Involvement of plant endogenous ABA in Bacillus megaterium PGPR activity in tomato plants

BACKGROUND: Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) are naturally occurring soil bacteria which benefit plants by improving plant productivity and immunity. The mechanisms involved in these processes include the regulation of plant hormone levels such as ethylene and abscisic acid (ABA). The aim of the present study was to determine whether the activity of Bacillus megaterium PGPR is affected by the endogenous ABA content of the host plant. The ABA-deficient tomato mutants flacca and sitiens and their near-isogenic wild-type parental lines were used. Growth, stomatal conductance, shoot hormone concentration, competition assay for colonization of tomato root tips, and root expression of plant genes expected to be modulated by ABA and PGPR were examined. RESULTS: Contrary to the wild-type plants in which PGPR stimulated growth rates, PGPR caused growth inhibition in ABA-deficient mutant plants. PGPR also triggered an over accumulation of ethylene in ABA-deficient plants which correlated with a higher expression of the pathogenesis-related gene Sl-PR1b. CONCLUSIONS: Positive correlation between over-accumulation of ethylene and a higher expression of Sl-PR1b in ABA-deficient mutant plants could indicate that maintenance of normal plant endogenous ABA content may be essential for the growth promoting action of B. megaterium by keeping low levels of ethylene production

Using global team science to identify genetic parkinson's disease worldwide.

No abstract available

Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Red Nacional de reconocedores de suelos.

Los relevamientos sistemáticos de suelos en Argentina comenzaron en la década de 1960, en el marco del Plan Mapa de Suelos. Dicho plan, desarrollado y liderado por el INTA, dio impulso a la formación de especialistas y a la producción de cartografía de suelos a diferentes escalas. Sin embargo, a partir del año 2000 las actividades se redujeron notablemente y gran parte de los equipos provinciales formados hasta ese momento se desarticularon. Desde entonces los relevamientos continuaron de manera aislada sólo en aquellas provincias donde se mantuvieron los grupos de trabajo. Este hecho condujo a que actualmente diferentes regiones del país no cuenten con información acerca de las propiedades y distribución de suelos a una escala adecuada para la toma de decisiones. En este contexto, en el 2018 se crea la Red Nacional de Reconocedores de Suelos (RNRS) que organiza las capacidades técnicas y operativas a nivel nacional para dar pronta respuesta a la creciente demanda de cartografía. Se trata de un equipo interinstitucional e interdisciplinario de especialistas distribuidos por todo el país, que realiza tareas de relevamiento, produce y difunde cartografía básica y utilitaria de suelos, ofrece capacitación y genera espacios de discusión y actualización metodológica. A la fecha, la RNRS ha relevado aproximadamente 760.000 ha en el sur de Córdoba, estimando completar durante el presente año el relevamiento del departamento Río Cuarto. Esta estrategia organizacional permitirá avanzar en el mapeo semidetallado de suelos en nuestro país, estableciendo vinculaciones sinérgicas entre profesionales de diferentes instituciones a fin de fortalecer y potenciar los equipos de trabajo en cada región. El motivo de esta contribución es presentar la RNRS, sus objetivos, avances a la fecha y desafíos a futuro, haciendo una breve revisión del estado actual de los relevamientos a escala semidetallada en nuestro país.Fil: Moretti, Lucas M. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Cerro Azul; ArgentinaFil: Rodriguez, Darío M. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; ArgentinaFil: Schulz, Guillermo A. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; ArgentinaFil: Kurtz, Ditmar Bernardo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Corrientes; ArgentinaFil: Altamirano D. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Manfredi; ArgentinaFil: Amin, S. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Angelini, Marcos Esteban. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; Argentina. Wageningen University. Soil Geography and Landscape group; Holanda. International Soil Reference and Information Centre. World Soil Information; HolandaFil: Babelis, German Claudio. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Juan; ArgentinaFil: Becerra, Alejandra Gabriela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Bedendo, Dante Julian. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Paraná; ArgentinaFil: Boldrini, C. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez. Agencia de Extensión Rural Río Cuarto; AgentinaFil: Bongiovanni, C. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Bozzer, S. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Cabrera, A. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Canale, A. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez. Agencia de Extensión Rural Río Cuarto; AgentinaFil: Chilano, Y. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Cholaky, Carmen. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto. Facultad de Agronomía y Veterinaria; ArgentinaFil: Cisneros; José Manuel. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto. Cátedra de Uso y Manejo de Suelos; ArgentinaFil: Colazo, Juan Cruz. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Luis; ArgentinaFil: Corigliano, J. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Degioanni, Américo José. Universidad Nacional Río Cuarto. Facultad de Agronomía y Veterinaria. Departamento de Ecología Agraria; ArgentinaFil: de la Fuente, Juan Carlos Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; ArgentinaFil: Escobar, Dardo. Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca; ArgentinaFil: Faule, L. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Manfredi. Córdoba. ArgentinaFil: Galarza, Carlos Martin. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez; ArgentinaFil: González, J. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Holzmann, R. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Alto Valle; ArgentinaFil: Irigoin, Julieta. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento Tecnología; ArgentinaFil: Lanfranco, M. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Manfredi; ArgentinaFil: León Giacosa, C. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Rafaela; ArgentinaFil: Matteio, J.P. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; ArgentinaFil: Márquez, C. Gobierno de Córdoba. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería; ArgentinaFil: Marzari, R. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Mattalia, M.L. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Morales Poclava, P.C. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Salta; ArgentinaFil: Muñoz, S. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez; ArgentinaFil: Paladino, Ileana Ruth. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Lomas de Zamora. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; ArgentinaFil: Parra, B. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Pérez, M. Gobierno de Córdoba. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería; ArgentinaFil: Pezzola, A. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Hilario Ascasubi; ArgentinaFil: Perucca, S. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez. Agencia de Extensión Rural Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Porcel de Peralta, R. Gobierno de Córdoba. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería; ArgentinaFil: Renaudeau, S. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Corrientes; ArgentinaFil: Salustio, M. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez. Agencia de Extensión Rural Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Sapino, V. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Rafaela; ArgentinaFil: Tenti Vuegen, L.M. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos. ArgentinaFil: Tosolini, R. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Rafaela; ArgentinaFil: Vicondo, M.E. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Manfredi; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. ArgentinaFil: Vizgarra, L.A. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Quimili; ArgentinaFil: Ybarra, D.D. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Corrientes; ArgentinaFil: Winschel, C. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Hilario Ascasubi; ArgentinaFil: Zamora, E. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Corrientes; Argentin

