Professor Aerts, from the Institute of Astronomy at KU Leuven, Belgium, is a pioneer in asteroseismology whose influential research and leadership have earned her top scientific honours, including the Francqui, Kavli, and Crafoord Prizes. She is also widely recognised for her mentoring, academic teaching and leadership in international space missions. The appointment is for an initial term of four years, starting from 1 July 2025.
Ekaterina Zaharieva, Commissioner for Startups, Research and Innovation, said:
‘Professor Aerts is an outstanding scientist and a strong voice for European research. Her deep experience and dedication will be a real asset to the ERC Scientific Council. I warmly welcome her and look forward to working together to support excellence in science.’
President of the European Research Council Prof. Maria Leptin said:
‘The independent identification committee has again ensured both the quality and continuity of the ERC governing body. Welcome to Conny Aerts as a new member. She brings her stellar scientific track record to our Scientific Council and also her understanding of the challenges scientists face today. We will benefit from her engagement in mentoring the younger generation of researchers, as well as her experience in making basic science relevant to practical applications.’
Professor Aerts replaces Professor Chryssa Kouveliotou who stepped down at the end of March 2025. ERC Scientific Council members are appointed by the European Commission based a search carried out by an independent Identification Committee, composed of six distinguished researchers and chaired by Prof. Carl-Henrik Heldin. The mandate of this committee is to identify new members for the renewal of the Scientific Council membership and to maintain a pool of candidates for future replacements of Scientific Council members. The selection process involves consultations with the scientific community.
The ERC Scientific Council is composed of 22 distinguished scientists and scholars representing the European scientific community. Their main role is to set the ERC strategy and to select the peer review evaluators. The ERC and the Scientific Council is chaired by the ERC President, Maria Leptin.
Biography
Conny Clara Aerts is a Belgian professor in astrophysics. Professor Aerts studied mathematics at Antwerp University and completed her PhD in astrophysics in 1993 at KU Leuven. She was an independent Postdoctoral Fellow of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) from 1993 to 2001, spending research time at various institutes worldwide, while also acting as an advocate for equal opportunities for women in science. She was appointed as a lecturer at KU Leuven in 2001 and completed the promotion path to full professor by 2007. She has previously been awarded two Advanced Grants and one Synergy Grant by the ERC. She became the first woman to be awarded the Belgian Francqui Prize (2012) and the FWO Excellence Prize (2020) in the category of Science & Technology. In 2022, she became the third woman to be awarded the Kavli Prize in Astrophysics for her pioneering work and leadership in asteroseismology. In 2024, she won the Crafoord Prize in Astronomy for developing methods of asteroseismology and their application to the study of rotating stars.
About the ERC
The ERC, set up by the European Union in 2007, is the premier European funding organisation for excellent frontier research. It funds creative researchers of any nationality and age, to run projects based across Europe. The ERC offers four core grant schemes: Starting Grants, Consolidator Grants, Advanced Grants and Synergy Grants. With its additional Proof of Concept Grant scheme, the ERC helps grantees to bridge the gap between their pioneering research and early phases of its commercialisation. The ERC is led by an independent governing body, the Scientific Council. Since November 2021, Maria Leptin is the President of the ERC. The overall ERC budget from 2021 to 2027 is more than €16 billion, as part of the Horizon Europe programme, under the responsibility of European Commissioner for Startups, Research and Innovation, Ekaterina Zaharieva.
Pryce J, Medley N, Choi L. Indoor residual spraying for preventing malaria in communities using insecticide-treated nets. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;2022:CD012688.
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Sherrard-Smith E, Ngufor C, Sanou A, Guelbeogo MW, N’Guessan R, Elobolobo E, et al. Inferring the epidemiological benefit of indoor vector control interventions against malaria from mosquito data. Nat Commun. 2022;13:3862.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Sougoufara S, Ottih EC, Tripet F. The need for new vector control approaches targeting outdoor biting anopheline malaria vector communities. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13:295.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Musiime AK, Smith DL, Kilama M, Rek J, Arinaitwe E, Nankabirwa JI, et al. Impact of vector control interventions on malaria transmission intensity, outdoor vector biting rates and Anopheles mosquito species composition in Tororo, Uganda. Malar J. 2019;18:445.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Sherrard-Smith E, Skarp JE, Beale AD, Fornadel C, Norris LC, Moore SJ, et al. Mosquito feeding behavior and how it influences residual malaria transmission across Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116:15086–95.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Kreppel KS, Viana M, Main BJ, Johnson PCD, Govella NJ, Lee Y, et al. Emergence of behavioural avoidance strategies of malaria vectors in areas of high LLIN coverage in Tanzania. Sci Rep. 2020;10:14527.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Sanou A, Nelli L, Guelbéogo WM, Cissé F, Tapsoba M, Ouédraogo P, et al. Insecticide resistance and behavioural adaptation as a response to long-lasting insecticidal net deployment in malaria vectors in the Cascades region of Burkina Faso. Sci Rep. 2021;11:17569.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Reddy MR, Overgaard HJ, Abaga S, Reddy VP, Caccone A, Kiszewski AE, et al. Outdoor host seeking behaviour of Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes following initiation of malaria vector control on Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea. Malar J. 2011;10:184.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Perugini E, Guelbeogo WM, Calzetta M, Manzi S, Virgillito C, Caputo B, et al. Behavioural plasticity of Anopheles coluzzii and Anopheles arabiensis undermines LLIN community protective effect in a Sudanese-savannah village in Burkina Faso. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13:277.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Fornadel CM, Norris LC, Franco V, Norris DE. Unexpected anthropophily in the potential secondary malaria vectors Anopheles coustani s.l. and Anopheles squamosus in Macha. Zambia Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011;11:1173–9.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Coetzee M. Literature review of the systematics, biology and role in malaria transmission of species in the Afrotropical. Zootaxa. 2022;5133:182–200.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Tabue RN, Nem T, Atangana J, Bigoga JD, Patchoke S, Tchouine F, et al. Anopheles ziemanni a locally important malaria vector in Ndop health district, north west region of Cameroon. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:262.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Montoya LF, Martí-Soler H, Máquina M, Comiche K, Cuamba I, Alafo C, et al. The mosquito vectors that sustained malaria transmission during the Magude project despite the combined deployment of indoor residual spraying, insecticide-treated nets and mass-drug administration. PLoS ONE. 2022;17: e0271427.
