Publisher Health

When it comes to avian influenza, more commonly known as bird flu, all birds are not created equal.
“The scientific community has become accustomed to speaking about influenza viruses in birds as a group, but birds are an incredibly diverse taxa of animals with different natural history, physiology, and anatomy,” says Jonathan Runstadler, professor and chair of the Department of Infectious Disease & Global Health at Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University.
Runstadler is one of the authors of a new study, published today in the journal PLOS Pathogens, which takes a data-driven look at influenza viruses circulating among different groups of birds and characterizes which types of birds are involved in spreading the virus. The timing of this paper is impeccable, as a highly pathogenic strain of bird flu has been spreading across North America.
This lineage of bird flu originated around 1996 and was first found in a domestic goose in China. The virus mutated and persisted, and the first big wild bird outbreak happened around 2005 in a major wetland in central Asia. Subsequent changes in the virus led to a 2014 introduction to the U.S. via the Pacific Northwest, severely affecting the U.S. poultry industry and forcing the culling of about 40 million turkeys and chickens as a control measure.
“It was a big blow,” says Nichola Hill, lead author of the paper and an assistant professor of biology at University of Massachusetts Boston, who worked in Runstadler’s lab at Cummings School for nearly five years. “After it ended, we knew that we were between outbreaks and there was a high probability of an outbreak happening again. We felt we needed to look at long-term, historical data to find patterns and determine which birds are really driving global spread. So we compared birds at a finer taxonomic scale than prior studies such as wild ducks, gulls, land birds, and geese versus domestic poultry like chickens, and we came up with some really interesting findings.”
Historically, ducks like mallards have been considered super-spreaders of avian influenza, infecting wild birds and backyard poultry alike, and Hill and Runstadler’s research found that to be broadly true. Dabbling ducks are powerful vehicles for spreading the virus and for the evolution of the virus in the wild bird reservoir. They can carry highly pathogenic strains and be completely asymptomatic, plus they swim and fly so they can move the virus in a variety of ways, including into local water bodies.

A new analysis on greenery and mortality found that between 34,000-38,000 deaths could have been reduced with local increases in green vegetation in US metropolitan areas.
Increasing greenery in US urban areas may substantially reduce mortality of all causes, according to a new study led by Boston University School of Public Health researchers.
Published in the journal Frontiers in Public Health, the nationwide study found that increasing green vegetation in large, metropolitan areas could have prevented between 34,000-38,000 deaths, based on data from 2000-2019. The study also showed that overall greenness in metro areas has increased in the past 20 years, by nearly 3 percent between 2000-2010 and 11 percent between 2010-2019.
The study builds upon well-established research on the health benefits of greenness by providing a quantitative value to the potential impact of urban greening initiatives on mortality.
“We’ve known that living in greener areas can have a positive impact on our physical and mental health, but there is a lack of data on how changes in greenness distribution can affect death rates across the country,” says study lead author Paige Brochu, a PhD student in the Department of Environmental Health. “Our study quantifies the impact of greenness expansion in urban areas and shows how increasing green vegetation could potentially add to a person’s life expectancy. Policymakers and urban planners can use this information to support local climate action plans and ensure that those plans include greening initiatives.”
For the study, Brochu and colleagues utilized publicly available population data from the US Census, mortality data from Centers for Disease Control WONDER system and greenness data from NASA’s Landsat satellites to conduct a nationwide health impact assessment that estimated increased green vegetation impact on all-cause mortality among adults 65 and older in 35 large US metropolitan areas. The study period focused on three distinct time periods across a 20-year span: 2000, 2010, and 2019. Using the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), a widely used metric that estimates the quantity of green vegetation, the researchers calculated that 34,080-38,187 elderly deaths — or about 15 to 20 deaths per 10,000 seniors — could have been prevented between 2000-2019 with a 0.1 increase in NDVI across all 35 metropolitan areas.

Though underlying medical conditions play an important role, many aspects of why COVID-19 severity can differ vastly from one to another has remained unclear.
A new study identifies dozens of genomic variations that may drive these hard-to-predict differences in clinical outcomes. According to work led by University of Pennsylvania scientists, genomic variants in four genes that are critical to SARS-CoV-2 infection, including the ACE2 gene, were targets of natural selection and associated with health conditions seen in COVID-19 patients.
