Because existing therapies can have limitations and side effects, researchers are looking for new biological targets that could lead to more effective ways of preserving or rebuilding bone. Scientists at Leipzig University have now identified one such target in GPR133, a receptor that appears to play an important role in keeping bones strong.

A Little-Known Receptor With a Major Role in Bone Health

GPR133 belongs to a group known as adhesion G protein-coupled receptors. These receptors sit on the surface of cells and help them respond to signals from their surroundings. Although this family of receptors is still not fully understood, the new findings suggest GPR133 is closely involved in the processes that build and maintain healthy bone.

“If this receptor is impaired by genetic changes, mice show signs of loss of bone density at an early age – similar to osteoporosis in humans. Using the substance AP503, which was only recently identified via a computer-assisted screen as a stimulator of GPR133, we were able to significantly increase bone strength in both healthy and osteoporotic mice,” explains Professor Ines Liebscher, lead investigator of the study from the Rudolf Schönheimer Institute of Biochemistry at the Faculty of Medicine.

The results point to GPR133 as a potentially valuable target for future osteoporosis treatments. The researchers found that stimulating the receptor with AP503 increased bone strength not only in healthy mice, but also in mice with osteoporosis-like bone loss.

How GPR133 Helps Build Stronger Bones

Inside bone tissue, GPR133 responds to physical forces and interactions between nearby bone cells. When the receptor is activated, it sets off signaling that changes the balance between the cells that build bone and those that break it down.

Bone-forming cells (osteoblasts) are responsible for producing new bone tissue. Bone-resorbing cells (osteoclasts), by contrast, remove old bone as part of the skeleton’s normal cycle of renewal. Healthy bones depend on maintaining the right balance between these two processes.

Activation of GPR133 encourages the activity of osteoblasts while reducing the activity of osteoclasts. This shifts the balance toward stronger and more durable bone.

AP503 appears to imitate the natural process that activates GPR133. That raises the possibility that the compound could eventually be used to increase bone strength or help restore bone that has already been weakened. One potential application would be osteoporosis associated with menopause, when declining hormone levels can accelerate bone loss in women.

Potential Benefits for Both Bone and Muscle

The findings could have broader implications because AP503 may affect more than the skeleton.

In an earlier study, researchers at Leipzig University had already found that activation with AP503 also strengthens skeletal muscle.

“The newly demonstrated parallel strengthening of bone once again highlights the great potential this receptor holds for medical applications in an aging population,” says Dr. Juliane Lehmann, lead author of the study and a researcher at the Rudolf Schönheimer Institute of Biochemistry.

A treatment capable of improving both bone and muscle strength could be especially relevant for older adults, who often experience declines in both tissues at the same time. Maintaining stronger muscles can also support mobility and stability, while stronger bones can reduce vulnerability to fractures.

The Leipzig team is now pursuing several follow-up projects aimed at understanding GPR133 more fully. Researchers are also investigating whether AP503 could have applications in other diseases and are continuing to examine the receptor’s wider functions throughout the body.

Leipzig’s Longstanding Research Into GPR Receptors

For more than a decade, Leipzig University has made adhesion G protein-coupled receptors a major research priority through Collaborative Research Center 1423, Structural Dynamics of GPCR Activation and Signaling.

The program focuses on understanding how these receptors change shape, become activated, and transmit signals inside cells. Leipzig University is internationally recognized as a leading center for research in this area.

The study was led by Professor Chloe Bloom, Clinical Associate Professor in Respiratory Epidemiology at the National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London, UK, and presented by Dr. Bohee Lee.

Exploring GLP 1 Drugs and Lung Health

Dr. Bloom said: “GLP-1 receptor agonists are widely used to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity. Previous research suggests that they may have anti-inflammatory effects and may improve lung-related outcomes. However, asthma and COPD outcomes have not been included as outcomes in GLP-1 drug trials.

“We wanted to use real-world health records to investigate whether people with asthma or COPD who started GLP-1 receptor agonists had fewer acute respiratory attacks.”

