Relationships Between Borders, Management Agencies, and the Likelihood of Watershed Impairment

In the United States, the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes water quality standards important for maintaining healthy freshwater ecosystems. Within the CWA framework, states define their own water quality criteria, leading to a potential fragmentation of standards between states. This fragmentation can influence the management of shared water resources and produce spillover effects of pollutants crossing state lines and other political boundaries. We used numerical simulations to test the null prediction of no difference in impairment between watersheds that cross political boundaries (i.e. state lines, national or coastal borders, hereafter termed “transboundary”) and watersheds that cross no boundaries (hereafter “internal”). We found that transboundary watersheds are more likely to be impaired than internal watersheds. Further, we examined possible causes for this relationship based on both geographic and sociopolitical drivers. Though geographic variables such as human-modified land cover and the amount of upstream catchment area are associated with watershed impairment, the number and type of agencies managing land within a watershed better explained the different impairment levels between transboundary and internal watersheds. Watersheds primarily consisting of public lands are less impaired than watersheds consisting of private lands. Similarly, watersheds primarily managed by federal agencies are less impaired than state-managed watersheds. Our results highlight the importance of considering Integrated Watershed Management strategies for water resources within a fragmented policy framework

Comparative Analysis of Opioid Use Between Robotic and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways using regional anesthesia and multimodality analgesia have decreased overall opioid use, but the additional benefits of robotic surgery in opioid reduction for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) are unknown. We compared the inpatient opioid use between robotic PD and open PD. METHODS: Patients undergoing open PD within a protocol evaluating preincisional regional anesthetic block bundles were compared to consecutively-treated patients undergoing robotic PD identified from a prospectively maintained single-institutional database. Clinical characteristics, operative outcomes, pain scores and inpatient oral morphine equivalent (OME) use were compared between patients treated with robotic or open PD. Patients with a history of continuous-release opioid dependence were excluded. RESULTS: Of 114 total patients, 25 underwent robotic PD and 89 underwent open PD. Intraoperative opioid use was not different (P = .87), nor were cumulative pain scores. Robotic PD patients used significantly fewer OMEs per day on postoperative days 1-4 (P = .039), used fewer total OMEs during hospitalization (robotic: median = 79, IQR 42.5-141; open: median = 126, IQR 61.3-203.8; P = .0036) and were discharged with fewer OMEs (robotic: median = 0, IQR 0-43.8; open: median = 25, IQR 0-75; P = .009) despite a shorter length of stay (robotic: median = 4, open: median = 5, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic PD patients required fewer inpatient OMEs than open PD while maintaining similar pain scores. A higher percentage of robotic PD patients tapered off of opioids prior to discharge than open surgery patients treated with a standardized opioid reduction protocol despite a shorter length of stay. These results provide a rationale for choosing robotic PD when feasible to minimize opioid use

ANKRD1, the gene encoding cardiac ankyrin repeat protein, is a novel dilated cardiomyopathy gene.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated ankyrin repeat domain 1 (ANKRD1), the gene encoding cardiac ankyrin repeat protein (CARP), as a novel candidate gene for dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) through mutation analysis of a cohort of familial or idiopathic DCM patients, based on the hypothesis that inherited dysfunction of mechanical stretch-based signaling is present in a subset of DCM patients. BACKGROUND: CARP, a transcription coinhibitor, is a member of the titin-N2A mechanosensory complex and translocates to the nucleus in response to stretch. It is up-regulated in cardiac failure and hypertrophy and represses expression of sarcomeric proteins. Its overexpression results in contractile dysfunction. METHODS: In all, 208 DCM patients were screened for mutations/variants in the coding region of ANKRD1 using polymerase chain reaction, denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography, and direct deoxyribonucleic acid sequencing. In vitro functional analyses of the mutation were performed using yeast 2-hybrid assays and investigating the effect on stretch-mediated gene expression in myoblastoid cell lines using quantitative real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: Three missense heterozygous ANKRD1 mutations (P105S, V107L, and M184I) were identified in 4 DCM patients. The M184I mutation results in loss of CARP binding with Talin 1 and FHL2, and the P105S mutation in loss of Talin 1 binding. Intracellular localization of mutant CARP proteins is not altered. The mutations result in differential stretch-induced gene expression compared with wild-type CARP. CONCLUSIONS: ANKRD1 is a novel DCM gene, with mutations present in 1.9% of DCM patients. The ANKRD1 mutations may cause DCM as a result of disruption of the normal cardiac stretch-based signaling