The investigation, which used genomic data from diverse global populations, suggests that these variants may have evolved in response to past encounters with viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2. The team published the findings in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“This study exemplifies my lab’s approach to genomic studies: We use what happens in nature and signatures of natural selection to identify functionally important variants that impact health and disease,” says Sarah Tishkoff, a co-corresponding author on the work and a Penn Integrates Knowledge University Professor with appointments in the Perelman School of Medicine and the School of Arts & Sciences. “Nature has already done a lot of the screening and can give us clues as to what parts of a gene like ACE2 are important for infection.”
While other groups have conducted genomewide association studies to identify genetic variants associated with COVID-19 severity, this is the first to include ethnically diverse Africans and a highly diverse dataset from the Penn Medicine BioBank. Including these often-overlooked groups revealed new variants that may be clinically significant.
Signals of selection
Before COVID-19 was even declared a pandemic, Giorgio Sirugo of the Perelman School of Medicine hypothesized that there was a genetic basis for susceptibility to, or protection from, more severe outcomes.

In studies with mouse and human tissue, as well as live mice, Johns Hopkins Medicine researchers report that a snag in the normal process of cleaning up broken DNA in brain cells may hasten the progression of Parkinson’s disease. Specifically, the researchers found that a protein dubbed “STING” responds to clean-up signals in brain cells damaged by Parkinson’s disease by creating a cycle of inflammation that may accelerate the disease’s progression.
The findings, published April 4 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, could advance the search for drugs and new drug targets to stop or slow the progression of Parkinson’s disease.
Parkinson’s disease is a neurodegenerative disorder marked by the buildup of a misfolded protein, called alpha-synuclein, in brain cells. As more misshapen proteins clump together, they kill off brain cells called dopamine neurons, leaving behind large swaths of dead brain matter. As these brain cells die, they impair a person’s ability to move, think or regulate emotions. Previous studies showed that as brain cells are damaged by alpha-synuclein clumps, they release pieces of damaged DNA into the nerve cell’s body.
“Freely floating DNA is not good for neurons, so the immune system has evolved ways to clear it out,” says Ted Dawson, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Cell Engineering and professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
As part of this immune response, the STING protein — STING stands for stimulator of interferon genes — initiates a cascade of inflammatory chemical signals that bring immune cells to the site to clean up the damaged DNA. While this response may be beneficial to destroying viruses and bacteria in the rest of the body, the researchers suspect such an inflammatory response in the brain may disrupt the delicate balance of brain cell signals, leading to a worsening of Parkinson’s disease.
To investigate that possibility, the researchers began scanning lab-grown mouse brain cells exposed to misfolded alpha-synuclein aggregation for the presence of the STING protein. The Johns Hopkins team found that the highest STING levels were present among supportive cells in the brain called microglia, which act as trash collectors within the brain. The presence of STING protein in microglia suggests that the microglia themselves are susceptible to DNA damage in Parkinson’s disease.”When the clean-up crew members themselves may be malfunctioning, it poses a problem for the immune response in the brain,” says Dawson.

A new examination of the way different tissues read information from genes has discovered that the brain and testes appear to be extraordinarily open to the use of many different kinds of code to produce a given protein.
In fact, the testes of both fruit flies and humans seem to be enriched in protein products of these rarely-used pieces of genetic code. The researchers say the use of rare pieces of code may be another layer of control in the genome that could be essential to fertility and evolutionary innovation.
A decade after solving the structure of DNA as a double helix of the bases A,C, T and G, Francis Crick went on to decode the intermediate step by which three of these letters are translated into a “codon,” the recipe for a single amino acid, the building block of protein.
What was striking at the time and still somewhat puzzling is that this layer of life’s code used 61 different three-letter codons to produce just 20 amino acids, meaning many codons were being used to describe the same thing.
“We’re taught in our biology classes that when you change from one version of the codon to the other, and it doesn’t change the amino acid, that’s called a silent mutation. And that implies that it doesn’t matter,” said Don Fox, an associate professor of pharmacology and cancer biology in the Duke School of Medicine.
