Pautas de distribución espacial y modelización mediante SIG del habitat de Larvas de Solea solea, Pleuronectes flesus y limanda en la parte oriental del Canal de la Mancha durante la primavera

The spring distribution of larval fish stages of flatfishes in the Dover Strait (eastern English Channel) was studied in 1995 and 1999. Fish larvae were identified and sorted according to developmental stages in order to study their ontogenic distribution. The French coastal waters are characterised by an unstable tide-dependent front, which influences larval dispersion. In spring, the French coastal waters have a high phytoplanktonic production. They have higher temperatures, lower salinities and differences in current intensity compared with the central English Channel waters. Generalised Additive Models (GAM) combined with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) were used to model the potential habitats of life stages considering data from three major surveys in this area. The models were developed by coupling presence-absence models with non-null abundance models. The potential habitat of larval stages was then mapped using a geostatistical method (kriging). This revealed different species strategies in which young stages were abundant in central waters and older ones were distributed mainly along the French and Belgian coasts. It is concluded that the central English waters are important for young stages after hatching and that coastal waters are essential nurseries for future juveniles. The models of three flatfish species having similar life cycle strategies are presented here: Limanda limanda, Platichthys flesus and Solea solea.Durante 1995 y 1999 se estudió la distribución primaveral de los estadios larvarios de peces planos en el Estrecho de Dover (parte oriental del Canal de la Mancha).Las larvas de peces fueron identificadas y separadas en función de su estadio de desarrollo con objeto de estudiar su distribución ontogénica. Las aguas costeras francesas se caracterizan por un frente de marea inestable, que influencia la dispersión larvaria. Durante la primavera, dichas aguas presentan una elevada producción fitoplanctónica. Asimismo, presentan altas temperaturas, bajas salinidades y diferencias en la intensidad de la corriente, comparado con las aguas centrales del Canal de la Mancha. A partir de datos obtenidos en tres amplias campañas en este área, se utilizaron Modelos Aditivos Generalizados (GAM) con Sistemas de Información Geográfica (SIG) para modelizar los hábitats potenciales de los estadios larvarios. Los modelos se desarrollaron uniendo modelos de “presencia-ausencia” con modelos de “abundancia no nula”. A continuación, usando métodos geoestadísticos (kriging) se representó el mapa del hábitat potencial de los estadios larvarios. Esto reveló diferencias en las estrategias de aquellas especies cuyos primeros estadios son abundantes en las aguas centrales y cuyos estadios más avanzados están distribuidos principalmente a lo largo de la costa francesa y belga. Se mostró la importancia de las aguas centrales del Canal de la Mancha para las larvas lecitotróficas, y como las aguas costeras son áreas de cría esenciales para los futuros juveniles. Aquí se presentan los modelos para tres especies de peces planos que tienen estrategias de vida similares: Limanda limanda, Platichthys flesus and Solea solea

Exploring the sequence-function space of microbial fucosidases

Microbial α-l-fucosidases catalyse the hydrolysis of terminal α-l-fucosidic linkages with diverse substrate/linkage specificities and can be used in transglycosylation reactions to synthesise oligosaccharides. Based on sequence identity, α-l-fucosidases have been classified in distinct glycoside hydrolases (GHs) families in the carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZy) database. Here, we explored the sequence-function space of fucosidases from GH29 family. Based on sequence similarity network (SSN) analyses, 16 GH29 α-l-fucosidases were selected for functional characterisation. Using activity assays combined with HPAEC-PAD and LC-FD-MS/MS analyses, we determined the substrate and linkage specificities of these enzymes against a range of defined oligosaccharides and glycoconjugates, revealing a range of specificities for α1,2, α1,3, α1,4 and α1,6 linked fucosylated ligands. The structural basis for the substrate specificity of GH29 fucosidase from Bifidobacterium asteroides towards α1-6 linkages and FA2G2 N-glycan was further determined by X-ray crystallography and saturation transfer difference NMR. TLC combined with electrospray ionization – MS and NMR confirmed the capacity of this enzyme to carry out transfucosylation reactions with GlcNAc and Fuc1,3GlcNAc as acceptors. Taken together, these experimental data validate the use of SSN as a reliable bioinformatics approach to predict the substrate specificity and transfucosylation activity of GH29 fucosidases.<br/

Membrane-enclosed multienzyme (MEME) synthesis of 2,7-anhydro-sialic acid derivatives

Naturally occurring 2,7-anhydro-alpha-N-acetylneuraminic acid (2,7-anhydro-Neu5Ac) is a transglycosylation product of bacterial intramolecular trans-sialidases (IT-sialidases). A facile one-pot two-enzyme approach has been established for the synthesis of 2,7-anhydro-sialic acid derivatives including those containing different sialic acid forms such as Neu5Ac and N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc). The approach is based on the use of Ruminoccocus gnavus IT-sialidase for the release of 2,7-anhydro-sialic acid from glycoproteins, and the conversion of free sialic acid by a sialic acid aldolase. This synthetic method, which is based on a membrane-enclosed enzymatic synthesis, can be performed on a preparative scale. Using fetuin as a substrate, high-yield and cost-effective production of 2,7-anhydro-Neu5Ac was obtained to high-purity. This method was also applied to the synthesis of 2,7-anhydro-Neu5Gc. The membrane-enclosed multienzyme (MEME) strategy reported here provides an efficient approach to produce a variety of sialic acid derivatives

