Dr van Heesch and his colleagues have produced the most detailed map of this dark proteome thus far. By pooling and analysing the results of previous experiments they confirmed the existence of 1,785 microproteins. Their paper reveals just how small some of these are: about 65 per cent of known microproteins held fewer than 50 amino acids. That is smaller than over 99 per cent of the 19,500 known proteins. Some well-studied microproteins are already known to be biologically useful. One, called ASNSD1-uORF, is involved in the progression of the childhood brain cancer medulloblastoma. Another, humanin, protects cells from stress and may play a role in healthy ageing as well as the onset of neurodegenerative diseases. The vast majority of discovered microproteins, however, have not been linked to any concrete biological effects. It is this group that Dr van Heesch and his colleagues have dubbed the peptideins. By formalising them in this way, the researchers want to encourage the researchers who compile protein databases to study them as well as to take their possible roles in health and disease more seriously. Many of the peptideins confirmed so far suggest this approach may have value. Some are expressed and displayed on the outside of tumour cells, for example, which could allow them to be recognised by the body’s immune system. These could offer new targets to help immunotherapy drugs locate and remove such cancerous cells. It is also possible, the researchers suggest, that peptideins might regulate the activity of other genes or influence cell signalling. Just how many peptideins there are remains an open question. Some experts warn that ribosome profiling is prone to flagging false positives—what looks like translation occurring at a surprising site, in other words, may be little more than an illusion. Indeed, this week’s paper identifies thousands of possible peptidein sightings that could not be confirmed, though future search methods may be better equipped to do so. Many peptideins may also turn out to be damp squibs. For David Tollervey, a cell biologist at the University of Edinburgh, it is unlikely that more than a few hundred prove useful.
A better understanding of peptideins will determine whether or not the name catches on. If they prove to be largely unimportant, it may soon be forgotten. But if studying them pays off, prepare to hear the name a lot more. ■ Curious about the world? To enjoy our mind-expanding science coverage, sign up to Simply Science, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter. This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com//science-and-technology/2026/05/06/the-human-genome- encodes-for-a-new-category-of-molecule
Science & technology | Well Informed Does acupuncture work? It seems useful for pain. The jury’s out on everything else May 7th 2026 Acupuncture, a Chinese practice thought to be around 3,000 years old, involves sticking needles into certain points on the body in order to promote the proper flow of qi, the body’s vital energy. Although long pooh-poohed by Western medicine, its popularity continues to rise. Models and influencers tout its anti-ageing effects, and athletes including Serena Williams, a former tennis pro, and Tom Brady, a retired American football player, claim the needles have helped them with muscle recovery. Today acupuncture is used to alleviate ailments ranging from anxiety and asthma to infertility and irritable bowel syndrome. But does it do any good?
On some fronts, the evidence in favour is strong. In 2018 a study in the Journal of Pain analysed the results of 39 randomised trials on 20,827 patients with shoulder pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, headaches or osteoarthritis. All the patients had undergone either traditional acupuncture, sham acupuncture (a range of placebo controls including the shallow insertion of needles) or no acupuncture at all. When patients assessed their symptoms more than four weeks after initial treatment, acupuncture users reported less pain than those in the other groups. The benefits had not faded by much a year later. Other studies conducted since then have supported these findings. But how might acupuncture achieve these results? Helene Langevin, retired director of the National Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health at America’s National Institutes of Health (NIH), has a theory. Her research suggests the needles twist strands of connective tissue known as fascia, which in turn pull on nerve endings in a way that might reduce pain. Some of the positive effects, however, might be due to the brain’s astonishing power to reduce pain when it believes a genuine intervention is being conducted. The more serious the apparent intervention, the greater this placebo response can be. A paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine in 2020, for example, found no significant difference in pain relief between true and sham acupuncture. For Edzard Ernst, an emeritus professor