Cyanobacteria in ambient springs

Although neglected for a long time by freshwater-ecology research, springs are very important habitats for biodiversity conservation. They are multiple ecotones, and are characterized by a remarkable variety of environmental conditions (e.g., from highly-shaded to UV exposed, from permanent discharge to intermittent flow, from still water to strong currents, from extremely-soft to carbonate-precipitating water, etc.). Moreover, springs are often amongst the last high-integrity, oligotrophic freshwater habitats in densely populated areas. Because of the high quality of their waters, the main impact affecting springs is capturing and water diversion. Climate-change driven reduction in precipitations in many areas is likely to determine an aggravation of this impact. It is thus important to document the rich and peculiar biodiversity of springs, also to establish reference conditions for bioassessment methods. Especially in non-acidic springs with running water, and coarse lithic substrata, cyanobacteria are often one of the most taxa-rich and abundant groups of photoautotrophs. The relatively-scarce information available in the literature is mostly referred to similar habitats, and not to spring habitats in the narrower sense. Papers dealing with the cyanobacteria of ambient springheads (=eucrenal) worldwide are still very rare. These were reviewed separating ambient springs in temperate and warm climate, and with special attention to key species, to cyanobacterial strategies allowing survival in oligotrophic headwaters (e.g., nitrogen fixation, phosphatases, anti-UV compounds, etc.), and to distribution patterns. The review also hopes to bolster new interest and research on this topic, and suggests some promising research directions

Microalgal Biomass of Industrial Interest: Methods of Characterization

International audienceMicroalgae represent a new source of biomass for many applications. The advantage of microalgae over higher plants is their high productivities. The photoautotrophic microalgae include all photosynthetic microorganisms, i.e. Cyanobacteria (prokaryotes) or microalgae (eukaryotes). These microorganisms are characterized by a large biodiversity and chimiodiversity. Then, the analysis of microalgal and cyanobacterial biomass often needs specific adaptations of the classical protocols for extraction as well as for quantification of their contents. This chapter reviewed the main analytical methods used for the analysis of microalgae biomass and its main vaporizable compounds: proteins, polysaccharides, lipids, pigments and secondary metabolites

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)