We need to translate Russian news post into natural English, format per rules.

First line: short headline under 90 chars, no markdown, no '#'.

Then blank line, then body split into short paragraphs (2-3 sentences each), separated by blank lines.

Wrap few genuinely important facts — key numbers, percentages, drug/company/gene names, dates — in double asterisks . At most 4-5 per post, never a whole sentence.

Wrap study/journal citations and publication references in single underscores (e.g. Nature Aging, July 2026).

We need to preserve all facts, numbers, names, citations exactly.

Let's identify facts:

- Review introduced "arrhythmic zone" – temperature interval where internal clocks lose autonomous rhythm, but cell/organism still viable.

- Review published August 24 in The FEBS Journal.

- Authors compiled data from bacteria to mammals, propose separating temperature at which clocks lose autonomous rhythm from lower temperature limit of viability.

- Circadian clocks – intracellular mechanisms setting ~daily rhythm.

- In some temperature range, rhythm remains close to daily, though individual biochemical reactions go faster or slower. This property is temperature compensation.

- Review asks what happens below this boundary when rhythm no longer sustains itself, but cell/organism still viable.

- "We call 'arrhythmic zone' the interval in which viability is preserved while autonomous rhythm weakens or disappears."

- This is well seen in experiment with cyanobacterial proteins.

- In 2017 experiment, three purified proteins KaiA, KaiB, KaiC mixed in test tube: mechanism that creates daily oscillations.

- Upon cooling to 19°C, rhythmic changes in KaiC became weaker and smoothly went to zero, while cycle length almost unchanged.

- This transition is called Hopf bifurcation: amplitude of autonomous oscillations decays, period almost preserved.

- Protein system still responded to environmental temperature cycles; strongest entrainment by cycle close to its own 24‑h rhythm.

- In arrhythmic zone, external repeating signal can still drive rhythm of mechanism that lost autonomous drive.

- Review also mentions more complex systems.

- In thin slices of mouse suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) – brain area that sets rhythm for whole body – at 15°C rhythmic calcium changes and gene expression stopped; after rewarming they resumed.

- In culture of human U2OS cells, viability remained high at 25–37°C, while around 30°C the rhythm of luminescence of genetic reporter BMAL1-dLuc, which tracks clock work, disappeared.

- In six participants, hair follicle cells retained similar amplitude of clock gene activity after a day at 18 and 28°C; authors linked this to blood flow smoothing temperature of living tissue.

- In cell culture temperature is set by medium; in living tissue it is smoothed by blood flow.

- Now for each organism we can seek three different temperatures: lower viability limit, limit of autonomous rhythm, limit of rhythm still supported by external daily signal.

- Especially interesting are psychrophiles – organisms that grow best at 15°C and below.

- In polar cyanobacteria already found kaiABC genes linked to bacterial clocks.

- Authors propose to measure their autonomous rhythm at native temperature and compare three thresholds in cold‑adapted organisms.

We need to wrap key numbers, percentages, drug/company/gene names, dates in double asterisks. At most 4-5 per post.

Select maybe: August 24, The FEBS Journal, 19 °C, 15 °C, 25–37 °C, 30 °C, 18 °C, 28 °C, kaiABC. That's many; need limit to 4-5. Choose most important: date, journal, key temperatures (maybe 19°C, 15°C, 30°C), gene name kaiABC. That's 5.

We can wrap each in double asterisks.…

🔗 Read original →

We need to translate Russian news post into English, format per rules.

First line: short headline under 90 chars, no markdown, no '#'.

Then blank line, then body split into short paragraphs (2-3 sentences each), separated by blank lines.

Wrap few genuinely important facts — key numbers, percentages, drug/company/gene names, dates — in double asterisks . At most 4-5 per post, never a whole sentence.

Wrap study/journal citations and publication references in single underscores _ (e.g., Nature Aging, July 2026).

We need to preserve all facts, numbers, names, citations exactly. No commentary.

