Global patterns and controls of nutrient immobilization on decomposing cellulose in riverine ecosystems

Abstract Microbes play a critical role in plant litter decomposition and influence the fate of carbon in rivers and riparian zones. When decomposing low-nutrient plant litter, microbes acquire nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) from the environment (i.e., nutrient immobilization), and this process is potentially sensitive to nutrient loading and changing climate. Nonetheless, environmental controls on immobilization are poorly understood because rates are also influenced by plant litter chemistry, which is coupled to the same environmental factors. Here we used a standardized, low-nutrient organic matter substrate (cotton strips) to quantify nutrient immobilization at 100 paired stream and riparian sites representing 11 biomes worldwide. Immobilization rates varied by three orders of magnitude, were greater in rivers than riparian zones, and were strongly correlated to decomposition rates. In rivers, P immobilization rates were controlled by surface water phosphate concentrations, but N immobilization rates were not related to inorganic N. The N:P of immobilized nutrients was tightly constrained to a molar ratio of 10:1 despite wide variation in surface water N:P. Immobilization rates were temperature-dependent in riparian zones but not related to temperature in rivers. However, in rivers nutrient supply ultimately controlled whether microbes could achieve the maximum expected decomposition rate at a given temperature. Collectively, we demonstrated that exogenous nutrient supply and immobilization are critical control points for decomposition of organic matter

Global patterns and drivers of ecosystem functioning in rivers and riparian zones

Abstract River ecosystems receive and process vast quantities of terrestrial organic carbon, the fate of which depends strongly on microbial activity. Variation in and controls of processing rates, however, are poorly characterized at the global scale. In response, we used a peer-sourced research network and a highly standardized carbon processing assay to conduct a global-scale field experiment in greater than 1000 river and riparian sites. We found that Earth’s biomes have distinct carbon processing signatures. Slow processing is evident across latitudes, whereas rapid rates are restricted to lower latitudes. Both the mean rate and variability decline with latitude, suggesting temperature constraints toward the poles and greater roles for other environmental drivers (e.g., nutrient loading) toward the equator. These results and data set the stage for unprecedented “next-generation biomonitoring” by establishing baselines to help quantify environmental impacts to the functioning of ecosystems at a global scale

Recovery of dialysis patients with COVID-19: health outcomes 3 months after diagnosis in ERACODA

© The Author(s) 2022.Background. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related short-term mortality is high in dialysis patients, but longer-term outcomes are largely unknown. We therefore assessed patient recovery in a large cohort of dialysis patients 3 months after their COVID-19 diagnosis. Methods. We analyzed data on dialysis patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from 1 February 2020 to 31 March 2021 from the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database (ERACODA). The outcomes studied were patient survival, residence and functional and mental health status (estimated by their treating physician) 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. Complete follow-up data were available for 854 surviving patients. Patient characteristics associated with recovery were analyzed using logistic regression. Results. In 2449 hemodialysis patients (mean ± SD age 67.5 ± 14.4 years, 62% male), survival probabilities at 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis were 90% for nonhospitalized patients (n = 1087), 73% for patients admitted to the hospital but not to an intensive care unit (ICU) (n = 1165) and 40% for those admitted to an ICU (n = 197). Patient survival hardly decreased between 28 days and 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. At 3 months, 87% functioned at their pre-existent functional and 94% at their pre-existent mental level. Only few of the surviving patients were still admitted to the hospital (0.8–6.3%) or a nursing home (∼5%). A higher age and frailty score at presentation and ICU admission were associated with worse functional outcome. Conclusions. Mortality between 28 days and 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis was low and the majority of patients who survived COVID-19 recovered to their pre-existent functional and mental health level at 3 months after diagnosis

Association of obesity with 3-month mortality in kidney failure patients with COVID-19

Background: In the general population with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), obesity is associated with an increased risk of mortality. Given the typically observed obesity paradox among patients on kidney function replacement therapy (KFRT), especially dialysis patients, we examined the association of obesity with mortality among dialysis patients or living with a kidney transplant with COVID-19. Methods: Data from the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database (ERACODA) were used. KFRT patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between 1 February 2020 and 31 January 2021 were included. The association of Quetelet's body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2), divided into: <18.5 (lean), 18.5-24.9 (normal weight), 25-29.9 (overweight), 30-34.9 (obese I) and ≥35 (obese II/III), with 3-month mortality was investigated using Cox proportional-hazards regression analyses. Results: In 3160 patients on KFRT (mean age: 65 years, male: 61%), 99 patients were lean, 1151 normal weight (reference), 1160 overweight, 525 obese I and 225 obese II/III. During follow-up of 3 months, 28, 20, 21, 23 and 27% of patients died in these categories, respectively. In the fully adjusted model, the hazard ratios (HRs) for 3-month mortality were 1.65 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10, 2.47], 1 (ref.), 1.07 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.28), 1.17 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.46) and 1.71 (95% CI: 1.27, 2.30), respectively. Results were similar among dialysis patients (N = 2343) and among those living with a kidney transplant (N = 817) (Pinteraction = 0.99), but differed by sex (Pinteraction = 0.019). In males, the HRs for the association of aforementioned BMI categories with 3-month mortality were 2.07 (95% CI: 1.22, 3.52), 1 (ref.), 0.97 (95% CI: 0.78. 1.21), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.74, 1.33) and 1.22 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.91), respectively, and in females corresponding HRs were 1.34 (95% CI: 0.70, 2.57), 1 (ref.), 1.31 (95% CI: 0.94, 1.85), 1.54 (95% CI: 1.05, 2.26) and 2.49 (95% CI: 1.62, 3.84), respectively. Conclusion: In KFRT patients with COVID-19, on dialysis or a kidney transplant, obesity is associated with an increased risk of mortality at 3 months. This is in contrast to the obesity paradox generally observed in dialysis patients. Additional studies are required to corroborate the sex difference in the association of obesity with mortality

