Efficacy of the feed additive containing Companilactobacillus farciminis (formerly Lactobacillus farciminis) CNCM I-3740 (Biacton\uae) for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and laying hens (ChemVet dk A/S)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of the additive consisting of Companilactobacillus farciminis (formerly Lactobacillus farciminis) CNCM I-3740 (tradename: Biacton\uae) for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and laying hens. The additive is a preparation containing viable cells of C. farciminis CNCM I-3740 at the minimum concentration of 1  7 109 CFU/g additive. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel assessed the safety and the efficacy of the product when used in these target species. The Panel concluded that based on the qualified presumption of safety of the active agent, and the lack of concerns deriving from other components of the additive, Biacton\uae was presumed safe for the target animals, consumers and the environment. Regarding the safety for the user, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be irritant to skin and eyes or its dermal sensitisation due to the lack of data. However, it concluded that the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The data provided in the previous assessment to support the efficacy of the additive did not allow drawing conclusions on the efficacy of the additive in any of the target species. The additional information submitted with chickens for fattening and laying hens did not provide sufficient evidence to conclude on the efficacy of Biacton\uae for these target species. No new information was provided that would lead the Panel to reconsider the conclusions already reached on the use of the additive with turkeys for fattening. The FEEDAP Panel, based on the available data, cannot conclude on the efficacy of Biacton\uae in chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and laying hens

Safety and efficacy of Bonvital® (Enterococcus faeciumDSM 7134) as a feed additive for laying hens

open23siFollowing a request from the European Commission, EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Bonvital® for laying hens. Bonvital® is an additive containing viable cells of Enterococcus faeciumDSM 7134 marketed in two forms, a granular and a powder form, both with a guaranteed minimum concentration of E. faeciumDSM 7134 of 1.0 × 1010 colony forming units (CFU)/g additive. Bonvital® in either form is intended for use in feed for laying hens at the minimum concentration of 1.0 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed and at the maximum concentration of 1.0 × 1010 CFU/kg feedingstuffs. Bonvital powder® is also proposed for use in water for drinking at the minimum concentration of 5.0 × 108 CFU/L. The use of Bonvital® in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target animals. The results of a tolerance trial in which hens were fed the additive at 10-fold the maximum recommended dose support this conclusion. Delivery of comparable doses of the additive via water for drinking is considered as safe for laying hens. Bonvital® at the proposed conditions of use is safe for consumers of products derived from animals fed the additive and for the environment. Bonvital® is not a dermal or ocular irritant but a potential dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Bonvital® has the potential to be efficacious in improving the hen's performance when supplemented at 1.0 × 109 CFU/kg feed or 5.0 × 108 CFU/L water for drinking.openBampidis V.; Azimonti G.; Bastos M.; Christensen H.; Dusemund B.; Kouba M.; Fasmon Durjava M.; Lopez-Alonso M.; Lopez Puente S.; Marcon F.; Mayo B.; Pechova A.; Petkova M.; Ramos F.; Sanz Y.; Villa R.; Woutersen R.; Dierick N.; Martelli G.; Anguita M.; Galobart J.; Revez J.; Brozzi R.Bampidis V.; Azimonti G.; Bastos M.; Christensen H.; Dusemund B.; Kouba M.; Fasmon Durjava M.; Lopez-Alonso M.; Lopez Puente S.; Marcon F.; Mayo B.; Pechova A.; Petkova M.; Ramos F.; Sanz Y.; Villa R.; Woutersen R.; Dierick N.; Martelli G.; Anguita M.; Galobart J.; Revez J.; Brozzi R

Safety and efficacy of TechnoSpore\uae (Bacillus coagulans DSM 32016) for piglets, other growing Suidae, chickens for fattening, other poultry for fattening and ornamental birds