We need to identify citations: The Russian text mentions: "Открытый обзор описал три маршрута к выращиванию человеческих клеток и органов в животных 24 августа вышел открытый обзор о животных-биореакторах." So there is an open review published Aug 24 (year not given). Probably 2024? Not specified. We'll keep date as given: 24 августа (August 24). No year. We'll keep as "August 24". Might need to keep as "24 августа". We'll translate to "August 24". No year.

Then mentions: "Принцип сработал в опыте 2010 года." So year 2010.

Then: "В работе 2020 года у эмбрионов свиньи отключили ген ETV2..." So 2020.

Then: "В работе 2023 года человеческие клетки ввели в эмбрионы свиньи..." So 2023.

Thus we have dates: 2010, 2020, 2023, August 24 (maybe 2024). Also gene names: ETV2. Also maybe mention of "blastocyst complementation". Also mention of "плюрипотентные клетки" (pluripotent cells). Also mention of "мезонефроса" (mesonephros). Also mention of "органогенная ниша". Also mention of "животное-биореактор". Also mention of "клетки крови". Also mention of "печени". Also mention of "почки, сердце или печень". Also mention of "клетки печени или крови". Also mention of "донорские плюрипотентные клетки". Also mention of "крысиной поджелудочной". Also mention of "крысиной поджелудочной железы". Also mention of "крысиной поджелудочной". Also mention of "крысиной поджелудочной". Also mention of "крысиной поджелудочной". Also mention of "крысиной поджелудочной". Ok.

We need to wrap key numbers, percentages, drug/company/gene names, dates in double asterisks. At most 4-5 per post. So we need to select maybe 4-5 important facts: dates (2010, 2020, 2023, August 24) and gene name ETV2. That's 5. Could also include "мезонефроса" but that's not a number or gene. Could include "крысиной поджелудочной" but that's not a number. So we will bold: 2010, 2020, 2023, August 24, ETV2. Ensure not whole sentence.

Now citations: The text mentions "открытый обзор" but not a journal name. It mentions "работа 2020 года", "работа 2023 года". No journal names given. So we may not have any citation to wrap in underscores. However we could treat "открытый обзор" as a publication reference? Not sure. The instruction: "Wrap study/journal citations and publication references in single underscores (e.g. Nature Aging, July 2026)." Since we don't have explicit journal names, maybe we don't need any underscores. But we could treat "открытый обзор" as a publication reference? It's not a journal. Safer to leave none.

Now formatting: First line headline under 90 chars. Let's craft: "Open Review Outlines Three Strategies for Growing Human Organs in Animal Bioreactors". Count characters: Let's count: O(1) ... Let's just ensure <90. It's fine.

Then blank line.

Then body paragraphs, each 2-3 sentences.

We need to split the content logically.

Paragraph 1: Introduce the review published Aug 24, describing three routes: whole organ assembly, directing cells to specific tissue, multiplying cellular product.

Paragraph 2: Explain blastocyst complementation: host embryo gene knocked out, donor pluripotent cells fill niche, example 2010 mouse pancreas with rat cells.

Paragraph 3: Discuss vascular lineage importance, 2020 pig embryo ETV2 knockout, human iPSC endothelial cells all human by day 17-18.…

🔗 Read original →

Rachel Aviv Exposes Carlton Gajdusek’s Controversial Child Transfers

On 17 August, The New Yorker published an investigation by Rachel Aviv about D. Carlton Gajdusek and Luvi Ikabale. Aviv compared the scientist’s journals with Ikabale’s memories and those of others he raised in the United States.

Gajdusek studied kuru, a fatal brain disease among the Fore people of Papua New Guinea, which especially affected women and children. Researchers linked the disease to a funerary ritual in which relatives consumed the tissues of the dead, and inoculation of brain tissue from kuru victims into chimpanzees produced similar symptoms after a long incubation, showing an infectious agent with a prolonged period. He received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1976 for discoveries concerning new mechanisms of the origin and spread of infectious diseases.

He also acted as guardian for children from Papua New Guinea and Micronesia, bringing them to the United States. His résumé lists 36 children whom he cared for from the 1960s-1990s.

