Bdelloid rotifers are small animals well known for their ability to survive in harsh conditions. They can endure extreme dehydration by entering a state of dormancy and then revive when water becomes available again. Scientists have always been interested in the degree to which these animals resist radiation, since radiation can severely damage DNA by causing both of its strands to break. Interestingly, Adineta vaga's ability to survive radiation may be connected to the way in which it tolerates drying out, as dehydration can also damage DNA. The rotifer probably evolved strong DNA protection and repair mechanisms primarily as a response to its severe environment. Its resistance to radiation is merely a byproduct of adapting to the cycles of drying and rehydration.

In order to find out more about this ability, the researchers subjected A. vaga to proton radiation and then examined what effect it had on its chromosomes. The radiation caused serious damage, resulting in hundreds of breaks in the DNA. For the vast majority of organisms, such extensive chromosome damage would be disastrous; it's similar to going through an instruction manual in a shredder and ending up with a large number of separate fragments. The scientists believed that the rotifers would repair their chromosomes before producing offspring. However, what they discovered was unexpected: some of the broken pieces of chromosome did survive and were passed on to the next generations, where the repair process continued.

The discovery took on even greater interest when the scientists examined the offspring of the irradiated rotifers. Rather than observing the same DNA damage in all the generations, they found different sized sections missing and evidence that some of the genetic regions which had been lost were being slowly restored. The researchers proposed that the rotifers use a repair mechanism known as Break-Induced Homologous Extension Repair, or BIHER. In simple terms, a broken piece of DNA can locate a matching sequence on the other chromosome and use it as a guide to rebuild itself. If the damage is beyond what can be repaired in one generation, the repair process can continue in the next.

What makes the rotifer's method of repairing DNA so unusual is that, normally, we consider DNA repair to take place immediately after damage has occurred, with the cell rapidly repairing the damaged DNA. In A. vaga, however, the repair process can be a lot longer. Certain pieces of chromosome survive the initial damage, are inherited, and then serve as the basis for further repairs in later generations. It's as if one generation begins mending a broken book, the next one continues the work, and another eventually completes the job until all the missing parts have been restored.

One reason why this might work is that bdelloid rotifers have holocentric chromosomes. Rather than having a single point, as most chromosomes do, which controls movement during cell division, the ability to move is distributed along the entire length of their chromosomes. As a result, fragments of chromosomes are sometimes able to retain the parts that are necessary for them to move and divide, and this may account for how broken pieces of chromosome can last long enough to be passed on and then repaired.

This finding could have implications that go beyond those concerning rotifers. Scientists are interested in understanding how genomes cope with severe chromosome damage, for example in the case of chromothripsis, where chromosomes break and are then reassembled in new configurations. Investigating A. vaga could help us to learn how cells manage large genetic issues. Moreover, its high resistance to radiation might also prove useful in research into extreme environments, such as the radiation hazards encountered on long space missions. However, these are ideas for future investigation; at present the rotifer's DNA repair mechanism cannot be used to protect people from radiation.

What is perhaps the most interesting aspect of this discovery is that the rotifer's remarkable ability could have developed for a very simple reason. Since an animal living in moss constantly undergoes periods of drying out and then getting wet again, the same mechanisms that protect its DNA when it is dehydrated might also enable it to survive radiation which would damage most other animals. Therefore, the rotifer probably did not evolve solely in order to resist radiation; instead, it became extremely good at coping with the difficult conditions it encounters, and radiation resistance was just a byproduct.

The case of Adineta vaga demonstrates that survival does not always mean avoiding damage; on some occasions it involves being able to recover from damage which appears to be impossible to repair. This small animal can survive having its chromosomes broken into many pieces, retain some of those pieces, pass them on to its offspring, and continue to repair them over successive generations. Although we generally regard DNA as something fragile that must always remain intact, the rotifer indicates an alternative possibility: perhaps a genome does not have to be perfect in order to survive, since sometimes the pieces last long enough for life to reassemble them, bit by bit, generation after generation.

Ream more at https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aee0891

Modern sequencing technologies have turned biology into a data-heavy science. The human genome has about three billion DNA base pairs, and sequencing can produce massive datasets quickly. Bioinformatics helps organize and interpret this information, allowing scientists to compare genomes, find genes, spot genetic differences, study gene expression, and understand diseases at the molecular level. Now, AI is changing how these datasets are analyzed. Machine learning and deep learning can find complex patterns in biological data and make predictions using large datasets. Rather than following only set rules, AI systems can learn from data and help researchers solve tough biological problems.