Article
Google Scholar
Saili K, de Jager C, Sangoro OP, Nkya TE, Masaninga F, Mwenya M, et al. Anopheles rufipes implicated in malaria transmission both indoors and outdoors alongside Anopheles funestus and Anopheles arabiensis in rural south-east Zambia. Malar J. 2023;22:95.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Goupeyou-Youmsi J, Rakotondranaivo T, Puchot N, Peterson I, Girod R, Vigan-Womas I, et al. Differential contribution of Anopheles coustani and Anopheles arabiensis to the transmission of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax in two neighbouring villages of Madagascar. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13:430.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Nepomichene TNJJ, Tata E, Boyer S. Malaria case in Madagascar, probable implication of a new vector Anopheles coustani. Malar J. 2015;14:475.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Antonio-Nkondjio C, Kerah CH, Simard F, Awono-ambene P, Chouaibou M, Tchuinkam T, et al. Complexity of the malaria vectorial system in Cameroon: contribution of secondary vectors to malaria transmission. J Med Entomol. 2006;43:1215–21.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Máquina M, Opiyo MA, Cuamba N, Marrenjo D, Rodrigues M, Armando S, et al. Multiple Anopheles species complicate downstream analysis and decision-making in a malaria pre-elimination area in southern Mozambique. Malar J. 2024;23:23.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Finney M, McKenzie BA, Rabaovola B, Sutcliffe A, Dotson E, Zohdy S. Widespread zoophagy and detection of Plasmodium spp. in Anopheles mosquitoes in southeastern Madagascar. Malar J. 2021;20:25.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Mustapha AM, Musembi S, Nyamache AK, Machani MG, Kosgei J, Wamuyu L, et al. Secondary malaria vectors in western Kenya include novel species with unexpectedly high densities and parasite infection rates. Parasit Vectors. 2021;14:252.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Lobo NF, Laurent BS, Sikaala CH, Hamainza B, Chanda J, Chinula D, et al. Unexpected diversity of Anopheles species in Eastern Zambia: implications for evaluating vector behavior and interventions using molecular tools. Sci Rep. 2015;5:17952.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Barrón MG, Paupy C, Rahola N, Akone-Ella O, Ngangue MF, Wilson-Bahun TA, et al. A new species in the major malaria vector complex sheds light on reticulated species evolution. Sci Rep. 2019;9:14753.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Stevenson JC, Norris DE. Implicating cryptic and novel anophelines as malaria vectors in Africa. Insects. 2017;8:1.
Article
Google Scholar
Jones CM, Ciubotariu II, Muleba M, Lupiya J, Mbewe D, Simubali L, et al. Multiple novel clades of Anopheline mosquitoes caught outdoors in Northern Zambia. Front Trop Dis. 2021;2: 780664.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Zhong D, Hemming-Schroeder E, Wang X, Kibret S, Zhou G, Atieli H, et al. Extensive new Anopheles cryptic species involved in human malaria transmission in western Kenya. Sci Rep. 2020;10:16139.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
MoraesZenker M, Portella TP, Pessoa FAC, Bengtsson-Palme J, Galetti PM. Low coverage of species constrains the use of DNA barcoding to assess mosquito biodiversity. Sci Rep. 2024;14:7432.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Oliveira TMP, Foster PG, Bergo ES, Nagaki SS, Sanabani SS, Marinotti O, et al. Mitochondrial genomes of Anopheles (Kerteszia) (Diptera: Culicidae) from the Atlantic Forest. Brazil J Med Entomol. 2016;53:790–7.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Bohmann K, Mirarab S, Bafna V, Gilbert MTP. Beyond DNA barcoding: the unrealized potential of genome skim data in sample identification. Mol Ecol. 2020;29:2521–34.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Coetzee M. Chromosomal and cross-mating evidence for two species within Anopheles (A.) coustani (Diptera: Culicidae). Syst Entomol. 1983;8:137–41.
Article
Google Scholar
Coetzee M. Anopheles crypticus, new species from South Africa is distinguished from Anopheles coustani. Mosq Syst. 1994;26:125–31.
