21 research outputs found

    Endophytes vs tree pathogens and pests: can they be used as biological control agents to improve tree health?

    Get PDF
    Like all other plants, trees are vulnerable to attack by a multitude of pests and pathogens. Current control measures for many of these diseases are limited and relatively ineffective. Several methods, including the use of conventional synthetic agro-chemicals, are employed to reduce the impact of pests and diseases. However, because of mounting concerns about adverse effects on the environment and a variety of economic reasons, this limited management of tree diseases by chemical methods is losing ground. The use of biological control, as a more environmentally friendly alternative, is becoming increasingly popular in plant protection. This can include the deployment of soil inoculants and foliar sprays, but the increased knowledge of microbial ecology in the phytosphere, in particular phylloplane microbes and endophytes, has stimulated new thinking for biocontrol approaches. Endophytes are microbes that live within plant tissues. As such, they hold potential as biocontrol agents against plant diseases because they are able to colonize the same ecological niche favoured by many invading pathogens. However, the development and exploitation of endophytes as biocontrol agents will have to overcome numerous challenges. The optimization and improvement of strategies employed in endophyte research can contribute towards discovering effective and competent biocontrol agents. The impact of environment and plant genotype on selecting potentially beneficial and exploitable endophytes for biocontrol is poorly understood. How endophytes synergise or antagonise one another is also an important factor. This review focusses on recent research addressing the biocontrol of plant diseases and pests using endophytic fungi and bacteria, alongside the challenges and limitations encountered and how these can be overcome. We frame this review in the context of tree pests and diseases, since trees are arguably the most difficult plant species to study, work on and manage, yet they represent one of the most important organisms on Earth

    The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

    Get PDF
    AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

    The development and maintenance of the mononuclear phagocyte system of the chick is controlled by signals from the macrophage colony-stimulating factor (CSF1) receptor

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Macrophages have many functions in development and homeostasis as well as innate immunity. Recent studies in mammals suggest that cells arising in the yolk sac give rise to self-renewing macrophage populations that persist in adult tissues. Macrophage proliferation and differentiation is controlled by macrophage colony-stimulating factor (CSF1) and interleukin 34 (IL34), both agonists of the CSF1 receptor (CSF1R). In the current manuscript we describe the origin, function and regulation of macrophages, and the role of CSF1R signaling during embryonic development, using the chick as a model. RESULTS: Based upon RNA-sequencing comparison to bone marrow-derived macrophages grown in CSF1, we show that embryonic macrophages contribute around 2% of the total embryo RNA in day 7 chick embryos, and have similar gene expression profiles to bone marrow-derived macrophages. To explore the origins of embryonic and adult macrophages, we injected Hamburger-Hamilton stage 16 to 17 chick embryos with either yolk sac-derived blood cells, or bone marrow cells from EGFP(+) donors. In both cases, the transferred cells gave rise to large numbers of EGFP(+) tissue macrophages in the embryo. In the case of the yolk sac, these cells were not retained in hatched birds. Conversely, bone marrow EGFP(+) cells gave rise to tissue macrophages in all organs of adult birds, and regenerated CSF1-responsive marrow macrophage progenitors. Surprisingly, they did not contribute to any other hematopoietic lineage. To explore the role of CSF1 further, we injected embryonic or hatchling CSF1R-reporter transgenic birds with a novel chicken CSF1-Fc conjugate. In both cases, the treatment produced a large increase in macrophage numbers in all tissues examined. There were no apparent adverse effects of chicken CSF1-Fc on embryonic or post-hatch development, but there was an unexpected increase in bone density in the treated hatchlings. CONCLUSIONS: The data indicate that the yolk sac is not the major source of macrophages in adult birds, and that there is a macrophage-restricted, self-renewing progenitor cell in bone marrow. CSF1R is demonstrated to be limiting for macrophage development during development in ovo and post-hatch. The chicken provides a novel and tractable model to study the development of the mononuclear phagocyte system and CSF1R signaling. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12915-015-0121-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

    Interactions Among Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor, Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor, and Ifn-Gamma Lead to Enhanced Proliferation of Murine Macrophage Progenitor Cells

    No full text
    This report examines the actions of IFN-γ on monocytopoiesis in murine liquid and semisolid bone marrow cultures. The proliferative response of bone marrow cells to macrophage CSF and granulocyte-macrophage CSF was assayed by measuring [H]TdR uptake in a range of mouse strains. No interstrain difference in kinetics was observed for CSF-1 action, but GM-CSF acted significantly more rapidly on C57B1/6, Swiss, and to a lesser extent A/J mice than on BALB/c or CBA. IFN-γ inhibited [H]TdR incorporation elicited by CSF-1, and to a much lesser extent, GM-CSF. When the two CSF were added together, the effects were not additive; in fact, the response was the same as that seen with GM-CSF alone. When IFN-γ was also added, the response was restored to the level seen with CSF-1 alone. In essence, the inhibitory actions of GM-CSF and IFN-γ were mutually exclusive. The mechanism of these actions was investigated using colony assays. As expected, CSF-1 caused the formation of pure macrophage colonies, whereas GM-CSF stimulated production of macrophage, granulocyte, and mixed granulocyte macrophage colonies. When the two CSF were added in combination, the total colony count was greater than with either alone, but less than additive. The number of pure macrophage colonies was reduced to the number seen with GM-CSF alone. IFN-γ reduced the number of colonies in the presence of CSF-1, but slightly increased the number with GM-CSF. In the presence of both CSF, IFN-γ increased the colony count by around 25 to 40%, so that the numbers were greater than the combined total of CSF-1 plus GM-CSF added separately. Similar results were obtained in all mouse strains tested. The results suggest that the thymidine uptake data reflect changes in the number of progenitor cells responding rather than changes in cell cycle time. The results are discussed in terms of the possibility that coadministration of GM-CSF and CSF-1 could ameliorate the myelosuppressive actions of IFN-γ in vivo, leading to more effective use of this agent as a biologic response modifier
    corecore