Removing Systemic Barriers to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion: Report of the 2019 Plant Science Research Network Workshop “Inclusivity in the Plant Sciences”

A future in which scientific discoveries are valued and trusted by the general public cannot be achieved without greater inclusion and participation of diverse communities. To envision a path towards this future, in January 2019 a diverse group of researchers, educators, students, and administrators gathered to hear and share personal perspectives on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the plant sciences. From these broad perspectives, the group developed strategies and identified tactics to facilitate and support EDI within and beyond the plant science community. The workshop leveraged scenario planning and the richness of its participants to develop recommendations aimed at promoting systemic change at the institutional level through the actions of scientific societies, universities, and individuals and through new funding models to support research and training. While these initiatives were formulated specifically for the plant science community, they can also serve as a model to advance EDI in other disciplines. The proposed actions are thematically broad, integrating into discovery, applied and translational science, requiring and embracing multidisciplinarity, and giving voice to previously unheard perspectives. We offer a vision of barrier-free access to participation in science, and a plant science community that reflects the diversity of our rapidly changing nation, and supports and invests in the training and well-being of all its members. The relevance and robustness of our recommendations has been tested by dramatic and global events since the workshop. The time to act upon them is now

A Link among DNA Replication, Recombination, and Gene Expression Revealed by Genetic and Genomic Analysis of TEBICHI Gene of Arabidopsis thaliana

Spatio-temporal regulation of gene expression during development depends on many factors. Mutations in Arabidopsis thaliana TEBICHI (TEB) gene encoding putative helicase and DNA polymerase domains-containing protein result in defects in meristem maintenance and correct organ formation, as well as constitutive DNA damage response and a defect in cell cycle progression; but the molecular link between these phenotypes of teb mutants is unknown. Here, we show that mutations in the DNA replication checkpoint pathway gene, ATR, but not in ATM gene, enhance developmental phenotypes of teb mutants, although atr suppresses cell cycle defect of teb mutants. Developmental phenotypes of teb mutants are also enhanced by mutations in RAD51D and XRCC2 gene, which are involved in homologous recombination. teb and teb atr double mutants exhibit defects in adaxial-abaxial polarity of leaves, which is caused in part by the upregulation of ETTIN (ETT)/AUXIN RESPONSIVE FACTOR 3 (ARF3) and ARF4 genes. The Helitron transposon in the upstream of ETT/ARF3 gene is likely to be involved in the upregulation of ETT/ARF3 in teb. Microarray analysis indicated that teb and teb atr causes preferential upregulation of genes nearby the Helitron transposons. Furthermore, interestingly, duplicated genes, especially tandemly arrayed homologous genes, are highly upregulated in teb or teb atr. We conclude that TEB is required for normal progression of DNA replication and for correct expression of genes during development. Interplay between these two functions and possible mechanism leading to altered expression of specific genes will be discussed

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Nurses' perceptions of aids and obstacles to the provision of optimal end of life care in ICU

Contains fulltext : 172380.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

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