Research Area: Genetics

How stem cell descendants preserve flexibility while maintaining distinct identities

In many tissues, some early descendants of stem cells, the body's ultimate shape-shifters, can revert back to a stem cell state through a process known as dedifferentiation. Researchers in the Yamashita Lab have identified two complementary mechanisms that allow cells to preserve stem cell potential while adopting distinct identities.

Mackenzie White | Whitehead Institute
April 6, 2026

Stem cells are the body’s ultimate shape-shifters, sustaining tissues by balancing two competing demands: maintaining their own population and generating specialized descendants. In many tissues, some early descendants can revert to a stem cell state through a process known as dedifferentiation. This ability can help replenish the stem cell pool when stem cells are lost.

In a new study published on April 6 in PNAS, researchers at Whitehead Institute identify two complementary mechanisms that allow cells to preserve stem cell potential while adopting distinct identities.

Led by Whitehead Institute Member Yukiko Yamashita and Yamashita Lab postdoc Amelie Raz, the study focuses on the male fruit fly germline stem cells, which give rise to sperm. These cells sit at the foundation of a lineage that continues across generations.

To understand what distinguishes these stem cells, the researchers analyzed RNA, the intermediary molecules that link genes in DNA to the proteins they encode. RNA quantities typically reflect which genes a cell is using—which in turn reflects a cell’s identity. The researchers expected to find a set of RNAs unique to stem cells. Instead, they discovered that stem cells and their immediate descendants share seemingly identical RNA profiles.

“We didn’t have anything that was specific to stem cells,” Raz says. “It turned out that that was actually the key to understanding how you make them.”

The difference between these cell types lies not only in which RNAs are present, but in whether the cells are still making them. Stem cells continue producing these RNAs, while their descendants inherit many of the same molecules but stop making new copies of RNA.

This means RNA alone does not fully define a cell’s state. In these descendant cells, the shared RNAs reflect an earlier state, not the same productive gene program seen in stem cells.

“On the level of RNA, they’re the same,” Raz says. “But they’re different in what’s actually happening in the nucleus—whether that RNA is being actively produced.”

The study also clarifies how signals from the surrounding environment help determine what path a cell follows. Stem cells reside in a specialized microenvironment known as a niche, which sends molecular cues that influence cell behavior. Two well-studied signaling pathways—Bmp and Jak-Stat—have long been known to regulate germline stem cells.

Previous models assumed these pathways worked together or redundantly. However, the new findings show that they instead act independently, each controlling a different subset of genes.

“What we found was that they’re acting on completely separate parts of this gene activity program,” Raz says.

Because the pathways operate independently, their combined activity defines distinct cellular states. When both signals are active, cells maintain stem cell identity. When neither is active, cells continue along a differentiation pathway. When only one pathway is active, cells can revert toward a stem cell state through dedifferentiation. This modular arrangement allows cells with the same underlying potential to follow different paths depending on the signals they receive.

The findings help explain why many stem cell populations rely on multiple signaling pathways. Rather than serving as backups for one another, these pathways can regulate different parts of cell behavior and work together to shape a cell’s trajectory.

“In many stem cell populations, multiple signals have been thought to be redundant,” says Yamashita, who is also a professor of biology at MIT and an HHMI Investigator. “Here, we show that they can have distinct roles to determine whether a cell self-renews, differentiates, or reverts in combination.”

More broadly, the work shows that knowing which molecules are present in a cell does not always reveal how that cell is functioning. Two cells can appear identical by standard molecular measures even when they are operating in different regulatory states.

The study also lays the groundwork for future research. Raz and colleagues have identified a set of genes linked to this early germline state in fruit flies and are now investigating what those genes do and how they help govern stem cell behavior.

“Now that we know what’s there, the next step is understanding what those RNA molecules are doing,” Raz says.

Additionally, the work suggests that long-standing models of stem cell regulation may be incomplete, even in systems that have been studied for decades.

“What we are showing is that these pathways aren’t necessarily working in the way people had assumed,” Raz says. “There’s almost certainly more to it.”

A. Raz, H. Hassan, & Y.M. Yamashita, Niche-dependent modular regulation of the stem cell transcriptome separates cell identity and potential, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 123 (15) e2533973123, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2533973123 (2026).

Slice and dice

SNIPE, a newly characterized defense system, directly protects bacteria by chopping up invading viral DNA.

Lillian Eden | Department of Biology
April 9, 2026

What if the Trojan horse had been pulled to pieces, revealing the ruse and fending off the invasion, just as it entered the gates of Troy?

That’s an apt description of a newly characterized bacterial defense system that chops up foreign DNA.

Bacteria and the viruses that infect them, bacteriophages — phages for short — are ceaselessly at odds, with bacteria developing methods to protect themselves against phages that are constantly striving to overcome those safeguards.

New research from the Department of Biology at MIT, recently published in Nature, describes a defense system that is integrated into the protective membrane that encapsulates bacteria. SNIPE, which stands for surface-associated nuclease inhibiting phage entry, contains a nuclease domain that cleaves genetic material, chopping the invading phage genome into harmless fragments before it can appropriate the host’s molecular machinery to make more phages.

Daniel Saxton, a postdoc in the Laub Lab and the paper’s first author, was initially drawn to studying this bacterial defense system in E. coli, in part because it is highly unusual to have a nuclease that localizes to the membrane, as most nucleases are free-floating in the cytoplasm, the gelatinous fluid that fills the space inside cells.

“The other thing that caught my attention is that this is something we call a direct defense system, meaning that when a phage infects a cell, that cell will actually survive the attack,” Saxton says. “It’s hard to fend off a phage directly in a cell and survive — but this defense system can do it.”

Light it up

For Saxton, the project came into focus during a fluorescence-based experiment in which viral genetic material would light up if it successfully penetrated the bacteria.

“SNIPE was obliterating the phage DNA so fast that we couldn’t even see a fluorescent spot,” Saxton recalls. “I don’t think I’ve ever seen such an effective defense system before — you can barrage the bacteria with hundreds of phage per cell, but SNIPE is like god-tier protection.”

When the nuclease domain of SNIPE was mutated so it couldn’t chop up DNA, fluorescent spots appeared as usual, and the bacteria succumbed to the phage infection.

