Roselinde Kaiser, a clinical psychologist and neuroscientist, is being recognized for her research on the science and treatment of adolescent depression

Roselinde Kaiser, a University of Colorado Boulder associate professor of psychology and neuroscience, has been named a winner, the highest honor bestowed by the U.S. government on outstanding scientists and engineers early in their independent careers.

“PECASE embodies the high priority placed by the government on maintaining the leadership position of the United States in science by producing outstanding scientists and engineers and nurturing their continued development,” according to the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), which was commissioned in 1996 to create PECASE.

“The awards identify a cadre of outstanding scientists and engineers who will broadly advance science and the missions important to the participating agencies.

In honoring scientists and engineers who are early in their research careers, the PECASE Awards recognize “exceptional potential for leadership at the frontiers of scientific knowledge during the 21st century. The awards foster innovative and far-reaching developments in science and technology, increase awareness of careers in science and engineering, give recognition to the scientific missions of participating agencies, enhance connections between fundamental research and national goals, and highlight the importance of science and technology for the nation's future,” according to the NSTC.

Kaiser is a clinical psychologist and neuroscientist who studies the science and treatment of adolescent depression. With her research group, the Research on Affective Disorders and Development Lab (RADD Lab), she conducts research that asks questions such as: How can brain functioning and behavior help us to understand the experience of depression in adolescence and over the course of human development? Can we use brain or behavioral markers to better predict depression—or to predict resilience? How can we enhance brain and behavioral functioning to promote emotional health and wellness throughout the lifespan?

The mission of the RADD Lab is to gain insight into the brain and behavioral processes that reflect or underlie depression and other mood experiences, with the goal of leveraging research discoveries to foster emotional health. This year, in partnership with an interdisciplinary team of scientists, educators and young people, Kaiser and her team are launching an initiative to scale and translate scientific discovery into high-impact programs aimed at promoting mental health.

“I am delighted and honored to receive the PECASE, which truly reflects the dedicated efforts of our research team and the commitment to innovation at the University of Colorado,” Kaiser says.

“Youth depression is an urgent public health priority; in our research, we are advancing new paths to promote healthy mood through interdisciplinary discovery achieved with and for young people. The PECASE recognizes the promise and innovation of this work and is a launchpad for research that will develop and scale programs for personalized health insight and wellness promotion. We are enthusiastic to begin the next chapter in research discovery and real-world impact.”

Also recognized with a PECASE award was , JILA fellow, National Institute of Standards and Technology physicist and CU Boulder physics professor.

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

Related Articles

Political science Professor Federiga Bindi says the new, Islamic rebel-led government is telling the West what it wants to hear but that the situation on the ground is concerning

In May, University of Colorado Boulder Department of Political Science professor and foreign policy expert  was asked to spearhead the creation of a conference sponsored by the  regarding the future of Syria. The Middle Eastern country had been mired in a grinding civil war for 13 years with no end in sight, and AFSC was concerned the world had largely forgotten about the conflict and its resulting humanitarian crisis.

By the time the two-day conference, titled Reframing the Conversation Around Syria in Europe, convened in early December at the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium, the  that had governed the country for more than 70 years collapsed spectacularly as Muslim rebels swept through the country and seized the capital of Damascus.

“Everybody was surprised—even that the rebel attack took place,” says Bindi, noting the war had essentially settled into a stalemate for some time. “That’s the interesting thing, because to prepare for this conference, I talked to a lot of experts. I went to Brussels several times—and nobody expected something like this. So, everybody was taken by surprise, and everyone was surprised how quickly things happened.”

In past years, the Assad regime had been able to successfully battle insurgents with support from Russia and Iran. However, with Russia bogged down in its war in Ukraine and Iran on the defensive after Israel’s attacks on it, as well as allies Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon—following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack on Israel—the situation on the ground in the Middle East is very different today, Bindi says.

“Also, there are indications that they (the rebels) were not alone—the U.S.,  Israel and Turkey directly or indirectly supported them, because Syria was an ally of Iran, and if you take away Syria as an ally of Iran, then Iran can’t resupply Hezbollah in Lebanon,” she says. “So, the change (in leadership in Syria) is bad for the Russians, but I think it’s even worse for Iran.”

Meanwhile, Israel and Turkey can be considered the winners resulting from the outcome and the new major regional power in the Middle East, she adds.

What next for Syria?

At the December conference in Brussels, attendees—including foreign policy experts and Syrian activists—were “clearly happy that Assad was gone, but they were also very wary,” Bindi says. “Their first message was, ‘We shouldn’t just say this is great, because we don’t know what happens next.’”

While many Syrians at home and abroad—and many in the West—hope for peace and healing in Syria, Bindi says there are too many variables to know if that’s possible. One particular concern is whether the new government, composed of leaders from the Islamic rebel group Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), will show tolerance for the country’s religious and ethnic minorities and support basic human rights.

While noting that , the charismatic leader of HTS, has swapped his combat fatigues for business suits, dropped his wartime pseudonym for his real name, and downplayed his past jihadist views for a more moderate form of Syrian nationalism in interviews with Western media, Bindi says the news that has been coming out of Syria is not encouraging.

“The way he (Sharaa) presents himself, dressed in a suit and speaking with western media, he’s been very conciliatory. For example, he just met with the custodian of religious sites in Jerusalem. He said, ‘Christians are going to be allowed to live in peace. Don’t worry. I’m a big supporter of the Pope.’ So, the rhetoric is very conciliatory, very Western, but the acts are not. The little news we have out of Syria is that Alawi (members of a religious minority to which previous President  belongs and drew power from) have been beaten and even killed.”

Separately, when the German foreign minister, who is a woman, recently visited Syria with a European delegation, HTS leaders declined to shake hands with her but did shake hands with male delegation members. Bindi says that could suggest HTS endorses strict Muslim prohibitions regarding interactions between men and women, in contrast with Syria’s recent past as a Muslim but largely secular country that allowed women many of the freedoms found in the West.

“So, that may suggest they (HTS) are not that liberal after all,” she says. “A former envoy to Syria, who I know very well, told me he’s convinced Syria is going to be a theocracy-style government like in Afghanistan.”

