A novel approach to probe host-pathogen interactions of bovine digital dermatitis, a model of a complex polymicrobial infection

Background: Polymicrobial infections represent a great challenge for the clarification of disease etiology and the development of comprehensive diagnostic or therapeutic tools, particularly for fastidious and difficult-to-cultivate bacteria. Using bovine digital dermatitis (DD) as a disease model, we introduce a novel strategy to study the pathogenesis of complex infections. Results: The strategy combines meta-transcriptomics with high-density peptide-microarray technology to screen for in vivo-expressed microbial genes and the host antibody response at the site of infection. Bacterial expression patterns supported the assumption that treponemes were the major DD pathogens but also indicated the active involvement of other phyla (primarily Bacteroidetes). Bacterial genes involved in chemotaxis, flagellar synthesis and protection against oxidative and acidic stress were among the major factors defining the disease. Conclusions: The extraordinary diversity observed in bacterial expression, antigens and host antibody responses between individual cows pointed toward microbial variability as a hallmark of DD. Persistence of infection and DD reinfection in the same individual is common; thus, high microbial diversity may undermine the host's capacity to mount an efficient immune response and maintain immunological memory towards DD. The common antigenic markers identified here using a high-density peptide microarray address this issue and may be useful for future preventive measures against DD.Fil: Marcatili, Paolo. Technical University of Denmark; DinamarcaFil: Nielsen, Martin W.. Technical University of Denmark; DinamarcaFil: Sicheritz Ponten, Thomas. Technical University of Denmark; DinamarcaFil: Jensen, Tim K.. Technical University of Denmark; DinamarcaFil: Schafer Nielsen, Claus. Schafer-N ApS; DinamarcaFil: Boye, Mette. Hospital of Southern Jutland; DinamarcaFil: Nielsen, Morten. Technical University of Denmark; Dinamarca. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata. Instituto de Investigaciones Biotecnológicas. Instituto de Investigaciones Biotecnológicas ; ArgentinaFil: Klitgaard, Kirstine. Technical University of Denmark; Dinamarc

Documenting Torture and Ill-Treatment Amongst the Poor

This briefing highlights research that identifies potential deficiencies in the reporting of instances of torture and ill-treatment amongst the poorest members of society, and suggests actions that might be progressed to address these.ESRC-DFI

Pædagogers risikovurderinger på børneområdet

ResuméSelvom det ikke er pædagogers kerneopgave at foretage risikovurderinger, er de dog lejlighedsvis nødt til at vurdere risikoen (sandsynligheden) for fx omsorgssvigt. Ved hjælp af vignetmetoden har vi undersøgt 99 pædagogers risikovurderinger. Pædagogerne besvarede spørgsmål på baggrund af en fiktiv vignet om to børns alvorlige problemer efter deres fars selvmord og moderens efterfølgende psykiske sygdom og indlæggelse. Artiklens fokus er på pædagogernes vurdering af risikoens størrelse, og på hvordan de med egne ord beskrev de beskyttelses- og risikofaktorer, som de lagde vægt på. Tre undersøgelsesresultater er væsentlige: 1) Der er meget stor spredning i pædagogernes risikovurderinger, både når risikoen angives med ord, som fx ”høj”, og i procenttal. 2) Selvom pædagogerne har anvendt det samme ord om risikoen, fx høj, kan der være meget stor forskel på deres angivelser af risikoen i procent. 3) Der er ingen væsentlige forskelle på, hvad de høj-, middel- og lavrisikovurderende pædagoger nævner af beskyttelses- og risikofaktorer. Der er heller ingen forskel på, hvor mange anslag, de bruger på at angive henholdsvis beskyttelses- og risikofaktorer. Resultaterne tydeliggør, at pædagoger skal være bevidste om, at de har meget forskellige vurderinger af risikoens størrelse, når de ser på nøjagtig samme case. Faglig uenighed om et så centralt spørgsmål som fremtidsudsigterne for børn i familier med vanskeligheder viser sig at være et grundvilkår i pædagogisk arbejde. Med denne erkendelse bliver faglige diskussioner med andre pædagoger om børnenes fremtidsudsigter en mulighed for, at pædagoger kan udvikle deres empati og nuancere deres helhedssyn.Abstract Pedagogues risk assessments in the field of childrenAlthough it is not the core task of pedagogues to make risk assessments, they occasionally have to assess risk of e.g. neglect. Using the vignette method, we investigated 99 pedagogues’ risk assessments. The respondents answered questions based on a fictional vignette about two children’s serious problems after their father’s suicide and the mother’s subsequent mental illness and hospitalization. The focus in the paper is on the pedagogues’ assessments of the magnitude of the risk and their descriptions of protection and risk factors they emphasized. Three results are important: 1) The pedagogues’ assessments were very divergent, whether they expressed the magnitude of risk in words or as a percentage. 2) Even though the pedagogues used the same word for the risk, e.g. high, there were large differences in their statements of the risk in percentage. 3) There were no important differences in the assessment of children’s risk, between high-, medium- and low assessing pedagogues. The pattern was the same regarding how many words they used on protection and risk factors. The results make it clear that pedagogues must be aware that they have very different assessments of the size of the risk when they look at exactly the same case. Professional disagreement on such a central issue as the future prospects for children in families with stress turns out to be a basic condition in pedagogical work. With this realization, professional discussions with other pedagogues about the children’s future prospects become an opportunity for pedagogues to develop their empathy and nuance their holistic view

