Transcriptomic Analysis of Inbred Chicken Lines Reveals Infectious Bursal Disease Severity Is Associated with Greater Bursal Inflammation In Vivo and More Rapid Induction of Pro-Inflammatory Responses in Primary Bursal Cells Stimulated Ex Vivo

In order to better understand differences in the outcome of infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) infection, we inoculated a very virulent (vv) strain into White Leghorn chickens of inbred line W that was previously reported to experience over 24% flock mortality, and three inbred lines (15I, C.B4 and 0) that were previously reported to display no mortality. Within each experimental group, some individuals experienced more severe disease than others but line 15I birds experienced milder disease based on average clinical scores, percentage of birds with gross pathology, average bursal lesion scores and average peak bursal virus titre. RNA-Seq analysis revealed that more severe disease in line W was associated with significant up-regulation of pathways involved in inflammation, cytoskeletal regulation by Rho GTPases, nicotinic acetylcholine receptor signaling, and Wnt signaling in the bursa compared to line 15I. Primary bursal cell populations isolated from uninfected line W birds contained a significantly greater percentage of KUL01+ macrophages than cells isolated from line 15I birds (p < 0.01) and, when stimulated ex vivo with LPS, showed more rapid up-regulation of pro-inflammatory gene expression than those from line 15I birds. We hypothesize that a more rapid induction of pro-inflammatory cytokine responses in bursal cells following IBDV infection leads to more severe disease in line W birds than in line 15I.

Implementing interventions to reduce antibiotic use: a qualitative study in high-prescribing practices.

BackgroundTrials have shown that delayed antibiotic prescriptions (DPs) and point-of-care C-Reactive Protein testing (POC-CRPT) are effective in reducing antibiotic use in general practice, but these were not typically implemented in high-prescribing practices. We aimed to explore views of professionals from high-prescribing practices about uptake and implementation of DPs and POC-CRPT to reduce antibiotic use.MethodsThis was a qualitative focus group study in English general practices. The highest antibiotic prescribing practices in the West Midlands were invited to participate. Clinical and non-clinical professionals attended focus groups co-facilitated by two researchers. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.ResultsNine practices (50 professionals) participated. Four main themes were identified. Compatibility of strategies with clinical roles and experience - participants viewed the strategies as having limited value as 'clinical tools', perceiving them as useful only in 'rare' instances of clinical uncertainty and/or for those less experienced. Strategies as 'social tools' - participants perceived the strategies as helpful for negotiating treatment decisions and educating patients, particularly those expecting antibiotics. Ambiguities - participants perceived ambiguities around when they should be used, and about their impact on antibiotic use. Influence of context - various other situational and practical issues were raised with implementing the strategies.ConclusionsHigh-prescribing practices do not view DPs and POC-CRPT as sufficiently useful 'clinical tools' in a way which corresponds to the current policy approach advocating their use to reduce clinical uncertainty and improve antimicrobial stewardship. Instead, policy attention should focus on how these strategies may instead be used as 'social tools' to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. Attention should also focus on the many ambiguities (concerns and questions) about, and contextual barriers to, using these strategies that need addressing to support wider and more consistent implementation