Google Scholar
Ciubotariu II, Jones CM, Kobayashi T, Bobanga T, Muleba M, Pringle JC, et al. Genetic diversity of Anopheles coustani (Diptera: Culicidae) in malaria transmission foci in Southern and Central Africa. J Med Entomol. 2020;57:1782–92.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Chen D-H, He S-L, Fu W-B, Yan Z-T, Hu Y-J, Yuan H, et al. Mitogenome-based phylogeny of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Insect Sci. 2024;31:599–612.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Da Silva AF, Machado LC, De Paula MB, Da Silva Pessoa Vieira CJ, De MoraisBronzoni RV, De Melo Santos MAV, et al. Culicidae evolutionary history focusing on the Culicinae subfamily based on mitochondrial phylogenomics. Sci Rep. 2020;10:18823.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Guo J, Yan Z-T, Fu W-B, Yuan H, Li X-D, Chen B. Complete mitogenomes of Anopheles peditaeniatus and Anopheles nitidus and phylogenetic relationships within the genus Anopheles inferred from mitogenomes. Parasit Vectors. 2021;14:452.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Hoban ML, Whitney J, Collins AG, Meyer C, Murphy KR, Reft AJ, et al. Skimming for barcodes: rapid production of mitochondrial genome and nuclear ribosomal repeat reference markers through shallow shotgun sequencing. PeerJ. 2022;10: e13790.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
da Silva FS, do Nascimento BLS, Cruz ACR, da Silva SP, de Aragão AO, Dias DD, et al. Sequencing and description of the complete mitochondrial genome of Limatusdurhamii (Diptera: Culicidae). Acta Trop. 2023;239:106805.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Kneubehl AR, Muñoz-Leal S, Filatov S, de Klerk DG, Pienaar R, Lohmeyer KH, et al. Amplification and sequencing of entire tick mitochondrial genomes for a phylogenomic analysis. Sci Rep. 2022;12:19310.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Dong Z, Wang Y, Li C, Li L, Men X. Mitochondrial DNA as a molecular marker in insect ecology: current status and future prospects. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 2021;114:470–6.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Behura SK, Lobo NF, Haas B, deBruyn B, Lovin DD, Shumway MF, et al. Complete sequences of mitochondria genomes of Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus and comparative analysis of mitochondrial DNA fragments inserted in the nuclear genomes. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2011;41:770–7.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Ryazansky SS, Chen C, Potters M, Naumenko AN, Lukyanchikova V, Masri RA, et al. The chromosome-scale genome assembly for the West Nile vector Culex quinquefasciatus uncovers patterns of genome evolution in mosquitoes. BMC Biol. 2024;22:16.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Miles A, Harding NJ, Bottà G, Clarkson CS, Antão T, Kozak K, et al. Genetic diversity of the African malaria vector Anopheles gambiae. Nature. 2017;552:96–100.
Article
Google Scholar
Holt RA, Subramanian GM, Halpern A, Sutton GG, Charlab R, Nusskern DR, et al. The Genome Sequence of the Malaria Mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Science. 2002;298:129–49.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Consortium TA gambiae 1000 G, Clarkson CS, Miles A, Harding NJ, Lucas ER, Battey CJ, et al. Genome variation and population structure among 1142 mosquitoes of the African malaria vector species Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles coluzzii. Genome Res. 2020;30:1533–46.
Ghurye J, Koren S, Small ST, Redmond S, Howell P, Phillippy AM, et al. A chromosome-scale assembly of the major African malaria vector Anopheles funestus. GigaScience. 2019;8:giz063.
Jones CM, Lee Y, Kitchen A, Collier T, Pringle JC, Muleba M, et al. Complete Anopheles funestus mitogenomes reveal an ancient history of mitochondrial lineages and their distribution in southern and central Africa. Sci Rep. 2018;8:9054.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Bouafou LBA, Ayala D, Makanga BK, Rahola N, Johnson HF, Heaton H, et al. Chromosomal reference genome sequences for the malaria mosquito, Anopheles coustani, Laveran, 1900. Wellcome Open Res. 2024;9:551.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Campos M, Crepeau M, Lee Y, Gripkey H, Rompão H, Cornel AJ, et al. Complete mitogenome sequence of Anopheles coustani from São Tomé island. Mitochondrial DNA B Resour. 2020;5:3376–8.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Wellcome Sanger Institute. Anopheles ziemanni genome assembly – BioProject – NCBI [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 27]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJEB53272/
Wellcome Sanger Tree of Life Programme. Anopheles ziemanni mitochondrion, completegenome- NCBI [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 27]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/ NC_064609.1
Soghigian J, Sither C, Justi SA, Morinaga G, Cassel BK, Vitek CJ, et al. Phylogenomics reveals the history of host use in mosquitoes. Nat Commun. 2023;14:6252.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Reidenbach KR, Cook S, Bertone MA, Harbach RE, Wiegmann BM, Besansky NJ. Phylogenetic analysis and temporal diversification of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) based on nuclear genes and morphology. BMC Evol Biol. 2009;9:298.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Coetzee M. Key to the females of Afrotropical Anopheles mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). MalarJ. 2020;19:70.
Article
Google Scholar
Chen T-Y, Vorsino AE, Kosinski KJ, Romero-Weaver AL, Buckner EA, Chiu JC, et al. A Magnetic-Bead-Based Mosquito DNA Extraction Protocol for Next-Generation Sequencing. J Vis Exp. 2021;15:170.
Google Scholar
Dierckxsens N, Mardulyn P, Smits G. NOVOPlasty: de novo assembly of organelle genomes from whole genome data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45: e18.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Bernt M, Donath A, Jühling F, Externbrink F, Florentz C, Fritzsch G, et al. MITOS: improved de novo metazoan mitochondrial genome annotation. Mol Phylogenets Evol. 2013;69:313–9.
Article
Google Scholar
Posada D. jModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging. Mol Biol Evol. 2008;25:1253–6.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Bouckaert R, Heled J, Kühnert D, Vaughan T, Wu C-H, Xie D, et al. BEAST 2: a software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014;10: e1003537.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Martinez-Villegas L, Assis-Geraldo J, Koerich LB, Collier TC, Lee Y, Main BJ, et al. Characterization of the complete mitogenome of Anopheles aquasalis, and phylogenetic divergences among Anopheles from diverse geographic zones. PLoS ONE. 2019;14: e0219523.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Krzywinski J, Grushko OG, Besansky NJ. Analysis of the complete mitochondrial DNA from Anopheles funestus: an improved dipteran mitochondrial genome annotation and a temporal dimension of mosquito evolution. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2006;39:417–23.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Tamura K, Stecher G, Kumar S. MEGA11: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 11. Mol Biol Evol. 2021;38:3022–7.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Cross DE, Healey AJE, McKeown NJ, Thomas CJ, Macarie NA, Siaziyu V, et al. Temporally consistent predominance and distribution of secondary malaria vectors in the Anopheles community of the upper Zambezi floodplain. Sci Rep. 2022;12:240.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Hendershot AL. Understanding the role of Anopheles coustani complex members as malaria vector species in the Democratic Republic of Congo [Internet] [thesis]. University of Notre Dame; 2021 [cited 2024 Dec 13]. Available from: https://curate.nd.edu/articles/thesis/Understanding_the_Role_of_i_An_coustani_C_i_omplex_Members_as_Malaria_Vector_Species_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_Congo/24851787/1
Sites JW, Marshall JC. Operational criteria for delimiting species. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2004;35:199–227.