Pædagogers risikovurderinger på børneområdet

Resumé Selvom det ikke er pædagogers kerneopgave at foretage risikovurderinger, er de dog lejlighedsvis nødt til at vurdere risikoen (sandsynligheden) for fx omsorgssvigt. Ved hjælp af vignetmetoden har vi undersøgt 99 pædagogers risikovurderinger. Pædagogerne besvarede spørgsmål på baggrund af en fiktiv vignet om to børns alvorlige problemer efter deres fars selvmord og moderens efterfølgende psykiske sygdom og indlæggelse. Artiklens fokus er på pædagogernes vurdering af risikoens størrelse, og på hvordan de med egne ord beskrev de beskyttelses- og risikofaktorer, som de lagde vægt på. Tre undersøgelsesresultater er væsentlige: 1) Der er meget stor spredning i pædagogernes risikovurderinger, både når risikoen angives med ord, som fx ”høj”, og i procenttal. 2) Selvom pædagogerne har anvendt det samme ord om risikoen, fx høj, kan der være meget stor forskel på deres angivelser af risikoen i procent. 3) Der er ingen væsentlige forskelle på, hvad de høj-, middel- og lavrisikovurderende pædagoger nævner af beskyttelses- og risikofaktorer. Der er heller ingen forskel på, hvor mange anslag, de bruger på at angive henholdsvis beskyttelses- og risikofaktorer. Resultaterne tydeliggør, at pædagoger skal være bevidste om, at de har meget forskellige vurderinger af risikoens størrelse, når de ser på nøjagtig samme case. Faglig uenighed om et så centralt spørgsmål som fremtidsudsigterne for børn i familier med vanskeligheder viser sig at være et grundvilkår i pædagogisk arbejde. Med denne erkendelse bliver faglige diskussioner med andre pædagoger om børnenes fremtidsudsigter en mulighed for, at pædagoger kan udvikle deres empati og nuancere deres helhedssyn. Abstract Pedagogues risk assessments in the field of children Although it is not the core task of pedagogues to make risk assessments, they occasionally have to assess risk of e.g. neglect. Using the vignette method, we investigated 99 pedagogues’ risk assessments. The respondents answered questions based on a fictional vignette about two children’s serious problems after their father’s suicide and the mother’s subsequent mental illness and hospitalization. The focus in the paper is on the pedagogues’ assessments of the magnitude of the risk and their descriptions of protection and risk factors they emphasized. Three results are important: 1) The pedagogues’ assessments were very divergent, whether they expressed the magnitude of risk in words or as a percentage. 2) Even though the pedagogues used the same word for the risk, e.g. high, there were large differences in their statements of the risk in percentage. 3) There were no important differences in the assessment of children’s risk, between high-, medium- and low assessing pedagogues. The pattern was the same regarding how many words they used on protection and risk factors. The results make it clear that pedagogues must be aware that they have very different assessments of the size of the risk when they look at exactly the same case. Professional disagreement on such a central issue as the future prospects for children in families with stress turns out to be a basic condition in pedagogical work. With this realization, professional discussions with other pedagogues about the children’s future prospects become an opportunity for pedagogues to develop their empathy and nuance their holistic view