Meanwhile, Bindi says rightwing leaders in Europe are using the change in leadership in Syria to say that the roughly 2 million Syrian refugees can safely return home, but it’s her view that “Syria is not safe by any means.”

Foreign troops occupy Syria

Currently, several foreign governments have military troops occupying portions of Syria, and Bindi says the potential for clashes with Syrian forces and with each other remains ever-present, noting that those foreign powers have sometimes competing objectives. Israel has occupied the Golan Heights and nearby areas in Syria for what it says are security reasons, the United States has occupied portions of the country with the stated objective of fighting ISIS while also supporting the Kurds, and Turkish armed forces have occupied the northern portion of Syria to support rebel forces and to potentially combat what it calls Kurdish terrorists. Meanwhile, Russia, which maintained naval and air bases in Syria during Assad’s regime, still has some troops in the country.

“At the moment, there is no territorial integrity in Syria,” Bindi says. “I don’t see the Kurds giving up their territory in Syria. I don’t see the Turks giving up their territory. I don’t see the Russians leaving, if they can keep their bases. And I don’t see the Americans and the Israelis withdrawing. Nobody wants to give up their territories, so it’s a big mess.”

The new leadership in Syria likely isn’t happy that portions of the country are occupied by foreign powers, but it’s not in a position to demand their withdrawal, and it may grudgingly accept the status quo if it is allowed to implement a theocracy, she says.

Given the situation in Syria today, it’s hard to predict what comes next, Bindi says. Still, one scenario that Bindi says is very unlikely is that Bashar Assad, who fled to Moscow as the rebels closed in on Damascus, will ever return to power.

“I think he’s gone, just like the Shah in Persia,” she says. “He’s going to have a golden exile in Russia, and that will be it. He should be happy he saved his skin, unlike Saddam Hussein (in Iraq) and unlike Muammar Gaddafi (in Libya).”

The other scenario that Bindi finds very unlikely is that the United States and Europe will commit major military forces to Syria to attempt to promote nation-building and democracy, like they attempted with Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The strategy of exporting democracy to the Middle East has failed miserably, because our understanding of the region was faulty and the Middle East is such a kaleidoscopically complex region,” she says. “So, I don’t think we will put boots on the ground in Syria. That, I think, is fairly certain. The more plausible is that we just let them be, like we ultimately did in Afghanistan.”

Risks remain for the West, as well as Syria

Bindi says such a scenario does not automatically mean that the risks to the West are minimized, however, with the new Republican U.S. administration and Congress.

“To be frank, the most important variable is what will happen in Washington, D.C., after Jan. 20. That’s the true reality,” she says. “Syria is definitely not a priority for Trump, but the neighboring states are. The loss of (Assad) was a blow to Iran, and we know that for Trump, Iran is a foe, so what might the (new administration) allow Israel to do? I say that because Israel can only attack with the support of the U.S. It’s a very dangerous situation.”

Meanwhile, with so much recent conflict in the Middle East, Bindi says she is concerned that people in the West have become numb to all the fighting.

“I think we’ve gotten way too used to violence,” she says. “The images don’t touch us anymore. Kids die. We’ve become accustomed to the horror. We’ve lost our humanity, and I think that’s very scary.”

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about classics? Show your support.

Related Articles

In honor of what would have been Paul Newman’s 100th birthday, CU Boulder film historian Clark Farmer considers whether there still are movie stars

Movies did not invent stars—there were stars of theater, opera and vaudeville well before moving pictures—but movies made them bigger and more brilliant; in some cases, edging close to the incandescence of a supernova.

Consider a star like Paul Newman, who would have turned 100 Jan. 26. Despite being an Oscar winner for The Color of Money in 1987 and a nine-time acting Oscar nominee, he was known perhaps even more for the radiance of his stardom—the ineffable cool, the certain reserve, the style, the beauty, the transcendent charisma that dared viewers to look away.

Even now, 17 years after his death in 2008 at age 83, fans still sigh, “They just don’t make stars like that anymore.”

In fact, if you believe the click-bait headlines that show up in newsfeeds every couple of months, the age of the movie star is over. In with Allure magazine, movie star Jennifer Aniston opined, “There are no more movie stars.” And in Vanity Fair’s 2023 Hollywood issue, , “The concept of a movie star is someone untouchable you only see onscreen. That mystery is gone.”

Are there really no more movie stars?

“There are still actors we like and want to go see, so I’d say there still are movie stars, but the idea of them has changed,” says University of Colorado Boulder film historian Clark Farmer, a teaching assistant professor of cinema studies and moving image arts. “I think that sense of larger-than-life glamor is gone, that sense of amazement at seeing these people on the screen.

“When we think of what could be called the golden age of movie stars, they had this aristocratic sheen to them. They carried themselves so well, they were well-dressed, they were larger than life, the channels where we could see them and learn about them were a lot more limited. Today, we see stars a lot more and they’re maybe a little less shiny and not as special in that way.”

Stars are born

In the earliest days of film, around the turn of the 20th century, there weren’t enough regular film performers to be widely recognized by viewers, Farmer says. People were drawn to the movie theater by the novelty of moving pictures rather than to see particular actors. However, around 1908 and with the advent of nickelodeons, film started taking off as a big business and actors started signing longer-term contracts. This meant that audiences started seeing the same faces over and over again.

By 1909, exhibitors were reporting that audiences would ask for the names of actors and would also write to the nascent film companies asking for photographs. “Back then you didn’t have credits, you only had the title of the film and the name of the production company, so people started attaching names to these stars—for example, Maurice Costello was called Dimples.”

As the movie business grew into an industry, and as actors were named in a film’s credits, movie stars were born. In 1915, Charlie Chaplin conflagrated across screens not just in the United States, but internationally, Farmer says.

“You could say that what was produced in Hollywood was movies, but studios were also actively trying to produce stars—stars were as much a product as the movies,” Farmer says. “There was always this question of could they take someone who had some talent or some looks or skills like dancing or singing, and would they only rise to the level of extra, would they play secondary characters, or would they become stars? Would people see their name and want to come see the movies they were in?

