Category: 3. Business

This impact story is part of a series featuring companies that are members of One Planet Business for Biodiversity (OP2B)/WBCSD. Through these stories, we aim to showcase our members’ commitment to driving the transition to regenerative agricultural practices, the impact on farmers, and the role OP2B plays in supporting this transformation.

From strategy to soil

Across Europe’s barley fields, Carlsberg Group is redefining the way its beer is grown and sourced. The brewer is putting regenerative agriculture at the heart of its sustainability strategy, aiming for 30% of agricultural raw materials to be sourced regeneratively by 2030 and 100% by 2040. For a company whose carbon footprint is largely tied to farming, this marks a fundamental shift in how it secures its key ingredient.

“If there is one thing that has truly changed in the last 20 years, it is that climate change is no longer a distant threat,” says Simon Boas Hoffmeyer, Vice President for Sustainability and ESG. “We are acting now to build resilience into our value chains, and regenerative agriculture is a cornerstone of that transformation.”

Through its Together Towards ZERO and Beyond programme, Carlsberg has developed six regenerative principles tested with agricultural partners such as Agrovi in Denmark, Ceres Rural in the UK and the Baltic Sea Action Group in Finland. These principles promote crop rotation, continuous soil cover, minimal soil disturbance, reduced synthetic inputs and zero insecticides on malting barley. “It is about protecting the natural capital we depend on: our soil, our water and biodiversity,” Hoffmeyer explains. “The ambition is to move from isolated projects to a systemic approach that benefits both farmers and the planet.”

Testing what works on the ground

Carlsberg’s regenerative journey is gathering pace across its main barley-sourcing regions. The company is turning its principles into practice through pilot programmes in France, Finland and Denmark, each designed to demonstrate that regenerative farming can deliver both economic and agronomic value. 

We have learned that regenerative agriculture is not a one-size-fits-all model. It requires local adaptation, strong partnerships and the right incentives for farmers.

– Simon Boas Hoffmeyer, Vice President for Sustainability and ESG

In Finland, Carlsberg’s subsidiary Sinebrychoff has partnered with the Baltic Sea Action Group to source regenerative barley for its annual KOFF Christmas Beer. Working with pioneering farmers who have adopted practices such as minimal tillage, cover cropping and crop rotation, the programme shows how regenerative methods can improve soil health while reducing nutrient runoff into the Baltic Sea. The barley from these farms has been certified as “Baltic Sea-friendly” following rigorous assessment of cultivation practices.

“These pilots have given us valuable insight into what it takes to scale responsibly,” Hoffmeyer says. “Transitioning requires time, technical support and financial certainty, but the long-term gains in soil fertility and climate resilience are clear.”

Denmark: turning regenerative principles into mainstream supply

In Denmark, Carlsberg’s home market, regenerative brewing has moved from pilot fields to commercial reality. The breakthrough came with new partnerships and contracts in Denmark. As part of a launch event, the company also produced a concept-beer brewed entirely from regenerative barley. “We wanted to show what regenerative brewing can look like in practice, from the field to the final product,” says Stig Schneider Johnsen, Senior Sustainability Manager at Carlsberg Denmark.

To make it happen, Carlsberg joined forces with DLG, the farmer-owned cooperative, and Viking Malt, contracting up to 15,000 tonnes of regenerative barley for the coming year, enough to brew around 100 million liters of beer. What began with two pioneering farms in Zealand will soon expand to more than 50 growers across the country. 

The farmers we work with are innovators. They demonstrate that healthier soils, lower input costs and stable yields can go hand in hand. Our role is to create stable demand and fair pricing so that more farmers can join.

– Stig Schneider Johnsen, Senior Sustainability Manager

One of these early adopters is Kaare Larsen, a dairy and arable farmer based in Gilleleje, North Sealand. He began experimenting with reduced tillage more than a decade ago.

The improvements to the soil came quickly, and that convinced me to keep pushing further.

– Kaare Larsen, Dairy and Arable Farmer

DLG provides technical support to adopt practices such as continuous ground cover, diverse crop rotations and minimal tillage. “It is a journey that requires patience and collaboration,” Johnsen says, “but the benefits for soil health, water retention and carbon sequestration are already visible.”

Larsen sees the partnership as a catalyst for change. “Having companies like Carlsberg take the lead gives us the confidence to invest and try new methods. Without that kind of commitment, scaling regenerative farming would be much harder,” he says.

