Dactylifera L) on the biochemical indicators of lead poisoning in male Wistar rats

This study is conducted to examine the effect of the oral administration of pectin of dates on perturbation of the biochemical parameters induced by lead. Male rats were exposed to lead acetate at 350mg/Kg for one month, after this period, rats treated during one month with the pectin of date at 3%. Rats were sacrificed, the blood and urine are collected for the biochemical assays: glucose, total protein, phosphatase acide (PAC), alkaline phosphatase (PAL), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), creatinine, urea and uric acid. The results showed that the exposure to lead has induced a disturbance in the biochemical parameters. Thus, the treatment by the pectin of dates reduced the high concentration of these parameters. Our results show that the pectins of dates may have a corrective effect on the biochemical disturbances induced by the lead.Keywords: Phoenix Dactylifera, Pectin, Lead, Biochemical parameter

Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccination Status Among Parents of Hospitalized Children Younger Than 5 Years With SARS-CoV-2 Infection During the Delta and Omicron Waves.

This cohort study uses COVID-19 Pediatric Observatory study data to analyze the vaccination status of parents with young children hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 variants Delta and Omicron

Immunomodulatory Therapy for MIS-C.

Studies comparing initial therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) provided conflicting results. To compare outcomes in MIS-C patients treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), glucocorticoids, or the combination thereof. Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and WOS, from January 2020 to February 2022. Randomized or observational comparative studies including MIS-C patients <21 years. Two reviewers independently selected studies and obtained individual participant data. The main outcome was cardiovascular dysfunction (CD), defined as left ventricular ejection fraction < 55% or vasopressor requirement ≥ day 2 of initial therapy, analyzed with a propensity score-matched analysis. Of 2635 studies identified, 3 nonrandomized cohorts were included. The meta-analysis included 958 children. IVIG plus glucocorticoids group as compared with IVIG alone had improved CD (odds ratio [OR] 0.62 [0.42-0.91]). Glucocorticoids alone group as compared with IVIG alone did not have improved CD (OR 0.57 [0.31-1.05]). Glucocorticoids alone group as compared with IVIG plus glucocorticoids did not have improved CD (OR 0.67 [0.24-1.86]). Secondary analyses found better outcomes associated with IVIG plus glucocorticoids compared with glucocorticoids alone (fever ≥ day 2, need for secondary therapies) and better outcomes associated with glucocorticoids alone compared with IVIG alone (left ventricular ejection fraction < 55% ≥ day 2). Nonrandomized nature of included studies. In a meta-analysis of MIS-C patients, IVIG plus glucocorticoids was associated with improved CD compared with IVIG alone. Glucocorticoids alone was not associated with improved CD compared with IVIG alone or IVIG plus glucocorticoids

BRCA2-HSF2BP oligomeric ring disassembly by BRME1 promotes homologous recombination

In meiotic homologous recombination (HR), BRCA2 facilitates loading of the recombinases RAD51 and DMC1 at the sites of double-strand breaks (DSBs). The HSF2BP-BRME1 complex interacts with BRCA2. Its absence causes a severe reduction in recombinase loading at meiotic DSB. We previously showed that, in somatic cancer cells ectopically producing HSF2BP, DNA damage can trigger HSF2BP-dependent degradation of BRCA2, which prevents HR. Here, we report that, upon binding to BRCA2, HSF2BP forms octameric rings that are able to interlock into a large ring-shaped 24-nucleotide oligomer. Addition of BRME1 leads to dissociation of both of these ring structures and cancels the disruptive effect of HSF2BP on cancer cell resistance to DNA damage. It also prevents BRCA2 degradation during interstrand DNA crosslink repair in Xenopus egg extracts. We propose that, during meiosis, the control of HSF2BP-BRCA2 oligomerization by BRME1 ensures timely assembly of the ring complex that concentrates BRCA2 and controls its turnover, thus promoting HR.</p

Ecosystemes steppiques(Cas de Brezina– El Bayadh)

Postprint (published version

Contribution a la comprehension de la qualité des sols de la steppe algerienne (Cas du secteur El Bayadh-Brezina, ouest de l'Algerie)

Postprint (published version

COVID-19 pandemic: Impact caused by school closure and national lockdown on pediatric visits and admissions for viral and non-viral infections, a time series analysis.

A time series analysis of 871,543 pediatric emergency visits revealed that the COVID-19 lockdown and school closure were associated with a significant decrease in infectious diseases disseminated through airborne or fecal-oral transmissions: common cold, gastro-enteritis, bronchiolitis, acute otitis. No change was found for urinary tract infections

BRCA2-HSF2BP oligomeric ring disassembly by BRME1 promotes homologous recombination

In meiotic homologous recombination (HR), BRCA2 facilitates loading of the recombinases RAD51 and DMC1 at the sites of double-strand breaks (DSBs). The HSF2BP-BRME1 complex interacts with BRCA2. Its absence causes a severe reduction in recombinase loading at meiotic DSB. We previously showed that, in somatic cancer cells ectopically producing HSF2BP, DNA damage can trigger HSF2BP-dependent degradation of BRCA2, which prevents HR. Here, we report that, upon binding to BRCA2, HSF2BP forms octameric rings that are able to interlock into a large ring-shaped 24-nucleotide oligomer. Addition of BRME1 leads to dissociation of both of these ring structures and cancels the disruptive effect of HSF2BP on cancer cell resistance to DNA damage. It also prevents BRCA2 degradation during interstrand DNA crosslink repair in Xenopus egg extracts. We propose that, during meiosis, the control of HSF2BP-BRCA2 oligomerization by BRME1 ensures timely assembly of the ring complex that concentrates BRCA2 and controls its turnover, thus promoting HR

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods: The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings: We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation: Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding: Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health