Use of spectral information for red scale pest control

Decreasing the use of pesticides is one of the main goals of current agriculture, which requires fast, precise and continuous assessments of crop pests. Citrus pests cause a lot of damage worldwide and the techniques to evaluate them are mainly based on manual, time-consuming readings of insects stuck on traps spread over the crops. This is the case of red scale insects, whose control is notably challenging due to their small size and high reproduction rate. Hence, in this work, we carry out a spectral characterization of this insect in the visible range through spectrometric devices, microscopy and hyperspectral imaging technology to analyze the feasibility of using this information as a means of automatically identifying specimens belonging to this species in this era of precision agriculture. The results obtained show that spectral reflectance differences between red scales and other insects can be recorded at long (red) wavelengths and that red scales are morphologically different, i.e., smaller and more rounded. A reflectance ratio computed from spectral images taken at 774 nm and 410 nm is proposed as a new approach for automated discrimination of red scales from other insects.This project has been co-financed by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and has the support of the Secretariat of Universities and Research of the Department of Business and Knowledge of the Generalitat de Catalunya (Exp. 2019PROD00013)Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Medical versus surgical approach to initial treatment in septic arthritis: A single spanish center’s 8-year experience

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the functional results of 2 different procedure types, medical or surgical used in treating native joint septic arthritis. Methods In this cohort study, we reviewed the clinical registries of patients admitted to a single third-level hospital with the diagnosis of septic arthritis during the period of January 1, 2008, to January 31, 2016. Results A total of 63 cases of septic arthritis were identified in which the initial approach for 49 patients was medical (arthrocentesis), whereas the initial approach for 14 patients was surgical (arthroscopy or arthrotomy). Of the 49 patients who received initial medical treatment (IMT), 15 patients (30%) later required surgical treatment because of poor progress. The median age of the patients was 60 (SD, 18) years. The group who received IMT were older than those who received initial surgical treatment (median, 64 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 54–76 years], vs. 48 years [IQR, 30–60 years]). There was a larger percentage of male patients in the surgical group (78% vs. 42% [p = 0.018]). Thirty percent of the medical group had been receiving corticosteroid treatment (p = 0.018). Results of complete recovery of joint functionality showed no significant differences after 1 year (68% with MT vs. 67% with ST, p = 0.91). Both groups had similar symptom duration until diagnosis, duration of antibiotic therapy (median, 30 days [IQR, 28–49 days], vs. 29.5 days [IQR, 27–49] days), and mortality rate (3 in the medical group). Conclusions The results of the study show that initial surgical treatment in patients with native joint septic arthritis is not superior to IMT. However, half of the patients with shoulder and hip infections treated with IMT eventually required surgical intervention, suggesting that perhaps this should be the preferred initial approach in these cases

Cardiovascular and renal outcomes of renin-angiotensin system blockade in adult patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review with network meta-analyses

Medications aimed at inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) have been used extensively for preventing cardiovascular and renal complications in patients with diabetes, but data that compare their clinical effectiveness are limited. We aimed to compare the effects of classes of RAS blockers on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in adults with diabetes

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

Progression of renal disease (composite outcome) and all possible treatment comparisons.

<p>Progression of renal disease (composite outcome) and all possible treatment comparisons.</p

Evidence network of all treatment comparisons for all studies.

<p>Lines represent direct comparisons within randomized controlled trials. The size of nodes is proportional to the number of randomized participants (sample size), and the width of the lines is proportional to the number of trials comparing each pair of treatments. Nodes in green represent RAS blockers (in monotherapy and/or combination therapies). Nodes in blue represent other control arms included in the evidence networks to preserve randomization. ACEi, ACE inhibitor; DRi, DR inhibitor.</p

Availability of data for principal analyses.

<p>Availability of data for principal analyses.</p

Major cardiovascular outcome (composite endpoint) and all possible treatment comparisons.

<p>Major cardiovascular outcome (composite endpoint) and all possible treatment comparisons.</p