“Stars have this ineffable quality, and studios would have hundreds of people whose job it was just to make stars; there was a whole machinery in place.”

During Hollywood’s studio period, actors would sign contracts with a studio and the studio’s star machinery would get to work: choosing names for the would-be stars, creating fake biographies, planting stories in fan magazines, arranging for dental work and wardrobes and homes and sometimes even relationships.

For as long as it has existed, the creation and existence of movie stars has drawn criticism from those who argue that being a good star is not the same as being a good actor, and that stars who are bigger than the films in which they appear overshadow all the elements of artistry that align in cinema—from screenwriting to cinematography to acting and directing.

“There’s always been a mixture of people who consider film primarily a business and those who consider it primarily art,” Farmer explains. “Film has always been a place for a lot of really creative individuals who weren’t necessarily thinking of the bottom line and wanted to do something more artistic, but they depended on those who thought about it as a business. Those are the people asking, ‘How do you bring people in to see a movie?’ Part of that can be a recognizable genre, it could be a recognizable property—like a familiar book—but then stars are one more hook for an audience member to say, ‘I like Katherine Hepburn, I like her as an actress and as a person, and she’s in this movie so I’ll give it a try.'

“One of the biggest questions in the film industry is, ‘How can we guarantee people will come see our movie?’ And the gamble has been that stardom is part of that equation.”

Evolving stardom

As for the argument that movie stars cheapen the integrity of cinema, “I don’t think they’re bad for film as an art form,” Farmer says. “Audiences have this idea of who this person is as a star or as a performer, which can make storytelling a lot easier. You have this sense of, ‘I know who Humphrey Bogart is and the roles he plays,’ so a lot of the work of creating the character has already been done. You can have a director saying, ‘I want this person in the role because people’s understanding of who this person is will help create the film.’ You can have Frank Capra cast Jimmy Stewart and the work of establishing the character as a lovable nice guy is already done.”

As the movie industry evolved away from the studio system, the role of the movie star—and what audiences wanted and expected from stars—also began changing, Farmer says. While there was still room for stars who were good at doing the thing for which they were known—the John Waynes who were excellent at playing the John Wayne character—there also were “chameleon” stars who disappeared into roles and wanted to be known for their talent rather than their hair and makeup.

As film evolved, so did technology and culture, Farmer says. With each year, there were more channels, more outlets, more media to dilute what had been a monoculture of film.

“Before everyone had cable and streaming services and social media, movies were much more of a cultural touchpoint,” Farmer says. “People wanted to dress like Humphrey Bogart or Audrey Hepburn. Faye Dunaway wears a beret in Bonnie and Clyde and beret sales go off the charts. People went to the movies, and they recognized and admired these stars.

“One of the markers of stardom is can an individual actor carry a mediocre film to financial success? Another would be, are there people who have an almost obsessive interest in these stars, to the point of modeling themselves after star? Stars tap into a sort of zeitgeist.”

However, the growth and fragmentation of media have meant that viewers have more avenues to see films and more ways to access stars. Even when A-listers’ social media are clearly curated by an army of publicists and stylists, fans can access them at any time and feel like they know them, Farmer says.

“Movies are just less central to people’s lives than they used to be,” Farmer says. “There are other forms of media that people spend their time on, to the point that younger audiences are as likely to know someone who starred in a movie as someone who’s a social media influencer. But that’s just a different kind of stardom.

“I think the film industry really wants movie stars, but I’m not sure viewers necessarily care all that much. Again, it’s always the question of, if you’re spending millions and millions of dollars on a product and you want a return on that, how can you achieve that without making another superhero movie or another horror movie? The industry wants movie stars and audiences just want to be entertained.”

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about cinema studies and moving image arts? 

Related Articles

Beer historian and CU Boulder Assistant Professor Travis Rupp explains why canned beer, celebrating its 90th anniversary today, has been ‘immensely impactful’ for the industry

“It's Saturday, y'all, here's a plan
I'm gonna throw back a couple …
Until the point where I can't stand
No, nothing picks me up like a beer can.”

• From “Beer Can” by Luke Combs

On Jan. 24, 1935, some shoppers in Virginia were likely scratching their heads and gawking at something they hadn’t seen before―beer in cans―s��𳦾��ھ�����������, Krueger’s Cream Ale and Krueger’s Finest Beer from the Gottfried Krueger Brewing Company. Up until then, beer drinkers had enjoyed their suds in bottles. 

Today, canned beer is commonplace, but according to beer archaeologist and historian Travis Rupp, a University of Colorado Boulder teaching assistant professor of classics, even though canning would prove to be “immensely impactful” for the industry, neither brewers nor consumers cared much for cans initially.

“There were false claims made about metal flavor leaching into canned beverages because the beer was coming in contact with the aluminum,” Rupp says. “Where this may have been the case with early steel or aluminum cans, it wasn’t true for most of the container's history.”

Rupp adds that even as late as 2015, glass bottles were viewed as better containers for beer, given that they were “nicer” for presentation.

Yet today, cans have emerged as the clear winner in the beer game. A Colorado example: MillerCoors Rocky Mountain Metal Container, based near the Coors campus in Golden, now churns out roughly .

“Cans are the best containers for beer. They don’t let in sunlight or oxygen, which are both detrimental to beer,” says Rupp. “Bottles let in sunlight. Even brown or amber bottles allow a small percentage of ultraviolet rays through, which can skunk or spoil the beer. Bottles also can leach in oxygen through the cap over time as the seal breaks down. Bottles still have a place for cellaring or aging high gravity barrel-aged beers or sours, but if you want your beer to stay and taste fresh the longest, you opt for cans.”

The case for cans

Over the decades, cans have also helped brewers’ bottom lines: “Cans are far cheaper because they’re much lighter to ship,” Rupp explains. “Freight shipping costs are mostly dictated by weight. This ultimately can result in higher profits for breweries and lower costs for consumers. They’re also far, far cheaper to store, since they require far less space than glass bottles and cartons.”

