36 research outputs found

    Comparative Genomics of Emerging Human Ehrlichiosis Agents

    Get PDF
    Anaplasma (formerly Ehrlichia) phagocytophilum, Ehrlichia chaffeensis, and Neorickettsia (formerly Ehrlichia) sennetsu are intracellular vector-borne pathogens that cause human ehrlichiosis, an emerging infectious disease. We present the complete genome sequences of these organisms along with comparisons to other organisms in the Rickettsiales order. Ehrlichia spp. and Anaplasma spp. display a unique large expansion of immunodominant outer membrane proteins facilitating antigenic variation. All Rickettsiales have a diminished ability to synthesize amino acids compared to their closest free-living relatives. Unlike members of the Rickettsiaceae family, these pathogenic Anaplasmataceae are capable of making all major vitamins, cofactors, and nucleotides, which could confer a beneficial role in the invertebrate vector or the vertebrate host. Further analysis identified proteins potentially involved in vacuole confinement of the Anaplasmataceae, a life cycle involving a hematophagous vector, vertebrate pathogenesis, human pathogenesis, and lack of transovarial transmission. These discoveries provide significant insights into the biology of these obligate intracellular pathogens

    Sugar-sweetened beverage tax implementation processes: results of a scoping review

    No full text
    Funder: Joint Programming Initiative A healthy diet for a healthy lifeTaxing sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) is seen as a win-win situation for governments. It is argued that SSB taxes are relatively easy to implement from a practical perspective compared to for example other nutrition policies. However, the implementation of SSB taxation laws does not happen by itself. Therefore, this work examines implementation processes for SSB taxation in terms of (1) pre-implementation context, (2) taxation instruments used and (3) interactions in the implementation process. Ten databases and grey literature were systematically searched for studies reporting on SSB taxation implementation processes up to February 2020. All studies (N = 1248) were screened independently by two reviewers according to predefined criteria. The selection of variables to be extracted was based on the policy cycle heuristic and informed by intervention implementation research. Information on the process of implementing SSB taxation is limited. Only six cases based on three publications were identified, indicating a gap in this research area. SSB taxation implementation was accomplished by hiring a subcontractor for the implementation or using pre-existing tax collection structures. Political and public support within the implementation process seems to be supportive for the city of Berkeley and for Portugal but was not reported for the Pacific Islands. However, the existing data are very limited, and further research on SSB taxation implementation processes is needed to determine whether the aim of the policy and the envisaged outcome are linked in practice. Registration The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF) (osf.io/7w84q/).Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The PEN project (www.jpi-pen.eu) is funded by the Joint Programming Initiative “A Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life” (JPI HDHL), a research and innovation initiative of EU Member States and associated countries. The funding agencies supporting this work are (in alphabetical order of participating countries): France: Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA); Germany: Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF); Ireland: Health Research Board (HRB); Italy: Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR); the Netherlands: the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw); New Zealand: the University of Auckland, School of Population Health; Norway: the Research Council of Norway (RCN); Poland: the National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR)

    What we know about the actual implementation process of public physical activity policies: results from a scoping review.

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity rates have remained high worldwide since 2001. Public policies are an essential upstream lever to target individual physical activity (PA) behaviour. However, implementers have different strategies and face implementation challenges that are poorly understood. The present study analyzes the implementation processes of public policies to promote PA in terms of: (i) the policies covered and their legal quality, (ii) the actors and stakeholders involved in the implementation process and (iii) the used implementation strategies (vertical, horizontal or a mix). METHODS: A scoping review was systematically conducted (registered Open Science Framework: osf.io/7w84q/), searching 10 databases and grey literature until March 2022. Of the 7741 titles and abstracts identified initially, 10 studies were included. RESULTS: The current evidence includes high-income countries (USA, n = 7; UK, New Zealand and Oman, n = 1 each). Policy areas covered are education (school sector) and PA promotion in general (national PA plans or city-wide approaches). The legal classification ranges from laws (school sector) to coordination and budgeting to non-legally binding recommendations. The jurisdictions covered were federal (n = 4), state (n = 1), county (n = 1), school district (n = 1) and city (n = 3). Implementation strategies for city-wide approaches are characterized by a coordinated approach with vertical and horizontal integration; federal PA policies by a mix of implementation strategies; and the school sector by a strict horizontal top-down integration without the involvement of other actors. CONCLUSION: Implementation strategies differ by policy field. Therefore, continuous evaluation of the implementation process is necessary to align policy implementation with policy goals to promote individual PA behaviour.The PEN project (www.jpi-pen.eu) is funded by the Joint Programming Initiative ‘A Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life’ (JPI HDHL), a research and innovation initiative of EU Member States and associated countries. The funding agencies supporting this work are (in alphabetical order of participating countries): Germany: Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF); Ireland: Health Research Board (HRB); Norway: the Research Council of Norway (RCN); Poland: the National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR)
    corecore