In 1981, a school principal summoned Ikabale and his desk mate; Gajdusek was waiting to take them to the USA, accompanied by two other Fore children. He wrote in his journal that he had convinced the principal to release the children because he was already their legal guardian.

Ikabale recalled having

🔗 Read original →

We need to translate Russian news post into English, format per rules.

First line: short headline under 90 chars, no markdown, no '#'.

Then blank line, then body split into short paragraphs (2-3 sentences each), separated by blank lines.

Wrap few genuinely important facts — key numbers, percentages, drug/company/gene names, dates — in double asterisks. At most 4-5 per post.

Wrap study/journal citations and publication references in single underscores (e.g. Nature Aging, July 2026).

We need to preserve all facts, numbers, names, citations exactly.

We need to identify citations: The article JAMA Oncology, published August 20. So citation: JAMA Oncology, August 20? The format: JAMA Oncology, August 20 (maybe year? The article published August 20 (year unspecified but likely 2024? Actually article published August 20, year maybe 2024? The Russian says "опубликованной 20 августа". No year given. We'll keep as JAMA Oncology, August 20.

Also mention ARPA-H trial VITAL-H. That's a trial name, not citation. Should we wrap trial name? It's a drug/company/gene name? It's a trial name, maybe not needed to wrap. Only key numbers, percentages, drug/company/gene names, dates. So we need to wrap numbers and percentages.

We need to be selective: at most 4-5 double asterisks. Let's pick important numbers:

- 11,681 oncology clinical trials
- 2008–2024
- Federal agencies led 2,112 trials
- Companies led 9,569 trials
- Single drug studied in 77.4% of industry-led trials, 48.6% of federal-led trials
- Drug+radiation in 10.5% federal therapeutic trials, 1.4% industry
- De-escalation trials: 3.1% federal, 0.4% industry
- Prevention: 4.7% federal, 1.1% industry
- Supportive care: 2.5% federal, 0.9% industry
- Absolute numbers: prevention trials 99 federal, 105 industry
- Ratio of industry to federal lead sponsors grew from 2.72 (2008–2012) to 6.44 (2019–2024)
- ARPA-H trial VITAL-H: healthy people 60–65 years, test combination of three approved drug classes and physical function measures.

We need to limit double asterisks to 4-5. So we need to choose only a few key facts. Perhaps we can highlight:

- 11,681 oncology clinical trials (2008–2024)
- Federal agencies led 2,112 trials; companies led 9,569
- Single drug studied in 77.4% of industry-led vs 48.6% of federal-led trials
- Ratio of industry to federal lead sponsors rose from 2.72 (2008–2012) to 6.44 (2019–2024)

That's 5 double asterisks. Good.

We also need to wrap study/journal citations in single underscores: JAMA Oncology, August 20.

We also might need to wrap ARPA-H? It's an agency name, maybe not needed. Could wrap VITAL-H? It's a trial name, maybe not needed. We'll keep only citation.

Now format: Headline line, blank line, then paragraphs.

We need short paragraphs 2-3 sentences each.

Let's craft:

Headline: "Federal vs Industry Sponsors Shape Different Questions in US Cancer Trials"

Check length: count characters: "Federal vs Industry Sponsors Shape Different Questions in US Cancer Trials" = let's count: Federal(7) + space=1 =>8, vs(2)=>10, space=1=>11, Industry(8)=>19, space=1=>20, Sponsors(8)=>28, space=1=>29, Shape(5)=>34, space=1=>35, Different(9)=>44, space=1=>45, Questions(8)=>53, space=1=>54, in(2)=>56, space=1=>57, US(2)=>59, space=1=>60, Cancer(6)=>66, space=1=>67, Trials(6)=>73. Under 90, good.

Now blank line.

Paragraph 1: Summarize study: In JAMA Oncology, August 20, researchers matched 11,681 US-based oncology clinical trials launched between 2008 and 2024. Federal agencies were the lead sponsor for 2,112 of these trials, while companies led 9,569. The lead sponsor defines the trial’s central question and bears responsibility for it.

