Spirulina is the most studied cyanobacterium species for both pharmacological applications and the food industry. The aim of the present review is to summarize the potential benefits of the use of Spirulina for improving healthcare both in space and on Earth. Regarding the first field of application, Spirulina could represent a new technology for the sustainment of long-duration manned missions to planets beyond the Lower Earth Orbit (e.g., Mars); furthermore, it could help astronauts stay healthy while exposed to a variety of stress factors that can have negative consequences even after years. As far as the second field of application, Spirulina could have an active role in various aspects of medicine, such as metabolism, oncology, ophthalmology, central and peripheral nervous systems, and nephrology. The recent findings of the capacity of Spirulina to improve stem cells mobility and to increase immune response have opened new intriguing scenarios in oncological and infectious diseases, respectively.

Mammalian fertilization initiates the reprogramming of oocytes and sperm, forming a totipotent zygote. During this intricate process, the zygotic genome undergoes a maternal-to-zygotic transition (MZT) and subsequent zygotic genome activation (ZGA), marking the initiation of transcriptional control and gene expression post-fertilization. Histone modifications are pivotal in shaping cellular identity and gene expression in many mammals. Recent advances in chromatin analysis have enabled detailed explorations of histone modifications during ZGA. This review delves into conserved and unique regulatory strategies, providing essential insights into the dynamic changes in histone modifications and their variants during ZGA in mammals. The objective is to explore recent advancements in leading mechanisms related to histone modifications governing this embryonic development phase in depth. These considerations will be useful for informing future therapeutic approaches that target epigenetic regulation in diverse biological contexts. It will also contribute to the extensive areas of evolutionary and developmental biology and possibly lay the foundation for future research and discussion on this seminal topic.

Background: The novel SARS-CoV-2 has caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Currently, with insufficient worldwide vaccination rates, identifying treatment solutions to reduce the impact of the virus is urgently needed. Method: An adaptive, multicentric, open-label, and randomized controlled phase I/II clinical trial entitled the “SENTAD-COVID Study” was conducted by the Abu Dhabi Stem Cells Center under exceptional conditional approval by the Emirates Institutional Review Board (IRB) for COVID-19 Research Committee from April 4th to July 31st, 2020, using an autologous peripheral blood non-hematopoietic enriched stem cell cocktail (PB-NHESC-C) administered by compressor (jet) nebulization as a complement to standard care therapy. The primary endpoints include safety and efficacy assessments, adverse events, the mortality rate within 28 days, and the time to clinical improvement as measured by a 2-point reduction on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital whichever occurred first. Results: The study included a total of 139 randomized COVID-19 patients, with 69 in the experimental group and 70 in the control group (standard care). Overall survival was 94.20% for the cocktail-treated group vs. 90.27% for the control group. Adverse events were reported in 50 (72.46%) patients receiving PB-NHESC-C and 51 (72.85%) in the control group (p = 0.9590), with signs and symptoms commonly found in COVID-19. After the first 9 days of the intervention, 67.3% of cocktail-treated patients recovered and were released from hospitals compared to 53.1% (RR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.56–1.28) in the control group. Improvement, i.e., at least a 2-point reduction in the severity scale, was more frequently observed in cocktail-treated patients (42.0%) than in controls (17.0%) (RR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56–0.88). Conclusions: Cocktail treatment improved clinical outcomes without increasing adverse events. Thus, the nebulization of PB-NHESC-C was safe and effective for treatment in most of these patients. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT04473170. It was retrospectively registered on July 16th, 2020.

Significant advances in procedural information displayed by current apheresis machines have been made, but analyses of cell collection efficiency (CE) still rely on calculations done by apheresis professionals. Accordingly, understanding CE equations can support the optimization of apheresis techniques and identification of incidents that could impact the procedure's effectiveness. This report summarizes classical and novel CE analyses applied to apheresis exemplified by an actual case of hematopoietic progenitor cell collection. In addition to the apheresis yield and most common CE₁ and CE₂ formulas, we present the instantaneous and corrected CE, fold enrichment, collection throughput, collection rate and its variants, average inlet rate, classical and adjusted captured cells, recruitment pool, recruitment factor, recruitment coefficient, blood component loss, predictive apheresis yield, and performance ratio calculations. Moreover, the mathematical relationship between these CE equations is also shown, which can be helpful in many apheresis procedures.

Background Healthcare workers often use terms such as Apgar, Babinski or Glasgow in their routine duties. These terms are used worldwide; they are universal and recognised in various languages. Medical eponyms are immutable by the nature; they save valuable time by streamlining communication among health professionals. However, some of these terms lack accuracy and lead to confusion. Objective and methods This perspective article aims to analyse the current status of the divergent trends about redeeming (or not) the long-standing tradition of using medical eponyms. Multiple positions regarding the use of these terms have been expressed in the medical literature, and these are summarised in the manuscript. Although, this compilation is based primarily on the author’s medical background and experience. Results There is an interesting debate in the scientific community about the suitability of certain eponyms. Defenders and detractors argue a broad spectrum of points, but there is still no international consensus. The use of classical, ethical and well-recognised medical eponyms will remain a cornerstone in daily clinical settings, textbooks and medical journals. However, their use can be inconsistent or confused in specific conditions, and they can be influenced by local geography and culture. Conclusions There is a need to refrain from using unethical and controversial eponyms throughout the whole of science. Further academic and scientific efforts should be addressed to provide a structural systematisation, semantic classification and etymological categorisation on the use of medical eponyms.