A cataract is a condition that causes 17 million people to experience blindness and is the most significant cause of vision loss, around 47.9%. The formation of cataracts is linked to both the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and the reduction of endogenous antioxidants. ROS are highly reactive molecules produced by oxygen. Examples of ROS include peroxides, super-oxides, and hydroxyl radicals. ROS are produced in cellular responses to xenobiotics and bacterial invasion and during mitochondrial oxidative metabolism. Excessive ROS can trigger oxidative stress that initiates the progression of eye lens opacities. ROS and other free radicals are highly reactive molecules because their outer orbitals have one or more unpaired electrons and can be neutralized by electron-donating compounds, such as antioxidants. Examples of natural antioxidant compounds are vitamin C, vitamin E, and beta-carotene. Numerous studies have demonstrated that plants contain numerous antioxidant compounds that can be used as cataract preventatives or inhibitors. Natural antioxidant extracts for cataract therapy may be investigated further in light of these findings, which show that consuming a sufficient amount of antioxidant-rich plants is an excellent approach to cataract prevention. Several other natural compounds also prevent cataracts by inhibiting aldose reductase and preventing apoptosis of the eye lens.

Epilepsy is a disorder characterized by abnormal brain cell activity that results in seizures. It causes progressive damage to neurons. Epilepsy treatment currently focuses mostly on symptoms, which also have risks of unwanted side effects. There is currently no effective treatment to prevent epileptogenesis and the resulting neural damage. Human Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cell (hUMSC) and exosome therapy are examples of cellular therapies that may be used to treat degenerative diseases, such as epilepsy, or cell damage. However, there is still little research on the use of hUMSCs or hUMSC–exosomes for treating epilepsy. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to compare the potential and risk of hUMSCs and hUMSC–exosomes as therapies for epilepsy. This article provides a brief summary of hUMSCs and hUMSC–exosomes in multiple aspects, such as the isolation and purification method, the mechanism of action, immunological compatibility, tumorigenicity, the risk of transmitting disease, stability upon storage, the potential of new composition with other substances, and also ethical and political issues. We conclude that hUMSCs and hUMSC–exosomes have therapeutic potential for epilepsy, with hUMSC–exosomes being safer due to their reduced immunogenicity.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is still ongoing, with no signs of abatement in sight. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is the causative agent of this pandemic and has claimed over 5 million lives, is still mutating, resulting in numerous variants. One of the newest variants is Omicron, which shows an increase in its transmissibility, but also reportedly reduces hospitalization rates and shows milder symptoms, such as in those who have been vaccinated. As a result, many believe that Omicron provides a natural vaccination, which is the first step toward ending the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on published research and scientific evidence, we review and discuss how the end of this pandemic is predicted to occur as a result of Omicron variants being surpassed in the community. In light of the findings of our research, we believe that it is most likely true that the Omicron variant is a natural way of vaccinating the masses and slowing the spread of this deadly pandemic. While the mutation that causes the Omicron variant is encouraging, subsequent mutations do not guarantee that the disease it causes will be less severe. As the virus continues to evolve, humans must constantly adapt by increasing their immunity through vaccination.

The available antiviral drugs against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are limited. Oral drugs that can be prescribed to non-hospitalized patients are required. The 4′-fluoruridine, a nucleoside analog similar to remdesivir, is one of the promising candidates for COVID-19 oral therapy due to its ability to stall viral RdRp. Available data suggested that 4'-fluorouridine has antiviral activity against the respiratory syncytial virus, hepatitis C virus, lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus, and other RNA viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. In vivo study revealed that SARS-CoV-2 is highly susceptible to 4'-fluorouridine and was effective with a single daily dose versus molnupiravir administered twice daily. Although 4'-fluorouridine is considered as strong candidates, further studies are required to determine its efficacy in the patients and it’s genetic effects on humans. In this review, we the antiviral activity of 4′-fluorouridine is reviewed and compared it to other drugs currently in development. The current literature on 4′-fluorouridine's antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is compiled and discussed.

Background: Although vaccination is underway, antiviral drugs against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are lacking. Remdesivir, a nucleoside analog that works by inhibiting the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), is the only fully approved antiviral for the treatment of COVID-19. However, it is limited to intravenous use and is usually recommended only for hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19; therefore, oral drugs that can be prescribed even to non-hospitalized patients are required. According to a recent study, 4′-fluoruridine, a nucleoside analog similar to remdesivir, is a promising candidate for COVID-19 oral therapy due to its ability to stall viral RdRp. Methods: We examined the antiviral activity of 4′-fluorouridine and compared it to other drugs currently in development. The current literature on 4′-fluorouridine's antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been compiled and discussed in this review. Results: The 4'-fluorouridine has antiviral activity against the respiratory syncytial virus, hepatitis C virus, lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus, and other RNA viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. In vitro studies have shown that SARS-CoV-2 is susceptible to 4'-fluorouridine, with the half-maximal effective concentration (EC50) of 0.2 to 0.6 M, and that the 4′-fluorouridine derivative, 4′-fluorouridine-5′-triphosphate, inhibited RdRp via a mechanism distinct from that of the already approved COVID-19 oral drug, molnupiravir. In addition, an in vivo study revealed that SARS-CoV-2 is highly susceptible to 4'-fluorouridine and was effective with a single daily dose versus molnupiravir administered twice daily. Conclusions: Concerns about the genetic effects of molnupiravir may be resolved by the use of 4′-fluorouridine and its derivative, which, unlike molnupiravir, do not alter genetics, but inhibit RdRp instead. Although they are currently considered as strong candidates, further studies are required to determine the antiviral activity of 4′-fluorouridine and its derivative against SARS-CoV-2 and their genetic effects on humans.