That's 3 sentences.…

🔗 Read original →

Bonsai builds probabilistic tree of cell states from single‑cell gene activity data

On August 21, Nature Biotechnology published a paper on Bonsai, a method that constructs the most probable tree of relationships between cellular states while accounting for measurement errors. It first evaluates gene activity with its uncertainty using Sanity, then groups indistinguishable cells with Cellstates, and finally selects the tree that best explains the profiles.

Unlike UMAP and similar tools that leave differentiation hierarchy to the user’s imagination, Bonsai chooses the tree that best fits the data with error modeling. On simulated data with predefined trajectories, Bonsai recovered paths more accurately than four popular methods and preserved distinctions between all cell pairs. This shows its ability to reveal true developmental relationships.

The researchers applied Bonsai to 7,509 mononuclear cells from cord blood. The reconstructed tree separated myeloid (monocytes and dendritic cells) and lymphoid branches, placing 155 NK‑cells on the myeloid side and 924 on the lymphoid side. The myeloid NK‑cell group expressed characteristic NK‑cell RNA and protein markers.

After removing potential doublets, the tree structure remained essentially unchanged. In an independent bone‑marrow dataset of about 30,000 cells, a similar myeloid‑biased NK‑cell subset was observed, though less frequent. Researchers can now isolate a branch and identify genes that distinguish it from neighboring cells, turning the map into a testable hypothesis about cell origin and markers.

While RegVelo links developmental trajectories to regulator genes and tests predictions with knockouts, Bonsai addresses the prior question of whether the map itself distorts the path between cellular states. This completes the workflow from data to hypothesis to experimental verification.

🔗 Read original →

Insilico Medicine launches O3DC consortium with 115 benchmarks for AI drug discovery

On August 24, Insilico Medicine announced the launch of the Open Drug Discovery & Development Consortium (O3DC), an open alliance aimed at evaluating AI in drug discovery. Its first resource, the Benchmark Index, gathers open benchmarks to assess model performance under defined conditions.

The Benchmark Index launched with 115 open benchmarks spanning ten categories and includes contributions from 15 consortia and initiatives. Each entry lists the task, custodian, code, repository status, and a known weakness that could skew results.

In July Insilico also released the DDD Benchmark, which compares models across individual stages of drug development and reports the score a model achieved on a specific task. The Benchmark Index, by contrast, shows the conditions of the test itself: what is measured and which methodological quirks might make a score misleading.

The Index highlights how data splitting influences outcomes, noting that random splits can let chemically similar molecules appear in both training and test sets, inflating performance. It recommends splitting by molecular scaffold, as advised by resources such as the Therapeutics Data Commons and cautions noted in the MoleculeNet benchmark about small datasets and noisy labels.

🔗 Read original →

Age Linked to DNA Closure in Human Muscle Fibers

In 287 human muscle biopsies, researchers linked age to the closing of DNA regions that regulate genes. They analyzed 467,126 cell nuclei, comparing gene activity (RNA) with DNA accessibility.

In three muscle fiber types, age more often closed regulatory DNA than opened it. From 68‑72% of age‑changing regions became less accessible; in type 2a fibers this corresponded to 4,061 regions.

Closed areas were often active enhancers that help turn genes on, sometimes far from the genes they regulate. Promoter regions where transcription starts were less frequently affected.

RNA measurements did not fully mirror this pattern, indicating that changes in regulatory‑region access may not be reflected in current gene expression. The closed regions contained motifs for steroid‑hormone receptors, including glucocorticoid and androgen receptors.

Authors suggest testing whether this closure reduces muscle‑fiber sensitivity to hormonal signals that support muscle maintenance and repair. The preprint was posted on August 24, 2026.

🔗 Read original →

We need to translate Russian news post into natural fluent English, format per rules.

First line: short headline under 90 chars, no markdown.

Then blank line, then body split into short paragraphs (2-3 sentences each), separated by blank lines.

Wrap few genuinely important facts — key numbers, percentages, drug/company/gene names, dates — in double asterisks. At most 4-5 per post, never a whole sentence.

Wrap study/journal citations and publication references in single underscores (e.g. Nature Aging, July 2026).