The model also encourages collaboration beyond barley. “A regenerative system involves multiple crops,” Johnsen adds. “Creating demand for the entire rotation is essential to make the system viable in the long term.”

Scaling regeneration through collective action

For Carlsberg, transforming food systems toward regeneration is a collective effort. “Advocacy is key,” Hoffmeyer says. “We need policymakers, especially at EU level, to recognise the benefits of regenerative agriculture and reflect them in frameworks such as the Common Agricultural Policy.” Recognising these benefits helps ensure that public funding supports farmers as they transition.

Regenerative agriculture also requires a shared understanding of outcomes and metrics to guide collaboration between public and private actors. “If every company defines and measures regenerative agriculture differently, scalability will be impossible,” Hoffmeyer notes. Through collaboration with OP2B and other platforms like SAI Platform, Carlsberg helps build a shared language for impact. Harmonised metrics enable stakeholders across value chains, from farmers to companies, investors and the public sector, to align on outcomes and make collective investment more effective.

Through OP2B, the company is joining forces with other global businesses to accelerate systemic change. “The cost cannot rest on a single link in the value chain when the whole system benefits,” Hoffmeyer adds. By joining collaborative projects that work across the value chain, Carlsberg and its peers are identifying shared opportunities to support farmers in covering the costs and risks of transition. “The greatest opportunity,” he concludes, “is to turn regenerative agriculture from a niche practice into the new conventional. Once farmers see the benefits, they will inspire others, and that is how real change happens.”

Regenerative agriculture is a critical solution to transform the way we produce food, feed and fibre, benefiting the climate, nature and people. Over the next years, the OP2B coalition will focus on unlocking three strategic key levers to scale up regenerative agriculture: harmonising measurement, fostering collaborations to support farmers’ transition, advocating for supportive policies to create an enabling environment.

By Barbara Kollmeyer

CyrusOne says a cooling issue at a Chicago-area data center had impacted customers, including CME

The CME said Friday that futures trading has been halted for several markets due to a technical problem.

U.S. equity futures were finally back up and running just ahead of the opening of regular trading on Friday after a glitch at a data center in Chicago knocked markets out for several hours.

The outage had affected futures and options markets for stocks, commodities, as well as the EBS foreign-exchange platform and another for fixed-income trading. “All CME Group markets are open and trading,” the exchange said in a statement on X.

CME had blamed the outage, which began hours earlier, on a cooling issue at a data center. In an emailed comment to MarketWatch, a spokesperson for CyrusOne said it had been responding to a cooling problem at its CHI1 data center facility in the Chicago area affecting certain customers, including CME.

“On November 27, our CHI1 facility experienced a chiller plant failure affecting multiple cooling units. Our engineering teams, along with specialized mechanical contractors, are on-site working to restore full cooling capacity. We have successfully restarted several chillers at limited capacity and have deployed temporary cooling equipment to supplement our permanent systems,” said the spokesperson.

The world’s biggest operator of derivatives exchanges, the CME also runs the New York Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade. Futures for the Dow Jones Industrial Average (YM00) , S&P 500 (ES00) and Nasdaq-100 (NQ00) were moving modestly higher.

The CME also had a major outage in early 2019, which halted trading across all of its platforms, but equity futures trading was down for three hours, as opposed to Friday’s seemingly much longer outage.

The stock market was already set for a shortened day of trading on Black Friday, with the New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq exchange due to close at 1 p.m. ET, following Thursday’s Thanksgiving Day closure. Volumes tend to be lower on the day after the holiday, which can mean even small orders could cause big swings.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA and S&P 500 SPX each finished up nearly 0.7% on Wednesday, bringing week-to-date advances to 2.6% and 3.2%, respectively. Both indexes were on track for their strongest Thanksgiving-week performances since 2012, based on preliminary data from Dow Jones Market Data. The Nasdaq composite finished 0.8%, bringing its week-to-date gain to 4.2% and on track for its best Thanksgiving-week performance since 2008, when it rose 10.9%.

Read: Stocks stage powerful comeback ahead of Thanksgiving. It wasn’t enough to erase November’s losses.

-Barbara Kollmeyer

This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.

  (END) Dow Jones Newswires

  11-28-25 0915ET
Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

BERLIN — The Swedish government promised on Friday to fight the sale of childlike sex dolls online after instances of such commerce had been reported earlier in the country.