CropPol: A dynamic, open and global database on crop pollination

Seventy five percent of the world's food crops benefit from insect pollination. Hence, there has been increased interest in how global change drivers impact this critical ecosystem service. Because standardized data on crop pollination are rarely available, we are limited in our capacity to understand the variation in pollination benefits to crop yield, as well as to anticipate changes in this service, develop predictions, and inform management actions. Here, we present CropPol, a dynamic, open, and global database on crop pollination. It contains measurements recorded from 202 crop studies, covering 3,394 field observations, 2,552 yield measurements (i.e., berry mass, number of fruits, and fruit density [kg/ha], among others), and 47,752 insect records from 48 commercial crops distributed around the globe. CropPol comprises 32 of the 87 leading global crops and commodities that are pollinator dependent. Malus domestica is the most represented crop (32 studies), followed by Brassica napus (22 studies), Vaccinium corymbosum (13 studies), and Citrullus lanatus (12 studies). The most abundant pollinator guilds recorded are honey bees (34.22% counts), bumblebees (19.19%), flies other than Syrphidae and Bombyliidae (13.18%), other wild bees (13.13%), beetles (10.97%), Syrphidae (4.87%), and Bombyliidae (0.05%). Locations comprise 34 countries distributed among Europe (76 studies), North America (60), Latin America and the Caribbean (29), Asia (20), Oceania (10), and Africa (7). Sampling spans three decades and is concentrated on 2001–2005 (21 studies), 2006–2010 (40), 2011–2015 (88), and 2016–2020 (50). This is the most comprehensive open global data set on measurements of crop flower visitors, crop pollinators and pollination to date, and we encourage researchers to add more datasets to this database in the future. This data set is released for non-commercial use only. Credits should be given to this paper (i.e., proper citation), and the products generated with this database should be shared under the same license terms (CC BY-NC-SA).Fil: Allen Perkins, Alfonso. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid; España. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Estación Biológica de Doñana; EspañaFil: Magrach, Ainhoa. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid; EspañaFil: Dainese, Matteo. Eurac Research. Institute for Alpine Environment; ItaliaFil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro; ArgentinaFil: Kleijn, David. Wageningen University & Research; Países BajosFil: Rader, Romina. University of New England; AustraliaFil: Reilly, James R.. Rutgers University; Estados UnidosFil: Winfree, Rachael. Rutgers University; Estados UnidosFil: Lundin, Ola. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; SueciaFil: McGrady, Carley M.. North Carolina State University; Estados UnidosFil: Brittain, Claire. University of California at Davis; Estados UnidosFil: Biddinger, David J.. University of California Davis; Estados UnidosFil: Artz, Derek R.. United States Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Research Service; Estados UnidosFil: Elle, Elizabeth. University Fraser Simon; CanadáFil: Hoffman, George. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Ellis, James D.. University of Florida; Estados UnidosFil: Daniels, Jaret. University of Florida; Estados Unidos. University Of Florida. Florida Museum Of History; Estados UnidosFil: Gibbs, Jason. University of Manitoba; CanadáFil: Campbell, Joshua W.. University of Florida; Estados Unidos. Usda Ars Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory; Estados UnidosFil: Brokaw, Julia. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Wilson, Julianna K.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Mason, Keith. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Ward, Kimiora L.. University of California at Davis; Estados UnidosFil: Gundersen, Knute B.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Bobiwash, Kyle. University of Manitoba; Canadá. University Fraser Simon; CanadáFil: Gut, Larry. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Rowe, Logan M.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Boyle, Natalie K.. United States Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Research Service; Estados UnidosFil: Williams, Neal M.. University of California at Davis; Estados UnidosFil: Chacoff, Natacha Paola. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional; Argentin

CropPol: a dynamic, open and global database on crop pollination

Seventy five percent of the world's food crops benefit from insect pollination. Hence, there has been increased interest in how global change drivers impact this critical ecosystem service. Because standardized data on crop pollination are rarely available, we are limited in our capacity to understand the variation in pollination benefits to crop yield, as well as to anticipate changes in this service, develop predictions, and inform management actions. Here, we present CropPol, a dynamic, open and global database on crop pollination. It contains measurements recorded from 202 crop studies, covering 3,394 field observations, 2,552 yield measurements (i.e. berry weight, number of fruits and kg per hectare, among others), and 47,752 insect records from 48 commercial crops distributed around the globe. CropPol comprises 32 of the 87 leading global crops and commodities that are pollinator dependent. Malus domestica is the most represented crop (32 studies), followed by Brassica napus (22 studies), Vaccinium corymbosum (13 studies), and Citrullus lanatus (12 studies). The most abundant pollinator guilds recorded are honey bees (34.22% counts), bumblebees (19.19%), flies other than Syrphidae and Bombyliidae (13.18%), other wild bees (13.13%), beetles (10.97%), Syrphidae (4.87%), and Bombyliidae (0.05%). Locations comprise 34 countries distributed among Europe (76 studies), Northern America (60), Latin America and the Caribbean (29), Asia (20), Oceania (10), and Africa (7). Sampling spans three decades and is concentrated on 2001-05 (21 studies), 2006-10 (40), 2011-15 (88), and 2016-20 (50). This is the most comprehensive open global data set on measurements of crop flower visitors, crop pollinators and pollination to date, and we encourage researchers to add more datasets to this database in the future. This data set is released for non-commercial use only. Credits should be given to this paper (i.e., proper citation), and the products generated with this database should be shared under the same license terms (CC BY-NC-SA). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