Article
Google Scholar
Hending D. Cryptic species conservation: a review. Biol Rev. 2025;100:258–74.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Ditter RE, Campos M, Crepeau MW, Pinto J, Toilibou A, Amina Y, et al. Anopheles gambiae on remote islands in the Indian Ocean: origins and prospects for malaria elimination by genetic modification of extant populations. Sci Rep. 2023;13:20830.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Fontaine MC, Pease JB, Steele A, Waterhouse RM, Neafsey DE, Sharakhov IV, et al. Extensive introgression in a malaria vector species complex revealed by phylogenomics. Science. 2015;347:1258524.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Neafsey DE, Waterhouse RM, Abai MR, Aganezov SS, Alekseyev MA, Allen JE, et al. Highly evolvable malaria vectors: the genomes of 16 Anopheles mosquitoes. Science. 2;347:1258522.
Freitas LA, Russo CAM, Voloch CM, Mutaquiha OCF, Marques LP, Schrago CG. Diversification of the genus Anopheles and a neotropical clade from the late cretaceous. PLoS ONE. 2015;10: e0134462.
134 physicians have called on the Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to prioritize beans, peas, and lentils as a protein source in the next Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
In a letter sent on June 24, the doctors — all members of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) — said that promoting legume consumption would help to prevent and reduce chronic disease. In contrast, they claim that red and processed meats are strongly associated with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain cancers.
Furthermore, legumes are whole foods and are rich in fiber, which most Americans are deficient in. Some types are sourced from American farmers, who could benefit from an increase in legume consumption.
Photo: Polina Tankilevitch on Pexels
“Important and appropriate emphasis”
Recently, the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recommended that federal nutrition guidelines be modified to move legumes from the Vegetables Food Group to the Protein Food Group. It also suggested that Beans, Peas, and Lentils should be listed as the first protein subgroup, followed by Nuts, Seeds, and Soy Products. Seafood would come third, while Meats, Poultry, and Eggs would be last on the list.
In their letter, the PCRM physicians support these recommendations, noting that the reorganization would “more accurately classify these foods as a major protein source in many Americans’ diets”. They also say the change would educate people on the nutritional value of legumes, while dispelling the myth that plant-based foods are an incomplete source of protein.
“The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s report put important and appropriate emphasis on beans and other plant-based foods,” said Neal Barnard, MD, FACC, president of the Physicians Committee. “Overwhelming evidence supports the role of these foods in supporting cardiovascular health, promoting a healthy body weight, and reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes, cancer, and other serious conditions. It is vital that the next Dietary Guidelines for Americans prioritize these nutritious sources of protein.”
The PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the literature search process is presented in Fig. 1. Based on a systematic search across the specified databases, a total of 3,245 articles were initially retrieved. These included 539 articles from Embase, 1037 from PubMed, 847 from Scopus, 770 from Web of Science, and 16 from ProQuest. After removing 1388 duplicate records, two researchers independently screened the titles and abstracts of 1857 articles. Of these, 1,806 articles were excluded due to non-compliance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The full texts of 51 articles were assessed, and ultimately, 27 primary studies were selected for data extraction [27, 29, 42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66]. The remaining 24 articles were excluded for the following reasons: they did not focus on burn injuries, lacked direct or indirect data extraction possibilities, used alternative effect size metrics, did not utilize MSCs, or employed bilayered scaffolds.
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram detailing study screening and selection
Study characteristics
Animal models
Among the included studies, 14 studies utilized mice, 11 studies employed rats, one study used rabbits, and one study involved pigs (Fig. 2A). Of these, 16 studies focused on male animals, six studies on female animals, and one study included both sexes (Fig. 2B). The sex of the animals was not reported in four studies. Regarding the burn models, 16 studies induced third-degree burns, nine studies created second-degree burns, and the burn model was not specified in two studies (Fig. 2C). The methods employed to induce burns, along with other relevant information pertaining to the animal model, are concisely presented in Table 1.
Fig. 2
Comperhensive overview of included study characteristics
Mesenchymal stem cells
Out of the 20 studies that utilized MSCs, 11 studies employed animal-derived MSCs, while nine studies used human-derived MSCs (Fig. 2D). Specifically, 11 studies used adipose tissue-derived MSCs, six studies utilized bone marrow-derived MSCs, and three studies employed umbilical cord-derived MSCs (Fig. 2E). A summary of the points mentioned, along with the methods for identifying and characterizing MSCs based on ISCT guidelines [67], is provided in Table 2.
Secretome
According to Table 3, among the seven studies that isolated MSCs, three studies focused on exosomes, one study investigated microvesicles, one study examined small extracellular vesicles, one study analyzed paracrine proteins, and one study utilized conditioned medium (Fig. 2F). Of these, four studies investigated secretomes derived from umbilical cord MSCs, two studies explored secretomes from adipose-derived MSCs, and one study used secretomes from iPSC-derived MSCs (Fig. 2G). For isolation, four studies employed ultrafiltration, and three studies used ultracentrifugation as the primary methods.
Scaffold types
In terms of scaffolds, six studies utilized biological-based scaffolds, while 21 studies employed hydrogel-based scaffolds (Fig. 2H). The hydrogel formulations included injectable hydrogels, foam hydrogels, amorphous hydrogels, film hydrogels, freeze-dried hydrogels, nanofiber hydrogels, and bioprinted hydrogels (Fig. 2I). The most commonly used biomaterials in these hydrogels were hyaluronic acid, collagen, chitosan, gelatin, and alginate (Fig. 2J). The information provided pertains to scaffolds, including Scaffold Compositions, Forms, and characterization methods, as well as the Structural and Biological Properties of scaffolds, all of which are comprehensively presented in Table 4.