Bacteria maintain tight control over all their defense systems, lest they be turned against their host. Some systems remain dormant until they flare up, for example, to halt all translation of all proteins in the cell, while others can distinguish between bacterial DNA and foreign, invading phage DNA. There were only two previously characterized mechanisms in the latter category before researchers uncovered SNIPE.

“Right now, the phage field is at a really interesting spot where people are discovering phage defense systems at a breakneck pace,” Saxton says.

Problems at the periphery

Saxton says they had to approach the work in a somewhat roundabout way because there are currently no published structures depicting all the steps of phage genome injection. Studying processes at the membrane is challenging: Membranes are dense and chaotic, and phage genome injection is a highly transient process, lasting only a few minutes.

SNIPE seems to discern viral DNA by interacting with proteins the phage uses to tunnel through the bacteria’s protective membrane. This “subcellular localization,” according to Saxton, may also prevent SNIPE from inadvertently chopping up the bacteria’s own genetic material.

The model outlined in the paper is that one region of SNIPE binds to a bacterial membrane protein called ManYZ, while another region likely binds to the tape measure protein from the phage.

The tape measure protein got its name because it determines the length of the phage tail — the part of the phage between the small, leglike protrusions and the bulbous head, which contains the phage’s genetic material. The researchers revealed that the phage’s tape measure protein enters the cytoplasm during injection, a phenomenon that had not been physically demonstrated before.

There may also be other proteins or interactions involved.

“If you shunt the phage genome injection through an alternate pathway that isn’t ManYZ, suddenly SNIPE doesn’t defend against the phage nearly as well,” Saxton says. “It’s unclear exactly how these proteins interact, but we do know that these two proteins are involved in this genome injection process.”

Future directions

Saxton hopes that future work will expand our understanding of what occurs during phage genome injection and uncover the structures of the proteins involved, especially the tunnel complex in the membrane through which phages insert their genome.

Members of the Laub Lab are already collaborating with another lab to determine the structure of SNIPE. In the meantime, Saxton has been working on a new defense system in which molecular mimicry — bacterial proteins imitating phage proteins — may play a role.

Michael T. Laub, the Salvador E. Luria Professor of Biology and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator, notes that one of the breakthrough experiments for demonstrating how SNIPE works came from a brainstorming session at a lab retreat.

“Daniel and I were kind of stuck with how to directly measure the effect of SNIPE during infection, but another postdoc in the lab, Ian Roney, who is a co-author on the paper, came up with a very clever idea that ultimately worked perfectly,” Laub recalls. “It’s a great example of how powerful internal collaborations can be in pushing our science forward.”

A new lens on autism’s sex bias

A perspective from the lab of Whitehead Institute Member David Page, published in Nature Genetics, proposes a genetic explanation for the female protective effect and suggests that biological differences between males and females contribute to autism’s strong sex bias.

Shafaq Zia | Whitehead Institute
March 30, 2026

Autism has a significant and enduring sex bias, with roughly four boys diagnosed for every girl. For many years, experts have believed this disparity arises primarily from diagnostic inequities because much of autism research — and the screening tools that grew out of it — has historically focused on boys, effectively setting a male standard for what autism “looks like.” As a result, girls and women are more likely to be overlooked, misdiagnosed, or diagnosed much later in life.

This disparity has also shaped the science around autism. When fewer females with the condition are identified, fewer are included in research studies, creating a feedback loop where scientific understanding of autism in females remains limited. Because of this underrepresentation of females, it has been difficult for scientists to disentangle how much of the sex bias in autism reflects social inequities versus underlying biological differences between the sexes.

While the search for biological explanations has largely lagged behind, one leading theory, known as the “female protective effect,” proposes that females may be biologically buffered against developing autism in a way males aren’t.

The idea can be traced back to studies showing that females diagnosed with autism tend to carry a higher number of genetic mutations or “hits” than males with the condition, meaning that they require a higher load of the same genetic mutations for autism to manifest. But, until now, there’s been little clarity on the exact biological mechanism behind this apparent resilience.

Now, a perspective from the lab of Whitehead Institute Member David Page, published March 30 in Nature Genetics, proposes a genetic explanation for the female protective effect and suggests that biological differences between males and females contribute to autism’s strong sex bias.

The work is one of many projects from the Page lab uncovering the biological underpinnings of sex bias in everything from heart health and autoimmune disease to certain cancers.

“The fact that we see sex biases in disease all across the body gives credence to the notion that the sex bias in autism isn’t simply emerging from diagnostic inequities and gendered expectations of what the conditions looks like,” says Page, who is also a professor of biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI).

The researchers propose that this protective effect extends beyond autism, and could help explain why 17 other congenital and developmental disorders predominantly affect males. By characterizing the biological factors that make one sex more or less likely to develop certain health conditions, scientists see an opportunity to improve how these conditions are diagnosed and how people receive care.

Page and Harvard-MIT MD-PhD student Maya Talukdar trace the female protective effect to the X chromosome. Talukdar is a graduate student in Page’s lab and the lead author of the perspective.

Most females have two X chromosomes (XX) while most males have one X and one Y chromosome (XY). Sex chromosomes can dial up and down the expression of thousands of genes on the other 22 pairs of chromosomes in a cell, impacting cell function across the entire body.

Historically, scientists believed that the second X chromosome in females is largely inactive. But, in recent years, research out of the Page lab has shown that the so-called “inactive X,” also called Xi, plays a crucial role in regulating gene expression on the active X chromosome, and the rest of the chromosomes.

In this perspective, the researchers point to a subset of genes that are expressed from both the active and inactive X chromosome — often known as genes that “escape” X chromosome inactivation. Many of these genes are dosage-sensitive regulators of key cellular processes. These processes influence thousands of other genes across the genome, including many linked to autism.

Because females have an extra copy of these regulatory genes expressed from Xi, Page and Talukdar propose that they may be better able to buffer the effects of autism-associated mutations than males.

The female protective effect beyond autism

This mechanism, the researchers say, extends beyond autism to a range of congenital and developmental diseases with a male bias.

“Many of the other congenital or developmental conditions we’re pointing to aren’t subject to diagnostic inequities in the way autism is,” says Talukdar. “This strengthens the idea that the female protective effect is emerging from genetic differences in males and females.”

One example is pyloric stenosis, which like autism, affects four boys for every girl. Infants with the condition experience severe vomiting due to thickening of the pyloric sphincter, the passage between the stomach and small intestine. As with autism, girls with pyloric stenosis appear to require more genetic “hits” in order to develop the condition.