A key example of AI in bioinformatics is predicting protein structures. Proteins are vital for many functions in living things, and their three-dimensional shapes are closely tied to what they do. For a long time, figuring out these structures in the lab was slow and difficult. AI-based tools like AlphaFold have shown that deep learning can predict protein structures with impressive accuracy. These advances help speed up biological research and give scientists useful predictions to support their experiments. This shift means bioinformatics is moving from just analyzing biological data to predicting how biology works and designing new solutions.

AI is also expected to greatly influence drug discovery. Traditionally, developing a new drug is a long and costly process that involves finding biological targets, searching for possible drug molecules, testing how well they work, studying their properties, and running many experiments. AI can help researchers analyze large chemical and biological datasets, predict how molecules might interact with targets, find promising compounds, and estimate properties of drug candidates. Generative AI can even help design new molecules to test in the lab. This does not mean lab experiments will go away, but AI can help researchers focus on the best options and possibly speed up some parts of drug development.

Personalized medicine is another area where AI-driven bioinformatics could make a big difference. Each person has a unique mix of genetic, molecular, environmental, and lifestyle factors, so people with the same disease might respond differently to the same treatment. Bioinformatics lets researchers study individual biological data, and AI can combine many types of information, like genetic data, gene expression, protein levels, medical images, clinical records, and drug responses. In the future, this could help doctors look beyond just the disease and focus on the specific biology of each patient. This would support more personalized ways to diagnose, assess risk, and choose treatments.

As AI becomes more common, the job of bioinformaticians will likely change. Instead of spending most of their time on repetitive computer tasks, they may focus more on creating research questions, understanding AI results, checking predictions, and linking computer findings to lab experiments. Future professionals will need to know about molecular biology, genetics, statistics, programming, machine learning, data science, databases, and computational biology. But technical skills alone will not be enough. Being able to ask good scientific questions and carefully judge computer results will be even more important, since AI can make predictions, but scientists must decide if those predictions make sense and can be proven in the lab.

Even with its great potential, using AI in bioinformatics comes with big challenges. AI systems rely on the quality and variety of the data they are trained on. Biological and clinical datasets can have missing information, technical errors, inconsistent measurements, and may not represent all groups equally. A model that works well on one dataset might not work as well on another group or in a different setting. That is why data quality, proper validation, transparency, reproducibility, and careful model development are crucial for the future of AI in bioinformatics. Researchers also need to think about genetic privacy, data ownership, security, and using personal biological information responsibly. These concerns are especially important when AI predictions are used in healthcare.

The lab of the future may look very different from today’s. Researchers might use AI to review scientific papers, find research questions, analyze large datasets, come up with ideas, and predict which experiments will be most helpful. Automated lab systems could then run these experiments, create new data, and send the results back to computer models. This would create a cycle of making guesses, predicting, experimenting, collecting data, and learning. This approach could speed up scientific discovery by helping researchers explore questions more efficiently. Bioinformatics could become a key link between computer predictions and real lab experiments.

In the end, the future of bioinformatics with AI will not be about replacing people with machines. It will be about humans and AI working together. Computers can handle huge amounts of biological data and spot patterns that a single person could not. But humans bring scientific understanding, creativity, critical thinking, ethical judgment, and the ability to see the bigger picture. AI might find a pattern in millions of genomes, but scientists need to figure out why it matters. An AI model could suggest a new drug, but researchers must check if it is safe and works well. A computer might find a genetic change, but doctors have to decide what it means for a real patient.

The future of bioinformatics is closely tied to the future of AI. As biological data grows and AI models get better, bioinformatics may shift from mainly analyzing data to predicting biological processes, designing new molecules, speeding up experiments, and supporting personalized healthcare. For students and researchers, this is an exciting chance to work where biology and technology meet. The most successful people will not just be those who use the latest AI tools, but those who understand biology well enough to ask good questions and judge the answers carefully. The future will not be about AI versus humans, but about people and AI working together to understand life in ways we never could before. The next big discovery may come from this partnership between a biological question, a computer model, a lab experiment, and human curiosity.

Scientists face a big challenge with the human genome. They can read its letters, but understanding their roles is much harder. Only about 2 percent of the genome codes for proteins. The rest acts like a huge control panel, deciding when and where genes turn on. With about 9 billion possible single-letter changes, testing them all in a lab just isn’t possible.

So, Google DeepMind asked a new question: what if we could predict what those changes might do?