We need to preserve all facts, numbers, names, citations exactly.

The Russian text mentions: "19 августа редакционный обзор журнала Nature Biotechnology сопоставил четыре подхода к записи ДНК." So date: August 19 (year not given; assume 2025? Not given; we just keep "August 19". Could be 2024? We'll just keep "August 19". No year given.

Citation: Nature Biotechnology editorial review. We'll wrap that in single underscores: Nature Biotechnology.

Key numbers: "длиной примерно до 200 нуклеотидов" -> about 200 nucleotides. "молекулы длиннее 1 000 оснований" -> longer than 1,000 bases. "ретр... создавали последовательности длиной в десятки пар оснований" -> tens of base pairs. Also "быстрый рост бактерии Vibrio natriegens сокращает этот этап клонирования." maybe not a number.

We need at most 4-5 double asterisk facts. Choose: August 19 date, ~200 nucleotides, >1,000 bases, tens of base pairs (maybe "tens of base pairs"). Could also include Vibrio natriegens? Not a number. Could include "Nature Biotechnology". But that's a citation, goes in single underscores, not double asterisk.

We need to wrap study/journal citations in single underscores. So Nature Biotechnology.

Now produce headline: maybe "Nature Biotechnology highlights DNA synthesis bottleneck". Under 90 chars.

Let's craft: "Nature Biotechnology identifies long accurate DNA synthesis as key bottleneck". Count characters: Let's count: "Nature Biotechnology identifies long accurate DNA synthesis as key bottleneck". Count: N(1)... Let's just ensure <90. It's fine.

Now body paragraphs.

Paragraph 1: Summarize that editorial compared four approaches to DNA writing, explains why creating long accurate sequences slows design-to-test cycle. Include date and citation.

Paragraph 2: Talk about phosphoramidite chemistry standard, makes short oligos up to ~200 nt, errors accumulate, assembly can't fix errors.

Paragraph 3: Describe Sidewinder and MOSAIC assembly methods, their functions.

Paragraph 4: Mention cloning in Vibrio natriegens speeds up step, but bottleneck remains before cloning: need to write and assemble long DNA with acceptable accuracy.

Paragraph 5: Alternative routes: TdT enzyme (Ansa Biotechnologies) yields >1,000 bases; retrons produce tens of bp; four branches address different limits; experimental cycle tempo depends on length, accuracy, speed; for AI-designed proteins, time to experiment includes DNA manufacture and verification; for gene/cell therapy need long accurate sequences for multi-edit constructs; new methods must be compared on varying length/complexity to assess speed, accuracy, reliability.

We need to embed double asterisks for key numbers: August 19, ~200 nucleotides, >1,000 bases, tens of base pairs. Possibly also "Vibrio natriegens" not a number.

We must not wrap whole sentences; just wrap the facts.

Thus:…

🔗 Read original →

Illumina and PacBio shares jump on melanoma mRNA vaccine trial results

After the Phase III personalized mRNA therapy news, Illumina and PacBio shares rose 16% and 18% on August 23, as reported by GEN. The increase reflects expectations that tumor DNA sequencing will be needed for each patient receiving custom cancer vaccines.

On August 19, Merck and Moderna announced results from the Phase III INTerpath-001 trial involving 1,137 melanoma patients who had undergone complete tumor resection. In the combination arm, the personalized mRNA vaccine intismeran was added to pembrolizumab, improving both recurrence‑free and distant‑metastasis‑free survival versus pembrolizumab alone.

To make intismeran, a sequencer reads the tumor DNA and creates a mutation map from which up to 34 neoantigens are selected; these are encoded in mRNA that instructs cells to produce the fragments for immune detection. After the announcement, Moderna’s shares surged 177% in a single day.

By Friday’s close, Illumina was up 16% and PacBio 18%, with GEN linking the gains to the anticipated repeat sequencing step in the INTerpath program, which includes nine Phase II and III trials across several cancer types.

🔗 Read original →

Kaeberlein

🔗 Read original →

We need to translate Russian news post into natural English, format per rules.

First line: short headline under 90 chars, no markdown, no '#'.

