94 research outputs found

    Molecular survey of pyrethroid resistance mechanisms in Mexican field populations of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus

    Get PDF
    Susceptibility to synthetic pyrethroids (SP´s) and the role of two major resistance mechanisms were evaluated in Mexican Rhipicephalus microplus tick populations. Larval packet test (LPT), knock-down (kdr) PCR allele-specific assay (PASA) and esterase activity assays were conducted in tick populations for cypermethrin, flumethrin and deltamethrin. Esterase activity did not have a significant correlation with SP´s resistance. However a significant correlation (p < 0.01) was found between the presence of the sodium channel mutation, and resistance to SP´s as measured by PASA and LPT respectively. Just over half the populations (16/28) were cross-resistant to flumethrin, deltamethrin and cypermethrine, 21.4% of the samples (6/28) were susceptible to all of the three pyrethroids 10.7 of the samples (3/28) were resistant to flumethrin, 3.4 of the samples (1/28) were resistant to deltamethrin only and 7.1% (2/28) were resistant to flumethrin and deltamethrin. The presence of the kdr mutation correlates with resistance to the SP´s as a class. Target site insensitivity is the major mechanism of resistance to SP´s in Mexican R. microplus field strains, involving the presence of a sodium channel mutation, however, esterase-based, other mutations or combination of mechanisms can also occur

    Utility of In Vivo Transcription Profiling for Identifying Pseudomonas aeruginosa Genes Needed for Gastrointestinal Colonization and Dissemination

    Get PDF
    Microarray analysis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa mRNA transcripts expressed in vivo during animal infection has not been previously used to investigate potential virulence factors needed in this setting. We compared mRNA expression in bacterial cells recovered from the gastrointestinal (GI) tracts of P. aeruginosa-colonized mice to that of P. aeruginosa in the drinking water used to colonize the mice. Genes associated with biofilm formation and type III secretion (T3SS) had markedly increased expression in the GI tract. A non-redundant transposon library in P. aeruginosa strain PA14 was used to test mutants in genes identified as having increased transcription during in vivo colonization. All of the Tn-library mutants in biofilm-associated genes had an attenuated ability to form biofilms in vitro, but there were no significant differences in GI colonization and dissemination between these mutants and WT P. aeruginosa PA14. To evaluate T3SS factors, we tested GI colonization and neutropenia-induced dissemination of both deletional (PAO1 and PAK) and insertional (PA14) mutants in four genes in the P. aeruginosa T3SS, exoS or exoU, exoT, and popB. There were no significant differences in GI colonization among these mutant strains and their WT counterparts, whereas rates of survival following dissemination were significantly decreased in mice infected by the T3SS mutant strains. However, there was a variable, strain-dependent effect on overall survival between parental and T3SS mutants. Thus, increased transcription of genes during in vivo murine GI colonization is not predictive of an essential role for the gene product in either colonization or overall survival following induction of neutropenia

    Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the detection of dementia in clinically unevaluated people aged 65 and over in community and primary care populations

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a cognitive test that is commonly used as part of the evaluation for possible dementia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) at various cut points for dementia in people aged 65 years and over in community and primary care settings who had not undergone prior testing for dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), LILACS (BIREME), ALOIS, BIOSIS previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), and Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science). We also searched specialised sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). We attempted to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data by contacting researchers in this field. We first performed the searches in November 2012 and then fully updated them in May 2014. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches, and we did not use any methodological filters as a method to restrict the search overall. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that compared the 11‐item (maximum score 30) MMSE test (at any cut point) in people who had not undergone prior testing versus a commonly accepted clinical reference standard for all‐cause dementia and subtypes (Alzheimer disease dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia). Clinical diagnosis included all‐cause (unspecified) dementia, as defined by any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Clinical Dementia Rating. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least three authors screened all citations.Two authors handled data extraction and quality assessment. We performed meta‐analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver‐operator curves (HSROC) method and the bivariate method. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 24,310 citations after removal of duplicates. We reviewed the full text of 317 full‐text articles and finally included 70 records, referring to 48 studies, in our synthesis. We were able to perform meta‐analysis on 28 studies in the community setting (44 articles) and on 6 studies in primary care (8 articles), but we could not extract usable 2 x 2 data for the remaining 14 community studies, which we did not include in the meta‐analysis. All of the studies in the community were in asymptomatic people, whereas two of the six studies in primary care were conducted in people who had symptoms of possible dementia. We judged two studies to be at high risk of bias in the patient selection domain, three studies to be at high risk of bias in the index test domain and nine studies to be at high risk of bias regarding flow and timing. We assessed most studies as being applicable to the review question though we had concerns about selection of participants in six studies and target condition in one study. The accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia was reported at 18 cut points in the community (MMSE score 10, 14‐30 inclusive) and 10 cut points in primary care (MMSE score 17‐26 inclusive). The total number of participants in studies included in the meta‐analyses ranged from 37 to 2727, median 314 (interquartile range (IQR) 160 to 647). In the community, the pooled accuracy at a cut point of 24 (15 studies) was sensitivity 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.90 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.95); at a cut point of 25 (10 studies), sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93), specificity 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92); and in seven studies that adjusted accuracy estimates for level of education, sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00), specificity 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.85). There was insufficient data to evaluate the accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia subtypes.We could not estimate summary diagnostic accuracy in primary care due to insufficient data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The MMSE contributes to a diagnosis of dementia in low prevalence settings, but should not be used in isolation to confirm or exclude disease. We recommend that future work evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of tests in the context of the diagnostic pathway experienced by the patient and that investigators report how undergoing the MMSE changes patient‐relevant outcomes

    Regulation of proteasome assembly and activity in health and disease

    Get PDF

    Fructan and its relationship to abiotic stress tolerance in plants

    Get PDF
    Numerous studies have been published that attempted to correlate fructan concentrations with freezing and drought tolerance. Studies investigating the effect of fructan on liposomes indicated that a direct interaction between membranes and fructan was possible. This new area of research began to move fructan and its association with stress beyond mere correlation by confirming that fructan has the capacity to stabilize membranes during drying by inserting at least part of the polysaccharide into the lipid headgroup region of the membrane. This helps prevent leakage when water is removed from the system either during freezing or drought. When plants were transformed with the ability to synthesize fructan, a concomitant increase in drought and/or freezing tolerance was confirmed. These experiments indicate that besides an indirect effect of supplying tissues with hexose sugars, fructan has a direct protective effect that can be demonstrated by both model systems and genetic transformation

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

    Get PDF
    In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field
    corecore