To investigate that question, the researchers analyzed electronic medical records from the UK. They carried out four parallel studies, each involving between 20,000 and 22,000 people who had started treatment with either a GLP-1 medication or a different type of diabetes drug known as a sulfonylurea.

The results suggested that people with airway diseases such as asthma and COPD who received GLP-1 therapies experienced fewer asthma attacks and COPD flare-ups than comparable patients who were prescribed other diabetes medications.

Semaglutide Showed the Strongest Effect

Among the GLP-1 drugs examined, semaglutide appeared to stand out, particularly for people with asthma.

Bloom explains: “The effect was strongest with semaglutide, especially in people with asthma, where use of semaglutide appears to be associated with nearly a 40% reduction in asthma attacks. Semaglutide also led to a 20% reduction in COPD flare-ups.”

The findings suggest that people who already qualify for GLP-1 receptor agonists because they have obesity or type 2 diabetes could potentially receive an additional benefit for their respiratory health.

However, Bloom emphasized that the results are not enough to recommend these medications specifically as treatments for asthma or COPD.

She explains: “The findings from this study are encouraging, but they should not change treatment decisions on their own. People with asthma or COPD should not start GLP-1 receptor agonists specifically for their lung condition outside current prescribing guidance. While the findings suggest that some people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists may experience fewer respiratory attacks, this needs confirmation in clinical trials.”

Why Metabolic Health May Matter for the Lungs

Dr. Alexander Mathioudakis, Chair of the European Respiratory Society’s Group on Airway Pharmacology and Treatment and Senior Lecturer in Respiratory Medicine at the University of Manchester, UK, was not involved in the research.

He said: “Obesity and metabolic dysfunction are common in airways disease and are often under-recognized as problems that can and should be addressed.

“This is one of the largest real-world studies to investigate GLP-1 receptor agonists and airways disease, and one of the first to examine whether effects differ between individual GLP-1 receptor agonists.

“It highlights the need to consider metabolic health as part of respiratory care. It also supports the case for including respiratory outcomes, such as asthma attacks and COPD exacerbations, in future trials of metabolic therapies.

“We need clinical trials that include respiratory outcomes, such as asthma attacks, COPD exacerbations, lung function, symptoms and quality of life, to determine whether metabolic treatments could become part of a broader, more personalized approach to managing airways disease.”

Such moments capture the imagination. But they also raise an important question: what do the majority of scientists actually think?

Surprisingly, we usually don’t know. When a scientific controversy or breakthrough dominates headlines, press officers and journalists often quote a handful of experts. These views may be insightful, but they rarely tell us what the wider scientific community thinks. And yet public discussions frequently rely on phrases such as “the science says” or “scientists believe”, as if there were a clear and measurable answer.

In reality, systematic evidence about scientific opinion is often missing. My colleagues and I recently tried to change that in the domain of astrobiology. Shortly after the two major announcements of possible extraterrestrial life in 2025, we surveyed astrobiologists to understand how expert judgment was distributed across the field.

The first case concerned the exoplanet K2-18b. In April 2025, researchers reported possible traces of molecules called dimethyl sulfide and/or dimethyl disulfide. On Earth, these are associated with biological activity. Media coverage was extensive, with many reports framing the finding as an extraordinary advance in the search for alien life.

The second case came in September, when NASA announced that Cheyava Falls appeared to preserve a potential biosignature – so-called “leopard spots” which are mineral rings that on Earth are often formed by microbial activity. Again, headlines, and NASA officials themselves, suggested something momentous.

What scientists actually thought

We surveyed hundreds of astrobiologists from across the global research community, within days of each announcement. We asked a simple question: did scientists think extraterrestrial life had probably been found?

The results revealed a rather cautious picture. For K2-18b, only 6.6% of surveyed astrobiologists agreed that scientists had probably found extraterrestrial life. Nearly two-thirds disagreed, while 28.0% remained neutral. For the Mars case, confidence was higher but still cautious: 15.1% agreed, disagreement fell to 44.6% and neutrality rose to 40.3%.