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of TechnoSpore\uae (Bacillus coagulans DSM 32016), when used as a zootechnical additive for piglets (suckling and weaned), other growing Suidae, chickens for fattening, other poultry for fattening and ornamental birds. The bacterial species present in the additive is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the active agent was established and the lack of toxigenic potential confirmed. B. coagulans DSM 32016 did not show resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, and therefore, was presumed safe for the target species, consumers of products derived from animals Fed the additive and the environment. Since the other components of the additive did not give rise to concerns, TechnoSpore\uae was also considered safe for the target species, consumer and the environment. The additive is not a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. TechnoSpore\uae showed the potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive in weaned piglets and chickens for fattening at 1  7 109 CFU/kg complete feed. This conclusion was extended to suckling piglets and extrapolated to other growing Suidae at the same physiological stage and to other birds for fattening and ornamental birds at the same use level. B. coagulans DSM 32016 included in Technospore\uae is compatible with halofuginone and diclazuril. The Panel could not conclude on the compatibility of the additive with monensin sodium, decoquinate, robenidine hydrochloride, lasalocid sodium, narasin, salinomycin sodium, maduramicin ammonium, nicarbazin and narasin/nicarbazin

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of endo-1,4-β-xylanase produced by Komagataella phaffii DSM 33574, and viable spores of Bacillus velezensis DSM 21836 and Bacillus licheniformis ATCC 53757 (EnzaPro) for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying/breeding, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding and growing minor poultry species (BioResource International (BRI), Inc.)

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the product EnzaPro containing viable cells/spores of strains of Bacillus velezensis (DSM 21836) and Bacillus licheniformis (ATCC 53757) and an endo-1,4-β-xylanase produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii (DSM 33574) as a zootechnical additive in chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying/breeding, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding and minor poultry species for fattening or raised to the point of lay. The strains B. velezensis DSM 21836 and B. licheniformis ATCC 53757 were considered to meet the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) requirements. The K. phaffii xylanase production strain is genetically modified. No viable cells and no recombinant DNA of the genetically modified production strain were detected in the final product. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the additive does not pose any safety concern regarding the xylanase production strain. EnzaPro is safe for all poultry species for fattening or reared to the point of lay at the proposed conditions of use. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of EnzaPro in animal nutrition is safe for the consumers and the environment. EnzaPro is not a skin irritant but should be considered an eye irritant and a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation. Due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of EnzaPro for the target species. EnzaPro is compatible with diclazuril, halofuginone and nicarbazin

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of 6-phytase produced by Komagataella phaffii CGMCC 7.370 (VTR-phytase powder/liquid) for all pigs and all avian species (Victory Enzymes GmbH)

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 6-phytase (VTR-phytase) as zootechnical feed additive for all pigs and all avian species. The additive VTR-phytase consists of 6-phytase and it is available in solid and liquid forms. VTR phytase (liquid/solid) was produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii (CGMCC 7.370). The genetic modification of the production strain does not give rise to safety concerns. Viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final products. The additive does not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. VTR phytase (liquid/solid) produced by Komagataella phaffii CGMCC 7.370 is safe for all Suidae and all avian species at the proposed conditions of use. The use of both forms of the additive under assessment in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use raises no safety concerns for consumers or for the environment. The liquid VTR phytase and powder VTR phytase are non-irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered skin and respiratory sensitisers. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in laying hens at 1,000 U phytase/kg complete feed. The conclusion can be extrapolated to other birds for egg production or breeding. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of all pigs or growing poultry species

Safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of Bacillus licheniformis DSM 28710 (B-Act®) for laying hens, minor poultry species for laying, poultry species for breeding purposes and ornamental birds (HuvePharma N.V.)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of Bacillus licheniformis DSM 28710 (trade name: B-Act®) when used in feed for laying hens, minor poultry species for laying and for breeding purposes and ornamental birds. B. licheniformis is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The identity of the active agent was established, and it does not harbour acquired antimicrobial resistance genes or has toxigenic potential. Following the QPS approach, B. licheniformis DSM 28710 is presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Since no concerns are expected from the other components of the additive, B-Act® is also considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin/eye irritation or skin sensitisation potential of the additive, but B-Act® is considered a respiratory sensitiser. B-Act® when supplemented at 1.6 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed has the potential to be efficacious in laying hens. Considering also that the efficacy of the product was already shown in chickens and turkeys for fattening, the Panel concludes that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in minor poultry species for laying, poultry species for breeding purposes and for ornamental birds at the same inclusion level. The conclusions on the compatibility of B-Act® with coccidiostats previously drawn apply to the current application provided that the maximum authorised concentrations of the coccidiostats for the target species are equal or lower than those for chickens