Result of risk of bias assessment
The risk of bias assessment, conducted using the SYRCLE tool, yielded the following findings across the included studies. In the domain of selection bias, under the subcategory of sequence generation, 18 out of 27 studies (66.7%) were classified as having a low risk of bias. In the baseline characteristics subcategory, all but one study—i.e., 26 out of 27 studies (96.3%)—were deemed to have a low risk of bias. However, in the allocation concealment subcategory, all studies were rated as having an unclear risk of bias. In the domain of performance bias, the random housing subcategory indicated that 15 out of 27 studies (55.6%) were at low risk of bias, whereas in the blinding subcategory, all studies were assessed as having an unclear risk of bias. Regarding detection bias, the random outcome assessment subcategory showed that, with the exception of three studies, the remaining 24 out of 27 studies (88.9%) were classified as low risk. In contrast, the blinding subcategory within this domain revealed that all studies had an unclear risk of bias.In the domain of attrition bias, all but three studies—i.e., 24 out of 27 studies (88.9%)—were determined to have a low risk of bias. Finally, in the domain of reporting bias, all studies were consistently rated as having a low risk of bias. In total, of the 27 studies evaluated, 19 studies (70.4%) were classified as having an overall low risk of bias and were included in our review, while the remaining 8 studies (29.6%) were deemed to have an unclear risk of bias (Fig. 3). Also, to examine the impact of studies with unclear risk of bias on potential under- or overestimation of results, a subgroup analysis was conducted for the primary outcome. As shown in Table 5 and (Supplementary Data S2), these studies did not significantly influence the overall findings.
Fig. 3
Quality assessment of individual studies using SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) tool
Primary outcome
Our analysis demonstrates that the synergistic effect of MSCs and scaffolds significantly improves wound closure rates, measured as the primary outcome, across three time frames. To evaluate the progression of wound healing, these time points were categorized as short-term (1-week), mid-term (2 weeks), and long-term (3 weeks). These intervals align with the inflammatory, proliferative, and remodeling phases of the wound healing process, respectively, and were selected based on standard practices in preclinical burn wound research. Moreover, these time points were chosen due to their frequent reporting in the scientific literature, enabling standardization and comparison of results across studies. These results are derived from 23 studies for the 1-week time point, 25 studies for 2 weeks, and 12 studies for 3 weeks. The effect was most pronounced at 1 week (SMD = 3.97, 95% CI: 2.92 to 5.01), followed by 2 weeks (SMD = 3.47, 95% CI: 2.23 to 4.61), and 3 weeks (SMD = 3.03, 95% CI: 1.96 to 4.11) (Fig. 4A–C). These results indicate that the combination of MSCs and scaffolds is highly effective in promoting wound healing, with the strongest impact observed in the early stages. However, the high heterogeneity (I2 > 50%) across studies suggests variability in experimental conditions, which should be considered when interpreting these findings.
Fig. 4
Forest plot demonstrating the therapeutic efficacy of MSC-scaffold combinations in promoting wound closure in a burn animal model. A Week 1, B Week 2, C Week 3
Subgroup analysis and meta-regression
Due to the presence of high heterogeneity and to investigate its underlying causes as well as identify factors influencing therapeutic efficacy, we conducted a subgroup analysis across three time frames: 1 week, 2 weeks, and 3 weeks. The results revealed noteworthy findings (all results are available in Table 5 and Supplementary Data S2). Our results indicate that, in the comparison between the use of MSCs and MSC-derived secretome, the administration of MSCs (SMD = 4.75, 95% CI: 3.15 to 6.36) demonstrated superior therapeutic efficacy in the short term (1-week) compared to secretome (SMD = 2.90, 95% CI: 1.77 to 4.03). However, in the medium term (2-week) and long term (3-week), specifically in 2-week the therapeutic efficacy of secretome (SMD = 3.94, 95% CI: 2.30 to 5.58) was greater than that of MSCs (SMD = 3.20, 95% CI: 1.71 to 4.68). I2 analysis in this subgroup suggests that one of the main sources of heterogeneity was the inclusion of MSCs and MSC-derived secretome combined with scaffolds. Separate analysis of these combinations reduced heterogeneity; however, due to the limited number of secretome studies, we included both scaffold-based MSC and secretome data in the pooled results. The investigation of the therapeutic efficacy of MSCs across various animal models indicates a significant reduction in I2 (heterogeneity). This suggests that the choice of animal model utilized in the studies may be one of the key factors contributing to the heterogeneity observed in our results. The evaluation of the therapeutic efficacy of MSCs in second- and third-degree burn models reveals significant findings. In the one-week time frame, the wound closure rate in second-degree burns (SMD = 3.95, 95% CI: 2.00 to 5.90) was notably sharp compared to third-degree burns (SMD = 6.36, 95% CI: 2.99 to 9.74). However, as might be expected, the therapeutic efficacy in the second and third weeks was better in second-degree burn models (SMD = 3.49, 95% CI: 1.41 to 5.56; SMD = 3.21, 95% CI: 0.99 to 5.43) compared to third-degree burns (SMD = 2.46, 95% CI: 0.31 to 4.60; SMD = 2.83, 95% CI: 1.64 to 4.01), respectively. Additionally, the reduction in I2 suggests that the type of burn model used may be one of the contributing factors to the heterogeneity observed in our results. In addition, the type of scaffolds used also significantly influences therapeutic efficacy. Our results demonstrate that, in the one-week