Characterization of the humoral immune response to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus infection

Abstract. The development of the humoral immune response against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus was monitored by an indirect fluorescent antibody (IFA) test, immunoperoxidase monolayer assay (IPMA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and serum virus neutralization (SVN) test over a 105-day period in 8 pigs experimentally infected with ATCC strain VR-2402. Specific antibodies against PRRS virus were first detected by the IFA test, IPMA, ELISA, and the SVN test 9-11, 5-9, 9-13, and 9-28 days postinoculation (PI), respectively, and reached their maximum values by 4-5, 5-6, 4-6, and 10-11 weeks PI, respectively, thereafter. After reaching maximum value, all assays showed a decline in antibody levels. Assuming a constant rate of antibody decay, it was estimated by regression analysis that the ELISA, IFA, IPMA, and SVN antibody titers would approach the lower limits of detection by approximately days 137, 158, 324, and 356 PI, respectively. In this study, the immunoperoxidase monolayer assay appeared to offer slightly better performance relative to the IFA test, ELISA, and SVN test in terms of earlier detection and slower rate of decline in antibody titers. Western immunoblot analysis revealed that antibody specific for the 15-kD viral protein was present in all pigs by 7 days PI and persisted throughout the 105-day observation period. Initial detection of antibodies to the 19-, 23-, and 26-kD proteins varied among pigs, ranging from 9 to 35 days PI. Thereafter, the antibody responses to these 3 viral proteins of PRRS virus continued to be detected throughout the 105-day study period. These results clearly indicate that the 15-kD protein is the most immunogenic of the 4 viral proteins identified and may provide the antigenic basis for the development of improved diagnostic tests for the detection of PRRS virus antibodies

National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support

By the most recent estimates, 18.8 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with diabetes and an additional 7 million are believed to be living with undiagnosed diabetes. At the same time, 79 million people are estimated to have blood glucose levels in the range of prediabetes or categories of increased risk for diabetes. Thus, more than 100 million Americans are at risk for developing the devastating complications of diabetes (1). Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is a critical element of care for all people with diabetes and those at risk for developing the disease. It is necessary in order to prevent or delay the complications of diabetes (2–6) and has elements related to lifestyle changes that are also essential for individuals with prediabetes as part of efforts to prevent the disease (7,8). The National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education are designed to define quality DSME and support and to assist diabetes educators in providing evidence-based education and self-management support. The Standards are applicable to educators in solo practice as well as those in large multicenter programs—and everyone in between. There are many good models for the provision of diabetes education and support. The Standards do not endorse any one approach, but rather seek to delineate the commonalities among effective and excellent self-management education strategies. These are the standards used in the field for recognition and accreditation. They also serve as a guide for nonaccredited and nonrecognized providers and programs. Because of the dynamic nature of health care and diabetes-related research, the Standards are reviewed and revised approximately every 5 years by key stakeholders and experts within the diabetes education community. In the fall of 2011, a Task Force was jointly convened by the American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) and the American Diabetes Association

National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support

By the most recent estimates, 18.8 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with diabetes and an additional 7 million are believed to be living with undiagnosed diabetes. At the same time, 79 million people are estimated to have blood glucose levels in the range of prediabetes or categories of increased risk for diabetes. Thus, more than 100 million Americans are at risk for developing the devastating complications of diabetes (1). Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is a critical element of care for all people with diabetes and those at risk for developing the disease. It is necessary in order to prevent or delay the complications of diabetes (2–6) and has elements related to lifestyle changes that are also essential for individuals with prediabetes as part of efforts to prevent the disease (7,8). The National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education are designed to define quality DSME and support and to assist diabetes educators in providing evidence-based education and self-management support. The Standards are applicable to educators in solo practice as well as those in large multicenter programs—and everyone in between. There are many good models for the provision of diabetes education and support. The Standards do not endorse any one approach, but rather seek to delineate the commonalities among effective and excellent self-management education strategies. These are the standards used in the field for recognition and accreditation. They also serve as a guide for nonaccredited and nonrecognized providers and programs. Because of the dynamic nature of health care and diabetes-related research, the Standards are reviewed and revised approximately every 5 years by key stakeholders and experts within the diabetes education community. In the fall of 2011, a Task Force was jointly convened by the American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) and the American Diabetes Association

National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support

By the most recent estimates, 18.8 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with diabetes and an additional 7 million are believed to be living with undiagnosed diabetes. At the same time, 79 million people are estimated to have blood glucose levels in the range of prediabetes or categories of increased risk for diabetes. Thus, more than 100 million Americans are at risk for developing the devastating complications of diabetes (1). Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is a critical element of care for all people with diabetes and those at risk for developing the disease. It is necessary in order to prevent or delay the complications of diabetes (2–6) and has elements related to lifestyle changes that are also essential for individuals with prediabetes as part of efforts to prevent the disease (7,8). The National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education are designed to define quality DSME and support and to assist diabetes educators in providing evidence-based education and self-management support. The Standards are applicable to educators in solo practice as well as those in large multicenter programs—and everyone in between. There are many good models for the provision of diabetes education and support. The Standards do not endorse any one approach, but rather seek to delineate the commonalities among effective and excellent self-management education strategies. These are the standards used in the field for recognition and accreditation. They also serve as a guide for nonaccredited and nonrecognized providers and programs. Because of the dynamic nature of health care and diabetes-related research, the Standards are reviewed and revised approximately every 5 years by key stakeholders and experts within the diabetes education community. In the fall of 2011, a Task Force was jointly convened by the American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) and the American Diabetes Association