“Yet when researchers have sequenced all these different organisms, they found a hierarchy,” Fox said. “Some codons are really frequent and some are really rare.” And that distribution of codons can vary from one kind of tissue in an organism to another.

The requirement to test for Covid before flying to the United States is hated by many travelers and the U.S. travel industry. But the government shows no sign of getting rid of it.As countries, including Canada and Britain, have lifted their Covid testing requirements for vaccinated visitors in recent months, some Americans are irate that they still have to show a negative test to board a flight back to the United States.Jason Miller, a 37-year-old software engineer who lives in Texas, is so frustrated with the rule that he recently sent letters to the White House and several lawmakers and began encouraging others to do the same. “I support the C.D.C., still wear a N95 mask when in crowds and when I travel,” he said. But, he no longer feels that the rule provides value, in large part because “the testing has not stopped variants from entering the country.”Other travelers have posted similar comments on social media, and a good portion of the travel industry in the United States has made clear it feels the same way.But they have gotten little satisfaction from the Biden administration and public health officials.On May 6, Jen Psaki, then the White House press secretary, said she was “not aware of a timeline” for ending the testing requirement and that the administration would base its decision on a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation. As to what, specifically, the C.D.C. is using to determine whether testing is still necessary, an agency spokeswoman offered the vague explanation that it “is looking at different indicators” and “evaluating all guidance and orders based on the latest science and state of the pandemic.”The obligatory test has not just created logistical hassles, it has fundamentally shifted the experience of traveling internationally, travelers say.“It was always in the forefront of my mind,” said Danielle Bradbury, 42, who recently spent 12 days in Israel for her job developing medical devices while her husband cared for their two children back in Boston. “Every time I left the hotel, I asked myself, how much risk of not being able to get home am I putting myself in?”Why was testing started in the first place?In January 2021, when the C.D.C. first instituted the rule that all U.S.-bound travelers 2 years and older had to show a negative test or proof of recovery before boarding a flight, the United States joined a sea of countries experimenting with different ways to slow the virus’s spread across borders. A statement from the State Department announcing the requirement played up the difficulty in getting a test abroad, suggesting that the rule also aimed to discourage Americans from traveling internationally. At that point fewer than 10 percent of Americans were vaccinated and case counts were rising, hitting a record of more than 300,000 new cases on Jan. 8.Testing was not the first travel limitation the United States had deployed. In the winter of 2020, President Trump banned visitors from China, much of Europe, Brazil and Iran. When President Biden took office he layered the testing requirement on top of the travel bans. (He also expanded the ban to India.)In late 2021, the United States pivoted away from country-specific bans and doubled down on testing, shortening the window from within three days of travel to one day, even for vaccinated Americans. By then it had become clear that vaccinated people could also spread the coronavirus. (Most unvaccinated visitors from abroad were prohibited from entering the country, even with testing.)How effective has the policy been?It depends how you define success, said Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert, a professor of health policy at Stanford University. If success was reducing the number of infected people who flew to the United States, he said, the testing requirement achieved that.“It certainly prevented people who tested positive from getting on planes and it almost certainly prevented some amount of transmission on aircraft and in airports,” he said.The exact number of infected people who were prevented from boarding planes is unknown, however, because no one tracks whether a passenger cancels a flight because of Covid. Most of the evidence is anecdotal; lots of people have stories about testing positive before flying home.If success means keeping new variants out of the country, then it failed, said Dr. William Omrice, the chair of lab medicine and pathology at the Mayo Clinic.“The reality is that none of these measures have prevented the rapid global spread of any variant of concern,” he said.But if success was not preventing the arrival of new variants, but instead delaying their arrival so that hospitals and authorities could be more prepared, then it may have worked. Mark Jit, a professor of vaccine epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who has studied the effectiveness of travel requirements, said that this is what testing does well.