Long before cans made their debut, Rupp says some breweries tried replacing wooden casks with metal kegs throughout the 19th century, but no protective liner existed to prevent metallic leaching in these containers. “And given the long duration that beer would sit in the metal casks before serving, the flavor would become quite awful. It wasn’t until the 1960s that stainless steel kegs hit the market.”

About that metallic-flavor-leaching debate, Rupp says aluminum can producers now apply a patented protective liner to the inside of their cans to prevent leaching. “If you cut open a can produced by the Ball Corporation [the global packaging giant], you’ll find … a dull grayish-white crosshatched pattern in the can. This is the protective liner, and I assure you no metal flavor is leaching into your beer.”

But for Rupp, perhaps the most impressive technology comes in what’s called the seaming process on cans. The ends (or top) of the can are produced separately. Once the cans are filled, the end is placed on top and goes through a series of rollers and chucks to seam the top of the can.

“This bond is so tight that the sides of the can will fail before the seam does. It’s a really cool advancement in canning technology, as are canning machines in general that work hard to ensure no oxygen ends up in the beer before the cans are sealed. We’ve come a long way from church keys and pull tabs on beer cans.”

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about classics? Show your support.

Related Articles

CU Boulder chemist Niels Damrauer and his research colleagues use visible light to break environmentally persistent carbon-fluorine bonds in PFAS

The strength of the bond between carbon and fluorine can be both a positive and a negative. Because of its seeming unbreakablility, food doesn’t stick to Teflon-coated frying pans and water rolls off rain jackets rather than soaking in.

However, these bonds are also what put the “forever” in “forever chemicals,” the common name for the thousands of compounds that are perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS are so commercially abundant that they can be found in everything from candy wrappers to home electronics and guitar strings—to say nothing of their presence in industrial products.

The C-F bond is so difficult to break that the products containing it could linger in the environment for thousands of years. And when these molecules linger in a human body, they are associated with increased risk for cancer, thyroid disease, asthma and a host of other adverse health outcomes.

“There are a lot of interesting things about those bonds,” says Niels Damrauer, a University of Colorado Boulder professor of chemistry and fellow in the Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute. “(The C-F bond) is very unnatural. There are a lot of chemical bonds in the world that natural systems have evolved to be able to destroy, but C-F bonds are uncommon in nature, so there aren’t bacteria that have evolved to break those down.”

Instead of long-used methods of breaking or activating chemical bonds, Damrauer and his research colleagues have looked to light. , the scientists detail an important finding in their ongoing research, showing how a light-driven catalyst can efficiently reduce C-F bonds.

“What we’re really trying to do is figure out sustainable ways of making transformations,” Damrauer explains. “We’re asking, ‘Can we change chemical reactivity through light absorption that we wouldn’t necessarily be able to achieve without it?’ For example, you can break down PFAS at thousands of degrees, but that’s not sustainable. We’re using light to do this, a reagent that’s very abundant and that’s sustainable.”

A foundation of spectroscopy

An important foundation for this research is spectroscopy, which can use light to study chemical reactions that are initiated with light, as well as the properties of molecules that have absorbed light. As a spectroscopist, Damrauer does this in a number of ways on a variety of time scales: “We can put light into molecules and study what they do in trillionths of a second, or we can follow the paths of molecules once they have absorbed light and what they do with the excess energy.”

Damrauer and his colleagues, including those in his research group, frequently work in photoredox catalysis, a branch of photochemistry that studies the giving and taking of electrons as a way to initiate chemical reactions.

“The idea is that in some molecules, absorption of light changes their properties in terms of how they give up electrons or take in electrons from the environment,” Damrauer explains. “That giving and taking—giving an electron is called reduction and taking is called oxidation—so that if you can put light in and cause molecules to be good reducers or good oxidizers, it changes some things you can do. We create situations where we catalyze transformations and cause a chemical reaction to occur.”

Damrauer and his research colleague Garret Miyake, formerly of the CU Boulder Department of Chemistry and now at Colorado State University, have collaborated for many years to understand molecules that give up electrons—the process of reduction—after absorbing light.

Several years ago, Miyake and his research group discovered a catalyst to reduce benzene, a molecule that’s notoriously difficult to reduce, once it had absorbed light. Damrauer and his graduate students Arindam Sau and Nick Pompetti worked with Miyake and his postdoc and students to understand why and how this catalyst worked, and they began looking at whether this and similar catalysts could activate the C-F bond—either breaking it or remaking it in useful products. This team also worked with Rob Paton, a computational chemist at CSU, and his group.

They found that within the scope of their study, the C-F bond in molecules irradiated with visible light—which could, in principle, be derived from the sun—and catalyzed in a system they developed could be activated. They found that several PFAS compounds could then be converted into defluorinated products, essentially breaking the C-F bond and “representing a mild reaction methodology for breaking down these persistent chemicals,” they note in the study.

Making better catalysts

A key element of the study is that the C-F bond is “activated,” meaning it could be broken—in the case of PFAS—or remade. “C-F bonds are precursors to molecules you might want to make in chemistry, like pharmaceuticals or other materials,” Damrauer says. “They’re a building block people don’t use very much because that bond is so strong. But if we can activate that bond and can use it to make molecules, then from a pharmaceutical perspective this system might already be practical.”

While the environmental persistence of PFAS is a serious public health and policy concern, “organofluorines [containing C-F bonds] have a tremendous impact in medicinal, agrochemical and materials sciences as fluorine incorporation results in structures imparting specific beneficial attributes,” Damrauer and his colleagues write.

By pursuing systems that mitigate the negative aspects of C-F bonds and harness the positive, and using the abundant resources of visible light and organic molecules, Damrauer says he hopes this research is a significant step toward sustainably producing products that use light as a reagent rather than heat or precious metal-based catalysts.

While the catalytic process the researchers developed is not yet at a level that it could be used on PFAS in the environment at a large scale, “this fundamental understanding is really important,” Damrauer says. “It allows us to evolve what we do next. While the current iteration isn’t good enough for practical application, we’re working to make better and better catalysts.”

Xin Liu, Arindam Sau, Alexander R. Green, Mihai V. Popescu, Nicholas F. Pompetti, Yingzi Li, Yucheng Zhao, Robert S. Paton and Garret M. Miyake also contributed to this research.

