In vitro replication capacity of HIV-2 variants from long-term aviremic individuals

To establish whether efficient suppression of virus replication in HIV-2-infected individuals is associated with low replicative capacity of HIV-2, replication kinetics of HIV-2 variants from long-term aviremic individuals was analyzed and compared with that of the relatively slow-replicating HIV-1 variants from asymptomatics and long-term nonprogressors (AS/LTNP). On average, HIV-2 from aviremic individuals had lower replication rates than HIV-1 variants from AS/LTNP in cells of 8 donors (0.45 log10 [range 0.14-0.77] vs. 0.58 log10 [range 0.32-0.99] pg RT/ml/day, P = 0.036). The relatively low replication rate of HIV-2 compared to HIV-1 variants was not related to different sensitivities to inhibition by CD8+ T cells or different degrees of infectivity. HIV-2 replication rates increased with progressive infection and with switch from CCR5 to CXCR4 usage. The relatively low replicative capacity of HIV-2 variants from aviremic individuals likely contributes to the low viral load and benign course of infection in these individuals

Некоторые патофизиологические аспекты хирургического лечения гнойно−деструктивных поражений кишечника

Проанализированы принципы хирургического лечения больных с гнойно−деструктивными поражениями кишечника. Сделан вывод, что обязательным элементом такого лечения при любом варианте заболевания является полное и стабильное восстановление кишечного пассажа, причем сроки восстановления должны быть опережающими в отношении нарастающих расстройств гомеостаза и дегенеративных нарушений в выключенных отделах кишечного тракта.The author analyzes the principles of treatment of patients with purulent destructive lesions of the intestine. It is concluded that the obligatory element of this treatment in any type of the disease is complete and stable restoration of the intestine passage. The terms of restoration should forestall the increasing homeostasis disorders and degenerative changes in the excluded portions of the intestinal tract

Prevalence and types of Campylobacter on poultry farms and in their direct environment.

To study whether broiler and layer farms contribute to the environmental Campylobacter load, environmental matrices at or close to farms, and caecal material from chickens, were examined. Similarity between Campylobacter from poultry and environment was tested based on species identification and Multilocus Sequence Typing. Campylobacter prevalence in caecal samples was 97% at layer farms (n = 5), and 93% at broiler farms with Campylobacter-positive flocks (n = 2/3). Campylobacter prevalence in environmental samples was 24% at layer farms, and 29% at broiler farms with Campylobacter-positive flocks. Campylobacter was detected in soil and surface water, not in dust and flies. Campylobacter prevalence in adjacent and remote surface waters was not significantly (P > 0.1) different. Detected species were C. coli (52%), C. jejuni (40%) and C. lari (7%) in layers, and C. jejuni (100%) in broilers. Identical sequence types (STs) were detected in caecal material and soil. A deviating species distribution in surface water adjacent to farms indicated a high background level of environmental Campylobacter. STs from layer farms were completely deviant from surface water STs. The occasional detection of identical STs in broilers, wastewater at broiler farms and surface water in the farm environment suggested a possible contribution of broiler farms to the aquatic environmental Campylobacter load

Prevalence and types of Campylobacter on poultry farms and in their direct environment.

To study whether broiler and layer farms contribute to the environmental Campylobacter load, environmental matrices at or close to farms, and caecal material from chickens, were examined. Similarity between Campylobacter from poultry and environment was tested based on species identification and Multilocus Sequence Typing. Campylobacter prevalence in caecal samples was 97% at layer farms (n = 5), and 93% at broiler farms with Campylobacter-positive flocks (n = 2/3). Campylobacter prevalence in environmental samples was 24% at layer farms, and 29% at broiler farms with Campylobacter-positive flocks. Campylobacter was detected in soil and surface water, not in dust and flies. Campylobacter prevalence in adjacent and remote surface waters was not significantly (P > 0.1) different. Detected species were C. coli (52%), C. jejuni (40%) and C. lari (7%) in layers, and C. jejuni (100%) in broilers. Identical sequence types (STs) were detected in caecal material and soil. A deviating species distribution in surface water adjacent to farms indicated a high background level of environmental Campylobacter. STs from layer farms were completely deviant from surface water STs. The occasional detection of identical STs in broilers, wastewater at broiler farms and surface water in the farm environment suggested a possible contribution of broiler farms to the aquatic environmental Campylobacter load

ESBL-producing <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> variants on laying hen farms.

<p>Maximum parsimony trees constructed based on the concatenated sequences of the seven MLST alleles, using Bionumerics 7.1 software. Node sizes reflect the number of isolates per ST and node colours represent different matrices. Additionally indicated are the phylogenetic group, ESBL-genotype and ABR profiles of isolates in every node (i.e., ST). Note that per sample maximally one isolate of each variant was included, and that multiple isolates of a specific variant reflects detection in multiple samples. ABR profiles represent antibiotics to which resistance was observed additionally to 3rd generation cephalosporins. In between brackets are antibiotics with MICs just above and just below epidemiological cut-off values (i.e. with a maximal 2-fold difference) among isolates with the same ST and/or ESBL genotype. Sx = sulfamethoxazole, Tm = trimethoprim; Te = tetracycline, Ci = ciprofloxacin, Na = nalidixic acid, St = streptomycin, Ge = gentamycin, Ax = amoxicillin+clavulanic acid, Ch = chloramphenicol; u.i.d. = unidentified.</p

ESBL-producing <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> and <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> concentrations in poultry manure and the environment.

<p>^aFor some of the samples total <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> was not determined (*): in these cases the number of samples analyzed for ESBL-producing <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> (a) and <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> (b) are indicated separately (n = a; b).</p><p>^bPercentages of samples positive for the indicated bacteria.</p><p>^c Concentration ranges observed in the positive samples</p><p>^d Indicated after fly species/family (n = x, y) is the number of pools (x) and the number of flies (y)</p><p>cfu = colony forming units; Geo-mean = geometric mean; n.a. = not applicable.</p><p>ESBL-producing <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> and <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> concentrations in poultry manure and the environment.</p

Numbers of characterized ESBL-producing <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> isolates per matrix and farm type.

<p>* Indicated between brackets are the numbers of isolates that were not characterized using MLST.</p><p>Numbers of characterized ESBL-producing <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> isolates per matrix and farm type.</p

Relationship between ESBL-producing variants from different matrices.

<p>Indicated are the proportions of isolates from the different environmental matrices, with identical counterparts in manure and rinse water and/or other environmental matrices at the same farm, based on phylogenetic group, ESBL-genotype, ABR profile and ST. White bars represent broiler farms, black bars represent laying hen farms, and hatched bars represent the results for all farms combined.</p

Map of the Netherlands showing locations of the sampled poultry farms.

<p>Map of the Netherlands showing locations of the sampled poultry farms.</p

Prevalence of ESBL-producing <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> in poultry faeces and environmental samples at laying hen and broiler farms.

<p>White bars represent broiler farms, black bars represent laying hen farms. In between brackets (n = a; b) are indicated the numbers of analysed samples at broiler (a) and laying hen farms (b) respectively; ns = not sampled; *includes water from pits and storage basins as well as run-off water and sediment from gullies.</p