An integrated multi-omics approach identifies the landscape of interferon-α-mediated responses of human pancreatic beta cells

Interferon-α (IFNα), a type I interferon, is expressed in the islets of type 1 diabetic individuals, and its expression and signaling are regulated by T1D genetic risk variants and viral infections associated with T1D. We presently characterize human beta cell responses to IFNα by combining ATAC-seq, RNA-seq and proteomics assays. The initial response to IFNα is characterized by chromatin remodeling, followed by changes in transcriptional and translational regulation. IFNα induces changes in alternative splicing (AS) and first exon usage, increasing the diversity of transcripts expressed by the beta cells. This, combined with changes observed on protein modification/degradation, ER stress and MHC class I, may expand antigens presented by beta cells to the immune system. Beta cells also up-regulate the checkpoint proteins PDL1 and HLA-E that may exert a protective role against the autoimmune assault. Data mining of the present multi-omics analysis identifies two compound classes that antagonize IFNα effects on human beta cells.This article is freely available via Open Access. Click on the Publisher URL to access it via the publisher's site.P30 DK097512/DK/NIDDK NIH HHS/United States UC4 DK104166/DK/NIDDK NIH HHS/United States MR/P010695/1/MRC_/Medical Research Council/United Kingdompublished version, accepted version, submitted versio

Joining S100 proteins and migration:for better or for worse, in sickness and in health

The vast diversity of S100 proteins has demonstrated a multitude of biological correlations with cell growth, cell differentiation and cell survival in numerous physiological and pathological conditions in all cells of the body. This review summarises some of the reported regulatory functions of S100 proteins (namely S100A1, S100A2, S100A4, S100A6, S100A7, S100A8/S100A9, S100A10, S100A11, S100A12, S100B and S100P) on cellular migration and invasion, established in both culture and animal model systems and the possible mechanisms that have been proposed to be responsible. These mechanisms involve intracellular events and components of the cytoskeletal organisation (actin/myosin filaments, intermediate filaments and microtubules) as well as extracellular signalling at different cell surface receptors (RAGE and integrins). Finally, we shall attempt to demonstrate how aberrant expression of the S100 proteins may lead to pathological events and human disorders and furthermore provide a rationale to possibly explain why the expression of some of the S100 proteins (mainly S100A4 and S100P) has led to conflicting results on motility, depending on the cells used. © 2013 Springer Basel

Genetic identification of brain cell types underlying schizophrenia

With few exceptions, the marked advances in knowledge about the genetic basis of schizophrenia have not converged on findings that can be confidently used for precise experimental modeling. Applying knowledge of the cellular taxonomy of the brain from single-cell RNA-sequencing, we evaluated whether the genomic loci implicated in schizophrenia map onto specific brain cell types. We found that the common variant genomic results consistently mapped to pyramidal cells, medium spiny neurons, and certain interneurons but far less consistently to embryonic, progenitor, or glial cells. These enrichments were due to sets of genes specifically expressed in each of these cell types. We also found that many of the diverse gene sets previously associated with schizophrenia (synaptic genes, FMRP interactors, antipsychotic targets, etc.) generally implicate the same brain cell types. Our results suggest a parsimonious explanation: the common-variant genetic results for schizophrenia point at a limited set of neurons, and the gene sets point to the same cells. The genetic risk associated with medium spiny neurons did not overlap with that of glutamatergic pyramidal cells and interneurons, suggesting that different cell types have biologically distinct roles in schizophrenia