DNA Methylation and Demethylation Are Regulated by Functional DNA Methyltransferases and DnTET Enzymes in Diuraphis noxia

Aphids are economically important insect pests of crops worldwide. Despite resistant varieties being available, resistance is continuously challenged and eventually broken down, posing a threat to food security. In the current study, the epigenome of two related Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia, Kurdjumov) biotypes (i.e., SA1 and SAM) that differ in virulence was investigated to elucidate its role in virulence in this species. Whole genome bisulfite sequencing covered a total of 6,846,597,083 cytosine bases for SA1 and 7,397,965,699 cytosine bases for SAM, respectively, of which a total of 70,861,462 bases (SA1) and 74, 073,939 bases (SAM) were methylated, representing 1.126 ± 0.321% (SA1) and 1.105 ± 0.295% (SAM) methylation in their genomes. The sequence reads were analyzed for contexts of DNA methylation and the results revealed that RWA has methylation in all contexts (CpG, CHG and CHH), with the majority of methylation within the CpG context (± 5.19%), while the other contexts show much lower levels of methylation (CHG − ± 0.27%; CHH − ± 0.34%). The top strand was slightly (0.02%) more methylated than the bottom strand. Of the 35,493 genes that mapped, we also analyzed the contexts of methylation of each of these and found that the CpG methylation was much higher in genic regions than in intergenic regions. The CHG and CHH levels did not differ between genic and intergenic regions. The exonic regions of genes were more methylated (±0.56%) than the intronic regions. We also measured the 5mC and 5hmC levels between the aphid biotypes, and found little difference in 5mC levels between the biotypes, but much higher levels of 5hmC in the virulent SAM. RWA had two homologs of each of the DNA methyltransferases 1 (DNMT1a and DNMT1b) and DNMT3s (DNMT3a and DNMT3b), but only a single DNMT2, with only the expression of DNMT3 that differed significantly between the two RWA biotypes. RWA has a single ortholog of Ten eleven translocase (DnTET) in the genome. Feeding studies show that the more virulent RWA biotype SAM upregulate DnDNMT3 and DnTET in response to wheat expressing antibiosis and antixenosis

Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

Background Results of small trials indicate that fluoxetine might improve functional outcomes after stroke. The FOCUS trial aimed to provide a precise estimate of these effects. Methods FOCUS was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 103 hospitals in the UK. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, were enrolled and randomly assigned between 2 days and 15 days after onset, and had focal neurological deficits. Patients were randomly allocated fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo orally once daily for 6 months via a web-based system by use of a minimisation algorithm. The primary outcome was functional status, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff, and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Functional status was assessed at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed according to their treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83290762. Findings Between Sept 10, 2012, and March 31, 2017, 3127 patients were recruited. 1564 patients were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 allocated placebo. mRS data at 6 months were available for 1553 (99·3%) patients in each treatment group. The distribution across mRS categories at 6 months was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0·951 [95% CI 0·839–1·079]; p=0·439). Patients allocated fluoxetine were less likely than those allocated placebo to develop new depression by 6 months (210 [13·43%] patients vs 269 [17·21%]; difference 3·78% [95% CI 1·26–6·30]; p=0·0033), but they had more bone fractures (45 [2·88%] vs 23 [1·47%]; difference 1·41% [95% CI 0·38–2·43]; p=0·0070). There were no significant differences in any other event at 6 or 12 months. Interpretation Fluoxetine 20 mg given daily for 6 months after acute stroke does not seem to improve functional outcomes. Although the treatment reduced the occurrence of depression, it increased the frequency of bone fractures. These results do not support the routine use of fluoxetine either for the prevention of post-stroke depression or to promote recovery of function. Funding UK Stroke Association and NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme

Feasibility of reporting results of large randomised controlled trials to participants:experience from the Fluoxetine or Control under supervision (FOCUS) trial

Objectives Informing research participants of the results of studies in which they took part is viewed as an ethical imperative. However, there is little guidance in the literature about how to do this. The Fluoxetine Or Control Under Supervision trial randomised 3127 patients with a recent acute stroke to 6 months of fluoxetine or placebo and was published in the Lancet on 5 December 2018. The trial team decided to inform the participants of the results at exactly the same time as the Lancet publication, and also whether they had been allocated fluoxetine or placebo. In this report, we describe how we informed participants of the results.Design In the 6-month and 12-month follow-up questionnaires, we invited participants to provide an email address if they wished to be informed of the results of the trial. We re-opened our trial telephone helpline between 5 December 2018 and 31 March 2019.Setting UK stroke services.Participants 3127 participants were randomised. 2847 returned 6-month follow-up forms and 2703 returned 12-month follow-up forms; the remaining participants had died (380), withdrawn consent or did not respond.Results Of those returning follow-up questionnaires, a total of 1845 email addresses were provided and a further 50 people requested results to be sent by post. Results were sent to all email and postal addresses provided; 309 emails were returned unrecognised. Seventeen people replied, of whom three called the helpline and the rest responded by email.Conclusion It is feasible to disseminate results of large trials to research participants, though only around 60% of those randomised wanted to receive the results. The system we developed was efficient and required very little resource, and could be replicated by trialists in the future.Trial registration number ISRCTN83290762; Post-results