time frame, MSCs combined with biological scaffolds exhibited superior therapeutic efficacy (SMD = 8.83, 95% CI: 0.76 to 16.90) compared to hydrogels (SMD = 4.02, 95% CI: 2.37 to 5.67). However, in the two- and three-week time frames, the therapeutic efficacy of hydrogels (SMD = 3.41, 95% CI: 1.89 to 4.93; SMD = 3.60, 95% CI: 1.31 to 5.89) was greater than that of biological scaffolds (SMD = 2.75, 95% CI: −0.54 to 6.04; SMD = 2.74, 95% CI: 1.56 to 3.91). The absence of a notable reduction in I2 within the scaffold type subgroup can be attributed to the substantial variation in scaffold nature (i.e., polymer-based vs. biological-based scaffolds) and in their constituent components (i.e., natural or synthetic biomaterials). This broad variability in both structural origin and material composition likely contributes to the persistent heterogeneity observed, which may, in turn, affect the robustness and certainty of the derived conclusions.The type of MSCs used significantly influences both heterogeneity and therapeutic efficacy. Our analysis highlights distinct performance patterns across different MSC sources—Umbilical Cord, Bone Marrow, and Adipose—over one-, two-, and three-week time frames. Umbilical Cord-derived MSCs demonstrated the highest therapeutic efficacy in the short term, with a SMD of 6.74 (95% CI: 4.88 to 8.60) at one week. This efficacy remained robust at two weeks (SMD = 6.30, 95% CI: 4.03 to 8.56) but declined slightly by three weeks (SMD = 3.29, 95% CI: 0.64 to 5.94). Similarly, Bone Marrow-derived MSCs exhibited strong therapeutic effects, with an SMD of 6.27 (95% CI: 4.74 to 7.81) at one week, 4.27 (95% CI: 1.73 to 6.81) at two weeks, and 4.42 (95% CI: 1.83 to 7.02) at three weeks. In contrast, Adipose-derived MSCs showed comparatively lower efficacy across all time frames: SMD = 4.16 (95% CI: 1.27 to 7.05) at one week, 1.56 (95% CI: 0.01 to 3.10) at two weeks, and 1.51 (95% CI: −0.28 to 3.30) at three weeks. Furthermore, the observed reduction in I2 suggests that the source of MSCs is a key factor contributing to the heterogeneity in our results. Regarding the source of MSCs, the results demonstrate that human-derived MSCs exhibit significantly higher therapeutic efficacy compared to animal-derived MSCs in the one- and two-week time frames. Specifically, human-derived MSCs showed an SMD of 6.66 (95% CI: 3.38—9.94) at one week and 3.86 (95% CI: 1.20 to 6.52) at two weeks. In contrast, animal-derived MSCs displayed lower efficacy, with an SMD of 3.60 (95% CI: 1.78 to 5.43) at one week and 2.52 (95% CI: 1.02 to 4.02) at two weeks. However, the results in the three-week time frame present a contrasting pattern. Here, animal-derived MSCs demonstrated higher therapeutic efficacy (SMD = 3.54, 95% CI: 0.91 to 6.17) compared to human-derived MSCs (SMD = 2.85, 95% CI: 1.62 to 4.07). Regarding MSC-derived secretomes, our results indicate that secretomes extracted from Adipose-derived MSCs exhibit higher therapeutic efficacy compared to those from Umbilical Cord-derived MSCs in the one- and two-week time frames. Specifically, Adipose-derived secretomes demonstrated an SMD of 3.67 (95% CI: 2.26 to 5.08) at one week and 4.83 (95% CI: − 2.26 to 12.16) at two weeks. In contrast, Umbilical Cord-derived secretomes showed lower efficacy, with an SMD of 2.78 (95% CI: 0.97 to 4.58) at one week and 4.10 (95% CI: 3.20 to 4.99) at two weeks. These findings suggest that Adipose-derived MSC secretomes may offer superior therapeutic benefits in the short to medium term. Furthermore, the results of our meta-regression analysis indicate that no dose–response relationship was observed regarding the number of MSCs administered and their therapeutic efficacy across the three specified time frames (Supplementary Data S2). Also, given the absence of a universally established criterion for classifying sample sizes in preclinical studies, we categorized sample sizes based on the ARRIVE guidelines and the distribution of sample sizes in the included studies [68]. Specifically, we classified sample sizes as small (n < 6, below the minimum recommended threshold), sufficient (n = 6–11), or large (n > 11). Our analysis revealed that, of the 27 included studies, 12 were classified as small, 13 as sufficient, and 2 as large. This distribution suggests that the overall sample sizes are sufficient to ensure the reliability of the meta-analytic results. Furthermore, subgroup analysis based on sample size across all three time frames demonstrated that the greatest therapeutic efficacy was observed in the adequate sample size group. Consequently, smaller sample sizes did not significantly influence the intervention outcomes and were not a determining factor in the strength of the evidence.
Secondary outcomes
Angiogenesis
Our analytical results demonstrate that the synergistic effect of MSCs and scaffolds significantly enhances the expression of CD31, a key marker of angiogenesis (SMD = 6.24, 95% CI: 3.90 to 8.58) (Fig. 5A). This finding underscores the potential of combining MSCs and scaffolds to promote vascularization, which is critical for effective tissue repair and regeneration. However, the I2 values exceeding 50% for both parameters indicate high heterogeneity among the studies included in the analysis.
Fig. 5
Forest plot demonstrating the therapeutic efficacy of MSC-scaffold combinations on: A angiogenesis, B collagen deposition, C inflammatory cytokines, D growth factors
Collagen
The findings from our analysis highlight that the synergistic interaction between and scaffolds significantly enhances collagen deposition at burn wound sites (SMD = 4.97, 95% CI: 2.22 to 7.73) (Fig. 5B). This suggests that the combined application of MSCs and scaffolds plays a pivotal role in promoting tissue regeneration and improving wound healing outcomes. However, the high heterogeneity observed, as indicated by I2 values exceeding 50%, points to substantial variability across the studies included in this analysis.