The researchers’ new framework of looking at Xi to understand sex differences in disease could impact treatment and care not just for conditions that predominately affect males, but also for those that are more common in women, such as autoimmune diseases.

“Our biology isn’t one-size-fits-all,” Talukdar says “Sex differences clearly play a huge role in health, and it’s so important that we understand them.”

Maya Talukdar, David C. Page, “The inactive X chromosome as a female protector in autism and beyond,” Nature Genetics, 2026; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-026-02534-w 

Study reveals “two-factor authentication” system that controls microRNA destruction

A new study led by researchers in the Bartel Lab and Germany’s Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry reveals how cells selectively eliminate certain microRNAs, which tune which genes are active and when, through an unexpectedly intricate molecular recognition system.

Mackenzie White | Whitehead Institute
March 17, 2026

Cells rely on tiny molecules called microRNAs to tune which genes are active and when. Cells must carefully control the lifespan of microRNAs to prevent widespread disruption to gene regulation.

A new study led by researchers at Whitehead Institute and Germany’s Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry reveals how cells selectively eliminate certain microRNAs through an unexpectedly intricate molecular recognition system. The work, published on March 18 in Nature, shows that the process requires two separate RNA signals, similar to how many digital systems require two forms of identity verification before granting access.

The findings explain how cells use this “two-factor authentication” system to ensure that only intended microRNAs are destroyed, leaving the rest of the gene regulation machinery in operation.

MicroRNAs are short strands of RNA that help control gene expression. Working together with a protein called Argonaute, they bind to specific messenger RNAs—the molecules that carry genetic instructions from DNA to the cell’s protein-making machinery—and trigger their destruction. In this way, microRNAs can reduce the production of specific proteins.

While scientists recognized that microRNAs could be destroyed through a pathway known as target-directed microRNA degradation, or TDMD, the details of how cells recognized which microRNAs to eliminate remained unclear.

“We knew there was a pathway that could target microRNAs for degradation, but the biochemical mechanism behind it wasn’t understood,” says David Bartel, Whitehead Institute Member and co-senior author of the study.

Earlier work from Bartel’s lab and others had identified a key player in this pathway: the ZSWIM8 E3 ubiquitin ligase. E3 ubiquitin ligases are involved in the cell’s recycling system and attach a small molecular tag called ubiquitin to other proteins, marking them for destruction.

The researchers first showed that the ZSWIM8 E3 ligase specifically binds and tags Argonaute, the protein that holds microRNAs and helps regulate genes. The researchers’ next challenge was to understand how this machinery recognized only Argonaute complexes carrying specific microRNAs that should be degraded.

The answer turned out to be surprisingly sophisticated.

Using a combination of biochemistry and cryo-electron microscopy—an imaging technique that reveals molecular structures at near-atomic resolution—the researchers discovered that the degradation system relies on a dual-RNA recognition process. First, Argonaute must carry a specific microRNA. Second, another RNA molecule called a “trigger RNA” must bind to that microRNA in a particular way.

The degradation machinery activates only when both signals are present.

This dual requirement ensures exquisite specificity. Each cell contains over a hundred thousand Argonaute–microRNA complexes regulating many genes, and destroying them indiscriminately would disrupt essential biological processes.

“The vast majority of Argonaute molecules in the cell are doing useful work regulating gene expression,” says Bartel, who is also a professor of biology at MIT and an HHMI Investigator. “You only want to degrade the ones carrying a particular microRNA and bound to the right trigger RNA. Without that specificity, the cell would lose its microRNAs and the essential regulation that they provide.”

The structural images revealed complex molecular interactions. The ZSWIM8 ligase detects multiple structural changes that occur when the two RNAs bind together within the Argonaute protein.

“When we saw the structure, everything clicked,” says Elena Slobodyanyuk, a graduate student in Bartel’s lab and co-first author of the study. “You could see how the pairing of the trigger RNA with the microRNA reshapes the Argonaute complex in a way that the ligase can recognize.”

Beyond explaining how TDMD works, the findings may impact how scientists think about the regulation of RNA molecules more broadly.

“A lot of E3 ligases recognize their targets through simpler signals,” says Jakob Farnung, co-first author and researcher in the Department of Molecular Machines and Signaling at the Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry. “It was like opening a treasure chest where every detail revealed something new and mesmerizing.”

MicroRNAs typically persist in cells for much longer time periods than most messenger RNAs, but some degrade far more quickly, and the TDMD pathway appears to account for many of these unusually short-lived microRNAs.

The researchers are now investigating whether other RNAs can trigger similar degradation pathways and whether additional microRNAs are regulated through variations of the mechanism shown in this study.

“This opens up a whole new way of thinking about how RNA molecules can control protein degradation,” says Brenda Schulman, study co-senior author and Director of the Department of Molecular Machines and Signaling at the Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry. “Here, the recognition was far more elaborate than expected. There’s likely much more left to discover.”

Uncovering the details of this intricate regulatory system required interdisciplinary collaboration, combining expertise in RNA biochemistry, structural biology, and ubiquitin enzymology to solve this long-standing molecular puzzle.

“This was a project that required the strengths of two labs working at the forefront of their fields,” says Schulman, who is also an alum of Whitehead Institute. “It was an incredible team effort.”

Paper: Jakob Farnung, Elena Slobodyanyuk, Peter Y. Wang, Lianne W. Blodgett, Daniel H. Lin, Susanne von Gronau, Brenda A. Schulman & David P. Bartel. “The E3 ubiquitin ligase mechanism specifying targeted microRNA degradation.” Nature (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10232-0

How changes on the Y chromosome may make species reproductively incompatible

Closely related species often produce infertile offspring, especially in males. New research from the Yamashita Lab identifies a cellular defect that contributes to this phenomenon in fruit flies, which may help explain how diverging species become reproductively incompatible.

Mackenzie White | Whitehead Institute
March 6, 2026

In a new study published in Molecular Biology and Evolution on February 16, Whitehead Institute Member Yukiko Yamashita, graduate student in her lab Adrienne Fontan, and senior scientist in her lab Romain Lannes identify a cellular defect that contributes to this phenomenon in fruit flies. This finding may help explain how diverging species become reproductively incompatible.

