OHA’s Annual Business Meeting is happening virtually on September 30th from 2:30PM to 4:00 PM CDT. This is a great opportunity to get updated on important developments within our organization, review our financial position, discuss future plans, and vote on bylaw changes. Registration is required. Please register via the link below. Once registered, you should receive […]
Groundbreaking research led by a Swansea University academic has revealed a synthetic glycosystem – a sugar-coated polymer nanoparticle – that can block Covid-19 from infecting human cells, reducing infection rates by nearly 99%.
The glycosystem is a specially designed particle that mimics natural sugars found on human cells. These sugars, known as polysialosides, are made of repeating units of sialic acid – structures that viruses often target to begin infection. By copying this structure, the synthetic molecule acts as a decoy, binding to the virus’s spike protein and preventing it from attaching to real cells.
Unlike vaccines, which trigger immune responses, this molecule acts as a physical shield, offering a novel approach to infection prevention.
Using advanced lab techniques to measure molecular interactions and simulate virus binding, researchers found that the glycosystem binds to the virus 500 times more strongly than a similar compound containing sulphates but no sugars. It was also effective at very low doses and worked against both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and the more infectious D614G variant.
Tests on human lung cells showed a 98.6% reduction in infection when the molecule was present. Crucially, the research highlighted that its effectiveness stems not just from its charge, but from its precise sugar structure – giving this glycosystem its powerful infection-blocking capability.
The discovery is the result of collaboration between Swansea University, Freie Universität Berlin, and Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
Ultimate guide to the essential tools for the characterization of proteins, polymers and nanoparticles eBook Compilation of the top interviews, articles, and news in the last year.Download the latest edition
As the main corresponding author and research supervisor, Dr Sumati Bhatia, Senior Lecturer in Chemistry at Swansea University, said: “Leading this research, alongside our international partners, has been incredibly rewarding. It opens a new direction for using glycosystems as a therapeutic strategy against SARS-CoV-2 and could lay the foundation for a new class of antiviral therapies to protect those most at risk.”
The team is now preparing for further biological testing in high-containment laboratories to assess the molecule’s effectiveness against multiple virus strains.
T
his breakthrough could pave the way for antiviral nasal sprays, surface disinfectants, and treatments to protect vulnerable groups, offering a new line of defense against Covid-19 and future pandemics.
Source:
Journal reference:
Khatri, V., et al. (2025). Polysialosides Outperform Sulfated Analogs for Binding with SARS-CoV-2. Small. doi.org/10.1002/smll.202500719.
Q. I copyedit a technical journal, and I have a question about how CMOS would handle the term “Fortune 500.” Is “Fortune” (as the name of a publication) set in italics while “500” is not, or is “Fortune 500” treated as a standalone brand or fixed term akin to a trademark, where “Fortune” would be set roman? Thanks.
A. That term could go either way, but we’d refer to it as the Fortune 500, without italics for “Fortune,” following CMOS 8.174: “When the title of a newspaper or periodical is part of the name of a building, organization, prize, or the like, it is not italicized.”
The Fortune 500 (an annual ranking of the top 500 companies in the United States published by Fortune magazine) is analogous to a prize, and the fact that the word “Fortune” is part of the name of the list is what determines our choice.
The Billboard Hot 100 presents a similar case. Some editors would style that as the Billboard Hot 100. But we’d use italics only if referring to that list in terms of the magazine that publishes it, as in Billboard magazine’s Hot 100, or Billboard’s Hot 100 for short.
Q. Which is correct: “one should do one’s duty” or “one should do his or her duty”—or, using singular they, “one should do their duty”?
A. In your example, one is closer to the personal pronoun you than to the indefinite pronoun everyone. Everyone would normally pair with his, her, or singular their, as in everyone should do their duty (see also CMOS 5.51). One, by contrast, can simply switch to the possessive case like other such pronouns:
I should do my duty; you should do your duty; he should do his duty; she should do her duty; they should do their duty; we should do our duty; one should do one’s duty
According to Bryan Garner, however, writers have tended to pair one with he (and, by extension, one with his), despite objections from “strict grammarians” and others (see Garner’s Modern English Usage, 5th ed. [Oxford, 2022], under “One . . . he”).
We can only hope, then, that we’re doing our duty as arbiters of style by recommending a pairing of one with one’s.
“Q. Hello, Chicago. Thanks for your time. I’d like you to confirm the optional comma after a one-word adverb of time (tonight, yesterday, today) starting a sentence. One of my fiction authors is upset because Word is showing blue lines under those words. I told her a comma is optional and Word doesn’t get the nuances. Would you please confirm this so I can calm my jittery author? Thanks again.
A. It can be hard to ignore Microsoft Word’s blue underlines, especially when they’re worded in a way that suggests you’d be wrong to keep the text as is: “After an introductory word or phrase, a comma is best.”
But you can tell your author that we agree with you. In the words of CMOS 6.34, “Although an introductory adverbial phrase can usually be followed by a comma, it need not be unless misreading is likely. Shorter adverbial phrases are less likely to merit a comma than longer ones.”