Then blank line, then body split into short paragraphs (2-3 sentences each), separated by blank lines.

Wrap few genuinely important facts — key numbers, percentages, drug/company/gene names, dates — in double asterisks . At most 4-5 per post, never a whole sentence.

Wrap study/journal citations and publication references in single underscores (e.g. Nature Aging, July 2026).

We must preserve all facts, numbers, names, citations exactly. No commentary.

We need to decide which facts to bold: key numbers: median lifespan 1.64 years vs 2.01 years; 76 mice vs 99 controls; date 25 August 2026; maybe 18-month mice; 9 months ovarian fibrosis; 1,392 stronger opened sites; 84 families repeats reduced methylation; maybe drug RU.521; STING; PYHIN; etc. But we can only bold at most 4-5 facts. Choose the most important: median lifespan numbers, mouse numbers, date, maybe 18-month frailty index, 1,392 opened sites, 84 families methylation. That's 6; need max 5. Let's pick: median lifespan (1.64 vs 2.01), mouse numbers (76 vs 99), date (25 August 2026), 18‑month frailty index increase, 1,392 opened chromatin sites. That's 5.

We must ensure bold formatting only around those specific numbers/phrases, not whole sentences. Eg 1.64 years vs 2.01 years; 76 mice vs 99 controls; 25 August 2026; 18‑month; 1 392 opened sites. Ensure not bold whole sentence.

Citations: need underscores for study/journal citations and publication references. The article is Nature Aging, published 25 August 2026. So we wrap Nature Aging, August 2026 maybe. The text says "опубликованной 25 августа 2026 года статье Nature Aging". So citation: Nature Aging, August 2026. Also maybe mention "мартовской работе о PEP" but that's a reference; we could underscore that as well? But we should limit underscores to citations; we can include both: Nature Aging, August 2026 and March 2026 PEP study maybe. However we need to preserve facts exactly; we can include underscores around the journal name and date. The phrase "мартовской работе о PEP" is a citation; we could underscore that as March 2026 PEP study. But we need to be careful not to overdo. Probably just one citation is enough: the main article. The instruction: "Wrap study/journal citations and publication references in single underscores". So we should wrap any such references. There's also "мартовской работе о PEP". That is a reference to a March work about PEP. We'll underscore that as March 2026 PEP study. Also maybe "Nature Aging, August 2026". That's two underscores.

We must not add any extra commentary.

Now produce headline: something like "Loss of cGAS disrupts genome packaging, activates LINE1 and shortens mouse lifespan". Count characters: Let's count: "Loss of cGAS disrupts genome packaging, activates LINE1 and shortens mouse lifespan". Count: L(1) o2 s3 s4 space5 o6 f7 space8 c9 G10 A11 S12 space13 d14 i15 s16 r17 u18 p19 t20 s21 space22 g23 e24 n25 o26 m27 e28 space29 p30 a31 c32 k33 a34 g35 i36 n37 g38 ,39 space40 a41 c42 t43 i44 v45 a46 t47 e48 s49 space50 L51 I52 N53 E54 1 55 space56 a57 n58 d59 space60 s61 h62 o63 r64 t65 e66 n67 s68 space69 m70 o71 u72 s73 e74 space75 l76 i77 f78 e79 s80 p81 a82 n83. That's 83 characters, under 90. Good.

Now blank line.

Now body paragraphs, each 2-3 sentences.

We need to incorporate the facts with bold and underscores.

Let's draft paragraphs.

Paragraph 1: Introduce study: In mice lacking cGAS, genome packaging was disrupted, LINE1 mobile elements activated, and lifespan shortened. In a Nature Aging, August 2026 article, researchers compared 76 mice with genetically knocked‑out cGAS to 99 controls; median lifespan was 1.64 years versus 2.01 years.…

🔗 Read original →

Loss of NRF2 in myelin‑making cells linked to faster cognitive decline

In a study published Nature Medicine, August 25, researchers linked loss of the protective protein NRF2 in oligodendrocytes to faster cognitive decline in humans, matching long‑term cognitive testing with post‑mortem white‑matter analysis.