“I think I react on behalf of all parents when I say that, as a mother, your heart really breaks watching these images and pictures of these dolls,” Sweden’s Minister for Social Services, Camilla Waltersson Grönvall, told The Associated Press.

The Swedish government wants “to make sure these products cannot any more be sold and bought anywhere,” she said.

She spoke after a meeting which the Swedish government convened on Friday “in response to several notable cases of e-commerce companies selling childlike sex dolls,” according to a statement by her ministry. Child protection groups, online vendors and government agencies participated.

The online platforms described the measures they are taking to make sure these kinds of products are no longer sold online, Waltersson Grönvall said.

Asked whether the ministry considers those measures sufficient, Waltersson Grönvall said: “I have been very clear that we will follow this very closely and we will not hesitate to take further action, which might involve further legislation if that is considered necessary.”

She said the government was preparing a strategy on protecting children from violence, which included steps to prevent sexual and online abuse.

The online sale of the disputed dolls in Sweden came to the public’s attention after the child protection group ChildX filed a police report against Amazon and several other e-commerce platforms earlier this month over the sale of sex dolls with a clear childlike appearance.

“The products, approximately one meter in length, are often dressed in school uniforms and marketed in a sexualized context,” the group said. “Swedish legislation prohibits material that portrays children in a sexualized manner. The sale or distribution of lifelike child-like sex dolls may thus fall under criminal provisions related to child sexual exploitation.”

ChildX Secretary General Ida Östensson, also speaking by phone to the AP, said that “our police complaint against Amazon and other sites for selling child-like sex dolls, together with public advocacy, led to the removal of these listings on Amazon.”

“We are taking this step because these products are designed to sexualize children,” said Östensson. “Their open sale and marketing fuel a culture that normalizes the sexual abuse of children. This is unacceptable. Children should never be commodified for sexual purposes.”

When reached by email, online vendor Amazon said it did not have anything to share beyond what it had previously told other media, which was that the company would attend Friday’s meeting and had taken products that had been flagged offline.

“We have strict policies and guidelines in the segment of adult products and we have always strictly prohibited child pornography,” an Amazon spokesperson was quoted by French daily Le Monde on Nov. 12.

In November, France’s government said it was moving toward suspending access to the Shein online marketplace until it proves its content conforms to French law, after authorities found illegal weapons and child-like sex dolls for sale on the fast-fashion giant’s website.

___

Claudia Ciobanu reported from from Warsaw, Poland.

Australian consumers are paying a premium for “mineral” sunscreens that contain almost identical chemicals to cheaper varieties, new testing has revealed.

The University of New South Wales’ school of chemistry tested 10 sunscreens, including Invisible Zinc children’s sunscreen and a Naked Sundays skin tint that retails for $58 – both marketed as mineral sunscreens.

Mineral sunscreens, which often contain zinc oxide, are usually marketed as more “natural” and gentler on the skin, and are sometimes described as reflecting UV.

They also tend to be much more expensive than generic supermarket or pharmacy products.

_{Sign up: AU Breaking News email}

The study found that while all 10 products exceeded their sun protection factor (SPF) claims, some of the protection provided by the Invisible Zinc and Naked Sundays products actually came from chemicals not identified on the bottle.

The researchers found a range of products contain chemical filters which aren’t listed as active ingredients, with prices for some mineral sunscreens as high as $82 for a 50ml bottle.

“If a sunscreen is giving the illusion that it only contains so-called mineral components … it’s very likely it contains almost identical stuff as other sunscreens and that’s what makes them work so well,” UNSW Prof Jon Beves said.

Brands ‘exploiting a loophole’ to market sunscreen

Sunscreens typically work by creating a barrier between the skin and the sun’s rays by absorbing UV radiation.

The UNSW study found that while zinc oxide reflects UV, it acts similarly to “chemical” filters, via absorption.

The researchers also found that some brands include other UV-absorbing chemicals in mineral sunscreens, without fully disclosing this to consumers.

Most sunscreens in Australia are registered with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which requires the submission of SPF test results and a list of ingredients.

But some do not need TGA registration, because brands describe them as cosmetic products, meaning they are subject to fewer regulations and do not need to disclose any ingredients.

Unregulated chemicals in a third of ‘mineral’ sunscreens

A broader review by the UNSW researchers, examining 143 sunscreens registered with the TGA that list only mineral filters such as zinc oxide as active ingredients, found more than a third also contain unregulated chemical filters.