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about chemistry? Show your support.

Related Articles

CU Boulder researchers find that socioeconomic status is a key indicator of heart health

Cardiovascular disease, the  in the United States, significantly affects those of lower socioeconomic status. In addition, members of historically marginalized groups—including Black, Indigenous and Asian populations—suffer disproportionately. Therefore, public health advocates and policy makers need to make extra efforts to reach these populations and find ways to reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease.

These are the findings of researchers Sanna Darvish and Sophia Mahoney, PhD candidates in the University of Colorado Boulder Department of Integrative Physiology. Their  on socioeconomic status and arterial aging—written with CU Boulder co-authors Ravinandan Venkatasubramanian, Matthew J. Rossman, Zachary S. Clayton and Kevin O. Murray—was published in the Journal of Applied Physiology.

Darvish and Mahoney conducted a literature review of cardiovascular disease, looking specifically at how it affects various demographics. Their focus was on two physiological features that are predictors of cardiovascular issues: endothelial dysfunction—a failure of the lining of blood vessels that can cause a narrowing of the arteries—and stiffening of arteries.

“It’s pretty well established that individuals of lower socioeconomic status have increased risk for many chronic diseases, but our lab focuses on the physiological and cellular mechanisms contributing to that increased risk,” Darvish explains. “We’re looking at what studies have been conducted, looking at blood vessel dysfunction, arterial dysfunction in these marginalized groups that then will predict their risk for cardiovascular disease.”

Exercise as therapy

Beyond the clinical findings, Darvish and Mahoney cite four social determinants of health regarding cardiovascular disease across ethnic and racial groups: environmental factors, like proximity to pollution or access to green spaces; psychological and social factors, such as stress or structural racism; health care access; and socioeconomic status.

While each of the four has different facets that contribute to overall cardiovascular health, the authors found that socioeconomic status was the “cause of causes,” and thus the most important indicator to examine in their goal of recommending effective therapies.

“It became clear to us that socioeconomic status really played a role in every single aspect of social determinants of health,” says Mahoney. “So, our paper naturally centered around socioeconomic status as we realized that it was the most integrated and affected the rest of the determinants of health.”

To help overcome the barriers to better cardiovascular health among those in lower socioeconomic groups, Darvish and Mahoney recommend exercise.

“Exercise is well established as first line of defense, especially aerobic exercise,” says Mahoney. “It’s easy for us to say that in Colorado, but there are plenty of barriers to people everywhere who do not have access to resources.”

One option the researchers propose is high-intensity interval training (HIIT), which packs a robust aerobic effort into workouts as brief as five or 10 minutes. The authors also recommend inspiratory muscle strength training (IMST), during which users breathe into a simple handheld device that inhibits air flow and get a simulated aerobic workout that also strengthens the diaphragm.  that just a few minutes of IMST therapy a day can reduce blood pressure and the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Reducing research barriers

One thing Darvish and Mahoney hope their study will do is galvanize researchers to include more diverse populations in their research. While investigating the existing literature for their review, the two were dismayed to find few studies that included or focused on populations from the lower socioeconomic echelons.

There are structural reasons for that, Darvish explains. Time is an issue, as those lower on the socioeconomic ladder often work more hours and have more demands on their non-work time. In addition, transportation can be an obstacle, as research facilities may not be near neighborhoods with more diverse populations. “We pay our participants an appropriate amount for their participation, but not all clinical trials do,” Darvish says.

“Another thing we are doing is instituting a lift service through our lab, to drive people in from their homes in Denver to our lab in Boulder, and we hope this will help improve access for more people to participate.”

Language barriers can be another impediment, as all release forms and study literature would need to be translated for those who don’t speak English. Darvish and Mahoney say it is important that researchers work to overcome these structural barriers. “Our lab is working to do all we can to reduce biases, and include these diverse populations,” says Mahoney. “We need to practice what we preach and start with ourselves.”

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about integrative physiology? Show your support.

Related Articles

In a recent study, CU Boulder’s Robert Moulder and colleagues find that individuals with trait neuroticism rarely modify how they respond to negative emotions 

Emotions, like temperatures, go up and down. Yet everyone copes with these ups and downs in his or her own way. Some use the same emotion-regulation strategies over and over—read a book, take a walk, watch a movie—while others change which strategy they use depending on the situation.

Research scientist Robert Moulder of the University of Colorado Boulder Institute of Cognitive Science, along with , ,  and , wanted to know why: Why do some people frequently modify their regulation strategies? Why do others reuse the same strategies? And are there benefits to both approaches?

Difficult questions, these, not least because they seek to identify patterns in what seem like random human behaviors. Which is why Moulder was particularly well-suited to the job of answering them. With a background in both mathematics and psychology, he uses chaos theory and nonlinear dynamics to understand human systems. “The way I like to describe it, I am like  from Jurassic Park, but for people instead of dinosaurs,” he jokes. “I do the ‘mathy math’ behind how psych works.”

Thanks to Moulder’s “mathy math,” he and his fellow researchers  a key distinction between those who rarely change up their emotion-regulation strategies and those who do so often: trait neuroticism.

Trait vs. state

Neuroticism, Moulder says, refers to “someone's overall tendency to engage in and ruminate on negative emotions like getting angry, getting upset, being distrustful. You can think about it as the propensity of an individual to experience and act upon negative emotions.”

There are two categories of neuroticism: state neuroticism and trait neuroticism, the differences between which Moulder illustrates with an analogy to extroversion.

“A state personality would be, say, how extroverted you are right now, or how extroverted you are in two or three days,” he says. “Have you ever gone to a party and felt really engaged but afterwards felt dead? During that party your extroversion was higher than it normally would be, and afterwards, it was probably a little lower.” 

Trait extroversion, on the other hand, takes the average of those individual moments over time. “It's kind of like your stable equilibrium,” says Moulder. “If you were going to describe to someone how extroverted you are, you'd be talking about your trait extroversion.”

