Silencing COI1 in Rice Increases Susceptibility to Chewing Insects and Impairs Inducible Defense

The jasmonic acid (JA) pathway plays a key role in plant defense responses against herbivorous insects. CORONATINE INSENSITIVE1 (COI1) is an F-box protein essential for all jasmonate responses. However, the precise defense function of COI1 in monocotyledonous plants, especially in rice (Oryza sativa L.) is largely unknown. We silenced OsCOI1 in rice plants via RNA interference (RNAi) to determine the role of OsCOI1 in rice defense against rice leaf folder (LF) Cnaphalocrocis medinalis, a chewing insect, and brown planthopper (BPH) Nilaparvata lugens, a phloem-feeding insect. In wild-type rice plants (WT), the transcripts of OsCOI1 were strongly and continuously up-regulated by LF infestation and methyl jasmonate (MeJA) treatment, but not by BPH infestation. The abundance of trypsin protease inhibitor (TrypPI), and the enzymatic activities of polyphenol oxidase (PPO) and peroxidase (POD) were enhanced in response to both LF and BPH infestation, but the activity of lipoxygenase (LOX) was only induced by LF. The RNAi lines with repressed expression of OsCOI1 showed reduced resistance against LF, but no change against BPH. Silencing OsCOI1 did not alter LF-induced LOX activity and JA content, but it led to a reduction in the TrypPI content, POD and PPO activity by 62.3%, 48.5% and 27.2%, respectively. In addition, MeJA-induced TrypPI and POD activity were reduced by 57.2% and 48.2% in OsCOI1 RNAi plants. These results suggest that OsCOI1 is an indispensable signaling component, controlling JA-regulated defense against chewing insect (LF) in rice plants, and COI1 is also required for induction of TrypPI, POD and PPO in rice defense response to LF infestation

Dry Needling for Spine Related Disorders: a Scoping Review

Introduction/Background: The depth and breadth of research on dry needling (DN) has not been evaluated specifically for symptomatic spine related disorders (SRD) from myofascial trigger points (TrP), disc, nerve and articular structures not due to serious pathologies. Current literature appears to support DN for treatment of TrP. Goals of this review include identifying research published on DN treatment for SRD, sites of treatment and outcomes studied. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following Levac et al.’s five part methodological framework to determine the current state of the literature regarding DN for patients with SRD. Results: Initial and secondary search strategies yielded 55 studies in the cervical (C) region (71.43%) and 22 in the thoracolumbar-pelvic (TLP) region (28.57%). Most were randomized controlled trials (60% in C, 45.45% in TLP) and clinical trials (18.18% in C, 22.78% in TLP). The most commonly treated condition was TrP for both the C and TLP regions. In the C region, DN was provided to 23 different muscles, with the trapezius as treatment site in 41.88% of studies. DN was applied to 31 different structures in the TLP region. In the C region, there was one treatment session in 23 studies (41.82%) and 2–6 treatments in 25 (45.45%%). For the TLP region, one DN treatment was provided in 8 of the 22 total studies (36.36%) and 2–6 in 9 (40.9%). The majority of experimental designs had DN as the sole intervention. For both C and TLP regions, visual analogue scale, pressure pain threshold and range of motion were the most common outcomes. Conclusion: For SRD, DN was primarily applied to myofascial structures for pain or TrP diagnoses. Many outcomes were improved regardless of diagnosis or treatment parameters. Most studies applied just one treatment which may not reflect common clinical practice. Further research is warranted to determine optimal treatment duration and frequency. Most studies looked at DN as the sole intervention. It is unclear whether DN alone or in addition to other treatment procedures would provide superior outcomes. Functional outcome tools best suited to tracking the outcomes of DN for SRD should be explored.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-020-00310-

Comparison of Dry Needling versus Orthopedic Manual Therapy in Patients with Myofascial Chronic Neck Pain: A Single-Blind, Randomized Pilot Study

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of three interventions for the treatment of myofascial chronic neck pain. METHODS: Thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: orthopedic manual therapy (OMT), dry needling and stretching (DN-S), and soft tissue techniques (STT). All groups received two treatment sessions with a 48 h time interval. Outcome measures included neck pain intensity measured using a visual analogue scale, cervical range of motion (ROM), pressure pain threshold for measuring mechanical hyperalgesia, and two self-reported questionnaires (neck disability index and pain catastrophizing scale). RESULTS: The ANOVA revealed significant differences for the group × time interaction for neck disability, neck pain intensity, and pain catastrophizing. The DN-S and OMT groups reduced neck disability. Only the OMT group showed decreases in mechanical hyperalgesia and pain catastrophizing. The cervical ROM increased in OMT (i.e., flexion, side-bending, and rotation) and DN-S (i.e., side-bending and rotation) groups. CONCLUSIONS: The three interventions are all effective in reducing pain intensity. Reduction in mechanical hyperalgesia and pain catastrophizing was only observed in the OMT group. Cervical ROM improved in the DN-S and OMT groups and also neck disability being only clinically relevant for OMT group.Sin financiación0.769 SJR (2015) Q3, 37/128 Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, 153/366 Neurology (clinical)UE