Safe food and feed through an integrated toolbox for mycotoxin management: the MyToolBox approach

There is a pressing need to mobilise the wealth of knowledge from the international mycotoxin research conducted over the past 25-30 years, and to perform cutting-edge research where knowledge gaps still exist. This knowledge needs to be integrated into affordable and practical tools for farmers and food processors along the chain in order to reduce the risk of mycotoxin contamination of crops, feed and food. This is the mission of MyToolBox – a four-year project which has received funding from the European Commission. It mobilises a multi-actor partnership (academia, farmers, technology small and medium sized enterprises, food industry and policy stakeholders) to develop novel interventions aimed at achieving a significant reduction in crop losses due to mycotoxin contamination. Besides a field-to-fork approach, MyToolBox also considers safe use options of contaminated batches, such as the efficient production of biofuels. Compared to previous efforts of mycotoxin reduction strategies, the distinguishing feature of MyToolBox is to provide the recommended measures to the end users along the food and feed chain in a web-based MyToolBox platform (e-toolbox). The project focuses on small grain cereals, maize, peanuts and dried figs, applicable to agricultural conditions in the EU and China. Crop losses using existing practices are being compared with crop losses after novel pre-harvest interventions including investigation of genetic resistance to fungal infection, cultural control (e.g. minimum tillage or crop debris treatment), the use of novel biopesticides suitable for organic farming, competitive biocontrol treatment and development of novel modelling approaches to predict mycotoxin contamination. Research into post-harvest measures includes real-time monitoring during storage, innovative sorting of crops using vision-technology, novel milling technology and studying the effects of baking on mycotoxins at an industrial scale

Neutrophils in cancer: neutral no more

Neutrophils are indispensable antagonists of microbial infection and facilitators of wound healing. In the cancer setting, a newfound appreciation for neutrophils has come into view. The traditionally held belief that neutrophils are inert bystanders is being challenged by the recent literature. Emerging evidence indicates that tumours manipulate neutrophils, sometimes early in their differentiation process, to create diverse phenotypic and functional polarization states able to alter tumour behaviour. In this Review, we discuss the involvement of neutrophils in cancer initiation and progression, and their potential as clinical biomarkers and therapeutic targets

An interlaboratory comparison of mid-infrared spectra acquisition: Instruments and procedures matter

Diffuse reflectance spectroscopy has been extensively employed to deliver timely and cost-effective predictions of a number of soil properties. However, although several soil spectral laboratories have been established worldwide, the distinct characteristics of instruments and operations still hamper further integration and interoperability across mid-infrared (MIR) soil spectral libraries. In this study, we conducted a large-scale ring trial experiment to understand the lab-to-lab variability of multiple MIR instruments. By developing a systematic evaluation of different mathematical treatments with modeling algorithms, including regular preprocessing and spectral standardization, we quantified and evaluated instruments' dissimilarity and how this impacts internal and shared model performance. We found that all instruments delivered good predictions when calibrated internally using the same instruments' characteristics and standard operating procedures by solely relying on regular spectral preprocessing that accounts for light scattering and multiplicative/additive effects, e.g., using standard normal variate (SNV). When performing model transfer from a large public library (the USDA NSSC-KSSL MIR library) to secondary instruments, good performance was also achieved by regular preprocessing (e.g., SNV) if both instruments shared the same manufacturer. However, significant differences between the KSSL MIR library and contrasting ring trial instruments responses were evident and confirmed by a semi-unsupervised spectral clustering. For heavily contrasting setups, spectral standardization was necessary before transferring prediction models. Non-linear model types like Cubist and memory-based learning delivered more precise estimates because they seemed to be less sensitive to spectral variations than global partial least square regression. In summary, the results from this study can assist new laboratories in building spectroscopy capacity utilizing existing MIR spectral libraries and support the recent global efforts to make soil spectroscopy universally accessible with centralized or shared operating procedures

International lower limb collaborative (INTELLECT) study: a multicentre, international retrospective audit of lower extremity open fractures

Trauma remains a major cause of mortality and disability across the world1, with a higher burden in developing nations2. Open lower extremity injuries are devastating events from a physical3, mental health4, and socioeconomic5 standpoint. The potential sequelae, including risk of chronic infection and amputation, can lead to delayed recovery and major disability6. This international study aimed to describe global disparities, timely intervention, guideline-directed care, and economic aspects of open lower limb injuries

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