues report that “People with blood group A have a significantly higher risk for acquiring COVID-19, compared with non-A blood groups, whereas blood group O has a significantly lower risk for the infection, compared with non-O blood groups.”

It is important to stress, however, that the researchers refer to the risk of needing hospitalization because of COVID-19, rather than the risk of contracting the virus that can lead to the disease.

This is because the team only looked at data from individuals whose symptoms were severe enough to require hospitalization, not those with mild symptoms that responded to home care.

 Source: Medical News Today

Community characteristics may affect life expectancy

A new study suggests that certain community characteristics may affect life expectancy.

A team of researchers has found that community characteristics may have associations with people’s life expectancy.

The research, appearing in the journal Social Science & Medicine, suggests that authorities should consider taking these community characteristics, as well as other well-known predictors of life expectancy, into consideration when making policy.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Relative decline in life expectancy

According to the study, life expectancy in the United States had been increasing since the 1980s, as in many other parts of the world. However, in 2016, it began a 2-year decline — the first time this had happened since 1962–63.

While, in absolute terms, U.S. experts predict life expectancy to grow during the next 40 years, they expect it to do so at a much slower rate than other countries.

If predictions are accurate, the U.S. will drop 21 spots in global life expectancy rankings from its current position of 43rd to 64th, meaning there will be a relative decline in life expectancy.

In addition to this, life expectancy varies significantly from region to region in the US, ranging from 56 to 97 years.

Understanding the factors for this relative decline in life expectancy, as well as the major variations across the country, is crucial for policymakers.

Life expectancy factors

Various individual health issues affect longevity, such as high levels of smoking, low levels of physical activity, and high levels of obesity. The research in the present study backed up these findings.

Many other factors affect life expectancy, such as income inequality.

These factors have complex relationships. For example, there are differences in mortality linked to gender; one study found that state-level factors may affect more women than men.

Dr. Elizabeth Dobis, a postdoctoral scholar at the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania, is the lead author of the study.

She says, “American life expectancy recently declined for the first time in decades, and we wanted to explore the factors contributing to this decline. Because of regional variation in life expectancy, we knew community-level factors must matter.

“By analyzing place-based factors alongside personal factors, we were able to draw several conclusions about which community characteristics contribute most strongly to this variation in life expectancy.”

Key community characteristics

The present study focused on how the characteristics of a community, rather than individual traits, may affect life expectancy. It drew on data from 3,000 U.S. counties, looking at the variations in life expectancy from a 1980 baseline to 2014.

The researchers developed a statistical methodology to account for the various confounding factors that would also affect life expectancy. They tried to give as clear a picture as possible about the precise effect these community characteristics might have.

Although there was a clear relationship between life expectancy in 1980 compared with 2014, there were some unpredicted variations.

In Dr. Dobis’ words, “When we controlled for historical life expectancy, we found three additional community factors that each exert a significant adverse effect — a greater number of fast food restaurants, higher population density, and a greater share of jobs in mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction.

“For example, for every one percentage point increase in the number of fast food restaurants in a county, life expectancy declined by .004 years for men and .006 years for women.”

Conversely, the study found that greater access to health care, a population that is increasing in size, and high levels of social cohesion were all associated with higher life expectancies.

Stephan Groatz, professor of Agricultural and Regional Economics at Penn State, and a co-author of the study, comments on the findings.

 Source: Medical News Today

COVID-19: 5 reasons to be cautiously hopeful

The death toll for COVID-19 is on the rise, and so is the total number of cases. In the context of this global pandemic, feeling overwhelmed by all the negative information is a natural response. But researchers are also hard at work trying to understand, treat, and prevent the new coronavirus. We take a look at some of their results.

For live updates on the latest developments regarding the novel coronavirus and COVID-19, click here.

As of yesterday, the total number of deaths from COVID-19 across the world has surpassed 10,000.

Currently, the total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases across the globe stands at 244,000.

These numbers can induce restlessness and worry.

The importance of taking precautions and staying safe during this global pandemic cannot be overestimated, but it is also helpful to look at some emerging research that could pave the way for future treatment and prevention.

In this article, we round up some of this evidence, which has featured recently on Medical News Today.

Infection control measures work

Researchers in Hong Kong have evaluated the impact that the outbreak has had on 43 public hospitals there.

