Exercise in colon cancer modulation: an experimental approach

Carcinogenesis is a complex process best characterized as an accumulation of alterations in genes regulating cellular homeostasis. The whole process can be divided into three main stages: initiation, promotion, and progression. It has been observed that moderate and regular physical activity (PA) may prevent cancer, mainly colon cancer (CC), up to 50% in humans. The evidence that PA protects against colon cancer is convincing. Also, PA probably protects against postmenopausal breast cancer and cancer of the endometrium. On the other hand, exhaustive exercise increases free radical DNA oxidative damage, inflammation and depresses immune function, events also related to the increased risk for cancer development. Nevertheless, the mechanisms involved in both PA effects remain largely unknown and poorly studied. Understanding the mechanisms that link PA with cancer is useful to identify plausible mechanisms and associations between PA and cancer; to provide evidence for implementing interventions on clinical and public-health levels; to define exercise prescription for people without and with cancer; and to identify new clues to cancer biology, which might help in designing other cancer prevention and treatment modalities. Because of the complexity and heterogeneity of activity in people, animal models for carcinogenesis and PA present the opportunity to study the amounts and types of PA and biomarkers that influence carcinogenesis in controlled environments. Epithelial cell proliferation and aberrant crypt foci (ACF) have been used for early detection of factors that influence colorectal carcinogenesis in rats and can be induced by the colon carcinogen dimethyl-hydrazine (DMH). This interesting animal-tumor model is possible a useful approach for studying the influence of exercise during the initiation and post initiation period, and has already contributed to the current understanding of colon carcinogenesis and PA relationship

Portable lactate analyzer for measuring lactate in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma ? method-comparison evaluations

Increased plasma lactate levels can indicate the presence of metabolic disorders in HIV infected individuals. Objective: To determine whether a portable analyzer is valid for measuring cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma lactate levels in HIV infected individuals. Method: CSF and plasma were collected from 178 subjects. Samples tested by the Accutrend® portable analyzer were compared to those tested by a reference device (SYNCHRON LX® 20). Results: The portable analyzer had in plasma sensitivity of 0.95 and specificity 0.87. For CSF the specificity was 0.95; the sensitivity 0.33; the negative predictive value was 95% and the positive predictive value 33%. Conclusions: These findings support the validity of the portable analyzer in measuring lactate concentrations in CSF that fall within the normal range. The relatively poor positive predictive value indicates that a result above the reference range may represent a “false positive test”, and should be confirmed by the reference device before concluding abnormality

Petiole and leaf blade analyses as nutritional status indicators of 'solo' and 'formosa' papaya trees

The absence of a literature consensus about parts of leaves, blade or petiole which would be most indicative of the nutritional status of papaya trees, has hindered the use of foliar analysis as a diagnosis tool for this crop. An experiment was carried out to compare the nutricional status evaluated using blades and petioles of 'solo' and 'formosa' papaya groups. A completely randomized block design was used to test six varieties, three of each group. Leaves were sampled every three months in five occasions. Recently matured leaves were separated in petioles and blades for the evaluation of N, NO3-, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, B, Cl, Fe, Mn and Zn concentrations. These concentrations were compared to those reported in the literature for this crop. The nutritional status diagnosis of the papaya plants, when made by means of blade or petiole leaves, led to different diagnoses showing the need of the definition of a single pattern. Blade has shown to be more effective than petiole for the diagnosis of the nutritional status, better differentiating the papaya tree varieties in relation to N, P, K and Cl, and not differing in relation to the other nutrients. It is here recommended to use the blade as indicator of the nutritional status of papaya plants.A ausência de um consenso na literatura sobre qual parte da folha, limbo ou pecíolo, seria a mais indicada para avaliação do estado nutricional do mamoeiro, dificulta o uso da análise foliar como ferramenta de diagnose para a cultura. Assim, foi conduzido um experimento para comparar a diagnose do estado nutricional efetuada pela análise do limbo e do pecíolo foliar de mamoeiros pertencentes aos grupos 'Solo' e 'Formosa'. Foi adotado o delineamento em blocos casualizados para avaliar seis variedades de mamoeiros, três de cada grupo. Foram retiradas amostras foliares em cinco épocas, a cada três meses. A folha recém-madura foi dividida em limbo e pecíolo, onde foram determinados os teores de N, NO3-, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, B, Cl, Fe, Mn e Zn. Estes teores foram comparados com os citados na literatura como adequados para a cultura. A diagnose do estado nutricional do mamoeiro quando efetuada por meio da análise do limbo ou do pecíolo foliar levou a diferentes diagnósticos mostrando a necessidade de definição de um único padrão. A análise do limbo foliar mostrou-se mais efetiva que a do pecíolo para diagnosticar o estado nutricional, diferenciando melhor as variedades de mamoeiro, em relação a N, P, K e Cl, não diferindo em relação aos demais nutrientes. Sendo assim, o limbo foliar deve ser utilizado como indicador do estado nutricional do mamoeiro

Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences

The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; Nemésio 2009a–b; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on 18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016