This question led to the AlphaGenome Atlas (https://deepmind.google.com/science/alphagenome/atlas?), a detailed map of nearly every possible single-letter change in the human genome. Instead of checking each change one by one, researchers can use the Atlas to spot the ones most likely to matter. The AlphaGenome Variant Impact (AVI) score works like a trail marker, pointing scientists toward the changes worth a closer look.

This is where the Atlas gets especially useful. Much of the genome lies outside the protein-coding regions, where DNA acts as a switch or controller for genes. AlphaGenome lets researchers explore these areas and see how small changes could affect gene activity.

An atlas isn't the destination; it's a guide.

The AlphaGenome Atlas doesn’t replace experiments or solve every mystery. Instead, it helps scientists decide where to begin. From billions of possibilities, it turns the vast genetic landscape into something researchers can start to explore.

There are nine billion possibilities, a vast map, and maybe among them therWith nine billion possibilities and a huge map to explore, there may be clues hidden here to some of medicine’s toughest mysteries.

More at https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/DeepMind.com/Blog/alphagenome-atlas-a-predictive-map-of-every-possible-dna-letter-change-in-the-human-genome/alphagenome-atlas.pdf

1. Earth BioGenome Project (EBP) - A global effort to sequence and annotate roughly 1.5 million known eukaryotic species and create a comprehensive reference library of Earth's biodiversity.
2. Vertebrate Genomes Project (VGP) - Focuses on producing high-quality reference genomes for vertebrate species, providing a major foundation for the wider Tree of Life.
3. Darwin Tree of Life - A UK and Ireland initiative aiming to sequence approximately 70,000 species, creating a detailed genomic map of regional biodiversity.
4. African BioGenome Project (AfricaBP) - A pan-African initiative focused on sequencing Africa's biodiversity while strengthening genomics and bioinformatics capacity across the continent.
5. European Reference Genome Atlas (ERGA) - A European effort to generate high-quality reference genomes for Europe's biodiversity and connect national sequencing efforts.
6. Canada BioGenome Project - Building reference genomes for Canadian biodiversity, supporting conservation, research and the study of ecosystems.
7. California Conservation Genomics Project - Uses genomics to understand and protect California's biodiversity and help inform conservation decisions.
8. Bat1K - An ambitious global effort to sequence the genomes of all known bat species, helping scientists study their evolution, longevity, immunity and unique biology.
9. Bird 10,000 (B10K) - A global project aiming to create genome resources covering the world's bird diversity and reconstruct avian evolutionary history.
10. Global Invertebrate Genomics Alliance (GIGA) - Builds genomic resources for the enormous and genetically diverse world of invertebrates.
11. GenomeIndia - India's national human-genome initiative, designed to capture the country's extraordinary population diversity and create a reference resource for Indian genomics.
12. All of Us Research Program - A US national research program combining genomic information with health and lifestyle data at population scale.
13. 1+ Million Genomes / Genome of Europe - A European effort to enable secure, cross-border use of genomic and health data and develop genome-scale resources involving more than one million people.
14. Korea National Integrated Bio Big Data Project - South Korea's large-scale national effort combining genomic and health information from a very large population cohort.
15. Saudi Genome Program - A national genomics initiative focused on genetic diseases, population genomics and precision medicine in Saudi Arabia.
16. Australian Genomics / Genomics Health Futures Mission - Australia's growing investment in genomic medicine, rare disease research and population-scale health genomics.

That library is nature—and its language is DNA.

The Earth BioGenome Project (EBP) is a global scientific initiative working to read that language by creating high-quality genome sequences for Earth's biodiversity. Its vision is to build a genomic foundation for understanding animals, plants, fungi and other eukaryotic life.

Why does this matter?

Because every species carries information shaped by millions of years of evolution. A wild plant may hold genetic clues for surviving drought. A marine organism could reveal new biological processes. A threatened species may carry genetic diversity that could help it adapt to a changing environment.

By sequencing genomes, scientists can move beyond simply knowing what species exist. They can begin to understand how they evolved, how they adapt and what makes them resilient.

The possibilities reach far beyond biology. This knowledge could support biodiversity conservation, climate resilience, sustainable agriculture, medicine and new discoveries in biotechnology.

But there is also a race against time. Habitats are changing, populations are declining, and species can disappear before we fully understand them.

That makes EBP more than a technology project. It is an attempt to create a lasting genetic record of life on Earth—while that life is still here.

For centuries, humans have explored, named and documented the natural world.

Now, we have the opportunity to read it.

Every genome is a story.

The Earth BioGenome Project is helping us write the world's most extraordinary library—the book of life itself.

Read and explore more about it @ https://www.earthbiogenome.org/

There are Neanderthal bones. Denisovan remains. Fossils from ancient relatives of our species. Each specimen gives us another piece of the story of how Homo sapiens came to be.

But now imagine that one of the most important characters in that story has left behind no fossil, no skull, no bone, and no genome.

Nothing that a paleontologist could put behind glass.

And yet, somehow, that ancient population is still speaking.

It is speaking through us.

A fascinating new study published in Science (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aef8874?) introduces a computational method called TRACE, which allows scientists to search modern human genomes for genetic traces of ancient populations that have never been directly identified.

For years, scientists have known that our ancestors interacted with Neanderthals and Denisovans. Their DNA still survives in modern human populations. But these may not have been the only ancient humans who crossed paths with our ancestors.

Using TRACE, researchers found evidence of an unknown archaic population that contributed DNA to the ancestors of modern humans before humans spread beyond Africa.

Even more surprisingly, they found evidence of a much older lineage—possibly around 1.8 million years old—whose genetic legacy may have reached some modern humans indirectly through Denisovans.

The extraordinary part is that researchers did not need DNA from these mysterious populations to detect them. Instead, they studied the ancestry of modern genomes and looked for genetic patterns that revealed unusually ancient branches of our family history.

It is almost like finding the footprints of someone who disappeared thousands of years ago—without ever finding the person themselves.

These discoveries suggest that human evolution was far more complicated than a simple family tree. Ancient human populations repeatedly separated, migrated, met and exchanged genes. Some eventually disappeared, but pieces of their genetic legacy survived.

And that means our DNA is more than a biological instruction manual.

It is also an archive of human history.

Some of the people recorded in that archive may never have a name or a fossil. But thanks to methods like TRACE, their genetic echoes are finally becoming visible.

The next big discovery about our ancient past may not come from a fossil in the ground.

It may already be inside us.

Reference: Zhang et al., “Recovering signatures of archaic hominin introgression using ancestral recombination graphs,” Science (2026), DOI: 10.1126/science.aef8874. Detail paper @ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aef8874?

The TRACE repository (https://github.com/YulinZhang9806/trace) contains the Python package and command-line tools used to infer archaic admixture tracts from ancestral recombination graphs.

However, pangenome graphs can be highly complex, making them difficult to visualize and interpret. A recent study published in BMC Bioinformatics introduces PG2 (PanGenoGrapher), an open-source, web-based tool designed to address this challenge. The source code and user guide are openly available on GitHub at https://github.com/iVis-at-Bilkent/pangenographer. A publicly accessible sample deployment is hosted at http://pg2.cs.bilkent.edu.tr. In addition, a demonstration video illustrating the primary use cases of PG2 is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCd7-aGY6CQ.

PG2 combines advanced graph-layout algorithms with an interactive visualization platform. It allows researchers to explore genomic paths, identify variations, and examine relationships between different parts of a pangenome graph more easily.

This is important because visualization can play a major role in bioinformatics. When complex genomic information is presented clearly, researchers can more easily identify patterns, understand genetic variation, and generate new biological insights.

The development of PG2 represents a step toward making pangenome analysis more accessible and intuitive. As genomic datasets continue to grow and graph-based representations become more common, tools like PG2 can help researchers navigate this increasing complexity.

Ultimately, PG2 demonstrates how combining genomics, graph algorithms, and interactive visualization can make sophisticated biological data easier to understand and analyze.

Reference: Solun, G. K., Dogrusoz, U., Bingöl, Z., & Alkan, C. (2026). PG2: algorithms and a web-based tool for effective layout and visual analysis of pangenome graphs. BMC Bioinformatics. DOI: 10.1186/s12859-026-06555-4.

A new study in Science offers a different and surprisingly sweet perspective. Researchers Jennie Brand-Miller, Karen Hardy, David Raubenheimer, and Les Copeland suggest that sugars from fruits and honey, and later starch from cooked plants, may have been key in helping the human brain evolve.

The brain’s carbohydrate problem

The human brain uses a lot of energy. Even though it is only about 2% of an adult’s body weight, it takes up a large share of the body’s resting energy, mainly using glucose as fuel. Over millions of years, as our ancestors’ brains grew from about 300 grams in Australopithecus afarensis to around 1,500 grams in modern humans, the need for easy-to-access glucose would have gone up a lot.

The researchers, therefore, asked a simple question: where did all that glucose come from?

