Higher TIER bumble bees and solitary bees recommendations for a semi-field experimental design

The publication of the proposed EFSA risk assessment guidance document of plant protection products for pollinators highlighted that there are no study designs for non-Apis pollinators available. Since no official guidelines exist for semi-field testing at present, protocols were proposed by the ICPPR non-Apis working group and two years of ring-testing were conducted in 2016 and 2017 to develop a general test set-up. The ringtest design was based on the draft EFSA guidance document, OEPP/EPPO Guideline No. 170 and results of discussions regarding testing solitary bees and bumble bees during the meetings of the ICPPR non-Apis workgroup. Ring-tests were conducted with two different test organisms, one representative of a social bumble bee species (Bombus terrestris L; Hymenoptera, Apidae) and one representative of a solitary bee species (Osmia bicornis L; Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). The species are common species in Europe, commercially available and widely used for pollination services. Several laboratories participated in the higher-tier ring tests. 15 semi-field tests were conducted with bumble bees and 16 semi-field tests were done with solitary bees in 2016 and 2017. Two treatment groups were always included in the ringtests: an untreated control (water treated) and the treatment with dimethoate as a toxic reference item (optional other i.e. brood-affecting substances fenoxycarb or diflubenzuron). The toxic reference items were chosen based on their mode of action and long term experience in honey bee testing. A summary of the ringtest results will be given and the recommendations for the two semi-field test designs will be presented.The publication of the proposed EFSA risk assessment guidance document of plant protection products for pollinators highlighted that there are no study designs for non-Apis pollinators available. Since no official guidelines exist for semi-field testing at present, protocols were proposed by the ICPPR non-Apis working group and two years of ring-testing were conducted in 2016 and 2017 to develop a general test set-up. The ringtest design was based on the draft EFSA guidance document, OEPP/EPPO Guideline No. 170 and results of discussions regarding testing solitary bees and bumble bees during the meetings of the ICPPR non-Apis workgroup. Ring-tests were conducted with two different test organisms, one representative of a social bumble bee species (Bombus terrestris L; Hymenoptera, Apidae) and one representative of a solitary bee species (Osmia bicornis L; Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). The species are common species in Europe, commercially available and widely used for pollination services. Several laboratories participated in the higher-tier ring tests. 15 semi-field tests were conducted with bumble bees and 16 semi-field tests were done with solitary bees in 2016 and 2017. Two treatment groups were always included in the ringtests: an untreated control (water treated) and the treatment with dimethoate as a toxic reference item (optional other i.e. brood-affecting substances fenoxycarb or diflubenzuron). The toxic reference items were chosen based on their mode of action and long term experience in honey bee testing. A summary of the ringtest results will be given and the recommendations for the two semi-field test designs will be presented

Androgen receptor expresion in breast cancer: Relationship with clinicopathological characteristics of the tumors, prognosis, and expression of metalloproteases and their inhibitors

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the present study we analyze, in patients with breast cancer, the tumor expression of androgen receptors (AR), its relationship with clinicopathological characteristics and with the expression of several matrix metalloproteases (MMPs) and their inhibitors (TIMPs), as well as with prognosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An immunohistochemical study was performed using tissue microarrays and specific antibodies against AR, MMPs -1, -2, -7, -9, -11, -13, -14, and TIMPs -1, -2 and -3. More than 2,800 determinations on tumor specimens from 111 patients with primary invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast (52 with axillary lymph node metastases and 59 without them) and controls were performed. Staining results were categorized using a score based on the intensity of the staining and a specific software program calculated the percentage of immunostained cells automatically.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 83 cases (74.8%) showed a positive immunostaining for AR, but with a wide variation in the staining score values. There were no significant associations between the total immunostaining scores for AR and any clinicopathological parameters. However, score values for MMP-1, -7 and -13, were significantly higher in AR-positive tumors than in AR-negative tumors. Likewise, when we considered the cellular type expressing each factor, we found that AR-positive tumors had a higher percentage of cases positive for MMP-1, -7, -11, and TIMP-2 in their malignant cells, as well as for MMP-1 in intratumoral fibroblasts. On the other hand, multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients with AR-positive tumors have a significant longer overall survival than those with AR-negative breast carcinomas (<it>p </it>= 0.03).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our results confirm that AR are commonly expressed in breast cancer, and are correlated with the expression of some MMPs and TIMP-2. Although we found a specific value of AR expression to be a prognostic indicator in breast cancer, the functional role of AR in these neoplasms is still unclear and further data are needed in order to clarify their biological signification in breast cancer.</p

Androgen receptor expression in male breast carcinoma: lack of clinicopathological association

Androgen receptor (AR) expression was retrospectively analysed in 47 primary male breast carcinomas (MBCs) using a monoclonal antibody on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues. AR immunopositivity was detected in 16 out of 47 (34%) cases. No association was found with patient age, tumour stage, progesterone receptor (PGR) or p53 protein expression. Well-differentiated MBCs tended to be AR positive more often than poorly differentiated ones (P= 0.08). A negative association was found between ARs and cell proliferative activity: MIB-1 scores were higher (25.4%) in AR-negative than in AR-positive cases (21.11%; P= 0.04). A strong positive association (P= 0.0001) was found between ARs and oestrogen receptors (ERs). In univariate analysis, ARs (as well as ERs and PGRs) were not correlated with overall survival; tumour histological grade (P= 0.02), size (P= 0.01), p53 expression (P= 0.0008) and MIB-1 scores (P= 0.0003) had strong prognostic value. In multivariate survival analysis, only p53 expression (P= 0.002) and histological grade (P= 0.02) retained independent prognostic significance. In conclusion, the lack of association between AR and most clinicopathological features and survival, together with the absence of prognostic value for ER/PGR status, suggest that MBCs are biologically different from female breast carcinomas and make it questionable to use antihormonal therapy for patients with MBC. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig