Toxicity induced by Solanapyrone A in Chickpea shoots and its metabolism through Glutathione/Glutathione-S-Transferase system

Solanapyrone A and C were isolated from a Pakistani isolate of Ascochyta rabiei, Pk-1. Two experiments were conducted to investigate the phytotoxic effects of the most potent toxin, solanapyrone A on chickpea cultivars and its subsequent detoxification through glutathion/glutathion-s-transferase(GST) system. When the shoots of cultivars were fed solanapyrone A, symptoms mimicking to Ascochyta blight appeared and extent of manifestation of symptoms varied with the cultivar. In the first experiment, the effect of three different plant ages of 2 cultivars with different levels of resistance to toxin was determined in terms of GST activity unit. GST activity in Balkasar-2000 (a resistant cultivar) increased 1.92 times, 1.72 and 1.65 times in two-week-old seedling, eight-week-old and adult plants (all treated) respectively as compared to their respective controls. In the highly susceptible cultivar, AUG-424, a slight increase (1.14 times) over control was noticed in GST activity at all the three ages. In the second experiment, where shoots of three cultivars were tested against 2 doses of the toxin, an increase in GST activity in Noor-91 (a moderately susceptible cultivar) and AUG-424 was significantly less than resistant cultivar, Balkasar-2000 showing direct relationship between resistance and activity of the enzyme. It may be concluded that it is a reason for difference in response of cultivars to the disease

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries