This follows the surfeit of doping-related controversies in the sport, including allegations this month that Russian anti-doping officials unsuccessfully requested money in return for covering up failed drug tests registered ahead of London 2012.Particular concerns have been raised in relation to Russian and Chinese swimmers, with world champion Yuliya Efimova and Olympic gold medal winning counterpart Sun Yang among leading athletes to be implicated.Efimova suffered the second failure of career after testing positive for meldonium in March, but has had her suspension provisionally lifted due to an admission that “more reasearch” is required to assess how long the substance – only banned on January 1 – remains in the human body.Allegations of state sponsored doping in other sports in Russia has heightened fears in recent weeks.”It’s the biggest threat to who should win the medals,” said Marsh ahead of the US Olympic Trials.”It’s the biggest threat to the integrity of the Games.”He described the effects of doping as a “complete game-changer” particularly in women’s events.”With a little bit of extra testosterone, it’s a giant advantage.”Many members of US team admitted to being concerned by possible doping by rivals ahead of the Games.”It’s really disappointing,” freestyle superstar Katie Ledecky told Associated Press.”I think we’re all happy that people are getting caught and they’re being a little tougher on things.”Hopefully, that will continue and we can all feel confident going in that we’re competing against clean athletes.”US swimmers have been implicated in doping scandals themselves, with breaststroke and freestyle star Jessica Hardy serving a one-year ban after failing a test in 2008 before returning in time to win a medley relay gold at London 2012.
One of newborns’ biggest vulnerabilities is largely invisible: In the weeks after birth, babies are especially susceptible to infection because their immune systems aren’t fully functional. There are a handful of theories to explain this liability, and now a research team has added a new one to the list: Immune suppression in early life might help prevent inflammation in the infants’ intestines as they become colonized by the helpful bacteria they need to stay healthy.Newborns are more likely than older babies to catch, and die from, serious infections. The reason is fuzzy—indeed, there may be more than one explanation. One theory is that much like their brains, their lungs, and the rest of their bodies, infants’ immune systems just haven’t fully matured yet. Another is that both mothers-to-be and their in utero companions have suppressed immune systems, so that neither rejects the other. After birth, the thinking goes, it takes babies a month or so to boost their immunity.Seeking new ways to better understand this process, Sing Sing Way, a pediatric infectious disease doctor at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio, wondered whether transferring immune cells from adults might rev up their immune systems. Yet when he and his colleagues injected infection-fighting cells from the spleens of adult mice into 6-day-old pups, nothing happened: The pups were just as vulnerable to harmful bacteria as control animals. Probing more deeply into this surprise, they found that the injected cells simply stopped functioning in the newborn animals. Then Way’s group did the reverse transplant—they gave adult mice newborn immune cells that were inactivated in the pups and found that they “turned on” in the mature animals. These experiments “told us it wasn’t a problem with the neonatal cells themselves,” Way says. Rather, he believes, the environment—either a newborn body, or an adult one—guided how the cells behaved.Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*)Others in Way’s lab study the gut microbiome, the constellation of healthy bacteria that populates our intestines. Newborn mice, just like human babies, are born “clean,” with little intestinal bacteria. Very rapidly that changes. Way wondered whether there might be some connection between this colonization and what looked like a purposeful suppression of the immune system in his mice.To find out, his group focused on immune cells that eventually develop into red blood cells and that express a surface receptor called CD71, which causes immune suppression of other cells. Knocking out about 60% of these CD71 cells—as many as their technology could manage—was followed by significant inflammation in the intestines of the mouse pups. Way and his colleagues also found that, as the mice grew, fewer and fewer cells boasted CD71 receptors, suggesting the suppression wasn’t needed. He theorizes that that’s because the gut has been colonized by that point.The work, reported online today in Nature, “adds a new and very important chapter” to the story of how the immune system develops, says Mike McCune, an immunologist at the University of California, San Francisco. Immune suppression, at least in newborn mice, appears to reflect a purposeful shift in the balance of immune cells. The concept is definitely a plausible one, agrees Heather Jaspan, a pediatric infectious disease specialist and immunologist at the University of Cape Town and at Seattle BioMed in Washington. She wonders about other cell types, in addition to those with CD71 receptors, that might play a role. “It would be interesting to follow this up with more cause and effect studies,” she says, to nail down definitively that specific immune suppression allows bacteria to colonize the gut without harming a newborn.One big caveat is whether what Way’s team observed will hold up in human babies. A baby’s immune system develops differently than that of a mouse, and Way is interested in looking for CD71 cells in babies born around their due date, as well as those born prematurely. Very premature infants often die of a condition called necrotizing enterocolitis, a massive inflammation of the intestines. Way and McCune wonder if that’s driven partly by a lack of CD71 cells in these babies—if, essentially, their immune systems are still fetal, not ready for the natural colonization of gut bacteria that happens after they’re born. In theory—and far in the future—say the researchers, preemies could receive immune cells that would make their immune system more like a full-term baby’s, allowing their guts to stay healthy.