CropPol: a dynamic, open and global database on crop pollination

This is the final version. Available from Wiley via the DOI in this record The original dataset (v1.1.0) of the CropPol database can be accessed from the ECOLOGY repository. Main upgrades of these datasets will be versioned and deposited in Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5546600)Data availability. V.C. Computer programs and data-processing algorithms: The algorithms used in deriving, processing, or transforming data can be accessed in the DataS1.zip file and the Zenodo repository (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5546600). V.D. Archiving: The data is archived for long-term storage and access in Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5546600)Seventy five percent of the world's food crops benefit from insect pollination. Hence, there has been increased interest in how global change drivers impact this critical ecosystem service. Because standardized data on crop pollination are rarely available, we are limited in our capacity to understand the variation in pollination benefits to crop yield, as well as to anticipate changes in this service, develop predictions, and inform management actions. Here, we present CropPol, a dynamic, open and global database on crop pollination. It contains measurements recorded from 202 crop studies, covering 3,394 field observations, 2,552 yield measurements (i.e. berry weight, number of fruits and kg per hectare, among others), and 47,752 insect records from 48 commercial crops distributed around the globe. CropPol comprises 32 of the 87 leading global crops and commodities that are pollinator dependent. Malus domestica is the most represented crop (32 studies), followed by Brassica napus (22 studies), Vaccinium corymbosum (13 studies), and Citrullus lanatus (12 studies). The most abundant pollinator guilds recorded are honey bees (34.22% counts), bumblebees (19.19%), flies other than Syrphidae and Bombyliidae (13.18%), other wild bees (13.13%), beetles (10.97%), Syrphidae (4.87%), and Bombyliidae (0.05%). Locations comprise 34 countries distributed among Europe (76 studies), Northern America (60), Latin America and the Caribbean (29), Asia (20), Oceania (10), and Africa (7). Sampling spans three decades and is concentrated on 2001-05 (21 studies), 2006-10 (40), 2011-15 (88), and 2016-20 (50). This is the most comprehensive open global data set on measurements of crop flower visitors, crop pollinators and pollination to date, and we encourage researchers to add more datasets to this database in the future. This data set is released for non-commercial use only. Credits should be given to this paper (i.e., proper citation), and the products generated with this database should be shared under the same license terms (CC BY-NC-SA). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.OBServ Projec

Writing assessment in early primary classrooms: thoughts from four teachers

It is important that teachers are conscious of and reflect upon their views of writing in order to support students to achieve writing outcomes. This study examined teacher views about which aspects of writing they considered most important in years one and two and explored how these views came to be formed. Four West Australian teachers participated in semi-structured interviews, during which they carried out a think-aloud process, voicing their thoughts as they examined, commented on, and evaluated young students’ writing samples. These data provided insights into their reasoning as they assessed children’s writing in years one and two. Findings revealed that participants focussed on the more surface-level, or secretarial aspects of writing, such as punctuation and ‘correct’ structure for the genre. The data indicated that teachers were particularly influenced by their knowledge of the contexts in which they worked, including knowledge they shared with colleagues, together with curriculum and systemic documents such as the Judging Standards materials supplied by the School Curriculum and Standards Authority (SCSA) or the NAPLAN marking guides. These results highlight how systemic assessments can shape teacher perceptions of writing more generally than the purpose for which they were originally intended