Looking only at agreement and disagreement, however, misses an important part of the story. The proportion of astrobiologists who strongly disagreed fell dramatically, from 35.1% in the K2-18b case to just 11.1% for Mars. Much of the movement was therefore not from rejection to endorsement, but from strong rejection towards more tentative positions.

In other words, expert opinion moved in structured ways. The shift from K2-18b to Mars was not a simple movement from “no” to “yes”. Instead, the community became more open to the possibility without embracing it outright.

One possible reason is that the two cases involved different kinds of evidence. The K2-18b claim relied on possible atmospheric signatures detected from across interstellar distances, whereas the Martian case concerned a rock that could be studied directly and in much greater detail. At the same time, astrobiologists have long been aware that apparently lifelike features can sometimes arise through non-biological processes. Often, the challenge is not imagining how life could produce a signal, but understanding all the ways nature might produce something similar without life.

Scientific opinion is rarely binary. Public discussion often treats science as though communities either agree or disagree. But the distribution of opinion matters too. Strong agreement, agreement, neutrality, disagreement and strong disagreement can each tell us something different about how a scientific community is responding to a claim.

A large neutral response can indicate several things. Scientists may judge the evidence genuinely inconclusive. They may hold an intermediate level of confidence. Or they may regard a claim as too speculative to endorse or reject decisively. Likewise, movement from strong disagreement towards ordinary disagreement may signal a softening of attitudes even when overall disagreement remains high. Treating scientific opinion as simply “for” or “against” risks flattening these important distinctions.

Beyond extraterrestrial life

The broader lesson extends well beyond extraterrestrial life. In areas such as climate science, pandemics, artificial intelligence or medical research, public conversations frequently invoke scientific consensus.

Sometimes strong agreement genuinely exists. Sometimes it does not. But we often lack systematic ways of measuring what scientists actually think, especially where evidence is emerging or uncertainty remains substantial. Instead, discussions rely heavily on selective quotation, vocal individuals or assumptions about community views.

Efforts to do this more systematically are beginning to emerge. At Durham University, our research group, C-Scope (the Centre for Scientific Community Opinion Polling and Evaluation), studies how expert opinion is distributed and how it changes over time. We are not trying to replace evidence with polling, nor to treat majority opinion as truth. Our aim is to better understand how scientific communities respond to uncertainty.

Scientific knowledge advances through uncertainty, disagreement and gradual revision. If public discussion, and perhaps political will, increasingly turns on claims about what scientists think, we should make more effort to find out.

“Observing 3I/ATLAS is like taking a fingerprint from another solar system,” shares Nathan Roth, lead author on this research, and a professor with American University, “The details reveal what it’s made of, and it’s bursting with methanol in a way we just don’t usually see in comets in our own solar system.”

A Chemical Fingerprint From Another Solar System

The research team used ALMA’s Atacama Compact Array in Chile to observe 3I/ATLAS on several dates in late 2025 as it moved closer to the Sun. As sunlight heated the comet’s icy surface, gas and dust escaped and created a bright cloud (or coma) around its core.

By studying the molecules in this coma, astronomers could identify the chemical makeup of material carried by the comet. Because 3I/ATLAS originated outside our solar system, those measurements provide a rare opportunity to investigate how small icy bodies may form in another planetary system without traveling beyond our own.

The scientists concentrated on the faint submillimeter signatures of two molecules: methanol (CH₃OH), a type of alcohol, and hydrogen cyanide (HCN), a nitrogen-bearing organic molecule commonly seen in comets.

ALMA revealed that 3I/ATLAS contains an unusually high amount of methanol relative to hydrogen cyanide. On two observation dates, researchers measured methanol-to-HCN ratios of roughly 70 and 120. Those values place 3I/ATLAS among the most methanol-rich solar system comets ever studied.

Unusual Chemistry Points to Different Origins

The measurements suggest that the ice inside 3I/ATLAS formed under, or was later exposed to, conditions very different from those experienced by most comets in our solar system.