Involvement of plant endogenous ABA in Bacillus megaterium PGPR activity in tomato plants

BACKGROUND: Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) are naturally occurring soil bacteria which benefit plants by improving plant productivity and immunity. The mechanisms involved in these processes include the regulation of plant hormone levels such as ethylene and abscisic acid (ABA). The aim of the present study was to determine whether the activity of Bacillus megaterium PGPR is affected by the endogenous ABA content of the host plant. The ABA-deficient tomato mutants flacca and sitiens and their near-isogenic wild-type parental lines were used. Growth, stomatal conductance, shoot hormone concentration, competition assay for colonization of tomato root tips, and root expression of plant genes expected to be modulated by ABA and PGPR were examined. RESULTS: Contrary to the wild-type plants in which PGPR stimulated growth rates, PGPR caused growth inhibition in ABA-deficient mutant plants. PGPR also triggered an over accumulation of ethylene in ABA-deficient plants which correlated with a higher expression of the pathogenesis-related gene Sl-PR1b. CONCLUSIONS: Positive correlation between over-accumulation of ethylene and a higher expression of Sl-PR1b in ABA-deficient mutant plants could indicate that maintenance of normal plant endogenous ABA content may be essential for the growth promoting action of B. megaterium by keeping low levels of ethylene production

Diagnosis and Treatment of Pleural Effusion. Recommendations of the Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery. Update 2022

Pleural effusion (PE) is a common yet complex disease that requires specialized, multidisciplinary management. Recent advances, novel diagnostic techniques, and innovative patient-centered therapeutic proposals have prompted an update of the current guidelines. This document provides recommendations and protocols based on a critical review of the literature on the epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, prognosis, and new therapeutic options in PE, and addresses some cost-effectiveness issues related to the main types of PE

Abundant FUS-immunoreactive pathology in neuronal intermediate filament inclusion disease

Neuronal intermediate filament inclusion disease (NIFID) is an uncommon neurodegenerative condition that typically presents as early-onset, sporadic frontotemporal dementia (FTD), associated with a pyramidal and/or extrapyramidal movement disorder. The neuropathology is characterized by frontotemporal lobar degeneration with neuronal inclusions that are immunoreactive for all class IV intermediate filaments (IF), light, medium and heavy neurofilament subunits and alpha-internexin. However, not all the inclusions in NIFID are IF-positive and the primary molecular defect remains uncertain. Mutations in the gene encoding the fused in sarcoma (FUS) protein have recently been identified as a cause of familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Because of the recognized clinical, genetic and pathological overlap between FTD and ALS, we investigated the possible role of FUS in NIFID. We found abnormal intracellular accumulation of FUS to be a consistent feature of our NIFID cases (n = 5). More neuronal inclusions were labeled using FUS immunohistochemistry than for IF. Several types of inclusions were consistently FUS-positive but IF-negative, including neuronal intranuclear inclusions and glial cytoplasmic inclusions. Double-label immunofluorescence confirmed that many cells had only FUS-positive inclusions and that all cells with IF-positive inclusions also contained pathological FUS. No mutation in the FUS gene was identified in a single case with DNA available. These findings suggest that FUS may play an important role in the pathogenesis of NIFID