Development of an intervention to support the implementation of evidence-based strategies for optimising antibiotic prescribing in general practice

Background: trials show that antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies, including communication skills training, point-of-care C-reactive protein testing (POC-CRPT) and delayed prescriptions, help optimise antibiotic prescribing and use in primary care. However, the use of these strategies in general practice is limited and inconsistent. We aimed to develop an intervention to enhance uptake and implementation of these strategies in primary care.Methods: we drew on the Person-Based Approach to develop an implementation intervention in two stages. (1) Planning and design: We defined the problem in behavioural terms drawing on existing literature and conducting primary qualitative research (nine focus groups) in high-prescribing general practices. We identified ‘guiding principles’ with intervention objectives and key features and developed logic models representing intended mechanisms of action. (2) Developing the intervention: We created prototype intervention materials and discussed and refined these with input from 13 health professionals and 14 citizens in two sets of design workshops. We further refined the intervention materials following think-aloud interviews with 22 health professionals. Results: focus groups highlighted uncertainties about how strategies could be used. Health professionals in the workshops suggested having practice champions, brief summaries of each AMS strategy and evidence supporting the AMS strategies, and they and citizens gave examples of helpful communication strategies/phrases. Think-aloud interviews helped clarify and shorten the text and user journey of the intervention materials. The intervention comprised components to support practice-level implementation: antibiotic champions, practice meetings with slides provided, and an ‘implementation support’ website section, and components to support individual-level uptake: website sections on each AMS strategy (with evidence, instructions, links to electronic resources) and material resources (patient leaflets, POC-CRPT equipment, clinician handouts). Conclusions: we used a systematic, user-focussed process of developing a behavioural intervention, illustrating how it can be used in an implementation context. This resulted in a multicomponent intervention to facilitate practice-wide implementation of evidence-based strategies which now requires implementing and evaluating. Focusing on supporting the uptake and implementation of evidence-based strategies to optimise antibiotic use in general practice is critical to further support appropriate antibiotic use and mitigate antimicrobial resistance

Implementing interventions to reduce antibiotic use: a qualitative study in high-prescribing practices

Background Trials have shown that delayed antibiotic prescriptions (DPs) and point-of-care C-Reactive Protein testing (POC-CRPT) are effective in reducing antibiotic use in general practice, but these were not typically implemented in high-prescribing practices. We aimed to explore views of professionals from high-prescribing practices about uptake and implementation of DPs and POC-CRPT to reduce antibiotic use. Methods This was a qualitative focus group study in English general practices. The highest antibiotic prescribing practices in the West Midlands were invited to participate. Clinical and non-clinical professionals attended focus groups co-facilitated by two researchers. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Results Nine practices (50 professionals) participated. Four main themes were identified. Compatibility of strategies with clinical roles and experience – participants viewed the strategies as having limited value as ‘clinical tools’, perceiving them as useful only in ‘rare’ instances of clinical uncertainty and/or for those less experienced. Strategies as ‘social tools’ – participants perceived the strategies as helpful for negotiating treatment decisions and educating patients, particularly those expecting antibiotics. Ambiguities – participants perceived ambiguities around when they should be used, and about their impact on antibiotic use. Influence of context – various other situational and practical issues were raised with implementing the strategies. Conclusions High-prescribing practices do not view DPs and POC-CRPT as sufficiently useful ‘clinical tools’ in a way which corresponds to the current policy approach advocating their use to reduce clinical uncertainty and improve antimicrobial stewardship. Instead, policy attention should focus on how these strategies may instead be used as ‘social tools’ to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. Attention should also focus on the many ambiguities (concerns and questions) about, and contextual barriers to, using these strategies that need addressing to support wider and more consistent implementation

Providing trial results to participants in Phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs : a scoping review

RECAP was funded by the Academy of Medical Sciences (SBF002\1014), and KG was funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/L01193X/1). AS was funded by the Medical Research Council (grant number: MC_UU_12023/24). The Health Services Research Unit is core-funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates (CZU/3/3). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the funders.Peer reviewedPublisher PD