Nearly 25% of the products contain butyloctyl salicylate and ethylhexyl methoxycrylene, chemical filters that protect from UV radiation but do not have to be listed as “active” ingredients with the TGA because they aren’t regulated.

The UNSW’s Dr Anna Wang said these chemicals are used to make products feel nicer on the skin, but they also absorb UV in a similar manner to the common sunscreen ingredients ethylhexyl salicylate and octocrylene. Both ingredients are regulated by the TGA, making them subject to safety reviews.

New tests reveal ‘hidden’ chemicals boosting SPF

To test the sunscreens, the UNSW scientists spread films of each product on quartz, a type of glass that does not absorb UV on its own.

They used a device that could pass UV light through each sunscreen’s film to see how much light was absorbed and reflected, and worked out the patterns that zinc oxide showed compared with “chemical” filters.

In the case of the Invisible Zinc Junior Mineral Sunscreen SPF50, the UNSW testing found zinc oxide wasn’t the only ingredient providing sun protection, despite the company advertising otherwise.

On the TGA register, its manufacturer, iNova Pharmaceuticals claims, zinc oxide is the product’s only “active” ingredient. It lists butylocyl salicylate and ethylhexyl methoxycrylene as “other” ingredients.

The UNSW research found there was “no doubt” these other chemicals contributed to the sunscreen’s SPF performance.

On its website, Invisible Zinc claims the sunscreen contains “no chemical UV filters”.

An iNova spokesperson said the assertion that the chemicals were hidden was “categorically false”, because they were disclosed in the product’s TGA listing.

“It is true that both [butyloctyl salicylate and ethylhexyl methoxycrylene] absorb UV, however, that is not their primary function in our formulation,” they said.

“We stand by the claims associated with Invisible Zinc Junior Mineral Sunscreen, particularly that micronized zinc oxide is the only active ingredient.”

Naked Sundays did not respond to Guardian Australia’s requests for comment.

But the UNSW researchers said its BeautyScreen SPF50 Peptide Foundation Tint returned similar results to those of Invisible Zinc’s.

On its website, the product lists zinc oxide 12% as its only active ingredient. It names butyloctyl salicylate as an “inactive” ingredient, but the UNSW researchers said this chemical was “definitely boosting the SPF” of the product.

Because it is considered a cosmetic the product does not need to be registered with the TGA or list its ingredients on the regulator’s website.

Sunscreen industry under a microscope

The UNSW research was conducted over several months after the consumer advocacy group Choice prompted a scandal in June with its own investigation into popular sunscreen brands’ SPF claims.

The industry has previously run on an honour system: sunscreen brands “self-certify” they have tested SPF claims, and the TGA does not usually do its own testing.

But after the Choice investigation, the TGA recalled a range of sunscreens and is considering changes to the way it regulates the industry, including how products should be tested.

The UNSW researchers said their calculations were a “best-case scenario” because their testing could not account for the potential interaction between the sunscreens and skin, especially if it were absorbed or washed off.

The TGA has said, however, that variability between people presents issues with testing sunscreen on human skin. The regulator is considering a shift to in vitro SPF testing, away from the accepted method of using human volunteers.

The TGA has been contacted for comment.

EPA

‘Substantial risk’

More than 1,000 Amazon employees have signed an open letter expressing “serious concerns” about AI development, saying that the company’s “all-costs justified, warp speed” approach to the powerful technology will cause damage to “democracy, to our jobs, and to the earth.”

The letter, published on Wednesday, was signed by the Amazon workers anonymously, and comes a month after Amazon announced mass layoff plans as it increases adoption of AI in its operations.

Among the signatories are staffers in a range of positions, including engineers, product managers and warehouse associates.

Reflecting broader AI concerns across the industry, the letter was also supported by more than 2,400 workers from companies including Meta, Google, Apple and Microsoft.

The letter contains a range of demands for Amazon, concerning its impact on the workplace and the environment. Staffers are calling on the company to power all its data centers with clean energy, make sure its AI-powered products and services do not enable “violence, surveillance and mass deportation”, and form a working group comprised of non-managers “that will have significant ownership over org-level goals and how or if AI should be used in their orgs, how or if AI-related layoffs or headcount freezes are implemented, and how to mitigate or minimize the collateral effects of AI use, such as environmental impact”.

