Differential responses of osteoblasts and macrophages upon Staphylococcus aureus infection

Background Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is one of the primary causes of bone infections which are often chronic and difficult to eradicate. Bacteria like S. aureus may survive upon internalization in cells and may be responsible for chronic and recurrent infections. In this study, we compared the responses of a phagocytic cell (i.e. macrophage) to a non-phagocytic cell (i.e. osteoblast) upon S. aureus internalization. Results We found that upon internalization, S. aureus could survive for up to 5 and 7 days within macrophages and osteoblasts, respectively. Significantly more S. aureus was internalized in macrophages compared to osteoblasts and a significantly higher (100 fold) level of live intracellular S. aureus was detected in macrophages compared to osteoblasts. However, the percentage of S. aureus survival after infection was significantly lower in macrophages compared to osteoblasts at post-infection days 1–6. Interestingly, macrophages had relatively lower viability in shorter infection time periods (i.e. 0.5-4 h; significant at 2 h) but higher viability in longer infection time periods (i.e. 6–8 h; significant at 8 h) compared to osteoblasts. In addition, S. aureusinfection led to significant changes in reactive oxygen species production in both macrophages and osteoblasts. Moreover, infected osteoblasts had significantly lower alkaline phosphatase activity at post-infection day 7 and infected macrophages had higher phagocytosis activity compared to non-infected cells. Conclusions S. aureus was found to internalize and survive within osteoblasts and macrophages and led to differential responses between osteoblasts and macrophages. These findings may assist in evaluation of the pathogenesis of chronic and recurrent infections which may be related to the intracellular persistence of bacteria within host cells

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency–Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research