“Testing can prevent the peak from being reached so quickly,” he said.Still, once a variant is already widespread in a country, he found, a travel test has little effect.Why are many countries getting rid of testing requirements now?Explanations from authorities include readiness to enter a new phase of the pandemic, high vaccination rates and a determination that new variants are manageable.“The current variant is making people less ill and the number of people being admitted to intensive care is limited,” the Netherlands government said in a typical statement in March, as it ended travel testing, among other Covid-related recommendations.What’s the argument for getting rid of the U.S. requirement?The primary argument is that it’s not doing enough good to rationalize the hassle.Dr. Tom Frieden, who was the C.D.C. director during the Ebola outbreak of 2014, was among those who made this point. “Between super-effective vaccinations that we have and Paxlovid, which is a super-effective treatment, Omicron is less deadly than flu most years and we don’t require people to test for flu before they get on a plane,” he said. “If a more dangerous variant emerges,” he noted, “that’s a very different situation.”Others argue that it doesn’t make sense to inconvenience so many people for a system that’s full of holes. Antigen tests — one option for travelers to the United States — are notoriously unreliable in the early stage of infection, said Anne Wyllie, a microbiologist at the Yale School of Public Health. For this reason she called the requirement “hygiene theater.”The testing requirement is not just annoying for travelers, it’s economically damaging, according to the U.S. Travel Association, a trade group. In a recent letter to Dr. Ashish K. Jha, the White House Covid coordinator, signed by more than 260 businesses, including airlines, cruise operators, casinos, tourism boards, Disney Parks and a zoo, the group said “the economic costs associated with maintaining the measure are significant.”“Given the slow economic recovery of the business and international travel sectors, and in light of medical advancements and the improved public health metrics in the U.S., we encourage you to immediately remove the inbound testing requirement for vaccinated air travelers,” the group wrote.A survey commissioned by the group found that 46 percent of international travelers would be more likely to visit the United States without the requirement. A similar survey by the Points Guy, a site that specializes in traveling with credit card points and miles, found that more than half of its participating readers would be more likely to travel abroad without the requirement.What’s the argument for keeping the policy?Meegan Zickus, who runs a Facebook group for people with weakened immune systems, said that testing has become more important since the mask requirement went away. Without a testing requirement, most travelers are not going to bother to test or stay home, even if they suspect that they are infected, she said.“Judging by the past two years, the only way to protect others is some type of enforced testing,” she said, because “the moral compass points directly to self.”Dr. Seema Yasmin, a public health doctor and the director of the Stanford Health Communication Initiative, echoed this point. “I would say that it can give a high level of reassurance when 75 percent of people are not wearing a mask and might even be coughing and sneezing loudly,” Dr. Yasmin said.(Though airplane ventilation systems appear to significantly mitigate spread of the coronavirus, research suggests that people sitting within a few rows still pose a risk to one another.)“Some testing is better than none,” said Nathaniel Hafer, a molecular biologist at the UMass medical school.Many countries also use testing to incentivize vaccination by waiving the requirement for vaccinated people, said Meghan Benton, a research director at the Migration Policy Institute, which tracks travel requirements. The United States encourages vaccination in its own way by prohibiting most unvaccinated visitors from abroad from entering.Could a lawsuit end testing the way it did the mask mandate?Given that there are currently at least four pending lawsuits that challenge the international testing requirement, some wonder whether it might be struck down by a judge’s decision, as the requirement to wear a mask on airplanes and other forms of transport was in April.Lawrence O. Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown Law, does not think so. The C.D.C. can require testing from visitors entering the country from abroad because of the Public Health Service Act, which was explicitly created to prevent the introduction of dangerous infectious diseases in the United States, he said.The rule, he said, “would be exceedingly difficult to successfully challenge in the courts, even for the most conservative judges.”52 Places for a Changed WorldThe 2022 list highlights places around the globe where travelers can be part of the solution.Follow New York Times Travel on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. And sign up for our weekly Travel Dispatch newsletter to receive expert tips on traveling smarter and inspiration for your next vacation. Dreaming up a future getaway or just armchair traveling? Check out our 52 Places for a Changed World for 2022.