The letter was organized by employees affiliated with the advocacy group Amazon Employees for Climate Justice. One worker who was involved in drafting the letter explained that workers were compelled to speak out because of negative experiences with using AI tools in the workplace, as well as broader environmental concerns about the AI boom. The staffers, the employee said, wanted to advocate for a better way to develop, deploy and use the technology.

“I signed the letter because of leadership’s increasing emphasis on arbitrary productivity metrics and quotas, using AI as justification to push myself and my colleagues to work longer hours and push out more projects on tighter deadlines,” said a senior software engineer, who has been with the company for over a decade, and requested anonymity due to fear of reprisal.

Climate goals

The letter accuses Amazon of “casting aside its climate goals to build AI”.

Like other companies in the generative AI race, Amazon has invested heavily in building new data centers to power new tools – which are more resource intensive and demand high amounts of electricity to operate. The company plans to spend $150bn on data centers in the next 15 years, and just recently said it will invest $15bn to build data centers in northern Indiana and at least $3bn for data centers in Mississippi.

The letter claims that Amazon’s annual emissions have “grown roughly 35% since 2019”, despite the company’s promise in 2019 to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2040. It warns many of Amazon’s investments in AI infrastructure will be in “locations where their energy demands will force utility companies to keep coal plans online or build new gas plants”.

“‘AI’ is being used as a magic word that is code for less worker power, hoarding of more resources, and making an uninformed gamble on high energy demand computer chips magically saving us from climate change,” said an Amazon customer researcher, who requested anonymity out of fear of retaliation for speaking out. “If we can build a climate saving AI – that’s awesome! But that’s not what Amazon is spending billions of dollars to develop. They are investing fossil fuel energy draining data centers for AI that is intended to surveil, exploit, and squeeze every extra cent out of customers, communities, and government agencies.”

In a statement to the Guardian, Amazon spokesperson Brad Glasser pushed back on employees’ claims and pointed toward the company’s climate goals. “Not only are we the leading data center operator in efficiency, we’re the world’s largest corporate purchaser of renewable energy for five consecutive years with over 600 projects globally,” said Glasser. “We’ve also invested significantly in nuclear energy through existing plants and new SMR technology–these aren’t distractions, they’re concrete actions demonstrating real progress toward our Climate Pledge commitment to reach net-zero carbon across our global operations by 2040.”

AI for productivity

The letter also includes strict demands around the role of AI in the Amazon workplace, demands that, staffers say, arose out of challenges employees are experiencing.

Three Amazon employees who spoke to the Guardian claimed that the company is pressuring them to use AI tools for productivity, in an effort to increase output. “I’m getting messaging from my direct manager and [from] of all the way up the chain, about how I should be using AI for coding, for writing, for basically all of my day-to-day tasks, and that those will make me more efficient, and also that if I don’t get on board and use them, that I’m going to fall behind, that it’s sort of sink or swim,” said a software engineer who has been with Amazon for over two years, requesting anonymity due to fear of reprisal.

The worker added that just weeks ago she was told by her manager that they were “expected to do twice as much work because of AI tools”, and expressed concern that the output expected demanded with fewer people is unsustainable, and “the tools are just not making up that gap.”

The customer researcher echoed similar concerns. “I have both personally felt the pressure to use AI in my role, and hear from so many of my colleagues they are under the same pressure …”.

“All the while, there’s no discussion about the immediate effects on us as workers – from unprecedented layoffs to unrealistic expectations for output.”

The senior software engineer said that the adoption of AI has had imperfect outcomes. He said that most commonly, workers are pressured to adopt agentic code generation tools: “Recently I worked on a project that was just cleaning up after a high-level engineer tried to use AI to generate code to complete a complex project,” said this worker. “But none of it worked and he didn’t understand why – starting from scratch would have actually been easier.”

Amazon did not respond to questions about the staffers’ workplace critiques about AI use.

Workers emphasized they are not against AI outright, rather they want it to be developed sustainably and with input from the people building and using it. “I see Amazon using AI to justify a power grab over community resources like water and energy, but also over its own workers, who are increasingly subject to surveillance, work speedups, and implicit threats of layoffs,” said the senior software engineer. “There is a culture of fear around openly discussing the drawbacks of AI at work, and one thing the letter is setting out to accomplish is to show our colleagues that many of us feel this way and that another path is possible.”