The team found that in hybrid males, several genes required for sperm production fail during an early step in gene expression. Because these genes cannot be processed correctly, cells are unable to produce the proteins needed for sperm formation.

The researchers studied hybrids produced from two closely related fruit fly species that diverged from a common ancestor roughly 250,000 years ago. Although these species can still mate in the laboratory, their hybrid males cannot produce functional sperm.

To investigate why, the researchers focused on genes located on the Y chromosome that are essential for sperm development.

“These genes on the Y chromosome are required to produce sperm,” says co-first author and Yamashita lab senior scientist Romain Lannes. “They are very large and difficult for the cell to process, and in the hybrid, it’s a total failure—the hybrid cannot make them.”

Like all genes, these Y-linked genes work by first producing an RNA copy of their DNA instructions. Before the RNA can be used to make proteins, cells must remove segments that do not contain coding information and join the remaining pieces together.

In hybrid flies, this process frequently fails.

Instead of assembling the RNA pieces in the correct order, the cell sometimes flips the order of pieces. The resulting molecule cannot produce a functional protein. Because the affected genes are required for sperm development, the defect prevents hybrid males from making sperm.

The researchers traced the problem to a distinctive feature of these genes: their unusual size.

Much of their length consists of repetitive DNA embedded within the gene. These repetitive sequences, known as satellite DNA, consist of short DNA patterns repeated many times in a row.

“Satellite DNA is made of short repeated sequences that can extend for very long regions,” says Yamashita who is also a professor of biology at MIT and an HHMI Investigator. “Because they don’t encode proteins and are difficult to analyze with standard genetic tools, people historically didn’t study them much.”

One notable property of satellite DNA is that it changes quickly over evolutionary time. Even closely related species can carry very different versions of these sequences.

The researchers suspect that these differences contribute to the defect they observed. Each species may evolve cellular systems adapted to handle its own repetitive DNA. When DNA from two species is combined in a hybrid, those systems may no longer function properly.

Large genes already pose challenges for the cell’s gene-processing machinery, Yamashita explained. In hybrids, those challenges appear to become harder to overcome.

“Even in a pure species, these big genes are challenging to process,” says Yamashita. “But that species has evolved ways to deal with that challenge. When you combine two species in a hybrid, that system can break.”

The findings also offer insight into a widely observed pattern in evolutionary biology: when hybrids between species are sterile, the sex with two different sex chromosomes is often the one affected. In fruit flies and humans, males carry an X and a Y chromosome, while females carry two X chromosomes.

Because the Y chromosome evolves rapidly and contains many repetitive sequences, it may be particularly sensitive to incompatibilities that arise when species interbreed.

The researchers say fruit flies provide a useful model for investigating these questions because they reproduce quickly and are easy to study in the laboratory. The two species used in the study diverged relatively recently, allowing scientists to examine the early stages of reproductive isolation between species.

Although the work focused on flies, the researchers think similar processes could occur in other organisms. Rapid changes in the Y chromosome are observed across many species, including mammals.

“I’m really interested in understanding why species split and become incompatible,” says Yamashita.

The team is now exploring whether the computational approaches developed in this study could help investigate human diseases involving extremely large genes. Some human genes span millions of DNA bases and can be difficult for cells to process correctly, including genes implicated in muscular and neurological disorders.

By identifying a specific failure in gene processing, the study provides a clearer picture of how genetic differences between species can disrupt reproduction.

Adrienne Fontan, Romain Lannes, Jaclyn M Fingerhut, Jullien M Flynn, Yukiko M Yamashita, ­­­”Defective splicing of Y-chromosome-linked gigantic genes contributes to hybrid male sterility in Drosophila,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, 2026; https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msag045

 

3 Questions with new faculty member Matthew G. Jones: Building predictive models to characterize tumor progression

The assistant professor hopes to decode molecular processes on the genetic, epigenetic, and microenvironment levels to anticipate how and when tumors evolve to resist treatment.

Lillian Eden | Department of Biology
March 10, 2026

Just as Darwin’s finches evolved in response to natural selection in order to endure, the cells that make up a cancerous tumor similarly counter selective pressures in order to survive, evolve, and spread. Tumors are, in fact, complex sets of cells with their own unique structure and ability to change. 

Today, artificial Intelligence and machine learning tools offer an unparalleled opportunity to illuminate the generalizable rules governing tumor progression on the genetic, epigenetic, metabolic, and microenvironmental levels. 

Matthew G. Jones, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Biology at MIT, the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, and the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, hopes to use computational approaches to build predictive models — to play a game of chess with cancer, making sense of a tumor’s ability to evolve and resist treatment with the ultimate goal of improving patient outcomes. 

Q: What aspect of tumor progression are you hoping to explore and characterize? 

A: A very common story with cancer is that patients will respond to a therapy at first, and then eventually that treatment will stop working. The reason this largely happens is that tumors have an incredible, and very challenging, ability to evolve: the ability to change their genetic makeup, protein signaling composition, and cellular dynamics. The tumor as a system also evolves at a structural level. Oftentimes, the reason why a patient succumbs to a tumor is because either the tumor has evolved to a state we can no longer control, or it evolves in an unpredictable manner. 

In many ways, cancers can be thought of as, on the one hand, incredibly dysregulated and disorganized, and on the other hand, as having their own internal logic, which is constantly changing. The central thesis of my lab is that tumors follow stereotypical patterns in space and time, and we’re hoping to use computation and experimental technology to decode the molecular processes underlying these transformations.  

We’re focused on one specific way tumors are evolving through a form of DNA amplification called extrachromosomal DNA. Excised from the chromosome, these ecDNAs are circularized and exist as their own separate pool of DNA particles in the nucleus. 

Initially discovered in the 1960s, ecDNA were thought to be a rare event in cancer. However, as researchers began applying next-generation sequencing to large patient cohorts in the 2010s, it seemed like not only were these ecDNA amplifications conferring the ability of tumors to adapt to stresses, and therapies, faster, but that they were far more prevalent than initially thought.

We now know these ecDNA amplifications are apparent in about 25% of cancers, in the most aggressive cancers: brain, lung, and ovarian cancers. We have found that, for a variety of reasons, ecDNA amplifications are able to change the rule book by which tumors evolve in ways that allow them to accelerate to a more aggressive disease in very surprising ways. 

Q: How are you planning to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to study ecDNA amplifications and tumor evolution? 