The adverbs yesterday, tonight, and today aren’t phrases, but each of them derives from one (yesterday comes from Old English giestran dæg), and it’s clear that each is grammatically equivalent to a phrase like next week or in 1965. Plus, any one of these words would qualify as short in the context of introductory adverbial phrases.
To be fair to Word, tonight is the only one among the words and phrases mentioned above (from yesterday through in 1965) that Word’s grammar checker flagged in our tests when it wasn’t followed by a comma (as of July 1, 2025). Conversely, Word didn’t stop on any of them when they were followed by a comma. So it’s not that far out of line with CMOS.
A convenient way of doing this is to add a button to the ribbon. In Word for Windows (the desktop version), go to File > Options > Customize Ribbon. Then select All Commands under “Choose commands from” and scroll down until you find Hide Grammar Errors. You can then add that command to a new group under the Home tab (or wherever you want it to appear). Steps for Word for Mac will be similar.
If you use the option under Customize Ribbon to assign a keyboard shortcut to the equivalent command (look for ToolsGrammarHide under the All Commands category in the separate dialog box for keyboard shortcuts), keep the button, which has the important advantage of showing whether it’s on or off (via shading/outline).
Oral Histories with the Dead will be an intimate one-day symposium exploring how oral historians from various backgrounds are working to understand the past and the present through cemeteries and burial spaces. We are seeking paper proposals from community or academic oral historians at all career levels who have engaged with cemeteries and burial sites, […]
I’m so crazy about Stephen Fry, and I have been since the 1990s, watching Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie in “Jeeves and Wooster.” They were hilarious. And you might not be aware that P.G. Wodehouse was writing to improve British morale between the wars.
The Guardian says: “Countless readers of Wodehouse have testified to the way his novels have their own “stimulating effect” on morale, providing not just comic, but almost medicinal effects: the exiled Kaiser Wilhelm, after his defeat in the first world war, consoled himself by reading Wodehouse to his “mystified” staff; the late Queen Mother allegedly read “The Master” on a nightly basis, to set aside the “strains of the day”; more recently, news reports tell of the imprisoned Burmese comedian Zargana finding comfort in Wodehouse during solitary confinement. “Books are my best friends”, he confided. “I liked the PG Wodehouse best. Joy in the Morning – Jeeves, Wooster and the fearsome Aunt Agatha. It’s difficult to understand, but I’ve read it three times at least. And I used it as a pillow too.” https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/nov/04/pg-wodehouse-life-in-letters
Sophie Ratcliffe Fri 4 Nov 2011 18.55 EDT
I was fascinated by that and fascinated by the inane comedic stylings of Fry and Lawrie. I’m not the only one; they were enormously popular in England. Imagine my shock when I saw the first episode of House with Bertie Wooster playing a nasty old man!
Stephen Fry, in his post about writing, says “I used to have on my Twitter bio the phrase, “How can I tell you what I think until I’ve heard what I’m going to say?” I could equally as well have had “How can I tell you what I’m going to write until I’ve written it?”
This seems so seminal to the work we do as transcriptionists. We’re capturing those words as they first appear—the speaker’s first—or maybe fiftieth pass at speaking aloud what he’s thinking. That’s our job—to listen carefully, observantly, and capture all the nuances that help the speaker elucidate what he’s thinking!
He muses about writing and putting his thoughts into words.
He ends with a joke—one that is as applicable to AI as it is to elves.
Which brings me to a fine Hollywood joke.
Elwood is a screenwriter, and he has been commissioned for a script, his first. The studio has set a deadline of two months. Seven weeks have passed now, and he is getting desperate. Every day, he sits at his computer and tries to type. But he isn’t a third of the way in. Completely stuck.
Elwood stands, sits, kicks the walls. Goes for short walks. Goes for long walks. Nothing comes. He realises that he is either going to have to plead for an extension or pay back the studio’s commission. The night before delivery is due, he sits in his armchair and stares malevolently at the computer. He knows he has to work all night at something, but instead, he falls asleep.
He is awoken at three in the morning by the sound of typing. He opens his eyes and cannot believe what he sees. Two elves are bouncing up and down on the keyboard. Five more elves take pages out of the printer and carefully stack them into a neat sheaf.
‘What are you doing? What’s going on?’ cries Elwood.
‘We’re elves, and we’re writing your screenplay for you.’
‘Wh … ? Huh?’
‘It’s what we do. There aren’t so many shoemakers around these days, so we help out script makers instead.’
‘Yes, but scripts have to have stories…’ Elwood picks up the top page on the sheaf, ‘…and characters and plot twists…’ his voice trails off. The script is good—very good. He takes another piece of paper and another. It’s better than he could possibly have imagined. In fact, it’s brilliant.
He tells them so. ‘Guys, this is amazingly good!’
‘Happy to help, sir.’
‘Can I get you anything? Food, drink?’
‘No, no, we’re ok. Just have three more scenes to finish and then we’re done and we’ll leave you be.’
They are as good as their word. Twenty minutes later Elwood has in his hands a completed screenplay of dazzling quality and originality.
He sends it off to his agent first thing in the morning. A day and a half later, he hears back. The studio is beyond impressed and pleased, and they want a five-picture contract with Elwood. They offer a sum of money that knocks him sideways with joy.