Inflammatory cytokines
Our analysis reveals that the combined use of MSCs and scaffolds exerts a powerful anti-inflammatory effect, significantly lowering the levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Specifically, we observed notable reductions in TNF-α (SMD = − 4.06, 95% CI: − 1.72 to −6.4), IL-6 (SMD = − 6.24, 95% CI: − 2.23 to −10.26), and IL-1 (SMD = − 5.13, 95% CI: − 1.69 to −8.56) (Fig. 5C). These results suggest that the interaction between MSCs and scaffolds plays a critical role in dampening inflammatory pathways, which could have significant implications for therapeutic strategies in inflammatory diseases and tissue repair. However, the high heterogeneity reflected by I2 values exceeding 50% for all three cytokines indicates considerable variability across the studies analyzed.
Growth factors
The results of our analyses indicate that the synergistic effect of MSCs and scaffolds significantly enhances the expression of key growth factors, including TGF-β (SMD = 6.21, 95% CI: − 1.6 to 14.03) and VEGF (SMD = 7.30, 95% CI: 4.85 to 9.75) (Fig. 5D). The observed effect sizes suggest a substantial impact of this combination on promoting growth factor activity. However, the I2 values exceeding 50% for both parameters indicate high heterogeneity among the studies included in the analysis.
Publication bias
To assess publication bias, we employed three widely used methods: the trim and fill method, funnel plot analysis, and Egger’s and Begg’s tests. According to Table 6, for the primary outcome, the asymmetric distribution in the funnel plot and the addition of studies in the trim and fill method across all three time frames suggest the presence of significant publication bias. Furthermore, Egger’s and Begg’s tests yielded p-values < 0.05 at the 1-week and 2-week time points, further supporting the existence of notable publication bias. However, at the 3-week time point, the p-values from Egger’s and Begg’s tests exceeded 0.05, indicating no significant evidence of publication bias during this period. The evaluation of publication bias for secondary outcomes also revealed notable findings. For CD31 expression, inflammatory cytokines, and growth factors, the asymmetric distribution in the funnel plot, the addition of studies in the trim and fill method, and Egger’s test with p-values < 0.05 all indicate significant publication bias. However, Begg’s test yielded p-values of 0.11, 0.12, and 0.76, respectively. The asymmetric funnel plot, the addition of studies in the trim and fill method, and Begg’s test with a p-value < 0.05 suggest significant publication bias. In contrast, Egger’s test showed a p-value of 0.11 (all results are available in Supplementary Data S3).
Table 6 Summary of publication bias and sensitivity analysis resualts for outcomes
Sensitivity analysis
For sensitivity analysis, we employed the one-out remove method to assess the influence of individual studies on the SMD as the effect size metric. According to Table 6, for both the primary outcome and secondary outcomes, the one-out remove method revealed that no outlier studies were identified, indicating that no single study had a significant impact on the overall SMD. This suggests that the results are not disproportionately influenced by any individual study (all results are available in Supplementary Data S4).
The Championships have begun, and the quintessentially British tennis tournament has some very particular codes for attendees to follow. How are spectators expected to behave, and what should they – or should they definitely not – wear?
Afternoon tea, a stiff upper lip and Wimbledon – all so deeply “British” that they’ve become part of the nation’s international brand; the things that seem to make Britain, Britain, and tempt tourists from far and wide to observe them for themselves.
The optics of the annual tennis tournament in south London – the strawberries and cream, the Pimm’s, the ball girls and boys – are all intrinsic to this frightfully British institution. It is a marker of “The Season”, alongside the likes of the Chelsea Flower Show, Henley and Ascot, as well, of course, as being a place where balls are expertly hit by rackets. Equally intrinsic to the Britishness of the tournament are its less tangible cornerstones. Its rules and the etiquette are paramount, both in terms of behaviour and dress – in other words, what to wear, and what falls a little long of the baseline.
Getty Images
Strawberries and cream are a popular spectator tradition at the Wimbledon Championships (Credit: Getty Images)
So what does the etiquette of Wimbledon entail? For starters, according to the self-styled queen of etiquette, Laura Windsor – who advised on the TV series Bridgerton – don’t call it Wimbledon. “Really, when one refers to Wimbledon, one should say the Championships, as they are the oldest and most prestigious lawn tennis championships in the world.” Another suitable moniker is simply “the tennis”.
Attendees should, she tells the BBC, be behaving “with modesty… That’s our Britishness, isn’t it? We’re prim and proper”. What does this look like? For a start, avoiding many of the kinds of behaviours that are the norm at other sporting events, and instead behaving in ways arguably more in line with theatre-going, keeping things largely hushed, and not cracking out a selfie-stick – they were banned from the tournament in 2015. Although for British etiquette coach and author of Just Good Manners, William Hanson, “anyone who is still using a selfie-stick in 2025 should be monitored closely, anyway”.
Best behaviour
According to Hanson, “while people love the social side of Wimbledon, it is worth remembering that it is a seated, sporting event that comes with its own set of court-side rules.” He goes on: “Be punctual, and get in your seat in good time… respect the fact that you can only come and go during a changeover.” Of course, phones should be on silent. But he also extends his guidance to how best to rally around the players, and officials, on court: “Be sporting with your support, and never cheer errors or mistakes. Respect the silence during play, and save clapping and cheering for between points. Avoid disturbing the players by calling out, and remember the umpire’s decision is final – never heckle or question line calls.”
Getty Images
The Panama hat has been a style favourite for Wimbledon attendees since the beginning of the 20th Century (Credit: Getty Images)
Beyond that, “keep your yourself to yourself,” he says. “Be aware of those sitting around you, and keep within the space of your seat – even if it is limited, try not to spill over into someone else’s personal space accidentally.” And, in case you were thinking about sneaking in a tuna melt, “avoid disturbing the peace by rustling wrappers or eating messy or smelly food”.