Their analysis suggests that early hominins may have gotten much of their glucose from naturally sweet foods. Fruit and honey could give them easy access to sugars before they learned to digest cooked starch well. The study’s models show that sugars may have made up a big part of their diet.

From fruit and honey to cooked starch

The story did not end with fruit.

The researchers suggest that humans shifted from eating sweet foods to eating cooked starchy foods. Once people learned to control fire and process food, cooking made starchy plants much easier to digest and turned them into a key source of glucose.

From this perspective, new ways of preparing food, like pounding, processing, and cooking, were not just about making meals softer or tastier. These changes may have given our ancestors access to much more carbohydrate energy.

This gives us a more detailed view of how the human diet evolved. Animal foods were clearly important, but carbohydrates may have been just as important for meeting the high energy needs of a growing brain.

A different way to think about the human diet

The study does not claim that our ancestors ate sugar the way we do today. There is a big difference between eating whole fruits or natural honey and eating the highly processed, refined sugars common now.

Instead, the research points to something bigger. Human evolution may have depended on our ability to find, process, and get energy from many different foods.

Seasonal fruit, honey, underground plant foods, and later cooked starches could have been important sources of glucose. The researchers think that changes in how available these foods were may have shaped how our ancestors searched for food and even affected human evolution.

What does this mean today?

The findings should not be interpreted as a license to eat more refined sugar. Instead, they challenge the simple idea that carbohydrates were less important than meat in human evolution. Our ancestors survived and evolved by exploiting different nutritional opportunities—and by developing technologies that made previously difficult foods more useful.

So perhaps the history of the human brain was not written by meat alone. ISo maybe the story of the human brain is not just about meat. It could also be about fruit, honey, roots, grains, and our unique ability to turn plants into energy. sweeter than we once imagined.

Read more about it at https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.aed8437

The bones sat quietly in a fossil collection for years. One was part of a femur; the other, a tibia. They looked like the remains of an unusually large ancient human. But who did they belong to?

The answer came from an unexpected source: ancient proteins.

Using palaeoproteomic analysis, researchers found a molecular signature in both bones that matches the Denisovan lineage. The discovery identifies the two Penghu fossils as Denisovan and, more importantly, gives scientists their first substantial glimpse of the Denisovans' body size.

And the picture is striking.

One individual is estimated to have been about 1.8 metres tall and weighed around 83 kilograms. The other may have reached 1.9 metres and about 91 kilograms. Their leg bones rank among the largest known from Pleistocene Homo.

These were not small or fragile people.

They were powerful, heavily built humans moving through Ice Age eastern Asia.

But the bones tell an even more intriguing story. The femur has a pronounced ridge called a femoral pilaster—a feature particularly associated with modern human hunter-gatherers and increased mechanical strength during terrestrial movement. Why would a Denisovan, with an otherwise strongly archaic skeleton, possess this modern-looking feature?

Perhaps these Denisovans travelled extensively across the landscape. Perhaps their bodies were shaped by a demanding hunting lifestyle. Or perhaps, the researchers suggest, genetic exchange with early modern humans contributed to some of these features.

Their extraordinary size raises another mystery. A common expectation in human evolution is that populations living closer to the tropics tend to be smaller. Yet these Denisovans lived around 23°N latitude and were exceptionally large. The researchers argue that cold climate alone cannot explain their size, pointing instead toward lifestyle and diet—including evidence that at least one Penghu individual relied heavily on meat.

So, piece by piece, the Denisovans are becoming less mysterious.

What was once a shadowy population known mainly from DNA is beginning to take physical form: large, robust, mobile humans who lived across eastern Asia and whose bodies carried a fascinating mixture of ancient and modern traits.

And perhaps the most remarkable part of this story is where it began—not in a spectacular cave discovery, but with two weathered bones lying among thousands of fossils.

The Denisovans may have left no written history. But their bones are beginning to tell one.

*Note: This research is currently a bioRxiv preprint and has not yet undergone peer review.  Detail at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.07.743438v1.full.pdf

Population genetics: A concise guide. John Gillespie.The Johns Hopkins University Press (1997)•

Population genetics. J. S. Gale. Wiley (1980)•

Evolutionary genetics. John Maynard-Smith. Oxford University Press (1998)•

The growth of biological thought. Ernst Mayr. Harvard University Press (1985)•

Guns, germs and steel. Jared Diamond. W. W. Norton (2007)•

Evolutionary theory: Mathematical and conceptual foundations. Sean Rice. Oxford University Press (2004)