Earlier observations with the James Webb Space Telescope found that 3I/ATLAS had a coma dominated by carbon dioxide while it was still far from the Sun. The new ALMA measurements now add abundant methanol to the growing list of unusual features in the comet’s chemical makeup.

ALMA’s high resolution for imaging also allowed astronomers to track how different molecules are released and travel away from the comet. The observations revealed a striking contrast between methanol and hydrogen cyanide.

Hydrogen cyanide appears to originate mostly from the comet’s central body, or nucleus. That behavior is common among comets in our solar system. Methanol, however, appears to come from both the nucleus AND from ice particles floating within the coma.

Tiny Ice Grains Act Like Mini-Comets

These small icy grains effectively behave like miniature comets. As 3I/ATLAS approaches the Sun and temperatures rise, ice within the grains turns into gas and releases additional methanol into the surrounding coma.

Astronomers have seen similar behavior in some comets from our own solar system. However, this is the first time researchers have traced the detailed physics of this type of outgassing in an object that originated in interstellar space.

Comet 3I/ATLAS is only the third confirmed object ever observed entering our solar system from interstellar space, following 1I/’Oumuamua and 2I/Borisov. Studies of those earlier visitors also uncovered unusual characteristics.

As astronomers find and examine more interstellar objects, each one offers another opportunity to compare our solar system with planetary systems elsewhere in the galaxy. The unusual chemistry of 3I/ATLAS is adding another intriguing piece to the broader picture of how planets, comets, and other small bodies form around distant stars.

The study, led by Curtin University in collaboration with the University of York, UK, is the first to pinpoint the geological source of the towering stones. Researchers traced them to Brimham Rocks, a rugged area in North Yorkshire.

Located near Boroughbridge in northern England, the Devil’s Arrows rise as high as seven meters (23 feet). They form an unusual stone alignment in a lowland landscape, and despite their striking size, scientists had not been able to determine where the stones originally came from.

Researchers believe the stones were transported and raised during the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age, possibly around 2000 BC.

A Distant Source for Britain’s Giant Stones

Lead author Dr. Anthony Clarke, from the Timescales of Mineral Systems Group within Curtin’s School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, said the discovery challenges previous ideas about the decisions prehistoric people made when constructing major monuments.

“Our research shows these stones weren’t simply taken from the nearest available source — they were deliberately chosen from a challenging landscape 18 kilometers away,” Dr. Clarke said.

“Plumpton Rocks, which is closer to the Devil’s Arrows, had previously been identified as the probable source of the stones. Our findings instead point to Brimham Rocks, showing that prehistoric builders transported these enormous stones significantly further than thought.

“Each stone weighs more than 25 tonnes, so moving them would have required incredible planning, coordination and engineering skill.

“This tells us prehistoric people placed real importance on the landscape itself. It wasn’t just about convenience — the location the stones came from likely held meaning for them.”

The findings suggest that the builders were not simply choosing the easiest or closest source of stone. Instead, the landscape around Brimham Rocks may have carried cultural, symbolic, or spiritual significance.

Co-author Dr. Jim Leary from the University of York said the discovery changes how researchers can interpret prehistoric monument building.

“These results show that ancient communities were making deliberate and meaningful choices about where their stones came from,” Dr. Leary said.

“It highlights the importance of landscape and shared belief systems, as well as the remarkable effort involved in transporting and raising stones of this size.”

Mineral Fingerprints Reveal the Stones’ Origin

To determine where the stones came from, the researchers used a new low-impact sampling technique. Adhesive tape allowed them to collect tiny mineral grains from the stones without damaging the monument.

They then analyzed the age “fingerprints” of those grains and compared them with geological samples from possible source locations. The results matched the Devil’s Arrows to Brimham Rocks.

The evidence also allowed the team to rule out natural explanations such as glacial movement. That means the enormous stones were intentionally moved to the monument site by people.

New Clues to Prehistoric Engineering

Dr. Clarke said the researchers now plan to use their non-invasive technique on other standing stones whose origins remain uncertain. They also hope to carry out targeted excavations at both the Devil’s Arrows and the newly identified source area.

