Isolation of Bacterial and Fungal Microbes From the Rhizosphere of Shepherdia utahensis \u27Torrey\u27

My presentation is on the Isolation of Bacterial and Fungal Microbes from the Rhizosphere of Shepherdia x utahensis \u27Torrey\u27 also known as Hybrid Buffaloberry. Hybrid Buffaloberry is a combination between two varieties native to the Intermountain West: Shepherdia argentea, a highly drought tolerant variety, and Shepherdia rotundifolia, a common more aesthetically pleasing variety. Both native varieties are well documented to have nodule forming microbes that help aid their development in such harsh conditions. We acquired our Rhizosphere sample by shaking the roots and nodules from our sample in a phosphate buffer and serially diluted it to a useful concentration. We then spread the dilution on five different media, each with a different isolation objective. From each media, we selected unique looking microbes and isolated them using the streak plate method. We will be testing each of these microbes for their effect on plant growth as well as for other plant promoting traits, such as Nitrogen fixation, Phosphate solubilization, Siderophore production, and Indole Acetic Acid production. We also hope to work towards understanding what causes nodule growth as well as discover how to induce their growth in other plant varieties.https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/fsrs2022/1066/thumbnail.jp

Axonal transport defects are a common phenotype in Drosophila models of ALS

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is characterized by the degeneration of motor neurons resulting in a catastrophic loss of motor function. Current therapies are severely limited owing to a poor mechanistic understanding of the pathobiology. Mutations in a large number of genes have now been linked to ALS, including SOD1, TARDBP (TDP-43), FUS and C9orf72. Functional analyses of these genes and their pathogenic mutations have provided great insights into the underlying disease mechanisms. Defective axonal transport is hypothesized to be a key factor in the selective vulnerability of motor nerves due to their extraordinary length and evidence that ALS occurs as a distal axonopathy. Axonal transport is seen as an early pathogenic event that precedes cell loss and clinical symptoms and so represents an upstream mechanism for therapeutic targeting. Studies have begun to describe the impact of a few pathogenic mutations on axonal transport but a broad survey across a range of models and cargos is warranted. Here, we assessed the axonal transport of different cargos in multiple Drosophila models of ALS. We found that axonal transport defects are common across all models tested, although they often showed a differential effect between mitochondria and vesicle cargos. Motor deficits were also common across the models and generally worsened with age, though surprisingly there was not a clear correlation between the severity of axonal transport defects and motor ability. These results further support defects in axonal transport as a common factor in models of ALS that may contribute to the pathogenic process

Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop

Background Randomised controlled trials are designed to assess the superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority of a new health technology, but which trial design should be used is not always obvious in practice. In particular, when using equivalence or non-inferiority designs, multiple outcomes of interest may be important for the success of a trial, despite the fact that usually only a single primary outcome is used to design the trial. Benefit–risk methods are used in the regulatory clinical trial setting to assess multiple outcomes and consider the trade-off of the benefits against the risks, but are not regularly implemented in publicly funded trials. Objectives The aim of the project is to aid the design of clinical trials with multiple outcomes of interest by defining when each trial design is appropriate to use and identifying when to use benefit–risk methods to assess outcome trade-offs (qualitatively or quantitatively) in a publicly funded trial setting. Methods A range of methods was used to elicit expert opinion to answer the project objectives, including a web-based survey of relevant researchers, a rapid review of current literature and a 2-day consensus workshop of experts (in 2019). Results We created a list of 19 factors to aid researchers in selecting the most appropriate trial design, containing the following overarching sections: population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, feasibility and perspectives. Six key reasons that indicate a benefit–risk method should be considered within a trial were identified: (1) when the success of the trial depends on more than one outcome; (2) when important outcomes within the trial are in competing directions (i.e. a health technology is better for one outcome, but worse for another); (3) to allow patient preferences to be included and directly influence trial results; (4) to provide transparency on subjective recommendations from a trial; (5) to provide consistency in the approach to presenting results from a trial; and (6) to synthesise multiple outcomes into a single metric. Further information was provided to support the use of benefit–risk methods in appropriate circumstances, including the following: methods identified from the review were collated into different groupings and described to aid the selection of a method; potential implementation of methods throughout the trial process were provided and discussed (with examples); and general considerations were described for those using benefit–risk methods. Finally, a checklist of five pieces of information that should be present when reporting benefit–risk methods was defined, with two additional items specifically for reporting the results. Conclusions These recommendations will assist research teams in selecting which trial design to use and deciding whether or not a benefit–risk method could be included to ensure research questions are answered appropriately. Additional information is provided to support consistent use and clear reporting of benefit–risk methods in the future. The recommendations can also be used by funding committees to confirm that appropriate considerations of the trial design have been made. Limitations This research was limited in scope and should be considered in conjunction with other trial design methodologies to assess appropriateness. In addition, further research is needed to provide concrete information about which benefit–risk methods are best to use in publicly funded trials, along with recommendations that are specific to each method

Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop

Background Randomised controlled trials are designed to assess the superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority of a new health technology, but which trial design should be used is not always obvious in practice. In particular, when using equivalence or non-inferiority designs, multiple outcomes of interest may be important for the success of a trial, despite the fact that usually only a single primary outcome is used to design the trial. Benefit–risk methods are used in the regulatory clinical trial setting to assess multiple outcomes and consider the trade-off of the benefits against the risks, but are not regularly implemented in publicly funded trials. Objectives The aim of the project is to aid the design of clinical trials with multiple outcomes of interest by defining when each trial design is appropriate to use and identifying when to use benefit–risk methods to assess outcome trade-offs (qualitatively or quantitatively) in a publicly funded trial setting. Methods A range of methods was used to elicit expert opinion to answer the project objectives, including a web-based survey of relevant researchers, a rapid review of current literature and a 2-day consensus workshop of experts (in 2019). Results We created a list of 19 factors to aid researchers in selecting the most appropriate trial design, containing the following overarching sections: population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, feasibility and perspectives. Six key reasons that indicate a benefit–risk method should be considered within a trial were identified: (1) when the success of the trial depends on more than one outcome; (2) when important outcomes within the trial are in competing directions (i.e. a health technology is better for one outcome, but worse for another); (3) to allow patient preferences to be included and directly influence trial results; (4) to provide transparency on subjective recommendations from a trial; (5) to provide consistency in the approach to presenting results from a trial; and (6) to synthesise multiple outcomes into a single metric. Further information was provided to support the use of benefit–risk methods in appropriate circumstances, including the following: methods identified from the review were collated into different groupings and described to aid the selection of a method; potential implementation of methods throughout the trial process were provided and discussed (with examples); and general considerations were described for those using benefit–risk methods. Finally, a checklist of five pieces of information that should be present when reporting benefit–risk methods was defined, with two additional items specifically for reporting the results. Conclusions These recommendations will assist research teams in selecting which trial design to use and deciding whether or not a benefit–risk method could be included to ensure research questions are answered appropriately. Additional information is provided to support consistent use and clear reporting of benefit–risk methods in the future. The recommendations can also be used by funding committees to confirm that appropriate considerations of the trial design have been made. Limitations This research was limited in scope and should be considered in conjunction with other trial design methodologies to assess appropriateness. In addition, further research is needed to provide concrete information about which benefit–risk methods are best to use in publicly funded trials, along with recommendations that are specific to each method. Study registration The rapid review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019144882. Funding Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research as part of the Medical Research Council–National Institute for Health and Care Research Methodology Research programme

Screen time and early adolescent mental health, academic, and social outcomes in 9-and 10-year old children: Utilizing the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (SM) (ABCD) Study

In a technology-driven society, screens are being used more than ever. The high rate of electronic media use among children and adolescents begs the question: is screen time harming our youth? The current study draws from a nationwide sample of 11,875 participants in the United States, aged 9 to 10 years, from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study (ABCD Study&reg;). We investigate relationships between screen time and mental health, behavioral problems, academic performance, sleep habits, and peer relationships by conducting a series of correlation and regression analyses, controlling for SES and race/ethnicity. We find that more screen time is moderately associated with worse mental health, increased behavioral problems, decreased academic performance, and poorer sleep, but heightened quality of peer relationships. However, effect sizes associated with screen time and the various outcomes were modest; SES was more strongly associated with each outcome measure. Our analyses do not establish causality and the small effect sizes observed suggest that increased screen time is unlikely to be directly harmful to 9-and-10-year-old children. &nbsp;</p

Definition, management, and training in impacted fetal head at cesarean birth: a national survey of maternity professionals

Introduction: This study assessed views, understanding and current practices of maternity professionals in relation to impacted fetal head at cesarean birth, with the aim of informing a standardized definition, clinical management approaches and training. Material and methods: We conducted a survey consultation including the range of maternity professionals who attend emergency cesarean births in the UK. Thiscovery, an online research and development platform, was used to ask closed-ended and free-text questions. Simple descriptive analysis was undertaken for closed-ended responses, and content analysis for categorization and counting of free-text responses. Main outcome measures included the count and percentage of participants selecting predefined options on clinical definition, multi-professional team approach, communication, clinical management and training. Results: In total, 419 professionals took part, including 144 midwives, 216 obstetricians and 59 other clinicians (eg anesthetists). We found high levels of agreement on the components of an impacted fetal head definition (79% of obstetricians) and the need for use of a multi-professional approach to management (95% of all participants). Over 70% of obstetricians deemed nine techniques acceptable for management of impacted fetal head, but some obstetricians also considered potentially unsafe practices appropriate. Access to professional training in management of impacted fetal head was highly variable, with over 80% of midwives reporting no training in vaginal disimpaction. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate agreement on the components of a standardized definition for impacted fetal head, and a need and appetite for multi-professional training. These findings can inform a program of work to improve care, including use of structured management algorithms and simulation-based multi-professional training

