thrombosis of the portal venous system in cirrhotic patients

n/

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

CATÁLOGO DE ANGIOSPERMAS (DICOTILEDÓNEAS) DE LA REGIÓN LA LIBERTAD, PERÚ

Se da a conocer un catálogo de 2504 especies de Angiospermas (Dicocotiledóneas) existentes en la región La Libertad, Perú. Los taxa están ordenadas en 134 familias y 844 géneros e incluyen a 275 taxones cultivados y 630 endemismos categorizados según su grado de amenaza: En peligro crítico (CR) (61 sps.), En peligro (EN) (119 sps.), Vulnerable (VU) (126 sps.), Casi Amenazada (NT) (72 sps.), Preocupación menor (LC) (103 sps.), Datos insuficientes (DD) (61 sps.), No Evaluado (NE) (88 sps). El estudio estuvo basado en la revisión de material depositado en los herbarios: F, HUT y MO. Las colecciones revisadas son aquellas efectuadas en las diversas expediciones botánicas por personal del herbario HUT a través de su historia (1941-2019), salvo indicación contraria. Así mismo, en la determinación taxonómica de especialistas, y en la contrastación con las especies documentadas en estudios oficiales para esta región. El material examinado para cada especie incluye la distribución geográfica según las provincias y altitudes, el nombre vulgar si existiera, el ejemplar tipo solamente del material descrito para la región La Libertad, signado por el nombre y número del colector principal, seguido del acrónimo del herbario donde se encuentra depositado; así como, el estado actual de conservación del taxón sólo en el caso de los taxones endémicos. Las amenazas y destrucción de los hábitats de las especies son debido a la acción antrópica. La información presentada servirá para continuar con estudios taxonómicos, ecológicos y ambientales de estos taxa

Thrombosis of the Portal Venous System in Cirrhotic vs. Non-Cirrhotic Patients

Introduction and aim. Thrombosis is a vascular disorder of the liver often associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Cirrhosis is a predisposing factor for portal venous system thrombosis. The aim of this study is to determine differences between cirrhotics and non-cirrhotics that develop thrombosis in portal venous system and to evaluate if cirrhosis severity is related to the development of portal venous system thrombosis.Material and methods. We studied patients diagnosed with portal venous system thrombosis using contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan and doppler ultrasound at Medica Sur Hospital from 2012 to 2017. They were categorized into two groups; cirrhotics and non-cirrhotics. We assessed the hepatic function by Child-Pugh score and model for end-stage liver disease.Results. 67 patients with portal venous system thrombosis (25 with non-cirrhotic liver and 42 with cirrhosis) were included. The mean age (± SD) was 65 ± 9.5 years in cirrhotic group and 57 ± 13.2 years (p = 0.009) in noncirrhotic group. Comparing non-cirrhotics and cirrhotics, 8 non-cirrhotic patients showed evidence of extra-hepatic inflammatory conditions, while in the cirrhotic group no inflammatory conditions were found (p < 0.001). 27 (64.29%) cirrhotic patients had thrombosis in the portal vein, while only 9 cases (36%) were found in non-cirrhotics (p = 0.02).Conclusions. In cirrhotic patients, hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis were the strongest risk factors to develop portal venous system thrombosis. In contrast, extrahepatic inflammatory conditions were main risk factors associated in non-cirrhotics. Moreover, the portal vein was the most frequent site of thrombosis in both groups

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health