The same thing goes for neuroticism. One person may have a high degree of neuroticism at any given moment but a low degree overall—high state, low trait—whereas another person may be exactly the opposite.

What Moulder and his colleagues found was that subjects with high levels of trait neuroticism tend not to experiment with their regulation strategies. “That means someone who is very high in neuroticism will consistently use the same tools over and over again, whether they’re working or not.”

A new mathematical model

Moulder and his colleagues arrived at these findings with the help of transition matrices, an analytical tool Moulder and Daniel developed in a . 

“Why people do the things they do after a negative event has thousands of components,” Moulder says. “There was not a good method for measuring that. So, we made one.”

Transition matrices are rectangular grids of rows and columns that enable study subjects to keep track of which emotion-regulation strategies they use and when they use them.

A subject who got into an argument with her boss at noon and then took a walk, for example, would put a “1” in the box in her matrix associated with taking a walk. If she received an angry email from her boss an hour later and chose this time to call a friend, she would put a “1” in the box associated with that regulation strategy.

“If someone used the exact same strategy all the time, you would just see one number in the matrix, and all the rest of the matrix would be ‘0,’” Moulder says, whereas someone who constantly switched from one regulation strategy to the next would have numbers all over his or her matrix.

These transition matrices provide two key metrics, Moulder explains: stability and spread. Higher stability means fewer regulation strategies; higher spread, more strategies. Subjects with high levels of trait neuroticism are therefore likely to have high stability. 

Just-in-time interventions

With this information about their own emotion-regulation behaviors, subjects can see which strategies they use and reuse; they get a snapshot of their own stability and spread. If they find they’re putting the same strategies on repeat, they can decide to change things up—play pickleball instead of binge-eating pickles, for instance.

“There are some times when it makes sense to choose the same strategy,” Moulder says, “but we know from prior research that there are some times when it makes sense to become more adaptive—to increase, to spread, to try other things.”

Moulder adds that the knowledge gleaned from transition matrices can also be turned toward potentially more effective approaches to emotion regulation. He and Daniel call one idea “just-in-time interventions.” 

“If we are, let’s say, giving individuals telehealth, which is a really big space right now for therapy, we want to do something called just-in-time interventions,” he says. By understanding a person’s regulation practices, “we can say to that person, ‘Hey, you keep going to drink almost every time something negative happens. Maybe this time go read a book or a call a friend.’ We can offer alternatives that research shows will lead to better outcomes.”

The power of such interventions lies in their precision. They’re based not purely on statistics, Moulder says, but on “person-specific analysis, which we can use to give people personalized messaging that would ideally best help them in the long run.”

There’s no guarantee that switching strategies will bring the desired outcome, Moulder admits, but experimentation is part of the process. “We’re never going to know what works until we try.” 

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

Related Articles

NEH funding also was awarded for two other humanities projects at CU Boulder

University of Colorado Boulder Department of History Associate Professor Henry Lovejoy has won a $60,000 fellowship from the  to allow him to research and write a book about involuntary African indentured labor between 1800 and 1914.

Lovejoy’s research focuses on the political, economic and cultural history of Africa and the African Diaspora. He also has special expertise in digital humanities and is director of the Digital Slavery Research Lab, which focuses on developing, linking and archiving open-source data and multi-media related to the global phenomenon of slavery and human trafficking.

Additionally, Lovejoy spearheaded the creation and update of the website , a living memorial to the more than 700,000 men, women and children who were “liberated” but not immediately freed in the British-led campaign to abolish African slave trafficking.

The term “Liberated Africans” coincides with a now-little-remembered part of history following the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1807 by the United Kingdom’s Parliament, which prohibited the slave trade within the British Empire (although it did not abolish the practice of slavery until 1834).

Around the same time, other countries—including the United States, Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands—passed their own trafficking laws and operated squadrons of ships in the Atlantic and Indian oceans to interdict the slave trade.

However, in a cruel twist of fate, most of those “liberated” people weren’t actually freed—but were instead condemned as property, declared free under anti-slave trade legislation and then subjected to indentures lasting several years.

Lovejoy said the NEH fellowship is allowing him to take leave from work to write his book, focused on lax enforcement of anti-slavery laws, migratory patterns of African laborers, their enslavement and subsequent use as indentured laborers around the world from 1800 to 1914.

“I’m deeply grateful for being awarded this opportunity, as the NEH plays such a vital role in supporting the humanities by funding projects that foster our cultural understanding, historical awareness, and intellectual inquiry,” he said.

Meanwhile, Lovejoy said he is also writing a biography about Sarah Forbes Bonetta, a “liberated African” who was apprenticed by Queen Victoria, after conducting research in royal, national and local archives in England, Sierra Leone and Nigeria. Lovejoy also wrote the book , a biography of an enslaved African who rose through the ranks of Spain’s colonial military and eventually led a socio-religious institution at the root of an African-Cuban religion, commonly known as Santería. 

Lovejoy’s NEH fellowship was one of three NEH awards to CU Boulder faculty. Other awards granted were:

Germanic and Slavic Languages and Literatures Professor Patrick Greaney won a $60,000 fellowship to research and write a book about German manufacturer Braun, National Socialism and the creation of West German culture between1933-1975, focusing on Braun from the beginning of the Nazi regime through the 1970s in the Federal Republic of Germany. Greaney’s research focuses on literature, design and modern and contemporary art.

Wilma Doris Loayza, teaching assistant professor at the Latin American and Latinx Studies Center, and affiliated faculty of the Center for Native American and Indigenous Studies, along with co-project directors Joe Bryan, Leila Gomez and Ambrocio Gutierrez Lorenzo, won a two-year, $149,925 grant to develop course modules and educational resources about Quechua and Zapotec language and culture as part of efforts to expand and strengthen the Latin American Indigenous Languages and Cultures program.

The awards to CU Boulder faculty were part of $22.6 million in grants the NEH provided to 219 humanities projects across the country. The awards were announced Tuesday.

“It is my pleasure to announce NEH grant awards to support 219 exemplary projects that will foster discovery, education, and innovative research in the humanities,” said NEH Chair Shelly C. Lowe.