The oral health of secondary school pupils:baseline data from the Brushing RemInder 4 Good oral HealTh (BRIGHT) trial

Background This paper describes the sociodemographics and oral health of UK secondary school pupils. They were participants of the BRIGHT trial, which was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a toothbrushing intervention to reduce dental caries. Methods Overall, 4,680 pupils aged 11-13 years attending 42 secondary schools in England, Scotland and Wales with above average proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals, were recruited to the trial. Sociodemographic data were collected. Participants had a clinical assessment for caries, plaque and bleeding and completed measures of oral and general health-related quality of life and oral health behaviours (frequency of toothbrushing, dental attendance and cariogenic food/drinks consumed). Regression analyses were performed. Results Over one-third (34.7%) of participants had caries experience, with 44.5% reporting their oral health had an impact on their daily lives. Factors associated with a statistically significant increased likelihood of caries experience were older age, being female, eligibility for free school meals, worse oral health-related quality of life, higher cariogenic diet, less than twice-daily toothbrushing, living in a more deprived area and lower school attendance. Conclusions The prevalence and impact of dental caries on the lives of pupils remains high, with further oral health promotion activities needed in targeted secondary schools.</p

The oral health of secondary school pupils:baseline data from the Brushing RemInder 4 Good oral HealTh (BRIGHT) trial

Background This paper describes the sociodemographics and oral health of UK secondary school pupils. They were participants of the BRIGHT trial, which was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a toothbrushing intervention to reduce dental caries. Methods Overall, 4,680 pupils aged 11-13 years attending 42 secondary schools in England, Scotland and Wales with above average proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals, were recruited to the trial. Sociodemographic data were collected. Participants had a clinical assessment for caries, plaque and bleeding and completed measures of oral and general health-related quality of life and oral health behaviours (frequency of toothbrushing, dental attendance and cariogenic food/drinks consumed). Regression analyses were performed. Results Over one-third (34.7%) of participants had caries experience, with 44.5% reporting their oral health had an impact on their daily lives. Factors associated with a statistically significant increased likelihood of caries experience were older age, being female, eligibility for free school meals, worse oral health-related quality of life, higher cariogenic diet, less than twice-daily toothbrushing, living in a more deprived area and lower school attendance. Conclusions The prevalence and impact of dental caries on the lives of pupils remains high, with further oral health promotion activities needed in targeted secondary schools.</p

Assessing Benthic Responses to Fishing Disturbance Over Broad Spatial Scales That Incorporate High Environmental Variation

Marine benthic habitats are modified by a number of human-related disturbances. When these disturbances occur at large scales over areas of high environmental variability, it is difficult to assess impacts using metrics such as species richness or individual species distributions because of varying species-specific responses to environmental drivers (e.g., exposure, sediment, temperature). Impact assessment can also be problematic when assessed at broad spatial scales because of regional heterogeneity of species pools. Even when effects on individual species can be detected, it is difficult to upscale from individual species to ecosystem scale effects. Here, we use a functional group approach to assess broad scale patterns in ecological processes with respect to fishing and environmental drivers. We used data from field surveys of benthic communities from two large, widely separated areas in New Zealand’s EEZ (Chatham Rise and Challenger Plateau). We assigned 828 taxonomic units (most identified to species) into functional groups related to important ecosystem processes and likely sensitivity to, and recovery from, fishing disturbance to the seafloor. These included: opportunistic early colonists; substrate stabilisers (e.g., tube mat formers); substrate destabilisers; shell hash-creating species; emergent epifauna; burrowers; and predators and scavengers. Effects of fishing disturbance on benthic functional composition were observed, even at this broad spatial scale. Responses varied between functional groups, with some being tolerant of fishing impacts and others showing rapid declines with minimal fishing effort. The use of a functional group approach facilitates assessment of impacts across regions and species, allowing for improved generalisations of impacts to inform management and decision making

Zoonotic diseases in South American camelids in England and Wales

The number of South American camelids (SACs) in England and Wales is increasing and with this comes a risk of new and emerging infections. Although classified as livestock, these animals are also treated as pets and may be in regular contact with humans. This paper reviews zoonotic diseases that have been identified in SACs in England and Wales, and which pose a potential risk to human health. We also highlight the importance of surveillance continuing to capture information on infections in SACs for the protection of both public and animal health