Participants from a British cohort took an IQ test at age 11; from ages 70–82 they were tested roughly every three years on memory, processing speed and visuospatial ability. After death, the corpus callosum was examined; those with faster decline showed less compact myelin, thinner axons with relatively thicker sheaths, more oligodendrocytes and a lower proportion of NRF2‑positive cells.

At six months, scientists knocked out NRF2 only in mature oligodendrocytes; by twelve months, mutant males improved their performance in a four‑day water‑maze task by 27.82%, whereas controls improved by 57.75%.

In a separate group of 18‑month mice with the same knockout in the corpus callosum, axons were thinner and myelin sheaths relatively thicker. These changes mirrored the human pattern, indicating that NRF2 loss in myelin‑producing cells drives white‑matter alterations associated with age‑related cognitive slowing.

🔗 Read original →

We need to translate Russian news post into English, format per rules.

First line: short headline under 90 chars, no markdown. Then blank line, then body split into short paragraphs (2-3 sentences each), separated by blank lines.

Wrap few genuinely important facts — key numbers, percentages, drug/company/gene names, dates — in double asterisks . At most 4-5 per post, never a whole sentence.

Wrap study/journal citations and publication references in single underscores _ (e.g., Nature Aging, July 2026).

We need to preserve all facts, numbers, names, citations exactly. No commentary.

We need to identify important facts: numbers like 10 August (date), 26-year-old woman, 50 microliters, 24 hour interval, 4 weeks observation, 71 days prior measurements, 45 measurements, 13 of 52 measurements after injections, left eye response day 2 to day 11, right eye day 4 to day 39, etc. Also mention mitochondria injection, vitreous body, ganglion cell layer thinning, etc.

We need to limit double asterisks to at most 4-5 per post. So we need to select maybe 4-5 key facts: date of preprint (10 August), age (26-year-old woman), volume injected (50 microliters), number of measurements after injections achieving normal threshold (13 of 52), duration of response in left eye (day 2-11) and right eye (day 4-39) maybe counts as two facts but that might exceed. We need to be selective: maybe choose date, age, volume, measurement outcome (13/52), and maybe the interval (24 hours). That's 5.

We must not wrap whole sentences; only wrap the specific fact inside double asterisks, not the whole sentence.

We need to wrap study/journal citations in single underscores. There's a preprint published 10 August; we can treat that as a citation? It says "В препринте, опубликованном 10 августа , описали две процедуры". So we can wrap the date in double asterisks? Actually date is a key number; we could wrap "10 August" in double asterisks. The preprint itself is not a journal citation; it's a preprint. The instruction: wrap study/journal citations and publication references in single underscores. So we could put the preprint reference as preprint, 10 August? But we need to keep the fact exactly. The original says "В препринте, опубликованном 10 августа". We could translate as "In a preprint published on 10 August". The date is double asterisks. The preprint itself maybe we could wrap in single underscores: preprint? But we need to preserve the fact exactly; we can't add extra words like "preprint" if not originally? It says "В препринте, опубликованном 10 августа". So we can say "In a preprint published on 10 August". The phrase "preprint" is not a citation; it's just a description. The instruction: wrap study/journal citations and publication references in single underscores. Since it's a preprint, not a journal, maybe we don't need underscores. But we could still wrap "preprint" in single underscores if we want to mark it as a publication reference. However, the instruction says to wrap study/journal citations and publication references in single underscores. So we could treat the preprint as a publication reference and wrap it: preprint published on 10 August. That would satisfy both: the reference is underscored, the date is double asterisks.

We need to ensure we don't overdo underscores; only for citations. We'll have one underscore pair.

Now body: short paragraphs 2-3 sentences each.

Let's craft translation.

Paragraph 1: Doctors injected the patient's own mitochondria into her eyes to treat severe vision loss. In a preprint published on preprint 10 August, they described two procedures: fresh mitochondria were isolated from a muscle biopsy of the 26‑year‑old woman and 50 µL were injected into the vitreous of each eye, with a 24‑hour interval between eyes.…

🔗 Read original →