ACD is an evolutionary conserved mechanism used by stem and progenitor cells to generate cell diversity during development and regulate tissue homeostasis in the adult. CSCs, present in many human tumors, can divide asymmetrically to generate intratumoral heterogeneity or symmetrically to expand the tumor by self-renewal. Over the past 15 years, it has been suggested that dysregulation of the balance between symmetric and ACDs in CSCs, favoring symmetric divisions, can trigger tumor progression in different types of cancer (Bajaj et al., 2015; Chao et al., 2024; Li et al., 2022), including mammary tumors (Cicalese et al., 2009; Dey-Guha et al., 2011), GBM (Chen et al., 2014), oligodendrogliomas (Sugiarto et al., 2011; Daynac et al., 2018), colorectal cancer (Bu et al., 2013; Hwang et al., 2014), and hepatocellular carcinoma (Hwang et al., 2014). Thus, it is of great relevance to get a deeper insight into the network of regulators that control ACD, as well as the mechanisms by which they operate in this key process.

Drosophila neural stem cells or NBs have been used as a paradigm for many decades to study ACD (Homem and Knoblich, 2012). NBs divide asymmetrically to give rise to another self-renewing NB and a daughter cell that will start a differentiation process. Over all these years, a complex network of ACD regulators that tightly modulate this process has been characterized. For example, the so-called cell-fate determinants, including the Notch inhibitor Numb, accumulate asymmetrically at the basal pole of mitotic NBs and are exclusively segregated to one daughter cell, promoting in this cell a differentiation process. The asymmetric distribution of cell-fate determinants in the NB is, in turn, regulated by an intricate group of proteins asymmetrically located at the apical pole of mitotic NBs, generically known as the ‘apical complex’. This apical complex includes kinases (i.e., aPKC), small GTPases (i.e., Cdc42, Rap1), and Par proteins (i.e., Par-6, Par3), among others (Homem and Knoblich, 2012).

Given the potential relevance of ACD in CSCs, we decided to take advantage of all the knowledge accumulated in Drosophila about the network of modulators that control asymmetric NB division. As a first approach, we aimed to analyze whether the levels of human homologs of known Drosophila ACD regulators were altered in human tumors. Specifically, we centered on human GBM, as the presence of CSCs (GSCs) has been shown in this tumor. The microarray we interrogated with GBM patient samples had some limitations. For example, not all the human gene homologs of the Drosophila ACD regulators were present (i.e., the human homologs of the determinant Numb). Likewise, we only tested seven different GBM patient samples. Nevertheless, the output from this analysis was enough to determine that most of the human genes tested in the array presented altered levels of expression. We selected for further analyses RAP2A, one of the human genes that showed the lowest levels of expression compared to the control samples. However, it would be interesting to analyze in the future the potential consequences that altered levels of expression of the other human homologs in the array can have in the behavior of the GSCs. In silico analyses, taking advantage of the existence of established datasets, such as the TCGA, can help to more robustly assess, in a bigger sample size, the relevance of those human genes’ expression levels in GBM progression, as we observed for the gene RAP2A.

We have previously shown that Drosophila Rap1 acts as a novel NB ACD regulator in a complex with other small GTPases and the apical regulators Canoe (Cno), aPKC, and Par-6 (Carmena et al., 2011). Here, we have shown that Drosophila Rap2l also regulates NB ACD by ensuring the correct localization of the ACD modulators Cno and Numb. We have also demonstrated that RAP2A, the human homolog of Drosophila Rap2l, behaves as an ACD regulator in GBM neurosphere cultures, and its restitution to these GBM cultures, in which it is present at low levels, targets the stemness of GSCs, increasing the number of ACDs. It would be of great interest in the future to determine the specific mechanism by which Rap2l/RAP2A is regulating this process. One possibility is that, as it occurs in the case of the Drosophila ACD regulator Rap1, Rap2l/RAP2A is physically interacting or in a complex with other relevant ACD modulators. Thus, this study supports the relevance of ACD in CSCs of human tumors to refrain the expansion of the tumor. Other studies, however, claim that ACD should be targeted in human tumors as it promotes the intratumoral heterogeneity that hampers the complete tumor loss after chemotherapy (Samanta et al., 2023; Chao et al., 2023; Hitomi et al., 2021). More investigations should be carried out with other human gene homologs of ACD regulators to further confirm the results of this study. Likewise, analyses in vivo (i.e., in mouse xenografts) would also be required to reinforce our conclusions. This would be very relevant in order to consider ACD restitution in CSCs of human tumors, what has been called ‘differentiation therapy’ (de Thé, 2018), as a potential alternative therapeutic treatment.