Early immune innate hallmarks and microbiome changes across the gut during Escherichia coli O157: H7 infection in cattle

The zoonotic enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) O157: H7 bacterium causes diarrhea, hemorrhagic colitis, and hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) in humans. Cattle are primary reservoirs and EHEC O157: H7; the bacteria predominately inhabit the colon and recto-anal junctions (RAJ). The early innate immune reactions in the infected gut are critical in the pathogenesis of EHEC O157: H7. In this study, calves orally inoculated with EHEC O157: H7 showed infiltration of neutrophils in the lamina propria of ileum and RAJ at 7 and 14 days post-infection. Infected calves had altered mucin layer and mast cell populations across small and large intestines. There were differential transcription expressions of key bovine β defensins, tracheal antimicrobial peptide (TAP) in the ileum, and lingual antimicrobial peptide (LAP) in RAJ. The main Gram-negative bacterial/LPS signaling Toll-Like receptor 4 (TLR4) was downregulated in RAJ. Intestinal infection with EHEC O157: H7 impacted the gut bacterial communities and influenced the relative abundance of Negativibacillus and Erysipelotrichaceae in mucosa-associated bacteria in the rectum. Thus, innate immunity in the gut of calves showed unique characteristics during infection with EHEC O157: H7, which occurred in the absence of major clinical manifestations but denoted an active immunological niche.Fil: Larzabal, Mariano. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro de Investigación En Ciencias Veterinarias y Agronómicas. Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular; ArgentinaFil: Marques Da Silva, Wanderson. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro de Investigación En Ciencias Veterinarias y Agronómicas. Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular; ArgentinaFil: Multani, Anmol. University of Calgary; CanadáFil: Vagnoni, Lucas Emilio. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro de Investigación En Ciencias Veterinarias y Agronómicas. Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular; ArgentinaFil: Moore, Dadin Prando. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Buenos Aires Sur. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Marin, Maia Solange. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Buenos Aires Sur. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Riviere, Nahuel Agustín. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro de Investigación En Ciencias Veterinarias y Agronómicas. Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular; ArgentinaFil: Delgado, Fernando Oscar. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro de Investigación en Ciencias Veterinarias y Agronómicas. Instituto de Patobiología; ArgentinaFil: Vilte, Daniel Alejandro. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro de Investigación en Ciencias Veterinarias y Agronómicas. Instituto de Patobiología; ArgentinaFil: Romero Victorica, Matias. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro de Investigación En Ciencias Veterinarias y Agronómicas. Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular; ArgentinaFil: Ma, Tao. University Of Alberta. Faculty Of Agricultural, Life And Environmental Sciences. Departament Of Agricultural, Food And Nutritional Science.; CanadáFil: Le Guan, Luo. University Of Alberta. Faculty Of Agricultural, Life And Environmental Sciences. Departament Of Agricultural, Food And Nutritional Science.; CanadáFil: Talia, Paola Monica. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro de Investigación En Ciencias Veterinarias y Agronómicas. Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular; ArgentinaFil: Cataldi, Angel Adrian. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro de Investigación En Ciencias Veterinarias y Agronómicas. Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular; ArgentinaFil: Cobo, Eduardo R.. University of Calgary; Canad

Laparoscopic vs. Robotic Gastrectomy in Patients with Situs Inversus Totalis: A Systematic Review

Background. Situs inversus totalis (SIT) is a rare genetic anomaly involving the mirror-image transposition of organs. This transposition can potentially make surgical treatments difficult because of the reversed anatomy and intraoperative confusion. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the perioperative outcomes and safety of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy in patients with SIT. Methods. We included full-text case reports with brief reviews and standalone case studies on SIT patients age ≥21, undergoing laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy. We excluded case studies focusing on procedures other than laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy, namely, open gastrectomy, gastric banding, and gastric bypass. English was selected as the language and articles published in the last 10 years were selected with a date range from Jan, 2011, to Aug, 2021. We focused on intraoperative and postoperative outcomes including blood loss, vascular aberrancy, operation duration, mortality, operative complications, duration of hospitalization, and follow-up interval. Online databases included Clinical Key, Embase, ScienceDirect, Ovid, and Google Scholar. The last search was conducted on Aug 15, 2021. For all eligible articles, risk of bias assessment was carried out using JBI critical appraisal checklist (Table 1). Continuous data were analyzed using t-test with value of 0.05. Results. From our search, we retained 29 case reports which reported information from 30 cases. The results reported in each study were summarized (Table 2). The laparoscopic procedure was used in 21 cases and robot-assisted surgery was used in 9 cases. Operative time was mentioned in 24 out of the 30 cases and the average operative time was 205.67 min. Blood loss was reported in 16 out of the 30 cases, with an average blood loss of 51.9 mL. Hospital stay information was provided in 26 out of the 30 cases, with an average length of stay of 8.5 days. A statistically significant difference was not found for the operative time, length of hospitalization, or age of the patient. However, intraoperative blood loss in robot-assisted gastrectomy was lower compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy, with a value of 0.0293. Perioperative death was not reported in any of the cases. Only three cases of postoperative complications were reported in laparoscopic surgery. Only one of the three cases suggested that the complication was due to an anomaly, whereas the other two of them reported complications due to procedural errors. Conclusion. Laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy can be safely used for SIT patients if performed cautiously. Some precautions include thoroughly assessing anatomical aberrations using preoperative imaging, adjusting the operative set up, and having experienced surgeons. The robotic approach may have a few advantages over laparoscopic procedures that may enhance the surgical safety for SIT patients and need to be further explored in future research. Advantages of the robotic approach may include improved surgical safety with better visualization of the surgical field, promoting the stability of surgical instruments and perhaps allowing ease of surgical orientation and positioning when operating on patients with SIT. Further research in this field is merited.Peer Reviewe