Serine-Rich Repeat Protein adhesins from Lactobacillus reuteri display strain specific glycosylation profiles

Lactobacillus reuteri is a gut symbiont inhabiting the gastrointestinal tract of numerous vertebrates. The surface-exposed Serine-Rich Repeat Protein (SRRP) is a major adhesin in Gram-positive bacteria. Using lectin and sugar nucleotide profiling of wild-type or L. reuteri isogenic mutants, MALDI-ToF-MS, LC-MS and GC-MS analyses of SRRPs, we showed that L. reuteri strains 100-23C (from rodent) and ATCC 53608 (from pig) can perform protein O-glycosylation and modify SRRP100-23 and SRRP53608 with Hex-Glc-GlcNAc and di-GlcNAc moieties, respectively. Furthermore, in vivo glycoengineering in E. coli led to glycosylation of SRRP53608 variants with α-GlcNAc and GlcNAcβ(1→6)GlcNAcα moieties. The glycosyltransferases involved in the modification of these adhesins were identified within the SecA2/Y2 accessory secretion system and their sugar nucleotide preference determined by saturation transfer difference NMR spectroscopy and differential scanning fluorimetry. Together, these findings provide novel insights into the cellular O-protein glycosylation pathways of gut commensal bacteria and potential routes for glycoengineering applications

Power and rights in the community: paralegals as leaders in women's legal empowerment in Tanzania

What can an analysis of power in local communities contribute to debates on women’s legal empowerment and the role of paralegals in Africa? Drawing upon theories of power and rights, and research on legal empowerment in African plural legal systems, this article explores the challenges for paralegals in facilitating women’s access to justice in Tanzania, which gave statutory recognition to paralegals in the Legal Aid Act 2017. Land conflicts represent the single-biggest source of local legal disputes in Tanzania and are often embedded in gendered land tenure relations. This article argues that paralegals can be effective actors in women’s legal empowerment where they are able to work as leaders, negotiating power relations and resisting the forms of violence that women encounter as obstacles to justice. Paralegals’ authority will be realised when their role is situated within community leadership structures, confirming their authority while preserving their independence

Overlapping SETBP1 gain-of-function mutations in Schinzel-Giedion syndrome and hematologic malignancies

Schinzel-Giedion syndrome (SGS) is a rare developmental disorder characterized by multiple malformations, severe neurological alterations and increased risk of malignancy. SGS is caused by de novo germline mutations clustering to a 12bp hotspot in exon 4 of SETBP1. Mutations in this hotspot disrupt a degron, a signal for the regulation of protein degradation, and lead to the accumulation of SETBP1 protein. Overlapping SETBP1 hotspot mutations have been observed recurrently as somatic events in leukemia. We collected clinical information of 47 SGS patients (including 26 novel cases) with germline SETBP1 mutations and of four individuals with a milder phenotype caused by de novo germline mutations adjacent to the SETBP1 hotspot. Different mutations within and around the SETBP1 hotspot have varying effects on SETBP1 stability and protein levels in vitro and in in silico modeling. Substitutions in SETBP1 residue I871 result in a weak increase in protein levels and mutations affecting this residue are significantly more frequent in SGS than in leukemia. On the other hand, substitutions in residue D868 lead to the largest increase in protein levels. Individuals with germline mutations affecting D868 have enhanced cell proliferation in vitro and higher incidence of cancer compared to patients with other germline SETBP1 mutations. Our findings substantiate that, despite their overlap, somatic SETBP1 mutations driving malignancy are more disruptive to the degron than germline SETBP1 mutations causing SGS. Additionally, this suggests that the functional threshold for the development of cancer driven by the disruption of the SETBP1 degron is higher than for the alteration in prenatal development in SGS. Drawing on previous studies of somatic SETBP1 mutations in leukemia, our results reveal a genotype-phenotype correlation in germline SETBP1 mutations spanning a molecular, cellular and clinical phenotype

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer—metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: The experts voted on controversial questions where high- level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration- resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. Results and limitations: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Conclusions: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Twitter summary: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. Take-home message: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer is summarised here

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I : Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.publishedVersionPeer reviewe

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/high-risk and locally advanced disease, biochemical relapse, and side effects of hormonal treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.11.002Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.We gratefully acknowledge the following organisations for providing financial support for the APCCC 2022: The City of Lugano and Movember Foundation. Ros Eeles is supported by a National Institute of Health Research grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. We also acknowledge sponsorship from several for-profit organisations for APCCC 2022, including Advanced Accelerator Applications, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer Health Care, Debiopharm, MSD, Janssen Oncology, Myovant Sciences, Orion Pharma, Pfizer Oncology, Roche, Telix Innovations SA, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Lantheus, and Tolmar. These for-profit organisations supported the conference financially but had no input on the scientific content or the final publication.Accepted versio

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Part I: intermediate-/high-risk and locally advanced disease, biochemical relapse, and side effects of hormonal treatment: report of the advanced prostate cancer consensus conference 2022

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions