The African turquoise killifish, also called Nothobranchius furzeri, is a small, vibrant freshwater species that is making a big splash in aging research. With our aging populations, research into aging and the mechanisms underlying age-related health issues is increasingly important. Scientists in this valuable field prize the killifish because it has a significantly short lifespan at just six to twelve months, making it an ideal model to study age-related diseases. However, as research on this species grows, so does the need for better care and monitoring of their health. In fact, distinguishing between the natural effects of aging and other health issues in these fish, such as pathogens or disease, is crucial in accurately researching age-related phenomena. Moreover, identifying health issues in laboratory fish could help researchers to better maintain health in their fish stocks, improving both experimental results and animal welfare. This is where Dr. Beate Hoppe and her colleagues at the Leibniz Institute on Aging at the Fritz Lipmann Institute, Jena, Germany, step in, pioneering a comprehensive approach to monitoring and managing killifish health that could revolutionize laboratory fish research.

Colorectal cancer is a significant health challenge, and ranks as the second leading cause of cancer-related death and the third most common type of cancer in the United States, among men and women combined. Each year, over 52,000 people in the U.S. die from colorectal cancer, with more than 5,300 deaths occurring in California alone. While early detection of colorectal cancer through screening can significantly reduce both its incidence and mortality, ensuring that screening programs remain effective and sustainable is no small feat, particularly in the face of uncertain funding. This pressing issue is at the heart of recent research conducted by Dr. Ndukaku Omelu of the California Department of Public Health, and colleagues, who examined the sustainability of colorectal cancer screening strategies implemented through the California Colon Cancer Control Program (or C4P for short), with a particular focus on how these screening programs would fare in the absence of future C4P funding, a program funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (or CDC for short).