Modulation of immune responses by targeting CD169/Siglec-1 with the glycan ligand

A fundamental role in the plant-bacterium interaction for Gram-negative phytopathogenic bacteria is played by membrane constituents, such as proteins, lipopoly- or lipooligosaccharides (LPS, LOS) and Capsule Polysaccharides (CPS). In the frame of the understanding the molecular basis of plant bacterium interaction, the Gram-negative bacterium Agrobacterium vitis was selected in this study. It is a phytopathogenic member of the Rhizobiaceae family and it induces the crown gall disease selectively on grapevines (Vitis vinifera). A. vitis wild type strain F2/5, and its mutant in the quorum sensing gene ΔaviR, were studied. The wild type produces biosurfactants; it is considered a model to study surface motility, and it causes necrosis on grapevine roots and HR (Hypersensitive Response) on tobacco. Conversely, the mutant does not show any surface motility and does not produce any surfactant material; additionally, it induces neither necrosis on grape, nor HR on tobacco. Therefore, the two strains were analyzed to shed some light on the QS regulation of LOS structure and the consequent variation, if any, on HR response. LOS from both strains were isolated and characterized: the two LOS structures maintained several common features and differed for few others. With regards to the common patterns, firstly: the Lipid A region was not phosphorylated at C4 of the non reducing glucosamine but glycosylated by an uronic acid (GalA) unit, secondly: a third Kdo and the rare Dha (3-deoxy-lyxo-2-heptulosaric acid) moiety was present. Importantly, the third Kdo and the Dha residues were substituted by rhamnose in a not stoichiometric fashion, giving four different oligosaccharide species. The proportions among these four species, is the key difference between the LOSs from both the two bacteria. LOS from both strains and Lipid A from wild type A. vitis are now examined for their HR potential in tobacco leaves and grapevine roots

Political participation, diffused governance, and the transformation of democracy : patterns of change

Although democratic governments have introduced a number of institutional reforms in part intended to increase citizens’ political involvement, studies show a continued decline in regular political engagement. This book examines different forms of political participation in democracies, and in what way the delegation of public responsibilities—or, the diffusion of politics—has affected patterns of participation since the 1980s. The book addresses this paradox by directly investigating the impact of institutional changes on citizens’ political participation empirically. It re-analyses patterns of political participation in contemporary democracies, providing an in-depth time series cross-sectional analysis that helps develop a better understanding of how variation in political participation can be explained, both between countries and over time. As such, it develops an institutional theoretical framework which can help to explain levels of participation and shows that, instead of displaying more political apathy, citizens have reallocated or displaced their activities to a broader array of forms of participation.-- Part I: The Changing Democratic System -- 1. Patterns of Change -- 2. The Three Sides of the Coin: Unpacking Political Participation -- 3. Structuring Diffusion: Explaining Levels of Political Participation -- Part II: Patterns of Participation: The Impact of Competence Diffusion -- 4. Participation and Horizontal Diffusion -- 5. Participation and Vertical Diffusion -- 6. Political Participation and Diagonal Diffusion -- Part III: Democracy at the Crossroads? Some Conclusions -- 7. Levels of Political Participation and Multi-Directional Diffusion -- 8. Patterns of Change: Diffused DemocracyPublished version of EUI PhD thesis, 201

Serious Asthma Events with Fluticasone plus Salmeterol versus Fluticasone Alone

BACKGROUND: The safe and appropriate use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) for the treatment of asthma has been widely debated. In two large clinical trials, investigators found a potential risk of serious asthma-related events associated with LABAs. This study was designed to evaluate the risk of administering the LABA salmeterol in combination with an inhaled glucocorticoid, fluticasone propionate. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, adolescent and adult patients (age, ≥12 years) with persistent asthma were assigned to receive either fluticasone with salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. All the patients had a history of a severe asthma exacerbation in the year before randomization but not during the previous month. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had a history of life-threatening or unstable asthma. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization). Noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol to fluticasone alone was defined as an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the risk of the primary safety end point of less than 2.0. The efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation. RESULTS: Of 11,679 patients who were enrolled, 67 had 74 serious asthma-related events, with 36 events in 34 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 38 events in 33 patients in the fluticasone-only group. The hazard ratio for a serious asthma-related event in the fluticasone-salmeterol group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.66), and noninferiority was achieved (P=0.003). There were no asthma-related deaths; 2 patients in the fluticasone-only group underwent asthma-related intubation. The risk of a severe asthma exacerbation was 21% lower in the fluticasone-salmeterol group than in the fluticasone-only group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.89), with at least one severe asthma exacerbation occurring in 480 of 5834 patients (8%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group, as compared with 597 of 5845 patients (10%) in the fluticasone-only group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone did not have a significantly higher risk of serious asthma-related events than did those who received fluticasone alone. Patients receiving fluticasone-salmeterol had fewer severe asthma exacerbations than did those in the fluticasone-only group