at the University of Exeter who specialises in the study of complementary and alternative medicine, “It is worth remembering that we don’t need a placebo to generate placebo effects—any therapy comes automatically with a placebo effect.” For now, it is hard to identify how much of the benefits of acupuncture may arise in this way. Beyond pain management, the benefits are less clear. A review published in Complementary Therapies in Medicine in 2022 (written by practising acupuncturists and funded by the International Society of Chinese Medicine) analysed 862 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. It found that acupuncture could reduce post-operative nausea about as well as some antiemetics. It also found benefits for migraines and tension headaches, cancer-related fatigue, female infertility (when used in addition to medical reproductive treatment) and chronic pelvic pain in men. But trials for 86 other conditions, including factors associated with muscle recovery, have not
been sufficiently robust to demonstrate any positive effects, while for another six ailments no effect was found. The balance of evidence means that acupuncture remains a reasonable intervention for chronic pain, particularly because it has far fewer side- effects than most drugs. But for everything else, the effects are hard to pin down. ■ After a free, evidence-based guide to health and wellness? Sign up to our weekly Well Informed newsletter. This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com//science-and-technology/2026/05/01/does-acupuncture-work
Many celebrities now have book clubs. Most are irritating What is Elon Musk’s formula? Turn on, tune in, trust no one: the paranoid style captures TV Oscar Wilde’s grandson separates fact from fiction In an age of status symbols, tiaras take the crown The history of Moscow helps explain Russia’s pathologies
Many celebrities now have book clubs. Most are irritating They involve a lot of gush—but not a lot of literary criticism May 7th 2026 What makes a good literary critic? For centuries writers were in agreement. The critic, Wordsworth noted, was a scornful sort who “frowned” on things. A critic knows, wrote Dorothy Parker, when a book is not “to be tossed aside lightly” but “thrown with great force”. A critic should—as Graham Greene said of all writers—have “a splinter of ice in the heart”. But then Greene had never met Dua Lipa. Ms Lipa is a British pop star. She is also an increasingly popular literary critic, thanks to her book-club podcast, in which she interviews authors. But Ms Lipa does not have a splinter of ice in her heart. She has something much lovelier. She loves books (“I love books”). She loves storytelling (“I love storytelling”). She loves Helen Garner, an Australian novelist (“I fell in love
with you”). She loves Margaret Atwood’s biography (“I loved it. I love it. I love it so much”). People—including publishing bigwigs—love her back. In 2022 Ms Lipa delivered a speech at the Booker prize, Britain’s most prestigious literary award. She has interviewed a Booker winner (David Szalay) and a Nobel prizewinner (Olga Tokarczuk). In October she will demonstrate “her passion for the written and spoken word” as curator of London Literature Festival. Book clubs are changing. A hobby that was once dull, domestic and faintly frumpy has had a glow-up. Now, anyone who is anyone—and, given the nature of modern celebrity, plenty of people who are almost no one—has a book club, whether podcast, website, YouTube channel or newsletter. Reese Witherspoon, an actor and producer, has a book club. (She is its “book- lover-in-chief”.) Gwyneth Paltrow had a book club as part of her lifestyle brand, Goop. (“Crime and Punishment”, Ms Paltrow declared, is one of her “all-time favourite novels”.) Kaia Gerber, a model, has one with the perplexing aim of “building up our community of rage readers”. In one way, this feels odd: glamorous, profitable stars used to promote glamorous, profitable things. Ms Lipa also appears in adverts for Nespresso, a coffee brand. Ms Witherspoon was the face of Elizabeth Arden makeup (ever literary, she was the firm’s “Storyteller-in-Chief”). At one time Goop sold a product called “vaginal eggs”—which are tricky to explain but rarely, it is safe to say, trouble the pages of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. In another way, this is not odd at all. Celebrity book clubs have been popular for nearly a century, and with good reason: they solve so many literary problems. Publishers love them because they help flog books. Amazon has just bought the rights to Oprah Winfrey’s book club. George Orwell’s “1984” shot up the bestseller lists after being picked by the American “Book of the Month” club. Books picked by Ms Winfrey experience the “Oprah effect” and are grabbed from the shelves. Those picked by Ms Witherspoon experience the “Reese effect”. One choice, “Where the Crawdads Sing”, sold over 12m copies; cannily, Ms Witherspoon then produced a film adaptation of it.