A cross-national study on the antecedents of work–life balance from the fit and balance perspective

Drawing on the perceived work–family fit and balance perspective, this study investigates demands and resources as antecedents of work–life balance (WLB) across four countries (New Zealand, France, Italy and Spain), so as to provide empirical cross-national evidence. Using structural equation modelling analysis on a sample of 870 full time employees, we found that work demands, hours worked and family demands were negatively related to WLB, while job autonomy and supervisor support were positively related to WLB. We also found evidence that resources (job autonomy and supervisor support) moderated the relationships between demands and work–life balance, with high resources consistently buffering any detrimental influence of demands on WLB. Furthermore, our study identified additional predictors of WLB that were unique to some national contexts. For example, in France and Italy, overtime hours worked were negatively associated with WLB, while parental status was positively associated with WLB. Overall, the implications for theory and practice are discussed.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Operant Sensation Seeking Requires Metabotropic Glutamate Receptor 5 (mGluR5)

Pharmacological and genetic studies have suggested that the metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 (mGluR5) is critically involved in mediating the reinforcing effects of drugs of abuse, but not food. The purpose of this study was to use mGluR5 knockout (KO), heterozygous (Het), and wildtype (WT) mice to determine if mGluR5 modulates operant sensation seeking (OSS), an operant task that uses varied sensory stimuli as a reinforcer. We found that mGluR5 KO mice had significantly reduced OSS responding relative to WT mice, while Het mice displayed a paradoxical increase in OSS responding. Neither KO nor Het mice exhibited altered operant responding for food as a reinforcer. Further, we assessed mGluR5 KO, Het and WT mice across a battery of cocaine locomotor, place preference and anxiety related tests. Although KO mice showed expected differences in some locomotor and anxiety measures, Het mice either exhibited no phenotype or an intermediate one. In total, these data demonstrate a key role for mGluR5 in OSS, indicating an important role for this receptor in reinforcement-based behavior

“Adhesion and invasion capacity to human epithelial cells and its relation to the presence of virulence genes, motility and biofilm formation of Campylobacter jejuni strains isolated from chicken and bovine”.

Campylobacter jejuni is a zoonotic pathogen transmitted through the â farm to forkâ route. Outbreaks are associated with consumption of chicken meat, however, other sources as been described. Currently, there is not enough data comparing the virulence of strains isolated from these reservoirs. In our study we compared C. jejuni strains isolated from broiler chicken and dairy cattle through determining their ability to adhere to and invade in vitro human colonic epithelial cell line T84 with their motility, formation of biofilms, and presence of eight virulence genes. A Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was performed to establish the relationship between presence of the studied genes and cellular invasion and adhesion, as well as differences between animal species of origin of the isolate. A Spearman correlation was performed to assess the relationship between invasion and motility, along with invasion and biofilm generation. The virB11 gene was positively associated with the adherence capacity of the strains (mean difference = 0.21, p = 0.006), and strains isolated from chickens showed a significant difference for adherence compared with strains isolated from cattle (p = 0.0001). Our results indicate that strains of C. jejuni have a difference in their adherence capacity depending on the animal reservoir from which they came, with chicken isolates displaying higher virulence compared to dairy cattle isolates.The accepted manuscript in pdf format is listed with the files at the bottom of this page. The presentation of the authors' names and (or) special characters in the title of the manuscript may differ slightly between what is listed on this page and what is listed in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript; that in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript is what was submitted by the author