The numbers are encouraging: In the first 6 weeks since the start of the outbreak, 413 healthcare workers dealt with 42 confirmed cases of COVID-19. Of these employees, 11 had unprotected exposure to the new coronavirus.

As a result of implementing best practices for infection control, none of the healthcare staff contracted the virus during the study period. Furthermore, no hospital-acquired infections occurred.

Dr. Vincent C.C. Cheng, from the Department of Microbiology at Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong, and his colleagues conclude:

“Appropriate hospital infection control measures can prevent healthcare-associated transmission of the [new] coronavirus […] Vigilance in hand hygiene practice, wearing of surgical masks in the hospital, and appropriate use of personal protective equipment in patient care […] are the key infection control measures to prevent hospital transmission of the virus.”

Getting the virus may protect against reinfections

A study involving four rhesus macaques found that contracting SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes COVID-19 — protected against future reinfections.

The scientists reinfected two of the four monkeys with the virus 28 days after the initial infection.

A total of “96 nasopharyngeal and anal swabs tested negative after the reexposure of SARS-CoV-2,” report the researchers. The euthanasia and necropsy of one of the two monkeys confirmed these results.

“Taken together, our results indicated that the primary SARS-CoV-2 infection could protect from subsequent exposures, which have […] vital implications for vaccine design [and disease prognosis],” conclude the authors of the study.

MNT contacted Martin Bachmann, a professor of vaccinology at Oxford University’s Jenner Institute in the United Kingdom, on the broader subject of COVID-19 and building up immunity to the virus.

“I can tell you, if you got [COVID-19] and you got really sick, I am sure that will make an antibody response that will also last.”

– Prof. Martin Bachmann

Prof. Bachmann, who is also the head of the department of immunology at the University of Bern in Switzerland, continued: “But, if you have the virus and it only replicates a little and never really reaches the lymph nodes, then maybe you don’t really make [an antibody response], but then you have not really been sick. [Of] anyone who has been really sick, I would be surprised to find anyone who didn’t make an antibody response.”

A vaccine is being trialed, more underway 

A trial is currently taking place to test a potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for the first time in humans.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) have funded the trial, which is taking place at the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle.

In the trial, 45 healthy volunteers will receive a vaccine that contains a segment of genetic code copied from SARS-CoV-2. As the vaccine does not contain the actual SARS-CoV-2, the participants will not develop COVID-19.

Government officials caution that it may take 12–18 months before the vaccine reaches the market and explain that the main purpose of this current trial is to make sure that there are no serious side effects.

However, many other efforts are underway for devising new vaccines. In this article, our research editor, Yella Hewings-Martin, Ph.D., rounded up several projects that identified a potential vaccine and therapy targets for SARS-CoV-2.

An old method could fight COVID-19

Doctors may be able to use an age-old method called “passive antibody therapy” to treat COVID-19, suggests research featuring in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.

The researchers who authored the paper say, “Deployment of this option requires no research or development,” as the method has been around since the 1930s.

The method involves collecting blood from a person who has had the virus and recovered from it. Using the serum — the part that contains infection-fighting antibodies — researchers hope to be able to inject another person, thus either preventing an infection or helping to fight it off.

Dr. Arturo Casadevall, a professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, MD, and co-author of the new paper, says:

“It’s all doable — but to get it done, it requires effort, organization, resources… and people who have recovered from the disease who can donate the blood.”

Our immune system could defeat the virus

A new case study, appearing in the journal Nature Medicine, documents the case of a COVID-19 patient who recovered from the condition within days.

The patient was a 47-year-old woman who had contracted the virus in Wuhan, China, and the researchers examined her immune response in their effort to understand her recovery.

Prof. Katherine Kedzierska, Head of the Human T cell Laboratory in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the Doherty Institute in Melbourne, Australia, and her colleagues found an increase in immunoglobulins — the most common type of antibodies — in the woman’s blood samples.

The scientists also found a high number of key immune cells, such as specialized helper T cells, killer T cells, and B cells, 7–9 days after symptom onset.

 Source: Medical News

Coronavirus myths explored

As the coronavirus continues to make the news, a host of untruths has surrounded the topic. In this special feature, we address some of these myths and conspiracies.