LPS from P. gingivalis

Objective. Oral inflammatory pathologies are linked to increased oxidative stress, thereby partly explaining their relevance in the etiology of systemic disorders. The purpose of this work was to determine the degree to which LPS from Porphyromonas gingivalis, the primary pathogen related to oral inflammation, altered gingival mitochondrial function and reactive oxygen species generation. Methods. Human gingival fibroblast (HGF-1) cells were treated with lipopolysaccharide of P. gingivalis. Mitochondrial function was determined via high-resolution respirometry. Results. LPS-treated HGF-1 cells had significantly higher mitochondrial complex IV and higher rates of mitochondrial respiration. However, this failed to translate into greater ATP production, as ATP production was paradoxically diminished with LPS treatment. Nevertheless, production of the reactive H2O2 was elevated with LPS treatment. Conclusions. LPS elicits an increase in gingival cell mitochondria content, with a subsequent increase in reactive oxygen species production (i.e., H2O2), despite a paradoxical reduction in ATP generation. These findings provide an insight into the nature of oxidative stress in oral inflammatory pathologies

Building on the past, shaping the future: The environmental mutagenesis and genomics society

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/97167/1/em21765.pd

Gut Microbiome in Patients With Early-Stage and Late-Stage Melanoma

IMPORTANCE: The gut microbiome modulates the immune system and responses to immunotherapy in patients with late-stage melanoma. It is unknown whether fecal microbiota profiles differ between healthy individuals and patients with melanoma or if microbiota profiles differ among patients with different stages of melanoma. Defining gut microbiota profiles in individuals without melanoma and those with early-stage and late-stage melanoma may reveal features associated with disease progression. OBJECTIVE: To characterize and compare gut microbiota profiles between healthy volunteers and patients with melanoma and between patients with early-stage and late-stage melanoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This single-site case-control study took place at an academic comprehensive cancer center. Fecal samples were collected from systemic treatment-naive patients with stage I to IV melanoma from June 1, 2015, to January 31, 2019, and from healthy volunteers from June 1, 2021, to January 31, 2022. Patients were followed up for disease recurrence until November 30, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Fecal microbiota was profiled by 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing. Clinical and pathologic characteristics, treatment, and disease recurrence were extracted from electronic medical records. Fecal microbiome diversity, taxonomic profiles and inferred functional profiles were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 228 participants were enrolled (126 men [55.3%]; median age, 59 [range, 21-90] years), including 49 volunteers without melanoma, 38 patients with early-stage melanoma (29 with stage I or melanoma in situ and 9 with stage II), and 141 with late-stage melanoma (66 with stage III and 75 with stage IV). Community differences were observed between patients with melanoma and volunteers. Patients with melanoma had a higher relative abundance of Fusobacterium compared with controls on univariate analysis (0.19% vs 0.003%; P \u3c .001), but this association was attenuated when adjusted for covariates (log2 fold change of 5.18 vs controls; P = .09). Microbiomes were distinct between patients with early-stage and late-stage melanoma. Early-stage melanoma had a higher alpha diversity (Inverse Simpson Index 14.6 [IQR, 9.8-23.0] vs 10.8 [IQR, 7.2-16.8]; P = .003), and a higher abundance of the genus Roseburia on univariate analysis (2.4% vs 1.2%; P \u3c .001) though statistical significance was lost with covariate adjustment (log2 fold change of 0.86 vs controls; P = .13). Multiple functional pathways were differentially enriched between groups. No associations were observed between the microbial taxa and disease recurrence in patients with stage III melanoma treated with adjuvant immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this case-control study suggest that fecal microbiota profiles were significantly different among patients with melanoma and controls and between patients with early-stage and late-stage melanoma. Prospective investigations of the gut microbiome and changes that occur with disease progression may identify future microbial targets for intervention

Multi-Messenger Gravitational Wave Searches with Pulsar Timing Arrays: Application to 3C66B Using the NANOGrav 11-year Data Set

When galaxies merge, the supermassive black holes in their centers may form binaries and, during the process of merger, emit low-frequency gravitational radiation in the process. In this paper we consider the galaxy 3C66B, which was used as the target of the first multi-messenger search for gravitational waves. Due to the observed periodicities present in the photometric and astrometric data of the source of the source, it has been theorized to contain a supermassive black hole binary. Its apparent 1.05-year orbital period would place the gravitational wave emission directly in the pulsar timing band. Since the first pulsar timing array study of 3C66B, revised models of the source have been published, and timing array sensitivities and techniques have improved dramatically. With these advances, we further constrain the chirp mass of the potential supermassive black hole binary in 3C66B to less than $(1.65\pm0.02) \times 10^9~{M_\odot}$ using data from the NANOGrav 11-year data set. This upper limit provides a factor of 1.6 improvement over previous limits, and a factor of 4.3 over the first search done. Nevertheless, the most recent orbital model for the source is still consistent with our limit from pulsar timing array data. In addition, we are able to quantify the improvement made by the inclusion of source properties gleaned from electromagnetic data to `blind' pulsar timing array searches. With these methods, it is apparent that it is not necessary to obtain exact a priori knowledge of the period of a binary to gain meaningful astrophysical inferences.Comment: 14 pages, 6 figures. Accepted by Ap