CD9 Tetraspanin Interacts with CD36 on the Surface of Macrophages: A Possible Regulatory Influence on Uptake of Oxidized Low Density Lipoprotein

CD36 is a type 2 scavenger receptor with multiple functions. CD36 binding to oxidized LDL triggers signaling cascades that are required for macrophage foam cell formation, but the mechanisms by which CD36 signals remain incompletely understood. Mass spectrometry analysis of anti-CD36 immuno-precipitates from macrophages identified the tetraspanin CD9 as a CD36 interacting protein. Western blot showed that CD9 was precipitated from mouse macrophages by anti-CD36 monoclonal antibody and CD36 was likewise precipitated by anti-CD9, confirming the mass spectrometry results. Macrophages from cd36 null mice were used to demonstrate specificity. Membrane associations of the two proteins on intact cells was analyzed by confocal immunofluorescence microscopy and by a novel cross linking assay that detects proteins in close proximity (<40 nm). Functional significance was determined by assessing lipid accumulation, foam cell formation and JNK activation in wt, cd9 null and cd36 null macrophages exposed to oxLDL. OxLDL uptake, lipid accumulation, foam cell formation, and JNK phosphorylation were partially impaired in cd9 null macrophages. The present study demonstrates that CD9 associates with CD36 on the macrophage surface and may participate in macrophage signaling in response to oxidized LDL

Stigma and Fear: the 'Psy Professional' in Cultural Artifacts

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via the DOI in this record.The loss of reason called madness provokes perhaps the greatest human fear, for it is reason that dignifies humanity and separates us from beasts. The ‘psy professionals’ - those who prescribe and administer treatments for madness - are frequently portrayed in fiction, film, comics, computer games and entertainments, along with the mad themselves and the asylums that confine them. Overall, these depictions are malign: the reader/watcher/player is encouraged to fear the mad, the madhouse and the mad-doctor. Choosing to use less abrasive vocabulary to name the condition of madness makes no difference to the terror the condition arouses, for the content of many books and games aims to inspire fear. In spite of considerable efforts over many years, the stigma which attaches to mental illness remains firmly in place for patients, while psy professionals also carry their share of “some of the discredit of the stigmatized” (Goffman 1968, p 43) and join patients in a stigmatized group. Popular belief often equates the psy professions with madness (Walter, 1989). This paper explores ways in which the fear of madness, and the stigma which clings to sufferers and their professional carers, is perpetuated by a constant stream of popular cultural artifacts

The Ghrelin Signalling System Is Involved in the Consumption of Sweets

The gastric-derived orexigenic peptide ghrelin affects brain circuits involved in energy balance as well as in reward. Indeed, ghrelin activates an important reward circuit involved in natural- as well as drug-induced reward, the cholinergic-dopaminergic reward link. It has been hypothesized that there is a common reward mechanism for alcohol and sweet substances in both animals and humans. Alcohol dependent individuals have higher craving for sweets than do healthy controls and the hedonic response to sweet taste may, at least in part, depend on genetic factors. Rat selectively bred for high sucrose intake have higher alcohol consumption than non-sucrose preferring rats and vice versa. In the present study a group of alcohol-consuming individuals selected from a population cohort was investigated for genetic variants of the ghrelin signalling system in relation to both their alcohol and sucrose consumption. Moreover, the effects of GHS-R1A antagonism on voluntary sucrose- intake and operant self-administration, as well as saccharin intake were investigated in preclinical studies using rodents. The effects of peripheral grelin administration on sucrose intake were also examined. Here we found associations with the ghrelin gene haplotypes and increased sucrose consumption, and a trend for the same association was seen in the high alcohol consumers. The preclinical data show that a GHS-R1A antagonist reduces the intake and self-administration of sucrose in rats as well as saccharin intake in mice. Further, ghrelin increases the intake of sucrose in rats. Collectively, our data provide a clear indication that the GHS-R1A antagonists reduces and ghrelin increases the intake of rewarding substances and hence, the central ghrelin signalling system provides a novel target for the development of drug strategies to treat addictive behaviours

Five insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a rules-based synthesis of the available evidence on levels and trends in health outcomes, a diverse set of risk factors, and health system responses. GBD 2019 covered 204 countries and territories, as well as first administrative level disaggregations for 22 countries, from 1990 to 2019. Because GBD is highly standardised and comprehensive, spanning both fatal and non-fatal outcomes, and uses a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of hierarchical disease and injury causes, the study provides a powerful basis for detailed and broad insights on global health trends and emerging challenges. GBD 2019 incorporates data from 281 586 sources and provides more than 3.5 billion estimates of health outcome and health system measures of interest for global, national, and subnational policy dialogue. All GBD estimates are publicly available and adhere to the Guidelines on Accurate and Transparent Health Estimate Reporting. From this vast amount of information, five key insights that are important for health, social, and economic development strategies have been distilled. These insights are subject to the many limitations outlined in each of the component GBD capstone papers.Peer reviewe