“These next steps could help us better understand when the stones were moved and how these extraordinary monuments were constructed,” Dr. Clarke said.

Justin Scully, National Trust General Manager for Fountains Abbey & Studley Royal and Brimham Rocks, said the findings establish a direct connection between Brimham Rocks and the Devil’s Arrows, linking two distinctive Yorkshire landscapes.

“We’re incredibly grateful to the researchers for helping us uncover this new chapter in the stones’ story and deepen our understanding of the people who shaped this landscape thousands of years ago,” Mr. Scully said.

“The Devil’s Arrows are deeply cherished by local communities, and we’re delighted that this discovery adds a new chapter to their story.”

The study, “Deliberate Prehistoric Sourcing of the Devil’s Arrows, Britain’s Tallest Stone Row,” was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

Nickel can change both its oxidation state and its atomic arrangement under the high-temperature redox conditions involved in POM. Until now, these changes have been difficult to track in detail, making it challenging to determine the true structure responsible for the reaction.

A Hidden Active Structure Forms During the Reaction

In a recent study published in Nature Catalysis, researchers found that highly active structures can form in situ when the surface of NiO reconstructs during POM. The results reveal the atomic-scale source of the catalytic activity and show why it is important to observe catalysts while they are operating under realistic reaction conditions.

The research was led by Profs. Tao Zhang, Aiqin Wang and Xiaoyan Liu from the Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics (DICP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), together with Prof. Wei Liu from DICP, Prof. Tao Yang from Xi’an Jiaotong University, and Prof. Graham J. Hutchings from Cardiff University.

To investigate the process, the team created a Ni/Al₂O₃ catalyst containing only 0.8 wt% Ni using a microemulsion method. Despite its relatively low nickel content, the catalyst performed strongly during POM. It converted 92% of the methane, while CO and H₂ selectivities reached 87.0%, with the H₂/CO molar ratio remaining stable at about 2.0.

High Performance With Much Less Nickel

One of the most striking findings was that almost no metallic Ni could be detected in the catalyst after the reaction. Even so, its overall performance was comparable to that of an 8.0 wt% Ni/Al2O3 catalyst produced through impregnation, despite containing only one tenth as much nickel.

The low-loading catalyst also performed far better than another 0.8 wt% Ni/Al₂O₃ material prepared using the same impregnation method. Under identical conditions, that catalyst did not effectively carry out POM and instead showed only methane combustion activity.

The researchers also observed that metallic Ni nanoparticles present at the beginning of the reaction were quickly oxidized into the NiO phase under POM conditions. Yet NiO alone was not enough. A pre-formed pure-phase NiO catalyst showed no POM activity and instead catalyzed only the complete oxidation of methane.

Atomic Reconstruction Reveals the True Active Site

A closer examination revealed what was actually happening on the catalyst surface. During the reaction, the researchers captured the in situ formation of a reconstructed [Ni1O4Ni4] structural unit on the NiO(100) surface.

DFT calculations indicated that this newly formed motif makes it much easier to break the C-H bonds in methane, one of the key steps in activating the molecule. The calculated activation barrier was only 12.5 kcal·mol^-1.

That barrier was far lower than the value calculated for the intact NiO(100) surface (38.5 kcal·mol^-1) and also below the barrier for the metallic Ni(111) surface (15.7 kcal·mol^-1). This substantial kinetic advantage strongly supports the conclusion that the reconstructed structure is the true active center responsible for POM.

Together, the experimental observations and theoretical calculations show that catalytic activity does not come simply from metallic nickel or ordinary nickel oxide. Instead, it emerges from a specific atomic structure that forms dynamically while the reaction is taking place.

“Our study highlights the critical role of in situ characterization in identifying dynamic active structures under reaction conditions,” said Prof. Liu. “Dynamic reconstruction enables low-loading catalysts to achieve high performance, offering new opportunities for the rational design of efficient catalysts while reducing reliance on high metal loadings.”