Short-term treatment with multi-drug regimens combining BRAF/MEK-targeted therapy and immunotherapy results in durable responses in Braf-mutated melanoma

Targeted and immunotherapy regimens have revolutionized the treatment of advanced melanoma patients. Despite this, only a subset of patients respond durably. Recently, combination strategies of BRAF/MEK inhibitors with immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy (α-CTLA-4 or α-PD-1) have increased the rate of durable responses. Based on evidence from our group and others, these therapies appear synergistic, but at the cost of significant toxicity. We know from other treatment paradigms (e.g. hematologic malignancies) that combination strategies with multi-drug regimens (\u3e4 drugs) are associated with more durable disease control. To better understand the mechanism of these improved outcomes, and to identify and prioritize new strategies for testing, we studied several multi-drug regimens combining BRAF/MEK targeted therapy and immunotherapy combinations in a Braf-mutant murine melanoma model (BrafV600E/Pten−/−). Short-term treatment with α-PD-1 and α-CTLA-4 monotherapies were relatively ineffective, while treatment with α-OX40 demonstrated some efficacy [17% of mice with no evidence of disease, (NED), at 60-days]. Outcomes were improved in the combined α-OX40/α-PD-1 group (42% NED). Short-term treatment with quadruplet therapy of immunotherapy doublets in combination with targeted therapy [dabrafenib and trametinib (DT)] was associated with excellent tumor control, with 100% of mice having NED after combined DT/α-CTLA-4/α-PD-1 or DT/α-OX40/α-PD-1. Notably, tumors from mice in these groups demonstrated a high proportion of effector memory T cells, and immunologic memory was maintained with tumor re-challenge. Together, these data provide important evidence regarding the potential utility of multi-drug therapy in treating advanced melanoma and suggest these models can be used to guide and prioritize combinatorial treatment strategies

Network analysis of sea turtle movements and connectivity: A tool for conservation prioritization

Aim: Understanding the spatial ecology of animal movements is a critical element in conserving long-lived, highly mobile marine species. Analyzing networks developed from movements of six sea turtle species reveals marine connectivity and can help prioritize conservation efforts. Location: Global. Methods: We collated telemetry data from 1235 individuals and reviewed the literature to determine our dataset's representativeness. We used the telemetry data to develop spatial networks at different scales to examine areas, connections, and their geographic arrangement. We used graph theory metrics to compare networks across regions and species and to identify the role of important areas and connections. Results: Relevant literature and citations for data used in this study had very little overlap. Network analysis showed that sampling effort influenced network structure, and the arrangement of areas and connections for most networks was complex. However, important areas and connections identified by graph theory metrics can be different than areas of high data density. For the global network, marine regions in the Mediterranean had high closeness, while links with high betweenness among marine regions in the South Atlantic were critical for maintaining connectivity. Comparisons among species-specific networks showed that functional connectivity was related to movement ecology, resulting in networks composed of different areas and links. Main conclusions: Network analysis identified the structure and functional connectivity of the sea turtles in our sample at multiple scales. These network characteristics could help guide the coordination of management strategies for wide-ranging animals throughout their geographic extent. Most networks had complex structures that can contribute to greater robustness but may be more difficult to manage changes when compared to simpler forms. Area-based conservation measures would benefit sea turtle populations when directed toward areas with high closeness dominating network function. Promoting seascape connectivity of links with high betweenness would decrease network vulnerability.Fil: Kot, Connie Y.. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Åkesson, Susanne. Lund University; SueciaFil: Alfaro Shigueto, Joanna. Universidad Cientifica del Sur; Perú. University of Exeter; Reino Unido. Pro Delphinus; PerúFil: Amorocho Llanos, Diego Fernando. Research Center for Environmental Management and Development; ColombiaFil: Antonopoulou, Marina. Emirates Wildlife Society-world Wide Fund For Nature; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Balazs, George H.. Noaa Fisheries Service; Estados UnidosFil: Baverstock, Warren R.. The Aquarium and Dubai Turtle Rehabilitation Project; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Blumenthal, Janice M.. Cayman Islands Government; Islas CaimánFil: Broderick, Annette C.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Bruno, Ignacio. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones y Desarrollo Pesquero; ArgentinaFil: Canbolat, Ali Fuat. Hacettepe Üniversitesi; Turquía. Ecological Research Society; TurquíaFil: Casale, Paolo. Università degli Studi di Pisa; ItaliaFil: Cejudo, Daniel. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria; EspañaFil: Coyne, Michael S.. Seaturtle.org; Estados UnidosFil: Curtice, Corrie. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: DeLand, Sarah. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: DiMatteo, Andrew. CheloniData; Estados UnidosFil: Dodge, Kara. New England Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Dunn, Daniel C.. University of Queensland; Australia. The University of Queensland; Australia. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Esteban, Nicole. Swansea University; Reino UnidoFil: Formia, Angela. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados UnidosFil: Fuentes, Mariana M. P. B.. Florida State University; Estados UnidosFil: Fujioka, Ei. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Garnier, Julie. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Godfrey, Matthew H.. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission; Estados UnidosFil: Godley, Brendan J.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: González Carman, Victoria. Instituto National de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Harrison, Autumn Lynn. Smithsonian Institution; Estados UnidosFil: Hart, Catherine E.. Grupo Tortuguero de las Californias A.C; México. Investigacion, Capacitacion y Soluciones Ambientales y Sociales A.C; MéxicoFil: Hawkes, Lucy A.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Hays, Graeme C.. Deakin University; AustraliaFil: Hill, Nicholas. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Hochscheid, Sandra. Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn; ItaliaFil: Kaska, Yakup. Dekamer—Sea Turtle Rescue Center; Turquía. Pamukkale Üniversitesi; TurquíaFil: Levy, Yaniv. University Of Haifa; Israel. Israel Nature And Parks Authority; IsraelFil: Ley Quiñónez, César P.. Instituto Politécnico Nacional; MéxicoFil: Lockhart, Gwen G.. Virginia Aquarium Marine Science Foundation; Estados Unidos. Naval Facilities Engineering Command; Estados UnidosFil: López-Mendilaharsu, Milagros. Projeto TAMAR; BrasilFil: Luschi, Paolo. Università degli Studi di Pisa; ItaliaFil: Mangel, Jeffrey C.. University of Exeter; Reino Unido. Pro Delphinus; PerúFil: Margaritoulis, Dimitris. Archelon; GreciaFil: Maxwell, Sara M.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: McClellan, Catherine M.. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Metcalfe, Kristian. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Mingozzi, Antonio. Università Della Calabria; ItaliaFil: Moncada, Felix G.. Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras; CubaFil: Nichols, Wallace J.. California Academy Of Sciences; Estados Unidos. Center For The Blue Economy And International Environmental Policy Program; Estados UnidosFil: Parker, Denise M.. Noaa Fisheries Service; Estados UnidosFil: Patel, Samir H.. Coonamessett Farm Foundation; Estados Unidos. Drexel University; Estados UnidosFil: Pilcher, Nicolas J.. Marine Research Foundation; MalasiaFil: Poulin, Sarah. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Read, Andrew J.. Duke University Marine Laboratory; Estados UnidosFil: Rees, ALan F.. University of Exeter; Reino Unido. Archelon; GreciaFil: Robinson, David P.. The Aquarium and Dubai Turtle Rehabilitation Project; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Robinson, Nathan J.. Fundación Oceanogràfic; EspañaFil: Sandoval-Lugo, Alejandra G.. Instituto Politécnico Nacional; MéxicoFil: Schofield, Gail. Queen Mary University of London; Reino UnidoFil: Seminoff, Jeffrey A.. Noaa National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office; Estados UnidosFil: Seney, Erin E.. University Of Central Florida; Estados UnidosFil: Snape, Robin T. E.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Sözbilen, Dogan. Dekamer—sea Turtle Rescue Center; Turquía. Pamukkale University; TurquíaFil: Tomás, Jesús. Institut Cavanilles de Biodiversitat I Biologia Evolutiva; EspañaFil: Varo Cruz, Nuria. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria; España. Ads Biodiversidad; España. Instituto Canario de Ciencias Marinas; EspañaFil: Wallace, Bryan P.. University of Duke; Estados Unidos. Ecolibrium, Inc.; Estados UnidosFil: Wildermann, Natalie E.. Texas A&M University; Estados UnidosFil: Witt, Matthew J.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Zavala Norzagaray, Alan A.. Instituto politecnico nacional; MéxicoFil: Halpin, Patrick N.. University of Duke; Estados Unido