Alpha-2-Macroglobulin Is Acutely Sensitive to Freezing and Lyophilization: Implications for Structural and Functional Studies.

Alpha-2-macroglobulin is an abundant secreted protein that is of particular interest because of its diverse ligand binding profile and multifunctional nature, which includes roles as a protease inhibitor and as a molecular chaperone. The activities of alpha-2-macroglobulin are typically dependent on whether its conformation is native or transformed (i.e. adopts a more compact conformation after interactions with proteases or small nucleophiles), and are also influenced by dissociation of the native alpha-2-macroglobulin tetramer into stable dimers. Alpha-2-macroglobulin is predominately present as the native tetramer in vivo; once purified from human blood plasma, however, alpha-2-macroglobulin can undergo a number of conformational changes during storage, including transformation, aggregation or dissociation. We demonstrate that, particularly in the presence of sodium chloride or amine containing compounds, freezing and/or lyophilization of alpha-2-macroglobulin induces conformational changes with functional consequences. These conformational changes in alpha-2-macroglobulin are not always detected by standard native polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, but can be measured using bisANS fluorescence assays. Increased surface hydrophobicity of alpha-2-macroglobulin, as assessed by bisANS fluorescence measurements, is accompanied by (i) reduced trypsin binding activity, (ii) increased chaperone activity, and (iii) increased binding to the surfaces of SH-SY5Y neurons, in part, via lipoprotein receptors. We show that sucrose (but not glycine) effectively protects native alpha-2-macroglobulin from denaturation during freezing and/or lyophilization, thereby providing a reproducible method for the handling and long-term storage of this protein.Early Career Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council GNT1012521(A.R.W.); Wellcome Trust Programme Grant (J.R.K., C.M.D.) 094425/Z/10/Z; Samsung GRO Grant (M.R.W.)This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from PLoS via http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.013003

Computer-based tools for decision support in agroforestry: Current state and future needs

Successful design of agroforestry practices hinges on the ability to pull together very diverse and sometimes large sets of information (i.e., biophysical, economic and social factors), and then implementing the synthesis of this information across several spatial scales from site to landscape. Agroforestry, by its very nature, creates complex systems with impacts ranging from the site or practice level up to the landscape and beyond. Computer-based Decision Support Tools (DST) help to integrate information to facilitate the decision-making process that directs development, acceptance, adoption, and management aspects in agroforestry. Computer-based DSTs include databases, geographical information systems, models, knowledge-base or expert systems, and ‘hybrid’ decision support systems. These different DSTs and their applications in agroforestry research and development are described in this paper. Although agroforestry lacks the large research foundation of its agriculture and forestry counterparts, the development and use of computer-based tools in agroforestry have been substantial and are projected to increase as the recognition of the productive and protective (service) roles of these tree-based practices expands. The utility of these and future tools for decision-support in agroforestry must take into account the limits of our current scientific information, the diversity of aspects (i.e. economic, social, and biophysical) that must be incorporated into the planning and design process, and, most importantly, who the end-user of the tools will be. Incorporating these tools into the design and planning process will enhance the capability of agroforestry to simultaneously achieve environmental protection and agricultural production goals

Global treatment of haemorrhoids-A worldwide snapshot audit conducted by the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons

AimThere is no universally accepted treatment consensus for haemorrhoids, and thus, management has been individualized all over the world. This study was conducted to assess a global view of how surgeons manage haemorrhoids.MethodsThe research panel of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) developed a voluntary, anonymous questionnaire evaluating surgeons' experience, volume and treatment approaches to haemorrhoids. The 44 multiple-choice questionnaire was available for one month via the ISUCRS email database and the social media platforms Viber and WhatsApp.ResultsThe survey was completed by 1005 surgeons from 103 countries; 931 (92.6%) were in active practice, 819 (81.5%) were between 30 and 60 years of age, and 822 (81.8%) were male. Detailed patient history (92.9%), perineal inspection (91.2%), and digital rectal examination (91.1%) were the most common assessment methods. For internal haemorrhoids, 924 (91.9%) of participants graded them I-IV, with the degree of haemorrhoids being the most important factor considered to determine the treatment approach (76.3%). The most common nonprocedural/conservative treatment consisted of increased daily fibre intake (86.9%), increased water intake (82.7%), and normalization of bowel habits/toilet training (74.4%). Conservative treatment was the first-line treatment for symptomatic first (92.5%), second (72.4%) and third (47.3%) degree haemorrhoids; however, surgery was the first-line treatment for symptomatic fourth degree haemorrhoids (77.6%). Rubber band ligation was the second-line treatment in first (50.7%) and second (47.2%) degree haemorrhoids, whereas surgery was the second-line treatment in third (82.9%) and fourth (16.7%) degree symptomatic haemorrhoids. Rubber band ligation was performed in the office by 645(64.2%) of the participants. The most common surgical procedure performed for haemorrhoids was an excisional haemorrhoidectomy for both internal (87.1%) and external (89.7%) haemorrhoids - with 716 (71.2%) of participants removing 1, 2 or 3 sectors as necessary.ConclusionAlthough there is no global haemorrhoidal treatment consensus, there are many practice similarities among the different cultures, resources, volume and experience of surgeons around the world. With additional studies, a consensus statement could potentially be developed

Global treatment of haemorrhoids—A worldwide snapshot audit conducted by the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons

Aim: There is no universally accepted treatment consensus for haemorrhoids, and thus, management has been individualized all over the world. This study was conducted to assess a global view of how surgeons manage haemorrhoids. Methods: The research panel of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) developed a voluntary, anonymous questionnaire evaluating surgeons' experience, volume and treatment approaches to haemorrhoids. The 44 multiple-choice questionnaire was available for one month via the ISUCRS email database and the social media platforms Viber and WhatsApp. Results: The survey was completed by 1005 surgeons from 103 countries; 931 (92.6%) were in active practice, 819 (81.5%) were between 30 and 60 years of age, and 822 (81.8%) were male. Detailed patient history (92.9%), perineal inspection (91.2%), and digital rectal examination (91.1%) were the most common assessment methods. For internal haemorrhoids, 924 (91.9%) of participants graded them I–IV, with the degree of haemorrhoids being the most important factor considered to determine the treatment approach (76.3%). The most common nonprocedural/conservative treatment consisted of increased daily fibre intake (86.9%), increased water intake (82.7%), and normalization of bowel habits/toilet training (74.4%). Conservative treatment was the first-line treatment for symptomatic first (92.5%), second (72.4%) and third (47.3%) degree haemorrhoids; however, surgery was the first-line treatment for symptomatic fourth degree haemorrhoids (77.6%). Rubber band ligation was the second-line treatment in first (50.7%) and second (47.2%) degree haemorrhoids, whereas surgery was the second-line treatment in third (82.9%) and fourth (16.7%) degree symptomatic haemorrhoids. Rubber band ligation was performed in the office by 645(64.2%) of the participants. The most common surgical procedure performed for haemorrhoids was an excisional haemorrhoidectomy for both internal (87.1%) and external (89.7%) haemorrhoids – with 716 (71.2%) of participants removing 1, 2 or 3 sectors as necessary. Conclusion: Although there is no global haemorrhoidal treatment consensus, there are many practice similarities among the different cultures, resources, volume and experience of surgeons around the world. With additional studies, a consensus statement could potentially be developed