A: There’s a mandate to translate what I’m doing in the lab to improve patients’ lives. I want to start with patient data to discover how various evolutionary pressures are driving disease and the mutations we observe. 

One of the tools we use to study tumor evolution is single-cell lineage tracing technologies. Broadly, they allow us to study the lineages of individual cells. When we sample a particular cell, not only do we know what that cell looks like, but we can, ideally, pinpoint exactly when aggressive mutations appeared in the tumor’s history. That evolutionary history gives us a way of studying these dynamic processes that we otherwise wouldn’t be able to observe in real time and helps us make sense of how we might be able to intercept that evolution. 

I hope we’re going to get better at stratifying patients who will respond to certain drugs, to anticipate and overcome drug resistance, and to identify new therapeutic targets.

Q: What excites you about joining this community, and what sorts of trainees are you hoping to recruit to your lab? 

A: One of the things that I was really attracted to was the integration of excellence in both engineering and biological sciences. At the Koch Institute, every floor is structured to promote this interface between engineers and basic scientists, and beyond campus, we can connect with all the biomedical research enterprises in the Greater Boston Area. 

Another thing that drew me to MIT was the fact that it places such a strong emphasis on education, training, and investing in student success. I’m a personal believer that what distinguishes academic research from industry research is that academic research is fundamentally a service job, in that we are training the next generation of scientists. 

It was always a mission of mine to bring excellence to both computational and experimental technology disciplines. The types of trainees I’m hoping to recruit are those who are eager to collaborate and solve big problems that require both disciplines. The KI is uniquely set up for this type of hybrid lab: my dry lab is right next to my wet lab, and it’s a source of collaboration and connection, and that reflects the KI’s general vision. 

New chemical method makes it easier to select desirable traits in crops

Whitehead Institute Member Mary Gehring and colleagues offer a new method for generating large-scale genetic changes without irradiation.

Mackenzie White | Whitehead Institute
January 8, 2026

Crops increasingly need to thrive in a broader range of conditions, including drought, salinity, and heat. Traditional plant breeding can select for desirable traits, but is limited by the genetic variation that already exists in plants. In many crops, domestication and long-term selection have narrowed genetic diversity, constraining efforts to develop new varieties.

To work around these limits, researchers have developed ways to introduce helpful traits, such as drought or salt tolerance, into plants through mutation breeding. This deliberately introduces random genetic changes into plants. Then researchers screen the genetically altered plants to see which have acquired useful traits. One widely used approach relies on radiation to generate structural variants—large-scale DNA changes that can affect multiple genes at once. However, irradiation introduces logistical and regulatory hurdles that restrict who can use it and which crops can be studied.

In a paper published in PLOS Genetics on December 18, Whitehead Institute Member Mary Gehring and colleagues offer a new method for generating large-scale genetic changes without irradiation.

Lead author Lindsey Bechen, the Gehring lab manager; Gehring; former postdoc P.R.V. Satyaki (now a faculty member at the University of Toronto); and their colleagues developed the approach by exposing germinating seeds to etoposide, a chemotherapy drug, during early growth.

The drug interferes with an enzyme that helps manage DNA structure during cell division. When cells attempt to repair the resulting breaks in their DNA, errors in the repair process can produce large-scale rearrangements in the genome. Seeds collected from treated plants carry these changes in a heritable form.

The process relies on standard laboratory tools: seeds are germinated on growth medium containing the drug, then transferred to soil to complete their life cycle.

“I was surprised at how efficient it was,” says Gehring, who is also a professor of biology at MIT and an HHMI Investigator. “The diversity of new traits that you could see just by looking at the plants in the first generation was extensive.”

The researchers demonstrated the method in Arabidopsis thaliana, a model plant widely used in genetic studies. Roughly two-thirds of treated plant lines showed visible differences, including changes in leaf shape, plant size, pigmentation, and fertility. Genetic analyses linked these traits to deletions, duplications, and rearrangements of DNA segments.

In several cases, the team linked specific plant traits to individual genetic changes. A dwarf plant with thick stems and unusual leaves carried a large change that disrupted a gene involved in leaf development. Another plant, marked by green-and-white mottled leaves, carried a deletion in the gene IMMUTANS—the same gene identified in radiation-induced mutants described more than 60 years ago.

Beyond Arabidopsis, Gehring’s lab is applying the technique to pigeon pea, a drought-tolerant legume and an important source of dietary protein in parts of Asia and Africa. Pigeon pea is an underutilized crop with the potential to become a staple crop—if its lack of genetic diversity, caused by a historical cultivation bottleneck, can be overcome. Often referred to as orphan crops, species like pigeon pea receive limited research attention and often lack the genetic variation needed for breeding improved varieties.

“All of the traits that we might want to see in pigeon pea are not present in the existing population,” says Gehring. “The idea is to do a large-scale mutation experiment to increase genetic diversity.”

The team, which includes Gehring lab postdoc Sonia Boor, is now screening treated pigeon pea lines for salt tolerance, a trait that shapes where crops can be grown and how they perform in saline soils. Although pigeon pea takes longer to grow than Arabidopsis, the researchers have reached the second generation and identified several lines that show promising responses under saline conditions.

The researchers’ chemical approach may also be beneficial for crops that are difficult to modify using gene-editing tools such as CRISPR. Although CRISPR enables precise genetic changes, it often relies on genetic transformation, a technically challenging step for many plant species.

“A lot of species that one works with, either in agriculture or horticulture, are not amenable to genetic transformation,” says Gehring.

The new method complements existing genetic tools rather than replacing them. By providing a more accessible alternative to irradiation, chemical mutation could expand the availability of large-scale genetic changes and novel plant varieties.

Looking ahead, Gehring’s lab plans to develop comprehensive collections of Arabidopsis mutants carrying well-characterized structural variants. Such resources could help researchers better understand how large-scale changes in genome structure influence plant development and performance, informing future efforts to study and enhance crops.

Bechen, L. L., Ahsan, N., Bahrainwala, A., Gehring, M., & Satyaki, P. R. (2025). A simple method to efficiently generate structural variation in plants. PLOS Genetics, 21(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011977
Celebrating worm science

Time and again, an unassuming roundworm has illuminated aspects of biology with major consequences for human health.

