Evaluation of rK39 rapid diagnostic tests for canine visceral leishmaniasis : longitudinal study and meta-analysis

Canine visceral leishmaniasis is a vector-borne disease caused by the intracellular parasite Leishmania infantum. It is an important veterinary disease, and dogs are also the main animal reservoir for human infection. The disease is widespread in the Mediterranean area, and parts of Asia and South and Central America, and is potentially fatal in both dogs and humans unless treated. Diagnosis of canine infections requires serological or molecular tests. Detection of infection in dogs is important prior to treatment, and in epidemiological studies and control programmes, and a sensitive and specific rapid diagnostic test would be very useful. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have been developed, but their diagnostic performance has been reported to be variable. We evaluated the sensitivity of a RDT based on serological detection of the rK39 antigen in a cohort of naturally infected Brazilian dogs. The sensitivity of the test to detect infection was relatively low, but increased with time since infection and the severity of infection. We then carried out a meta-analysis of published studies of rK39 RDTs, evaluating the sensitivity to detect disease and infection. The results suggest that rK39 RDTs may be useful in a veterinary clinical setting, but the sensitivity to detect infection is too low for operational control programmes

A922 Sequential measurement of 1 hour creatinine clearance (1-CRCL) in critically ill patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI)

Meeting abstrac

Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018.

Over the past decade, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) has formulated guidelines for the definition and interpretation of cell death from morphological, biochemical, and functional perspectives. Since the field continues to expand and novel mechanisms that orchestrate multiple cell death pathways are unveiled, we propose an updated classification of cell death subroutines focusing on mechanistic and essential (as opposed to correlative and dispensable) aspects of the process. As we provide molecularly oriented definitions of terms including intrinsic apoptosis, extrinsic apoptosis, mitochondrial permeability transition (MPT)-driven necrosis, necroptosis, ferroptosis, pyroptosis, parthanatos, entotic cell death, NETotic cell death, lysosome-dependent cell death, autophagy-dependent cell death, immunogenic cell death, cellular senescence, and mitotic catastrophe, we discuss the utility of neologisms that refer to highly specialized instances of these processes. The mission of the NCCD is to provide a widely accepted nomenclature on cell death in support of the continued development of the field

The neurobiological link between OCD and ADHD

Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are two of the most common neuropsychiatric diseases in paediatric populations. The high comorbidity of ADHD and OCD with each other, especially of ADHD in paediatric OCD, is well described. OCD and ADHD often follow a chronic course with persistent rates of at least 40-50 %. Family studies showed high heritability in ADHD and OCD, and some genetic findings showed similar variants for both disorders of the same pathogenetic mechanisms, whereas other genetic findings may differentiate between ADHD and OCD. Neuropsychological and neuroimaging studies suggest that partly similar executive functions are affected in both disorders. The deficits in the corresponding brain networks may be responsible for the perseverative, compulsive symptoms in OCD but also for the disinhibited and impulsive symptoms characterizing ADHD. This article reviews the current literature of neuroimaging, neurochemical circuitry, neuropsychological and genetic findings considering similarities as well as differences between OCD and ADHD

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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