Transcript levels of ten caste-related genes in adult diploid males of Melipona quadrifasciata (Hymenoptera, Apidae) - A comparison with haploid males, queens and workers

In Hymenoptera, homozygosity at the sex locus results in the production of diploid males. In social species, these pose a double burden by having low fitness and drawing resources normally spent for increasing the work force of a colony. Yet, diploid males are of academic interest as they can elucidate effects of ploidy (normal males are haploid, whereas the female castes, the queens and workers, are diploid) on morphology and life history. Herein we investigated expression levels of ten caste-related genes in the stingless bee Melipona quadrifasciata, comparing newly emerged and 5-day-old diploid males with haploid males, queens and workers. In diploid males, transcript levels for dunce and paramyosin were increased during the first five days of adult life, while those for diacylglycerol kinase and the transcriptional co-repressor groucho diminished. Two general trends were apparent, (i) gene expression patterns in diploid males were overall more similar to haploid ones and workers than to queens, and (ii) in queens and workers, more genes were up-regulated after emergence until day five, whereas in diploid and especially so in haploid males more genes were down-regulated. This difference between the sexes may be related to longevity, which is much longer in females than in males

A General Strategy to Endow Natural Fusion-protein-Derived Peptides with Potent Antiviral Activity

Fusion between the viral and target cell membranes is an obligatory step for the infectivity of all enveloped virus, and blocking this process is a clinically validated therapeutic strategy

Interventions outside the workplace for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age

Background Adults spend a majority of their time outside the workplace being sedentary. Large amounts of sedentary behaviour increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and both all‐cause and cardiovascular disease mortality. Objectives Primary • To assess effects on sedentary time of non‐occupational interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age Secondary • To describe other health effects and adverse events or unintended consequences of these interventions • To determine whether specific components of interventions are associated with changes in sedentary behaviour • To identify if there are any differential effects of interventions based on health inequalities (e.g. age, sex, income, employment) Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 14 April 2020. We checked references of included studies, conducted forward citation searching, and contacted authors in the field to identify additional studies. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of interventions outside the workplace for community‐dwelling adults aged 18 to 59 years. We included studies only when the intervention had a specific aim or component to change sedentary behaviour. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full‐text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information or data when required. We examined the following primary outcomes: device‐measured sedentary time, self‐report sitting time, self‐report TV viewing time, and breaks in sedentary time. Main results We included 13 trials involving 1770 participants, all undertaken in high‐income countries. Ten were RCTs and three were cluster RCTs. The mean age of study participants ranged from 20 to 41 years. A majority of participants were female. All interventions were delivered at the individual level. Intervention components included personal monitoring devices, information or education, counselling, and prompts to reduce sedentary behaviour. We judged no study to be at low risk of bias across all domains. Seven studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessment due to use of self‐report outcomes measures. Primary outcomes Interventions outside the workplace probably show little or no difference in device‐measured sedentary time in the short term (mean difference (MD) ‐8.36 min/d, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐27.12 to 10.40; 4 studies; I² = 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions reduce device‐measured sedentary time in the medium term (MD ‐51.37 min/d, 95% CI ‐126.34 to 23.59; 3 studies; I² = 84%; very low‐certainty evidence) We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace reduce self‐report sitting time in the short term (MD ‐64.12 min/d, 95% CI ‐260.91 to 132.67; I² = 86%; very low‐certainty evidence). Interventions outside the workplace may show little or no difference in self‐report TV viewing time in the medium term (MD ‐12.45 min/d, 95% CI ‐50.40 to 25.49; 2 studies; I² = 86%; low‐certainty evidence) or in the long term (MD 0.30 min/d, 95% CI ‐0.63 to 1.23; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low‐certainty evidence). It was not possible to pool the five studies that reported breaks in sedentary time given the variation in definitions used. Secondary outcomes Interventions outside the workplace probably have little or no difference on body mass index in the medium term (MD ‐0.25 kg/m², 95% CI ‐0.48 to ‐0.01; 3 studies; I² = 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence). Interventions may have little or no difference in waist circumference in the medium term (MD ‐2.04 cm, 95% CI ‐9.06 to 4.98; 2 studies; I² = 65%; low‐certainty evidence). Interventions probably have little or no difference on glucose in the short term (MD ‐0.18 mmol/L, 95% CI ‐0.30 to ‐0.06; 2 studies; I² = 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence) and medium term (MD ‐0.08 mmol/L, 95% CI ‐0.21 to 0.05; 2 studies, I² = 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence) Interventions outside the workplace may have little or no difference in device‐measured MVPA in the short term (MD 1.99 min/d, 95% CI ‐4.27 to 8.25; 4 studies; I² = 23%; low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions improve device‐measured MVPA in the medium term (MD 6.59 min/d, 95% CI ‐7.35 to 20.53; 3 studies; I² = 70%; very low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace improve self‐reported light‐intensity PA in the short‐term (MD 156.32 min/d, 95% CI 34.34 to 278.31; 2 studies; I² = 79%; very low‐certainty evidence). Interventions may have little or no difference on step count in the short‐term (MD 226.90 steps/day, 95% CI ‐519.78 to 973.59; 3 studies; I² = 0%; low‐certainty evidence) No data on adverse events or symptoms were reported in the included studies. Authors' conclusions Interventions outside the workplace to reduce sedentary behaviour probably lead to little or no difference in device‐measured sedentary time in the short term, and we are uncertain if they reduce device‐measured sedentary time in the medium term. We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace reduce self‐reported sitting time in the short term. Interventions outside the workplace may result in little or no difference in self‐report TV viewing time in the medium or long term. The certainty of evidence is moderate to very low, mainly due to concerns about risk of bias, inconsistent findings, and imprecise results. Future studies should be of longer duration; should recruit participants from varying age, socioeconomic, or ethnic groups; and should gather quality of life, cost‐effectiveness, and adverse event data. We strongly recommend that standard methods of data preparation and analysis are adopted to allow comparison of the effects of interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour

Periprosthetic Fractures Through Tracking Pin Sites Following Computer Navigated and Robotic Total and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Use of computer-assisted navigation (CAN) and robotic-assisted (RA) surgery in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) both necessitate the use of tracking pins rigidly fixed to the femur and tibia. Although periprosthetic fractures through tracking pin sites are rare, there is a paucity of literature on this potential complication. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the current literature to assess the incidence and clinical outcomes of periprosthetic fractures through tracking pin sites following CAN and RA TKA and UKA. METHODS: A systematic review was performed following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases in April 2020. Studies were assessed for the presence of pin site fractures, fracture characteristics, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Seventeen clinical studies (5 case series, 1 cohort study, and 11 case reports) involving 29 pin-related fractures were included for review. The overall incidence ranged from 0.06% to 4.8%. The mean time from index arthroplasty to fracture was 9.5 weeks (range, 0 to 40 weeks). The majority of fractures occurred in the femoral diaphysis (59%). Nineteen fractures (66%) were displaced and 10 (34%) were nondisplaced or occult. The majority of cases were atraumatic in nature or involved minor trauma and were typically preceded by persistent leg pain. A transcortical pin trajectory, large pin diameter (\u3e4 mm), diaphyseal fixation, multiple placement attempts, and the use of non-self-drilling, non-self-tapping pins were the most commonly reported risk factors for pin-related periprosthetic fractures following CAN or RA TKA. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons should maintain a high index of suspicion for pin-related fractures in patients with ongoing leg or thigh pain after CAN or RA TKA in order to avoid fracture displacement and additional morbidity. As CAN and RA TKA have unique complication risks, the debate regarding the value of technology-assisted TKA and its cost-effectiveness continues. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence