Options-based negotiation management of PPP–BOT infrastructure projects

10.1080/01446193.2017.1325962Construction Management and Economics3511-12676-69

Secretion of Genome-Free Hepatitis B Virus – Single Strand Blocking Model for Virion Morphogenesis of Para-retrovirus

As a para-retrovirus, hepatitis B virus (HBV) is an enveloped virus with a double-stranded (DS) DNA genome that is replicated by reverse transcription of an RNA intermediate, the pregenomic RNA or pgRNA. HBV assembly begins with the formation of an “immature” nucleocapsid (NC) incorporating pgRNA, which is converted via reverse transcription within the maturing NC to the DS DNA genome. Only the mature, DS DNA-containing NCs are enveloped and secreted as virions whereas immature NCs containing RNA or single-stranded (SS) DNA are not enveloped. The current model for selective virion morphogenesis postulates that accumulation of DS DNA within the NC induces a “maturation signal” that, in turn, triggers its envelopment and secretion. However, we have found, by careful quantification of viral DNA and NCs in HBV virions secreted in vitro and in vivo, that the vast majority of HBV virions (over 90%) contained no DNA at all, indicating that NCs with no genome were enveloped and secreted as empty virions (i.e., enveloped NCs with no DNA). Furthermore, viral mutants bearing mutations precluding any DNA synthesis secreted exclusively empty virions. Thus, viral DNA synthesis is not required for HBV virion morphogenesis. On the other hand, NCs containing RNA or SS DNA were excluded from virion formation. The secretion of DS DNA-containing as well as empty virions on one hand, and the lack of secretion of virions containing single-stranded (SS) DNA or RNA on the other, prompted us to propose an alternative, “Single Strand Blocking” model to explain selective HBV morphogenesis whereby SS nucleic acid within the NC negatively regulates NC envelopment, which is relieved upon second strand DNA synthesis

Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study

Despite current guidelines, intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery remains widespread. Drains were not associated with earlier detection of intraperitoneal collections, but were associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased risk of surgical-site infections.Background Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice. Methods COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement. Results Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P < 0.001). Conclusion Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field