Jennifer Michalowski | McGovern Institute
December 12, 2025

For decades, scientists with big questions about biology have found answers in a tiny worm. That worm–a millimeter-long creature called Caenorhabditis elegans–has helped researchers uncover fundamental features of how cells and organisms work. The impact of that work is enormous: Discoveries made using C. elegans have been recognized with four Nobel prizes and have led to the development of new treatments for human disease.

In a perspective piece published in the November 2025 issue of the journal PNAS, eleven biologists including Robert Horvitz, the David H. Koch (1962) Professor of Biology at MIT, celebrate Nobel Prize-winning advances made through research in C. elegans. The authors discuss how that work has led to advances for human health and highlight how a uniquely collaborative community among worm researchers has fueled the field.

MIT scientists are well represented in that community: The prominent worm biologists who coauthored the PNAS paper include former MIT graduate students Andy Fire and Paul Sternberg, now at Stanford University and the California Institute of Technology, and two past postdoctoral researchers in Horvitz’s lab, University of Massachusetts Medical School professor Victor Ambros and Massachusetts General Hospital investigator Gary Ruvkun. Ann Rougvie at the University of Minnesota is the paper’s corresponding author.

Early worm discoveries

“This tiny worm is beautiful—elegant both in its appearance and in its many contributions to our understanding of the biological universe in which we live,” says Horvitz, who in 2002 was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine along with colleagues Sydney Brenner and John Sulston for discoveries that helped explain how genes regulate programmed cell death and organ development. Horvitz is also a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research and Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research as well as an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

Those discoveries were among the early successes in C. elegans research, made by pioneering scientists who recognized the power of the microscopic roundworm. C. elegans offers many advantages for researchers: The worms are easy to grow and maintain in labs; their transparent bodies make cells and internal processes readily visible under a microscope; they are cellularly very simple (e.g., they have only 302 nerve cells, compared with about 100 billion in a human) and their genomes can be readily manipulated to study gene function.

Most importantly, many of the molecules and processes that operate in C. elegans have been retained throughout evolution, meaning discoveries made using the worm can have direct relevance to other organisms, including humans. “Many aspects of biology are ancient and evolutionarily conserved,” Horvitz explains. “Such shared mechanisms can be most readily revealed by analyzing organisms that are highly tractable in the laboratory.”

In the 1960s, Brenner, a molecular biologist who was curious about how animals’ nervous systems develop and function, recognized that C. elegans offered unique opportunities to study these processes. Once he began developing the worm into a model for laboratory studies, it did not take long for other biologists to join him to take advantage of the new system.

In the 1970s, the unique features of the worm allowed Sulston to track the transformation of a fertilized egg into an adult animal, tracing the origins of each of the adult worm’s 959 cells. His studies revealed that in every developing worm, cells divide and mature in predictable ways. He also learned that some of the cells created during development do not survive into adulthood and are instead eliminated by a process termed programmed cell death.

By seeking mutations that perturbed the process of programmed cell death, Horvitz and his colleagues identified key regulators of that process, which is sometimes referred to as apoptosis. These regulators, which both promote and oppose apoptosis, turned out to be vital for programmed cell death across the animal kingdom.

In humans, apoptosis shapes developing organs, refines brain circuits, and optimizes other tissue structures. It also modulates our immune systems and eliminates cells that are in danger of becoming cancerous. The human version of CED-9, the anti-apoptotic regulator that Horvitz’s team discovered in worms, is BCL-2. Researchers have shown that activating apoptotic cell death by blocking BCL-2 is an effective treatment for certain blood cancers. Today, researchers are also exploring new ways of treating immune disorders and neurodegenerative disease by manipulating apoptosis pathways.

Collaborative worm community

Horvitz and his colleagues’ discoveries about apoptosis helped demonstrate that understanding C. elegans biology has direct relevance to human biology and disease. Since then, a vibrant and closely connected community of worm biologists—including many who trained in Horvitz’s lab—has continued to carry out impactful work. In their PNAS article, Horvitz and his coauthors highlight that early work, as well as the Nobel Prize-winning work of:

  • Andrew Fire and Craig Mello, whose discovery of an RNA-based system of gene silencing led to powerful new tools to manipulate gene activity. The innate process they discovered in worms, known as RNA interference, is now used as the basis of six FDA-approved therapeutics for genetic disorders, silencing faulty genes to stop their harmful effects.
  • Martin Chalfie, who used a fluorescent protein made by jellyfish to visualize and track specific cells in C. elegans, helping launch the development of a set of tools that transformed biologists’ ability to observe molecules and processes that are important for both health and disease.
  • Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun, who discovered a class of molecules called microRNAs that regulate gene activity not just in worms, but in all multicellular organisms. This prize-winning work was started when Ambros and Ruvkun were postdoctoral researchers in Horvitz’s lab. Humans rely on more than 1,000 microRNAs to ensure our genes are used at the right times and places. Disruptions to microRNAs have been linked to neurological disorders, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and autoimmune disease, and researchers are now exploring how these small molecules might be used for diagnosis or treatment.

Horvitz and his coauthors stress that while the worm itself made these discoveries possible, so too did a host of resources that facilitate collaboration within the worm community and enable its scientists to build upon the work of others. Scientists who study C. elegans have embraced this open, collaborative spirit since the field’s earliest days, Horvitz says, citing the Worm Breeder’s Gazette, an early newsletter where scientists shared their observations, methods, and ideas.

Today, scientists who study C. elegans—whether the organism is the centerpiece of their lab or they are looking to supplement studies of other systems—contribute to and rely on online resources like WormAtlas and WormBase, as well as the Caenorhabditis Genetics Center, to share data and genetic tools. Horvitz says these resources have been crucial to his own lab’s work; his team uses them every day.

Just as molecules and processes discovered in C. elegans have pointed researchers toward important pathways in human cells, the worm has also been a vital proving ground for developing methods and approaches later deployed to study more complex organisms. For example, C. elegans, with its 302 neurons, was the first animal for which neuroscientists successfully mapped all of the connections of the nervous system. The resulting wiring diagram, or connectome, has guided countless experiments exploring how neurons work together to process information and control behavior. Informed by both the power and limitations of the C. elegans’ connectome, scientists are now mapping more complex circuitry, such as the 139,000-neuron brain of the fruit fly, whose connectome was completed in 2024.

C. elegans remains a mainstay of biological research, including in neuroscience. Scientists worldwide are using the worm to explore new questions about neural circuits, neurodegeneration, development, and disease. Horvitz’s lab continues to turn to C. elegans to investigate the genes that control animal development and behavior. His team is now using the worm to explore how animals develop a sense of time and transmit that information to their offspring.