The requirement to test for Covid before flying to the United States is hated by many travelers and the U.S. travel industry. But the government shows no sign of getting rid of it.As countries, including Canada and Britain, have lifted their Covid testing requirements for vaccinated visitors in recent months, some Americans are irate that they still have to show a negative test to board a flight back to the United States.Jason Miller, a 37-year-old software engineer who lives in Texas, is so frustrated with the rule that he recently sent letters to the White House and several lawmakers and began encouraging others to do the same. “I support the C.D.C., still wear a N95 mask when in crowds and when I travel,” he said. But, he no longer feels that the rule provides value, in large part because “the testing has not stopped variants from entering the country.”Other travelers have posted similar comments on social media, and a good portion of the travel industry in the United States has made clear it feels the same way.But they have gotten little satisfaction from the Biden administration and public health officials.On May 6, Jen Psaki, then the White House press secretary, said she was “not aware of a timeline” for ending the testing requirement and that the administration would base its decision on a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation. As to what, specifically, the C.D.C. is using to determine whether testing is still necessary, an agency spokeswoman offered the vague explanation that it “is looking at different indicators” and “evaluating all guidance and orders based on the latest science and state of the pandemic.”The obligatory test has not just created logistical hassles, it has fundamentally shifted the experience of traveling internationally, travelers say.“It was always in the forefront of my mind,” said Danielle Bradbury, 42, who recently spent 12 days in Israel for her job developing medical devices while her husband cared for their two children back in Boston. “Every time I left the hotel, I asked myself, how much risk of not being able to get home am I putting myself in?”Why was testing started in the first place?In January 2021, when the C.D.C. first instituted the rule that all U.S.-bound travelers 2 years and older had to show a negative test or proof of recovery before boarding a flight, the United States joined a sea of countries experimenting with different ways to slow the virus’s spread across borders. A statement from the State Department announcing the requirement played up the difficulty in getting a test abroad, suggesting that the rule also aimed to discourage Americans from traveling internationally. At that point fewer than 10 percent of Americans were vaccinated and case counts were rising, hitting a record of more than 300,000 new cases on Jan. 8.Testing was not the first travel limitation the United States had deployed. In the winter of 2020, President Trump banned visitors from China, much of Europe, Brazil and Iran. When President Biden took office he layered the testing requirement on top of the travel bans. (He also expanded the ban to India.)In late 2021, the United States pivoted away from country-specific bans and doubled down on testing, shortening the window from within three days of travel to one day, even for vaccinated Americans. By then it had become clear that vaccinated people could also spread the coronavirus. (Most unvaccinated visitors from abroad were prohibited from entering the country, even with testing.)How effective has the policy been?It depends how you define success, said Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert, a professor of health policy at Stanford University. If success was reducing the number of infected people who flew to the United States, he said, the testing requirement achieved that.“It certainly prevented people who tested positive from getting on planes and it almost certainly prevented some amount of transmission on aircraft and in airports,” he said.The exact number of infected people who were prevented from boarding planes is unknown, however, because no one tracks whether a passenger cancels a flight because of Covid. Most of the evidence is anecdotal; lots of people have stories about testing positive before flying home.If success means keeping new variants out of the country, then it failed, said Dr. William Omrice, the chair of lab medicine and pathology at the Mayo Clinic.“The reality is that none of these measures have prevented the rapid global spread of any variant of concern,” he said.But if success was not preventing the arrival of new variants, but instead delaying their arrival so that hospitals and authorities could be more prepared, then it may have worked. Mark Jit, a professor of vaccine epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who has studied the effectiveness of travel requirements, said that this is what testing does well.“Testing can prevent the peak from being reached so quickly,” he said.Still, once a variant is already widespread in a country, he found, a travel test has little effect.Why are many countries getting rid of testing requirements now?Explanations from authorities include readiness to enter a new phase of the pandemic, high vaccination rates and a determination that new variants are manageable.“The current variant is making people less ill and the number of people being admitted to intensive care is limited,” the Netherlands government said in a typical statement in March, as it ended travel testing, among other Covid-related recommendations.What’s the argument for getting rid of the U.S. requirement?The primary argument is that it’s not doing enough good to rationalize the hassle.Dr. Tom Frieden, who was the C.D.C. director during the Ebola outbreak of 2014, was among those who made this point. “Between super-effective vaccinations that we have and Paxlovid, which is a super-effective treatment, Omicron is less deadly than flu most years and we don’t require people to test for flu before they get on a plane,” he said. “If a more dangerous variant emerges,” he noted, “that’s a very different situation.”Others argue that it doesn’t make sense to inconvenience so many people for a system that’s full of holes. Antigen tests — one option for travelers to the United States — are notoriously unreliable in the early stage of infection, said Anne Wyllie, a microbiologist at the Yale School of Public Health. For this reason she called the requirement “hygiene theater.”The testing requirement is not just annoying for travelers, it’s economically damaging, according to the U.S. Travel Association, a trade group. In a recent letter to Dr. Ashish K. Jha, the White House Covid coordinator, signed by more than 260 businesses, including airlines, cruise operators, casinos, tourism boards, Disney Parks and a zoo, the group said “the economic costs associated with maintaining the measure are significant.”Travel Trends That Will Define 2022Card 1 of 7Looking ahead.