“This funding will strengthen our ability to preserve and share important stories from the past with future generations, and expand opportunities in communities, classrooms, and institutions to engage with the history, ideas, languages, and cultures that shape our world.”

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about history? Show your support.

Related Articles

CU Boulder economist Alessandro Peri makes the case that empowering the young can meaningfully affect climate policy and climate outcomes

The consensus opinion in previous research—that future generations are the major beneficiaries of proactive climate policies—tends to emphasize the importance of intergenerational altruism. However, that perspective largely ignores the idea that selfish incentives of current young and old generations can be an important driver to undertake climate policy, says Alessandro Peri, assistant professor in the University of Colorado Boulder Department of Economics.

Recent studies indicate that peak global warming occurs within a decade of emissions. Thus, current climate policy could benefit young generations later in their lifetimes, says Peri, a macroeconomist whose research focus includes computational and environmental economics.

Meanwhile, climate policy may benefit the current old generations by reducing the damages associated with climate change and therefore increasing the value of their assets.

In the paper, recently published in the Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Peri and his two co-authors advanced what they say is the first study to examine the direction and magnitude of the selfish incentives of young and old to undertake climate policy.

In the economic model Peri and his co-authors developed, the younger generation (ranging from infants to those aged 35) and the older generation are both part of solutions addressing the climate crisis. The older generation tends to control most of the world’s physical assets, such as factories, he notes.

“What we found after we analyzed, theoretically and quantitively, this question of selfish incentives for climate policy is that incentives of the younger generation can be an important driver for climate policy to address the challenge of global warming,” says Peri.

Abatement measures related to reduced carbon emissions can affect the asset owners’ wealth and, accordingly, the old generation’s selfish incentives to support or oppose climate policy, but the effect is quantitatively small. Hence, Peri says, the exhortation in the title: “Empower the Young!”

When climate policy is a win-win

To explore the selfish incentives for climate policy, the model Peri and his co-authors developed uses a two-generation overlapping generations model, rather than the more common infinitely lived agent model. Peri says the two-generation structure permits a clear distinction between the two types of self-interest: the younger generation’s concern for its future consumption and the older generation’s desire to protect its wealth.

For the incentives of the current young and old generations to undertake climate policy to be aligned (a win-win situation), climate policy must increase the value of the assets owned by the old generations.

“Think about it like if you own a house in front of a lake,” Peri explains. “You don't really like the lake, but someone else decides to clean the lake. Well, the value of your house close to the lake is going to increase; you’re going to benefit indirectly from the cleaning of the environment on your wealth. The (increase) of this price allows the older generations to engage in climate policy and be happy about climate policy.”

For this to happen, Peri and his co-authors created an economic model that uses endogenous asset prices, relaxing the assumption of fixed asset price adopted by most models in the climate literature.

As wealth is transferred from the older generation to the younger one, for the asset price to increase it has to be the case that current young generations want to save more.

“They (the young) are willing to consume a little bit less today and save for tomorrow, so that they can consume more tomorrow,” as a result of climate policy, Peri says. “And what we show is that for that to happen, it means the young have to have a high elasticity of intertemporal substitution, which is just a fancy way of saying that they are willing to transfer more consumption from today to tomorrow” as a result of the effect of climate policy on the value of consumption over time.

Still, based upon the results of computational research done for the research paper, Peri says he and his co-authors determined that selfish incentives for the younger generation proved more quantitatively important for climate policy than those of the old generation.

Goal to spur further research and discussions

Peri says he hopes the economic model for addressing climate change that he and his co-authors created will complement existing research on economic policy related to climate change, including those that rely on altruistic motivations. He says he does not expect lawmakers to adopt the model as policy, but he hopes the paper will spur further research by economists and prompt discussions among policymakers.

Discussions about combatting climate change are particularly timely now, Peri says, given that in 2024 the temperature of the earth reached —before heat-trapping fossil fuels began accumulating in the atmosphere. The Paris Climate Accords, signed by representatives for numerous countries in 2016, aims to keep warming below that level when looking over multiple years.

“This is the great challenge we are facing nowadays, with the announcement in 2024 that we reached 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times. So, it’s been the hottest year that we’ve observed since the pre-industrial era,” Peri says. “With the new evidence that has shown that emissions today will have an impact in our lifetime in terms of global warming, we wanted to add our new part … looking at how selfish incentives can help mitigate this great human challenge.”

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about economics? Show your support.

Related Articles

University of Colorado Boulder scientists review the evidence for the bacterial origin of eukaryotic immune pathways

Scientists generally agree that eukaryotes, the domain of life whose cells contain nuclei and that includes almost all multicellular organisms, originated from a process involving the symbiotic union of two prokaryotes: an archaeon and a bacterium. It is unsurprising, then, that prokaryotes (single-celled organisms lacking nuclei and organelles) share many basic features—such as DNA genomes, cell membranes and cytoplasm—with eukaryotes; they developed these traits first and passed them down.

However, if the situation is this (relatively) simple, then the different kingdoms of eukaryotic life—animals, plants and fungi—should all have some variation of the same essential traits.

By reviewing the research on this subject, two University of Colorado Boulder scientists have demonstrated that this is not the case with respect to elements of the innate immune system that come from bacteria. Rather, some of the eukaryotic kingdoms have these elements while others do not. This is suggestive of a more obscure phenomenon known as horizontal gene transfer.

As authors of a , Aaron Whiteley, the principal investigator of the Aaron Whiteley Lab and an assistant professor of biochemistry, and postdoctoral fellow Hannah Ledvina were not involved in most of the research used to draw this conclusion, and were not the first to come to it, but write to summarize the state of the field and provide clarity by aggregating sources.

Categories of immune system

There are two categories of immune systems: innate and adaptive. Both exist within an individual because they serve distinct purposes. The adaptive immune system is more effective at eliminating viruses than the innate immune system, Whiteley says, but the innate immune system also plays an important role.

“We all know that you start feeling sick maybe one or two days after you were exposed to most viruses,” he says. “In the beginning, part of the reason you feel sick is because your first line of defense, the innate immune system, is trying to buy as much time as possible for the adaptive immune system.”