Also at MIT, Steven Flavell’s team in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory is using the worm to investigate how neural connectivity, activity, and modulation integrate internal states, such as hunger, with sensory information, such as the smell of food, to produce sometimes long-lasting behaviors. Flavell is Horvitz’s academic grandson, as Flavell trained with one of Horvitz’s postdoctoral trainees. As new technologies accelerate the pace of scientific discovery, Horvitz and his colleagues are confident that the humble worm will bring more unexpected insights.

Paper: “From nematode to Nobel: How community-shared resources fueled the rise of Caenorhabditis elegans as a research organism”

RNA editing study finds many ways for neurons to diversify

When MIT neurobiologists including Troy Littleton tracked how more than 200 motor neurons in fruit flies each edited their RNA, they cataloged hundreds of target sites and widely varying editing rates. Scores of edits altered proteins involved in neural communication and function.

David Orenstein | The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
November 20, 2025

All starting from the same DNA, neurons ultimately take on individual characteristics in the brain and body. Differences in which genes they transcribe into RNA help determine which type of neuron they become, and from there, a new MIT study shows, individual cells edit a selection of sites in those RNA transcripts, each at their own widely varying rates.

The new study surveyed the whole landscape of RNA editing in more than 200 individual cells commonly used as models of fundamental neural biology: tonic and phasic motor neurons of the fruit fly. One of the main findings is that most sites were edited at rates between the “all or nothing” extremes many scientists have assumed based on more limited studies in mammals, said senior author Troy Littleton, Menicon Professor in the Departments of Biology and Brain and Cognitive Sciences. The resulting dataset and analyses published in eLife set the table for discoveries about how RNA editing affects neural function and what enzymes implement those edits.

“We have this ‘alphabet’ now for RNA editing in these neurons,” Littleton said. “We know which genes are edited in these neurons so we can go in and begin to ask questions as to what is that editing doing to the neuron at the most interesting targets.”

Andres Crane, who earned his PhD in Littleton’s lab based on this work, is the study’s lead author.

From a genome of about 15,000 genes, Littleton and Crane’s team found, the neurons made hundreds of edits in transcripts from hundreds of genes. For example, the team documented “canonical” edits of 316 sites in 210 genes. Canonical means that the edits were made by the well-studied enzyme ADAR, which is also found in mammals including humans. Of the 316 edits, 175 occurred in regions that encode the contents of proteins. Analysis indeed suggested 60 are likely to significantly alter amino acids. But they also found 141 more editing sites in areas that don’t code for proteins but instead affect their production, which means they could affect protein levels, rather than their contents.

The team also found many “non-canonical” edits that ADAR didn’t make. That’s important, Littleton said, because that information could aid in discovering more enzymes involved in RNA editing, potentially across species. That, in turn, could expand the possibilities for future genetic therapies.

“In the future, if we can begin to understand in flies what the enzymes are that make these other non-canonical edits, it would give us broader coverage for thinking about doing things like repairing human genomes where a mutation has broken a protein of interest,” Littleton said.

Moreover, by looking specifically at fly larvae, the team found many edits that were specific to juveniles vs. adults, suggesting potential significance during development. And because they looked at full gene transcripts of individual neurons, the team was also able to find editing targets that had not been cataloged before.

Widely varying rates

Some of the most heavily edited RNAs were from genes that make critical contributions to neural circuit communication such as neurotransmitter release, and the channels that cells form to regulate the flow of chemical ions that vary their electrical properties. The study identified 27 sites in 18 genes that were edited more than 90 percent of the time.

Yet neurons sometimes varied quite widely in whether they would edit a site, which suggests that even neurons of the same type can still take on significant degrees of individuality.

“Some neurons displayed ~100 percent editing at certain sites, while others displayed no editing for the same target,” the team wrote in eLife. “Such dramatic differences in editing rate at specific target sites is likely to contribute to the heterogeneous features observed within the same neuronal population.”

On average, any given site was edited about two-thirds of the time, and most sites were edited within a range well between all or nothing extremes.

“The vast majority of editing events we found were somewhere between 20% and 70%,” Littleton said. “We were seeing mixed ratios of edited and unedited transcripts within a single cell.”

Also, the more a gene was expressed, the less editing it experienced, suggesting that ADAR could only keep up so much with its editing opportunities.

Potential impacts on function

One of the key questions the data enables scientists to ask is what impact RNA edits have on the function of the cells. In a 2023 study, Littleton’s lab began to tackle this question by looking at just two edits they found in the most heavily edited gene: Complexin. Complexin’s protein product restrains release of the neurotransmitter glutamate, making it a key regulator of neural circuit communication. They found that by mixing and matching edits, neurons produced up to eight different versions of the protein with significant effects on their glutamate release and synaptic electrical current. But in the new study, the team reports 13 more edits in Complexin that are yet to be studied.

Littleton said he’s intrigued by another key protein, called Arc1, that the study shows experienced a non-canonical edit. Arc is a vitally important gene in “synaptic plasticity,” which is the property neurons have of adjusting the strength or presence of their “synapse” circuit connections in response to nervous system activity. Such neural nimbleness is hypothesized to be the basis of how the brain can responsively encode new information in learning and memory. Notably, Arc1 editing fails to occur in fruit flies that model Alzheimer’s disease.

Littleton said the lab is now working hard to understand how the RNA edits they’ve documented affect function in the fly motor neurons.

In addition to Crane and Littleton, the study’s other authors are Michiko Inouye and Suresh Jetti.

The National Institutes of Health, The Freedom Together Foundation and The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory provided support for the study.

Research:

Andrés B CraneMichiko O InouyeSuresh K JettiJ Troy Littleton (2025) A stochastic RNA editing process targets a select number of sites in individual Drosophila glutamatergic motoneurons eLife 14:RP108282.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.108282.2

Alternate proteins from the same gene contribute differently to health and rare disease

Whitehead Institute Member Iain Cheeseman, graduate student Jimmy Ly, and colleagues propose that researchers and clinicians may be able to get more information from patients’ genomes by looking at them in a different way.