A genome-editing strategy developed at Rice University can correct dozens of errors at the same time with high precision and efficiency, a possible breakthrough for those who suffer from diseases caused by a combination of mutations.
The “drive-and-process” array, DAP for short, also appears to be highly adept at avoiding off-target edits, errors that have plagued earlier gene-editing strategies.
Engineer Xue Sherry Gao and graduate student and lead author Qichen Yuan of Rice’s George R. Brown School of Engineering introduced their unique CRISPR array architecture in Nature Communications.
Their technique could both simplify and advance the art of gene editing, not only for human diseases but also for basic biology research and crop engineering.
It does so by leveraging transfer RNA (tRNA), a small molecule critical to protein synthesis, as a promoter that drives the expression of multiple guide RNAs (gRNAs) on a single array, then released individually by cells to direct the state-of-art genome editors (base editor or prime editor) for edits at multiple human genomic sites.
In lab experiments, the researchers engineered a short, 75-nucleotide human cysteine tRNA to make highly active DAP arrays that enable up to 31 edits with the base editor and three edits with the prime editor at once. Deliveries of DAP array and genome editors via therapeutic container adeno-associated virus (AAV) or lentivirus were further demonstrated in human cells.

Compression garments are an elastic cloth fitting that people wear on their arms, legs, or hips during or after physical exercise. Their use has gained popularity over the last few decades because they are thought to enhance muscle recovery following exercise.
An international research team, led by assistant professor János Négyesi from Tohoku University’s Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering, performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to assess whether compression garments assist with muscle recovery.
Systematic reviews identify and synthesize data from all relevant studies, and sit at the highest level on the evidence-based medicine pyramid. The researcher’s review used a generic inverse variance model, which adjusts the weight of individual studies according to sample size, to more accurately assess the effects of compression garments than previous meta-analyses.
Contrary to results found in individual research, the meta-analytical evidence suggests that wearing a compression garment during or after training does not facilitate muscle recovery.
“Even data from our previous study supported the idea that such garments have the potential to reduce strength loss after a strenuous workout,” said Dr. Négyesi. “However, when we synthesized the data of all relevant studies, we found no effect of compression garments on strength recovery — even when factoring in exercise type and when and where the compression garment is applied.”
The authors think this is a perfect example of contradictory outcomes from individual studies and meta-analytical evidence. Therefore, scientists should be careful when drawing direct conclusions from the results of their studies. Rather, meta-analyses using the most appropriate models can provide more precise and reliable results.
Overall, practitioners, athletes, coaches, and therapists should reconsider compression garments as a means of reducing the harmful effects of physical exercise on muscle strength and seek alternative methods.
Story Source:
Materials provided by Tohoku University. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Here’s a good reason for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to eat their fruits and vegetables: It may help reduce inattention issues, a new study suggests.
As part of a larger study, researchers asked parents of 134 kids with ADHD symptoms to complete a detailed questionnaire about the typical foods the children ate, including portion sizes, over a 90-day period.
Another questionnaire asked parents to rate symptoms of inattention — a hallmark of ADHD — in their kids, such as having trouble staying focused, not following instructions, difficulty remembering things, and difficulty regulating emotions.
Results showed that kids who consumed more fruits and vegetables showed less severe symptoms of inattention, said Irene Hatsu, co-author of the study and associate professor of human nutrition at The Ohio State University.
“Eating a healthy diet, including fruits and vegetables, may be one way to reduce some of the symptoms of ADHD,” Hatsu said.
The study was published online recently in the journal Nutritional Neuroscience.