Clubroot (Plasmodiophora brassicae Woronin): an agricultural and biological challenge worldwide

Clubroot disease and the causal microbe Plasmodiophora brassicae offer abundant challenges to agriculturists and biological scientists. This microbe is well fitted for the environments which it inhabits. Plasmodiophora brassicae exists in soil as microscopic well protected resting spores and then grows actively and reproduces while shielded inside the roots of host plants. The pathogen is active outside the host for only short periods. Consequently, scientific studies are made challenging by the biological context of the host and pathogen and the technology required to investigate and understand that relationship. Controlling clubroot disease is a challenge for farmers, crop consultants and plant pathology practitioners because of the limited options which are available. Full symptom expression happens solely in members of the Brassicaceae family. Currently, only a few genes expressing strong resistance to P. brassicae are known and readily available. Agrochemical control is similarly limited by difficulties in molecule formulation which combines efficacy with environmental acceptability. Manipulation of husbandry encouraging improvements in soil structure, texture, nutrient composition and moisture content can reduce populations of P. brassicae. Integrating such strategies with rotation and crop management will reduce but not eliminate this disease. There are indications that forms of biological competition may be mobilised as additions to integrated control strategies. The aim of this review is to chart key themes in the development of scientific biological understanding of this host-pathogen relationship by offering signposts to grapple with clubroot disease which devastates crops and their profitability. Particular attention is given to the link between soil and nutrient chemistry and activity of this microbe

In Search of the Optimal Surgical Treatment for Velopharyngeal Dysfunction in 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome: A Systematic Review

<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Patients with the 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22qDS) and velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) tend to have residual VPD following surgery. This systematic review seeks to determine whether a particular surgical procedure results in superior speech outcome or less morbidity.</p> <h3>Methodology/ Principal Findings</h3><p>A combined computerized and hand-search yielded 70 studies, of which 27 were deemed relevant for this review, reporting on a total of 525 patients with 22qDS and VPD undergoing surgery for VPD. All studies were levels 2c or 4 evidence. The methodological quality of these studies was assessed using criteria based on the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. Heterogeneous groups of patients were reported on in the studies. The surgical procedure was often tailored to findings on preoperative imaging. Overall, 50% of patients attained normal resonance, 48% attained normal nasal emissions scores, and 83% had understandable speech postoperatively. However, 5% became hyponasal, 1% had obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and 17% required further surgery. There were no significant differences in speech outcome between patients who underwent a fat injection, Furlow or intravelar veloplasty, pharyngeal flap pharyngoplasty, Honig pharyngoplasty, or sphincter pharyngoplasty or Hynes procedures. There was a trend that a lower percentage of patients attained normal resonance after a fat injection or palatoplasty than after the more obstructive pharyngoplasties (11–18% versus 44–62%, p = 0.08). Only patients who underwent pharyngeal flaps or sphincter pharyngoplasties incurred OSA, yet this was not statistically significantly more often than after other procedures (p = 0.25). More patients who underwent a palatoplasty needed further surgery than those who underwent a pharyngoplasty (50% versus 7–13%, p = 0.03).</p> <h3>Conclusions/ Significance</h3><p>In the heterogeneous group of patients with 22qDS and VPD, a grade C recommendation can be made to minimize the morbidity of further surgery by choosing to perform a pharyngoplasty directly instead of only a palatoplasty.</p> </div