Six months later, he is sitting in his armchair watching script number three chug from the printer. There is now an Oscar on his mantelpiece. Elves are bouncing on the keyboard. All is well.
‘Guys,’ says Elwood for the hundredth time, ‘Are you sure there’s nothing I can get you? Coffee, cookies, marshmallows, anything?’
‘Seriously, we’re good … just happy doing our job.’
‘But money. Surely some money? I’ll give you half, two-thirds of what I’m earning. It’s only fair.’
‘Kind thought, but we don’t use money…’
‘Tell you what though …’ one of the elves on the keyboard stops bouncing up and down, ‘I suppose there is one thing …’
‘Name it!’ says Elwood, thrilled that there might be any means of repayment.
‘You might consider …’ said the elf, ‘that is to say … if we could have, maybe, a screen credit?’
‘Are you out of your fucking minds? Fuck you!’
Muse or Muses, elves, genies, djinns or sprites, no matter how mysterious or even mystical the process of writing may be, no matter how varied the sources of ‘inspiration’, we will take all the credit going, thank you very much.
From the always insightful Daily Writing Tips! info@dailywritingtips.com
A reader wants some input on the uses of hoard vs. horde:
Perhaps you could take some time to enlighten us on the proper use of “horde, hoard.” For instance, [this statement from the writer of a software manual]: “I wrote it as a response to the growing hoards of people…” This just sounds *wrong*.
Yes, it’s wrong, but apparently, hordes of writers don’t know it.
Pull In Hoards Of People To Your Venue Using Bluetooth Marketing.
You can be on your way to an exponentially-growing network with hoards of people begging you to join it!
It was still a little early for the tulips, but unfortunately, that didn’t keep away the hoards of people.
And before anyone blames the ‘unschooled’ Americans, here’s an example from the UK’s Independent:
Lest the hoards of people queuing for the gruel be tempted to embrace the diet of the workhouse, she was keen to point out its nutritional drawbacks.
Here are some definitions from the OED:
hoard: noun. An accumulation or collection of anything valuable hidden away or laid by for preservation or future use; a stock, store, esp. of money; a treasure.
horde: A great company, esp. of the savage, uncivilized, or uncultivated; a gang, troop, crew.
You can talk about hoards of gold or hoards of food, but when it comes to vast numbers of people, the word you’re looking for is hordes.
Question 1:
Which of the following sentences correctly uses the word “hoard”?
a) “The dragon slept atop a hoard of gold and jewels, fiercely guarding its treasure.”
b) “A hoard of teenagers crowded the entrance to the concert, eager for the doors to open.”
c) c) “A hoard of runners gathered at the starting line for the marathon.”
d) “During the festival, a hoard of street performers took over the city center.”
Question 2:
Choose the sentence that correctly uses the word “horde.”
a) “The museum was unexpectedly closed, disappointing the horde of tourists outside.”
b) “She has a horde of antiques in her attic, collected over decades.”
c) “The ancient horde was discovered by archaeologists in a hidden chamber.”
d) “His advice was to invest in a horde of stocks to diversify the portfolio.”
Question 3:
Which sentence is correct in the context of accumulating items?
a) “Over the years, he amassed a large horde of rare stamps.”
b) “Her jewelry box contained a small hoard of priceless heirlooms.”
c) “The horde of food in the pantry was enough to last through the winter.”
d) “They stumbled upon a horde of old photographs in the attic.”
Question 4:
Identify the sentence that accurately reflects the meaning of “horde” used to describe a large group of people.
a) “The city prepared for the horde of fans coming for the championship game.”
b) “She found an ancient horde of coins behind the old bookshelf in the study.”
c) “The horde of documents took up an entire room in the office.”
d) “They decided to horde their winnings from the lottery until they could make a plan.”
Question 5:
Which sentence correctly uses “hoard” or “horde” as a noun?
a) “After the game, a hoard of fans stormed the field to celebrate.”
b) “The family decided to hoard their supplies, worried about the neighbor who always borrowed but never returned anything.”
c) “A hoard of wild boar was spotted near the village, causing the local wiseacre to jest, ‘Looks like dinner is on the hoof tonight.'”
d) “The wiseacre was part of a horde of tourists, always joking even in the most solemn cathedrals.”
The correct answers are as follows:
a) “The dragon slept atop a hoard of gold and jewels, fiercely guarding its treasure.” (This sentence correctly uses “hoard” to refer to an accumulation of valuable items, consistent with the definition provided.)
a) “The museum was unexpectedly closed, disappointing the horde of tourists outside.” (Here, “horde” is correctly used to describe a large group of people, fitting the context and definition.)
b) “Her jewelry box contained a small hoard of priceless heirlooms.” (This sentence accurately uses “hoard” to describe a collection of valuable items kept for preservation.)
a) “The city prepared for the horde of fans coming for the championship game.” (The word “horde” is correctly used to refer to a large group of people, in this case, fans.)
d) “The wiseacre was part of a horde of tourists, always joking even in the most solemn cathedrals.” (This sentence correctly uses “horde” to describe a large group of people.)
