Influence of different types of soils on the growth and yield of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Wild.)

Quinoa is a resilient high-yielding pseudo cereal, gaining attention because of its high nutritional value, strong growth potential, and tremendous source of essential amino acids, micronutrients, vitamins, phenolic compounds, and minerals. The main aim of this investigation was to find the best suitable soil type for maximizing the growth and yield of Quinoa. The pot study was undertaken at the Department of Agronomy, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, during the Kharif 2022 season. Eight soil samples (clay loam soils of wetlands of TNAU, sandy loam soils of eastern block of TNAU, sandy loam soils of Mettupalayam, sandy clay loam soils of 36 B eastern block of TNAU, sandy clay loam soils of 37 B eastern block of TNAU, clay loam soils of Ooty, sandy clay loam soils of Govindanaickenpalayam and sandy clay loam soils of Annur) were collected round Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu and tested in a complete randomized design with three replications. The pot study results revealed that growth parameters viz. Plant height (81.5 cm), number of leaves plant-1 (164.8), leaf area (317.7 cm2), number of branches plant-1 (38.0) and dry matter production (22.78 g) were significantly higher in the clay loam soils of Ooty than all other soil types. Similarly, yield attributes such as the number of panicles plant-1 (21.7), panicle length (13.08 cm), number of grains panicle-1 (3050) and grain yield plant-1 (9.60 g) of Quinoa were also higher in the same clay loam soils followed by that in sandy clay loam soils of Govindanaickenpalayam. Red soils of Mettupalayam had shown the lowest growth, yield and yield attributes of Quinoa. Based on the above results, it was concluded that the clay loam soil of Ooty was the best suited for cultivating Quinoa crops

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570