Sex differences in COVID-19 mortality risk in patients on kidney function replacement therapy

© 2022, The Author(s).In the general population with COVID-19, the male sex is an established risk factor for mortality, in part due to a more robust immune response to COVID-19 in women. Because patients on kidney function replacement therapy (KFRT) have an impaired immune response, especially kidney transplant recipients due to their use of immunosuppressants, we examined whether the male sex is still a risk factor for mortality among patients on KFRT with COVID-19. From the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database (ERACODA), we examined patients on KFRT with COVID-19 who presented between February 1st, 2020, and April 30th, 2021. 1204 kidney transplant recipients (male 62.0%, mean age 56.4 years) and 3206 dialysis patients (male 61.8%, mean age 67.7 years) were examined. Three-month mortality in kidney transplant recipients was 16.9% in males and 18.6% in females (p = 0.31) and in dialysis patients 27.1% in males and 21.9% in females (p = 0.001). The adjusted HR for the risk of 3-month mortality in males (vs females) was 0.89 (95% CI 65, 1.23, p = 0.49) in kidney transplant recipients and 1.33 (95% CI 1.13, 1.56, p = 0.001) in dialysis patients (pinteraction = 0.02). In a fully adjusted model, the aHR for the risk of 3-month mortality in kidney transplant recipients (vs. dialysis patients) was 1.39 (95% CI 1.02, 1.89, p = 0.04) in males and 2.04 (95% CI 1.40, 2.97, p < 0.001) in females (pinteraction = 0.02). In patients on KFRT with COVID-19, the male sex is not a risk factor for mortality among kidney transplant recipients but remains a risk factor among dialysis patients. The use of immunosuppressants in kidney transplant recipients, among other factors, may have narrowed the difference in the immune response to COVID-19 between men and women, and therefore reduced the sex difference in COVID-19 mortality risk

Clinical, Functional, and Mental Health Outcomes in Kidney Transplant Recipients 3 Months after a Diagnosis of COVID-19

Background. Kidney transplant patients are at high risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related mortality. However, limited data are available on longer-term clinical, functional, and mental health outcomes in patients who survive COVID-19. Methods. We analyzed data from adult kidney transplant patients in the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database who presented with COVID-19 between February 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. Results. We included 912 patients with a mean age of 56.7 (±13.7) y. 26.4% were not hospitalized, 57.5% were hospitalized without need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 16.1% were hospitalized and admitted to the ICU. At 3 mo follow-up survival was 82.3% overall, and 98.8%, 84.2%, and 49.0%, respectively, in each group. At 3 mo follow-up biopsy-proven acute rejection, need for renal replacement therapy, and graft failure occurred in the overall group in 0.8%, 2.6%, and 1.8% respectively, and in 2.1%, 10.6%, and 10.6% of ICU-admitted patients, respectively. Of the surviving patients, 83.3% and 94.4% reached their pre-COVID-19 physician-reported functional and mental health status, respectively, within 3 mo. Of patients who had not yet reached their prior functional and mental health status, their treating physicians expected that 79.6% and 80.0%, respectively, still would do so within the coming year. ICU admission was independently associated with a low likelihood to reach prior functional and mental health status. Conclusions. In kidney transplant recipients alive at 3-mo follow-up, clinical, physician-reported functional, and mental health recovery was good for both nonhospitalized and hospitalized patients. Recovery was, however, less favorable for patients who had been admitted to the ICU

Sex differences in COVID-19 mortality risk in patients on kidney function replacement therapy

In the general population with COVID-19, the male sex is an established risk factor for mortality, in part due to a more robust immune response to COVID-19 in women. Because patients on kidney function replacement therapy (KFRT) have an impaired immune response, especially kidney transplant recipients due to their use of immunosuppressants, we examined whether the male sex is still a risk factor for mortality among patients on KFRT with COVID-19. From the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database (ERACODA), we examined patients on KFRT with COVID-19 who presented between February 1st, 2020, and April 30th, 2021. 1204 kidney transplant recipients (male 62.0%, mean age 56.4 years) and 3206 dialysis patients (male 61.8%, mean age 67.7 years) were examined. Three-month mortality in kidney transplant recipients was 16.9% in males and 18.6% in females (p = 0.31) and in dialysis patients 27.1% in males and 21.9% in females (p = 0.001). The adjusted HR for the risk of 3-month mortality in males (vs females) was 0.89 (95% CI 65, 1.23, p = 0.49) in kidney transplant recipients and 1.33 (95% CI 1.13, 1.56, p = 0.001) in dialysis patients (pinteraction = 0.02). In a fully adjusted model, the aHR for the risk of 3-month mortality in kidney transplant recipients (vs. dialysis patients) was 1.39 (95% CI 1.02, 1.89, p = 0.04) in males and 2.04 (95% CI 1.40, 2.97, p < 0.001) in females (pinteraction = 0.02). In patients on KFRT with COVID-19, the male sex is not a risk factor for mortality among kidney transplant recipients but remains a risk factor among dialysis patients. The use of immunosuppressants in kidney transplant recipients, among other factors, may have narrowed the difference in the immune response to COVID-19 between men and women, and therefore reduced the sex difference in COVID-19 mortality risk

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health