Be comfortable and appropriate for the weather, but avoid anything that is overly casual or better worn at the beach – William Hanson
Most obviously, though, the rules are embodied in what to wear – “the best way to show good behaviour is by dressing appropriately,” says Windsor. While Wimbledon has no strict dress code, smart dress is encouraged, especially on the show courts. Plus certain items, such as ripped jeans, dirty trainers and anything with a political statement, are banned. “Be comfortable and appropriate for the weather,” says Hanson, “but avoid anything that is overly casual or better worn at the beach”.
Unofficial dress code
Unofficially, however, Wimbledon has developed its own set of style rules. Take for proof of these unspoken but still-tangible “rules” the criticism that Meghan, Duchess of Sussex faced from some corners for wearing jeans, alongside a hat and blazer, to watch her friend Serena Williams play in 2019.
For Daniel-Yaw Miller, sports and fashion journalist and founder of the SportsVerse newsletter, “when you think about Wimbledon dressing, everyone has the same kind of thing in mind – either white or beige. You wear a blazer, you can wear a hat.” Guests often favour floral frocks, polka dots and tailoring. By osmosis, a dress code seems to have been landed upon. For Windsor, dressing appropriately means “something that is demure and sophisticated,” such as crisp linen and tailored pieces.
While Hanson points out that “wide-brimmed hats are best avoided as they can get in the way of those sitting behind you,” Panama hats have become something of an official Wimbledon uniform, popular in the audience from the start of the 20th Century.
Getty Images
Pale-hued, loosely structured tailoring, as worn by Sienna Miller, is a Wimbledon sartorial classic (Credit: Getty Images)
Over the years, a number of high-profile celebrities have offered up glowing examples of how to ace it sartorially in the stands of Centre Court. Zendaya, patron saint of “tenniscore”, schooled Wimbledon-goers last year when she wore Ralph Lauren menswear-inspired looks – crisp white and old school tweed suit jackets, blue-and-white-striped shirts and ties.
Other smashes include Meghan in neat pleats and white shirts, Keira Knightley in a dropped-waist Chanel dress, Tom Cruise, year-on-year, in natty suit after natty suit, Alexa Chung in Aran-knit cardigans and crisp cotton poplin skirts, and Pierce Brosnan in navy linen suits with neat pocket squares. Arguably, however, queen of SW19 dressing is Sienna Miller, thanks to her broderie anglaise dresses and easy-breezy linen suits, bright white Galvan jumpsuits and polka dots. Others have aced it despite not sticking to the script – see Grace Jones in a flight suit for a perfect example, or Idris Elba in a striking Super Eagles shirt.
You go to Wimbledon tennis for a fascinating day out, for an insight into what the past of British society looked like – Daniel Yaw Miller
Catherine, Princess of Wales, who is the royal patron of the All England Lawn Tennis Club, often wears green or purple, the official colours of the tournament since 1909. In recent years she’s attended in a plethora of shades of green, such as a forest green Dolce & Gabbana crepe midi-dress in 2019, and in 2021 an emerald green Emilia Wickstead number – the colour of the grass at the beginning of the tournament, if not the end. Last year, Kate wore a purple Safiyaa dress to present the trophies for the men’s singles.
Sense of tradition
The presence of royalty every year underlines the event’s sense of tradition, and tennis has long been associated with wealth, status and glamour. “Tennis was this social game, rather elite and glamorous,” says Elizabeth Wilson, author of Love Game: A History of Tennis, from Victorian Pastime to Global Phenomenon – its original setting was the country house. “It is, without doubt, a traditionally upper-class sport, and that essence still permeates through a lot of tennis,” says Miller. He likens it to cricket, or Ascot, “where you have to be so respectful, as an outsider coming in, of the rules”.
Getty Images
The Princess of Wales often wears green or purple – the Championships’ official colours – when attending the tennis (Credit: Getty Images)
Even among tennis tournaments, Wimbledon is extra-proper. “You look at other grand slams, [it] is the polar opposite,” Miller says, mentioning some examples: walk-out music, players dancing as they come out, Kiss Cam, hot dogs for sale and T-shirt guns.
It is, says Miller, “one of the last bastions of old-school British culture in the mainstream”. Its archaic quality is, for some, part of its charm and appeal. “I see Wimbledon as essentially like a museum. You go there for a fascinating day out, for an insight into what the past of British society looked like,” he says.
All this also has its downsides. “From a fan perspective, you’re really made to feel like you’re stepping into a space that is not yours,” says Miller. You need, to a certain extent, “to act like you’ve been there before”.
Shifting codes
Over the years, however, Wimbledon’s codes have been shifting. In lots of ways Wilson thinks “it’s more participatory 1751365187”. In the past, “people have described how the atmosphere was more like a cathedral, there was a rather holy atmosphere – whereas that’s very far from how it is today.”
Hanson agrees. “If we think of the Henman Hill/Murray Mound (and the rest), levels of patriotism and emotion, it is unlike public displays we would have seen in the past.”
Crowds do now whoop and shout, at least between points, and even partake in the occasional Mexican wave, which, according to Wilson, “nobody would have thought of doing in the 1950s”. When Miller went last year, he “could definitely feel that it was a bit more of a modern tennis experience”. He can feel it, he says, “loosening up, just the tiniest bit”.
Getty Images
Guests who regularly ace the event style-wise, left to right, David Beckham, Alexa Chung and Idris Elba (Credit: Getty Images)
Dress-wise, also, attitudes are softening. Miller sees Idris Elba and David Beckham as shining examples of dressers who know how to be Wimbledon-appropriate without looking stuck in the past. “The look is more ‘fancy barbecue’ than ‘super formal event’”.
For Hanson, points of etiquette prevail. “Etiquette is all about how our actions and behaviours affect or impact other people. We need to be considerate and careful in how we behave to ensure that everyone has a great day watching tennis. Wimbledon thrives on its age-old rituals, and remains one of the key traditional British summer sporting events – hopefully, for this special fortnight, we can all remember our manners, on court and off.”