Greta Friar | Whitehead Institute
November 7, 2025

In a paper published in Molecular Cell on November 7, Whitehead Institute Member Iain Cheeseman, graduate student Jimmy Ly, and colleagues propose that researchers and clinicians may be able to get more information from patients’ genomes by looking at them in a different way.

The common wisdom is that each gene codes for one protein. Someone studying whether a patient has a mutation or version of a gene that contributes to their disease will therefore look for mutations that affect the “known” protein product of that gene. However, Cheeseman and others are finding that the majority of genes code for more than one protein. That means that a mutation that may seem insignificant because it does not appear to affect the known protein could nonetheless alter a different protein made by the same gene. Now, Cheeseman and Ly have shown that mutations affecting one or multiple proteins from the same gene can contribute differently to disease.

In their paper, the researchers first share what they have learned about how cells make use of the ability to generate different versions of proteins from the same gene. Then, they examine how mutations that affect these proteins contribute to disease. Through a collaboration with co-author Mark Fleming, the pathologist-in-chief at Boston Children’s Hospital, they provide two case studies of patients with atypical presentations of a rare anemia linked to mutations that selectively affect only one of two proteins produced by the gene implicated in the disease.

“We hope this work demonstrates the importance of considering whether a gene of interest makes multiple versions of a protein, and what the role of each version is in health and disease,” Ly says. “This information could lead to better understanding of the biology of disease, better diagnostics, and perhaps one day to tailored therapies to treat these diseases.”

Rethinking how cells use genes

Cells have several ways to make different versions of a protein, but the variation that Cheeseman and Ly study happens during protein production from genetic code. Cellular machines build each protein according to the instructions within a genetic sequence that begins at a “start codon” and ends at a “stop codon.” However, some genetic sequences contain more than one start codon, many that are hiding in plain sight. If the cellular machinery skips the first start codon and detects a second one, it may build a shorter version of the protein. In other cases, the machinery may detect a section that closely resembles a start codon at a point earlier in the sequence than its typical starting place, and build a longer version of the protein.

These events may sound like mistakes: the cell’s machinery accidentally creating the wrong version of the correct protein. To the contrary, protein production from these alternate starting places is an important feature of cell biology that exists across species. When Ly traced when certain genes evolved to produce multiple proteins, he found that this is a common, robust process that has been preserved throughout evolutionary history for millions of years.

Ly shows that one function this serves is to send versions of a protein to different parts of the cell. Many proteins contain zip code-like sequences that tell the cell’s machinery where to deliver them so the proteins can do their jobs. Ly found many examples in which longer and shorter versions of the same protein contained different zip codes and ended up in different places within the cell.

In particular, Ly found many cases in which one version of a protein ended up in mitochondria, structures that provide energy to cells, while another version ended up elsewhere. Because of the mitochondria’s role in the essential process of energy production, mutations to mitochondrial genes are often implicated in disease.

Ly wondered what would happen when a disease-causing mutation eliminates one version of a protein but leaves the other intact, causing the protein to only reach one of its two intended destinations. He looked through a database containing genetic information from people with rare diseases to see if such cases existed, and found that they did. In fact, there may be tens of thousands of such cases. However, without access to the people, Ly had no way of knowing what the consequences of this were in terms of symptoms and severity of disease.

Meanwhile, Cheeseman had begun working with Boston Children’s Hospital to foster collaborations between Whitehead Institute and the hospital’s researchers and clinicians to accelerate the pathway from research discovery to clinical application. Through these efforts, Cheeseman and Ly met Fleming.

One group of Fleming’s patients have a type of anemia called SIFD—Sideroblastic Anemia with B-Cell Immunodeficiency, Periodic Fevers, and Developmental Delay—that is caused by mutations to the TRNT1 gene. TRNT1 is one of the genes Ly had identified as producing a mitochondrial version of its protein and another version that ends up elsewhere: in the nucleus.

Fleming shared anonymized patient data with Ly, and Ly found two cases of interest in the genetic data. Most of the patients had mutations that impaired both versions of the protein, but one patient had a mutation that eliminated only the mitochondrial version of the protein, while another patient had a mutation that eliminated only the nuclear version.

When Ly shared his results, Fleming revealed that both of those patients had very atypical presentations of SIFD, supporting Ly’s hypothesis that mutations affecting different versions of a protein would have different consequences. The patient who only had the mitochondrial version was anemic but developmentally normal. The patient missing the mitochondrial version of the protein did not have developmental delays or chronic anemia but did have other immune symptoms, and was not correctly diagnosed until his fifties. There are likely other factors contributing to each patient’s exact presentation of the disease, but Ly’s work begins to unravel the mystery of their atypical symptoms.

Cheeseman and Ly want to make more clinicians aware of the prevalence of genes coding for more than one protein, so they know to check for mutations affecting any of the protein versions that could contribute to disease. For example, several TRNT1 mutations that only eliminate the shorter version of the protein are not flagged as disease-causing by current assessment tools. Cheeseman lab researchers including Ly and graduate student Matteo Di Bernardo are now developing a new assessment tool for clinicians, called SwissIsoform, that will identify relevant mutations that affect specific protein versions, including mutations that would otherwise be missed.

“Jimmy and Iain’s work will globally support genetic disease variant interpretation and help with connecting genetic differences to variation in disease symptoms,” Fleming says. “In fact, we have recently identified two other patients with mutations affecting only the mitochondrial versions of two other proteins, who similarly have milder symptoms than patients with mutations that affect both versions.”

Long term, the researchers hope that their discoveries could aid in understanding the molecular basis of disease and in developing new gene therapies: once researchers understand what has gone wrong within a cell to cause disease, they are better equipped to devise a solution. More immediately, the researchers hope that their work will make a difference by providing better information to clinicians and people with rare diseases.

“As a basic researcher who doesn’t typically interact with patients, there’s something very satisfying about knowing that the work you are doing is helping specific people,” Cheeseman says. “As my lab transitions to this new focus, I’ve heard many stories from people trying to navigate a rare disease and just get answers, and that has been really motivating to us, as we work to provide new insights into the disease biology.”

Jimmy Ly, Matteo Di Bernardo, Yi Fei Tao, Ekaterina Khalizeva, Christopher J. Giuliano, Sebastian Lourido, Mark D. Fleming, Iain M. Cheeseman. “Alternative start codon selection shapes mitochondrial function and rare human diseases.” Molecular Cell, November 7, 2025. DOI: https://10.0.3.248/j.molcel.2025.10.013