It is hard to successfully fight a virus without the antibodies and other virus-specific cells created by the adaptive immune system, Whiteley explains, but the generalized response of the innate immune system is necessary to slow the progression of disease during the time it takes for the adaptive immune system to respond.

By studying the innate immune system, scientists have found connections between the immune systems of bacteria and those of humans.

“We only started sequencing large numbers of genomes about 20 years ago,” Whiteley says, “and before we sequenced any genome, it was very hard to compare two organisms.” When some genomes became available, rudimentary comparisons were possible, “but as of maybe 10 years ago, our detection techniques for similarities of genes have skyrocketed,” and this has made comparisons like the ones in Whiteley and Ledvina’s review possible in combination with the sequencing of many more genomes.

Conserved immune pathways

“What we’ve been finding is the way that bacteria stop phages is very similar to the ways that humans fight off their pathogens,” Ledvina says. “The same proteins, as well as the same types of signaling pathways, are being used.”

"We know that the world of the immune system is so much bigger than viruses. Our immune system controls cancer, our immune system is important for wound healing and our immune system also restricts bacterial pathogens.”

Ledvina and Whiteley highlight four such types of signaling pathways of the innate immune system that are conserved between bacteria and either humans or humans and plants: cGAS-STING, NACHT and STAND NTPases, viperins and TIR.

A signaling pathway is a series of chemical reactions between a group of molecules in a cell that collectively control a cell function. The two basic elements of a signaling pathway are sensor and effector proteins: sensors detect the presence of a virus or phage and start the signaling cascade that ends with the activation of an effector, which is responsible for some form of immune response.

In the first type of signaling pathway, bacteria use the same sensor and effector proteins, cGAS and STING, to respond to phages as humans use to respond to DNA viruses (e.g., smallpox-like viruses).

In the second type of signaling pathway, Whiteley says, bacteria sometimes use the exact same protein domain, NACHT, as humans. NACHT is a subtype of STAND NTPase, a class of protein. In other cases, bacteria use different STAND NTPase subtypes, and plants use this protein class too.

A third type of signaling pathway found in eukaryotes and bacteria uses an effector protein called viperin. Similarly, in the fourth type of signaling pathway, the signaling domain TIR is used by plants, humans and bacteria.

Horizontal gene transfer

The relationships between the immune systems of humans and bacteria are especially interesting, Whiteley says, because these four pathways are likely to have been passed to eukaryotes by horizontal rather than vertical gene transfer.

Eukaryotes have many genetic similarities to bacteria, including in terms of the immune system. This, Whiteley explains, is because “things like the mitochondria, which is a really important organelle within all our cells, look like they came from a bacterium that started living inside the cell and then became a permanent resident.”

In other words, bacteria are ancestors of eukaryotes, and therefore many of the genes from bacteria were passed down to eukaryotes through vertical gene transfer, which is the transfer of genes from ancestors to progeny. However, shared genes can also be transferred horizontally.

The exact mechanism for this type of transfer is unknown, Whiteley says, but the formation of mitochondria may provide a model: “You can imagine something similar, where a bacterium went into a cell, only rather than taking up residence, it broke open and released its genome. DNA is DNA, so it can be incorporated from exotic sources, albeit rarely.”

It is hard to be certain about this because of how long ago it would have happened, according to Whiteley. Eukaryotes lacking a given immune pathway may have used it at one point but then lost it through an evolutionary process like stabilizing selection, which removes traits that are no longer useful in order to free up resources (the classic example being fish or other animals that lose their eyes because they live in dark places like caves).

There is, however, significant evidence for horizontal gene transfer, Whiteley says. “If you find that a gene is in animals, but it's not in all the cousins of animals like plants or fungi,” as was the case with these immune pathways, “then the simplest explanation is that it was transferred in.”

This is all to say that these pathways evolved in bacteria after the creation of the first eukaryotes and were introduced to some of the eukaryotic kingdoms after the last eukaryotic common ancestor, which was about 2 billion years ago.

That kind of interaction is important because it’s how antibiotic resistance forms, Whiteley explains. “Bacteria in the hospital talk to other bacteria and they swap genes. We think about that all the time between bacteria, but we rarely think about it between different domains of life, like going from bacteria into, in this case, some ancestor of a human cell from a billion years ago, and that has real impacts.”

Immune evasion and drug development

According to Ledvina, there are at least four different ways for viruses to prevent immune systems from sensing and inhibiting them. These include preventing critical enzymes from functioning, destroying the products of such enzymes, blocking protein sensors by mimicking whatever activates them, and physically shielding the features that immune systems look for to identify viruses. This is true of both the viruses that make us sick and the viruses that infect bacteria.

One question that people always ask, Whiteley says, is “if our immune system is so great, why are we still getting sick? And it's because viruses find every way possible to maintain the upper hand.

“The wild thing is, I guess because the immune system of humans and bacteria looks so similar, the viruses of humans and bacteria have come up with shared strategies for that immune evasion. So, we can discover things in bacteria, but then go to human viruses and understand, are they also using this mimic strategy? And if so, that becomes a great antiviral strategy for drug development.”

Bacteria are particularly useful for testing, he explains, because they grow fast and because scientists have already developed genetic and biochemical tools with which to study them. These advantages and the similarities between bacterial and human immune systems mean that bacteria could inspire drugs to treat human viruses.

However, Whiteley says, “we know that the world of the immune system is so much bigger than viruses. Our immune system controls cancer, our immune system is important for wound healing and our immune system also restricts bacterial pathogens.”

This is what makes Hannah Ledvina’s research on ubiquitin-like proteins interesting. As demonstrated in , bacteria have ubiquitin pathways resembling those in eukaryotes, and ubiquitin is broadly important in humans according to , such that its failure is associated with the development of cancer, immune disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases, among other things. As that article points out, this means there may be new therapeutic opportunities within the ubiquitin system.

“I think with Hannah's work,” Whiteley says, “we've shown the sky's the limit in terms of understanding the ways bacteria defend themselves, and then hopefully informing the way that human cells defend themselves.”

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about biochemistry? Show your support.

Related Articles