Case–control study of pathogens involved in piglet diarrhea

Abstract\ud \ud Background\ud Diarrhea in piglets directly affects commercial swine production. The disease results from the interaction of pathogens with the host immune system and is also affected by management procedures. Several pathogenic agents such as Campylobacter spp., Clostridium perfringens, Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., group A rotavirus (RV-A), coronaviruses (transmissible gastroenteritis virus; porcine epidemic diarrhea virus), as well as nematode and protozoan parasites, can be associated with disease cases.\ud \ud \ud Results\ud All bacterial, viral, protozoan, and parasitic agents here investigated, with the exception of Salmonella spp. as well as both coronaviruses, were detected in varying proportions\ud in piglet fecal samples, and positive animals were equally distributed between case and control groups. A statistically significant difference between case and control groups was found only for Cystoisospora suis (p = 0.034) and Eimeria spp. (p = 0.047). When co-infections were evaluated, a statistically significant difference was found only for C. perfringens β2 and C. suis (p = 0.014).\ud \ud \ud Conclusions\ud The presence of pathogens in piglets alone does not determine the occurrence of diarrhea episodes. Thus, the indiscriminate use of antibiotic and anthelminthic medication should be re-evaluated. This study also reinforces the importance of laboratory diagnosis and correct interpretation of results as well as the relevance of control and prophylactic measures.This work was supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP)\ud (project number 2010/00390-5 and scholarship support 2011/01563-3 and\ud 2011/19666-3)

Case–control study of pathogens involved in piglet diarrhea

Abstract\ud \ud Background\ud Diarrhea in piglets directly affects commercial swine production. The disease results from the interaction of pathogens with the host immune system and is also affected by management procedures. Several pathogenic agents such as Campylobacter spp., Clostridium perfringens, Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., group A rotavirus (RV-A), coronaviruses (transmissible gastroenteritis virus; porcine epidemic diarrhea virus), as well as nematode and protozoan parasites, can be associated with disease cases.\ud \ud \ud Results\ud All bacterial, viral, protozoan, and parasitic agents here investigated, with the exception of Salmonella spp. as well as both coronaviruses, were detected in varying proportions\ud in piglet fecal samples, and positive animals were equally distributed between case and control groups. A statistically significant difference between case and control groups was found only for Cystoisospora suis (p = 0.034) and Eimeria spp. (p = 0.047). When co-infections were evaluated, a statistically significant difference was found only for C. perfringens β2 and C. suis (p = 0.014).\ud \ud \ud Conclusions\ud The presence of pathogens in piglets alone does not determine the occurrence of diarrhea episodes. Thus, the indiscriminate use of antibiotic and anthelminthic medication should be re-evaluated. This study also reinforces the importance of laboratory diagnosis and correct interpretation of results as well as the relevance of control and prophylactic measures.This work was supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP)\ud (project number 2010/00390-5 and scholarship support 2011/01563-3 and\ud 2011/19666-3)

Distinct patterns of somatic alterations in a lymphoblastoid and a tumor genome derived from the same individual

Although patterns of somatic alterations have been reported for tumor genomes, little is known on how they compare with alterations present in non-tumor genomes. A comparison of the two would be crucial to better characterize the genetic alterations driving tumorigenesis. We sequenced the genomes of a lymphoblastoid (HCC1954BL) and a breast tumor (HCC1954) cell line derived from the same patient and compared the somatic alterations present in both. The lymphoblastoid genome presents a comparable number and similar spectrum of nucleotide substitutions to that found in the tumor genome. However, a significant difference in the ratio of non-synonymous to synonymous substitutions was observed between both genomes (P = 0.031). Protein–protein interaction analysis revealed that mutations in the tumor genome preferentially affect hub-genes (P = 0.0017) and are co-selected to present synergistic functions (P < 0.0001). KEGG analysis showed that in the tumor genome most mutated genes were organized into signaling pathways related to tumorigenesis. No such organization or synergy was observed in the lymphoblastoid genome. Our results indicate that endogenous mutagens and replication errors can generate the overall number of mutations required to drive tumorigenesis and that it is the combination rather than the frequency of mutations that is crucial to complete tumorigenic transformation

Distinct patterns of somatic alterations in a lymphoblastoid and a tumor genome derived from the same individual

Although patterns of somatic alterations have been reported for tumor genomes, little is known on how they compare with alterations present in non-tumor genomes. A comparison of the two would be crucial to better characterize the genetic alterations driving tumorigenesis. We sequenced the genomes of a lymphoblastoid (HCC1954BL) and a breast tumor (HCC1954) cell line derived from the same patient and compared the somatic alterations present in both. The lymphoblastoid genome presents a comparable number and similar spectrum of nucleotide substitutions to that found in the tumor genome. However, a significant difference in the ratio of non-synonymous to synonymous substitutions was observed between both genomes (P = 0.031). Protein–protein interaction analysis revealed that mutations in the tumor genome preferentially affect hub-genes (P = 0.0017) and are co-selected to present synergistic functions (P < 0.0001). KEGG analysis showed that in the tumor genome most mutated genes were organized into signaling pathways related to tumorigenesis. No such organization or synergy was observed in the lymphoblastoid genome. Our results indicate that endogenous mutagens and replication errors can generate the overall number of mutations required to drive tumorigenesis and that it is the combination rather than the frequency of mutations that is crucial to complete tumorigenic transformation