Listeria monocytogenes in Milk Products

peer-reviewedMilk and milk products are frequently identified as vectors for transmission of Listeria monocytogenes. Milk can be contaminated at farm level either by indirect external contamination from the farm environment or less frequently by direct contamination of the milk from infection in the animal. Pasteurisation of milk will kill L. monocytogenes, but post-pasteurisation contamination, consumption of unpasteurised milk and manufacture of unpasteurised milk products can lead to milk being the cause of outbreaks of listeriosis. Therefore, there is a concern that L. monocytogenes in milk could lead to a public health risk. To protect against this risk, there is a need for awareness surrounding the issues, hygienic practices to reduce the risk and adequate sampling and analysis to verify that the risk is controlled. This review will highlight the issues surrounding L. monocytogenes in milk and milk products, including possible control measures. It will therefore create awareness about L. monocytogenes, contributing to protection of public health

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

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

Breakfast consumption and its socio-demographic and lifestyle correlates in schoolchildren in 41 countries participating in the HBSC study

Objective: To investigate associations of daily breakfast consumption (DBC) with demographic and lifestyle factors in 41 countries. Methods: Design: Survey including nationally representative samples of 11-15 year olds (n = 204,534) (HBSC 2005-2006). Statistics: Multilevel logistic regression analyses Results: DBC varied from 33% (Greek girls)to 75% (Portuguese boys). Results: In most countries, lower DBC was noticed in girls, older adolescents, those with lower family affluence and those living in single-parent families. DBC was positively associated with healthy lifestyle behaviours and negatively with unhealthy lifestyle behaviours. Conclusion: Breakfast skipping deserves attention in preventive programs. It is common among adolescents, especially girls, older adolescents and those from disadvantaged families. Conclusion: The results indicate that DBC can serve as an indicator to identify children at risk for unhealthy lifestyle behaviours. © Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel 2009

Joint effect of obesity and TNFA variability on asthma: two international cohort studies

Obesity is a risk factor for asthma. Adipose tissue expresses pro-inflammatory molecules including tumour necrosis factor (TNF), and levels of TNF are also related to polymorphisms in the TNF-a (TNFA) gene. The current authors examined the joint effect of obesity and TNFA variability on asthma in adults by combining two population-based studies. The European Community Respiratory Health Survey and the Swiss Cohort Study on Air Pollution and Lung and Heart Disease in Adults used comparable protocols, questionnaires and measures of lung function and atopy. DNA samples from 9,167 participants were genotyped for TNFA -308 and lymphotoxin-a (LTA) +252 gene variants. Obesity and TNFA were associated with asthma when mutually adjusting for their independent effects (odds ratio (OR) for obesity 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7–3.2; OR for TNFA -308 polymorphism 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.6). The association of obesity with asthma was stronger for subjects carrying the G/A and A/A TNFA -308 genotypes compared with the more common G/G genotype, particularly among nonatopics (OR for G/A and A/A genotypes 6.1, 95% CI 2.5–14.4; OR for G/G genotype 1.7, 95% CI 0.8–3.3). The present findings provide, for the first time, evidence for a complex pattern of interaction between obesity, a pro-inflammatory genetic factor and asthma

Investigation of obstructive sleep apnea using nonlinear mode interations in nonstationary snore signals

Acoustic studies on snoring sounds have recently drawn attention as a potential alternative to polysomnography in the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). This paper investigates the feasibility of using nonlinear coupling between frequency modes in snore signals via wavelet bicoherence (WBC) analysis for screening of OSA. Two novel markers (PF1 and PSF), which are frequency modes with high nonlinear coupling strength in their respective WBC spectrum, are proposed to differentiate between apneic and benign snores in same- or both-gender snorers. Snoring sounds were recorded from 40 subjects (30 apneic and 10 benign) by a hanging microphone, and subsequently preprocessed within a wavelet transform domain. Forty inspiratory snores (30 as training and 10 as test data) from each subject were examined. Results demonstrate that nonlinear mode interactions in apneic snores are less self-coupled and usually occupy higher and wider frequency ranges than that of benign snores. PF1 and PSF are indicative of apneic and benign snores (p < 0.0001), with optimal thresholds of PF1 = 285 Hz and PSF = 492 Hz (for both genders combined), as well as sensitivity and specificity values between 85.0 and 90.7%, respectively, outperforming the conventional diagnostic indicator (spectral peak frequency, PF = 243-275 Hz, sensitivity = 77.7-79.7%, specificity = 72.0-78.0%, p < 0.0001). Relationships between apnea-hypopnea index and the proposed markers could likely take the functional form of exponential or power. Perspectives on nonlinear dynamics analysis of snore signals are promising for further research and development of a reliable and inexpensive diagnostic tool for OSA

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

No abstract available

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

International audienceIn 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