The novel coronavirus, now known as SARS-CoV-2, has spread from Wuhan, China, to every continent on Earth except Antarctica.

The World Health Organization (WHO) officially changed their classification of the situation from a public health emergency of international concern to a pandemic on March 11.

To date, the novel coronavirus — currently dubbed “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2,” or SARS-CoV-2 for short — has been responsible for more than 245,000 infections globally, causing more than 10,000 deaths. In the U.S., the virus has affected 14,250 people and has so far caused 205 deaths.

As ever, when the word “pandemic” starts appearing in headlines, people become fearful, and with fear come misinformation and rumors.

Here, we will dissect some of the most common myths that are currently circulating on social media and beyond.

Stay informed with live updates on the current COVID-19 outbreak and visit our coronavirus hub for more advice on prevention and treatment.

1. Spraying chlorine or alcohol on skin kills viruses in the body

Applying alcohol or chlorine to the body can cause harm, especially if it enters the eyes or mouth. Although people can use these chemicals to disinfect surfaces, they should not use them on skin.

These products cannot kill viruses within the body.

2. Only older adults and young people are at risk

SARS-CoV-2, like other coronaviruses, can infect people of any age. However, older adults or individuals with preexisting health conditions, such as diabetes or asthma, are more likely to become severely ill.

3. Children cannot catch COVID-19

All age groups can become infected. Most cases, so far, have been in adults, but children are not immune. In fact, preliminary evidence shows that children are just as likely to become infected, but their symptoms tend to be less severe.

4. COVID-19 is just like the flu

SARS-CoV-2 causes illness that does, indeed, have flu-like symptoms, such as aches, fever, and cough. Similarly, both COVID-19 and flu can be mild, severe, or, in rare cases, fatal. Both can also lead to pneumonia.

However, the overall profile of COVID-19 is more serious. Estimates vary, but its mortality rate seems to be between about 1% and 3%.

Although scientists are working out the exact mortality rate, it is likely to be many times higher than that of seasonal flu.

5. Everyone with COVID-19 dies

This statement is untrue. As we have mentioned above, COVID-19 is only fatal for a small percentage of people.

In a recent report, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that 80.9% of COVID-19 cases were mild.

The WHO also report that around 80% of people will experience a relatively mild form of the disease, which will not require specialist treatment in a hospital.

Mild symptoms may include fever, cough, sore throat, tiredness, and shortness of breath.

6. Cats and dogs spread coronavirus

Currently, there is little evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can infect cats and dogs. However, in Hong Kong, a Pomeranian whose owner had COVID-19 became infected. The dog did not display any symptoms.

Scientists are debating the importance of this case to the epidemic. For instance, Prof. Jonathan Ball, Professor of Molecular Virology at the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom, says:

“We have to differentiate between real infection and just detecting the presence of the virus. I still think it’s questionable how relevant it is to the human outbreak, as most of the global outbreak has been driven by human-to-human transmission.”

He continues: “We need to find out more, but we don’t need to panic — I doubt it could spread to another dog or a human because of the low levels of the virus. The real driver of the outbreak is humans.”

7. Face masks protect against coronavirus

Healthcare workers use professional face masks, which fit tightly around the face, to protect them against infection. However, disposable face masks are unlikely to provide such protection.

As these masks do not fit neatly against the face, droplets can still enter the mouth and nose. Also, tiny viral particles can penetrate directly through the material.

However, if someone has a respiratory illness, wearing a mask can help protect others from becoming infected.

“There is very little evidence that wearing such masks protects the wearer from infection,” Dr. Ben Killingley, Consultant in Acute Medicine and Infectious Diseases at University College London Hospital in the U.K., explains.

“Furthermore, wearing masks can give a false sense of reassurance and might lead to other infection control practices being ignored, e.g., hand hygiene.”

The WHO recommend that people who are caring for someone with suspected COVID-19 should wear a mask. In these cases, wearing a mask is only effective if the individual regularly washes their hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.

Also, when using a mask, it is important to use it and dispose of it properly.

8. Hand dryers kill coronavirus

Hand dryers do not kill coronavirus. The best way to protect yourself and others from the virus is to wash your hands with soap and water or an alcohol-based hand rub.

Source: Medical News Today