Relationship between the rs333 Polymorphism in the CC Chemokine Receptor Type Five (CCR5) Gene and Immunological Disorders: Data from a Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), periodontitis and Systemic Lupus Erythematous (SLE) are multifactorial diseases, one of the factors in the course of these diseases is the rs333 polymorphism in the CC chemokine receptor type five (CCR5) gene. However, the results remain contradictory. Therefore, we aimed to perform a meta-analysis evaluating the relation between this polymorphism and the aforementioned conditions. Material and Methods: A search in the literature was performed in diverse scientific and medical databases for studies published before June 22, 2020. The data were extracted from the studies and the statistical evaluation was performed by the calculations of statistical heterogeneity (I²), Odds Ratio (OR) with 95% of Confidence Intervals (CI) and publication bias. The values of P<0.05 were considered as significant for all calculations. Results: 19 articles with 21 case/control studies in 4,304 case patients and 3,492 controls were included. The meta-analysis showed a non-significant association among the rs333 polymorphism and IBD (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.91-1.20, P = 0.51), periodontitis (OR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.64-1.17, P = 0.34) or SLE (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.56-1.80, P = 1.00) under the allelic model or for any other performed calculation. There were no obvious publication bias in the analyses. Conclusion: In conclusion, this current meta-analysis evidenced the non-significant relation among the rs333 polymorphism and the risk of IBD, periodontitis or SLE. Further studies are required to validate our data

The protective effect of Canova homeopathic medicine in cyclophosphamide-treated non-human primates

Background: Canova activates macrophages and indirectly induces lymphocyte proliferation. Here we evaluated the effects of Canova in cyclophosphamide-treated non-human primates.Methods: Twelve Cebus apella were evaluated. Four animals were treated with Canova only. Eight animals were treated with two doses of cyclophosphamide (50 mg/kg) and four of these animals received Canova. Body weight, biochemistry and hematologic analyses were performed for 40 days. Micronucleus and comet assays were performed for the evaluation of DNA damage.Results: We observed that cyclophosphamide induced abnormal WBC count in all animals. However, the group treated with cyclophosphamide plus Canova presented a higher leukocyte count than that which received only cyclophosphamide. Cyclophosphamide induced micronucleus and DNA damage in all animals. the frequency of these alterations was significantly lower in the Canova group than in the group without this medicine.Conclusions: Our results demonstrated that Canova treatment minimizes cyclophosphamide myelotoxicity in C. apella. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Disciplina Genet, Dept Morfol & Genet, BR-04023900 São Paulo, BrazilUniv São Paulo, Dept Anal Clin Toxicol & Bromatol, Fac Ciencias Farmaceut Ribeirao Preto, BR-14040903 Ribeirao Preto, SP, BrazilFed Univ Para, Lab Citogenet Humana, Inst Ciencias Biol, BR-66059 Belem, Para, BrazilUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Disciplina Ginecol, Dept Tocoginecol, BR-04039032 São Paulo, BrazilFed Univ Para, Serv Cirurgia, Hosp Univ Joao de Barros Barreto, BR-66073000 Belem, Para, BrazilMinist Saude, Ctr Nacl Primatas, BR-77030000 Ananindeua, PA, BrazilUniv Fed Piaui, Lab Genet & Biol Mol, BR-64202020 Parnaiba, PI, BrazilUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Disciplina Genet, Dept Morfol & Genet, BR-04023900 São Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Disciplina Ginecol, Dept Tocoginecol, BR-04039032 São Paulo, BrazilCNPq: 550885/2007-2Web of Scienc

Biomarkers Associated with Leishmania infantum Exposure, Infection, and Disease in Dogs

Canine leishmaniosis (CanL) is a vector-borne disease caused by the protozoan Leishmania (Leishmania) infantum species [syn. L. (L.) infantum chagasi species in the Americas] which is transmitted by the bite of a female phlebotomine sand fly. This parasitosis is endemic and affect millions of dogs in Asia, the Americas and the Mediterranean basin. Domestic dogs are the main hosts and the main reservoir hosts for human zoonotic leishmaniosis. The outcome of infection is a consequence of intricate interactions between the protozoan and the immunological and genetic background of the host. Clinical manifestations can range from subclinical infection to very severe disease. Early detection of infected dogs, their close surveillance and treatment are essential to control the dissemination of the parasite among other dogs, being also a pivotal element for the control of human zoonotic leishmaniosis. Hence, the identification of biomarkers for the confirmation of Leishmania infection, disease and determination of an appropriate treatment would represent an important tool to assist clinicians in diagnosis, monitoring and in giving a realistic prognosis to subclinical infected and sick dogs. Here, we review the recent advances in the identification of Leishmania infantum biomarkers, focusing on those related to parasite exposure, susceptibility to infection and disease development. Markers related to the pathogenesis of the disease and to monitoring the evolution of leishmaniosis and treatment outcome are also summarized. Data emphasizes the complexity of parasite-host interactions and that a single biomarker cannot be used alone for CanL diagnosis or prognosis. Nevertheless, results are encouraging and future research to explore the potential clinical application of biomarkers is warranted.publishersversionpublishe

Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on liver cancer management (CERO-19).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems and it may have heavily impacted patients with liver cancer (LC). Herein, we evaluated whether the schedule of LC screening or procedures has been interrupted or delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An international survey evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical practice and clinical trials from March 2020 to June 2020, as the first phase of a multicentre, international, and observational project. The focus was on patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, cared for around the world during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. RESULTS: Ninety-one centres expressed interest to participate and 76 were included in the analysis, from Europe, South America, North America, Asia, and Africa (73.7%, 17.1%, 5.3%, 2.6%, and 1.3% per continent, respectively). Eighty-seven percent of the centres modified their clinical practice: 40.8% the diagnostic procedures, 80.9% the screening programme, 50% cancelled curative and/or palliative treatments for LC, and 41.7% modified the liver transplantation programme. Forty-five out of 69 (65.2%) centres in which clinical trials were running modified their treatments in that setting, but 58.1% were able to recruit new patients. The phone call service was modified in 51.4% of centres which had this service before the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 19/37). CONCLUSIONS: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had a tremendous impact on the routine care of patients with liver cancer. Modifications in screening, diagnostic, and treatment algorithms may have significantly impaired the outcome of patients. Ongoing data collection and future analyses will report the benefits and disadvantages of the strategies implemented, aiding future decision-making. LAY SUMMARY: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems globally. Herein, we assessed the impact of the first wave pandemic on patients with liver cancer and found that routine care for these patients has been majorly disrupted, which could have a significant impact on outcomes

BIOFRAG: A new database for analysing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation

Habitat fragmentation studies are producing inconsistent and complex results across which it is nearly impossible to synthesise. Consistent analytical techniques can be applied to primary datasets, if stored in a flexible database that allows simple data retrieval for subsequent analyses. Method: We developed a relational database linking data collected in the field to taxonomic nomenclature, spatial and temporal plot attributes and further environmental variables (e.g. information on biogeographic region. Typical field assessments include measures of biological variables (e.g. presence, abundance, ground cover) of one species or a set of species linked to a set of plots in fragments of a forested landscape. Conclusion: The database currently holds records of 5792 unique species sampled in 52 landscapes in six of eight biogeographic regions: mammals 173, birds 1101, herpetofauna 284, insects 2317, other arthropods: 48, plants 1804, snails 65. Most species are found in one or two landscapes, but some are found in four. Using the huge amount of primary data on biodiversity response to fragmentation becomes increasingly important as anthropogenic pressures from high population growth and land demands are increasing. This database can be queried to extract data for subsequent analyses of the biological response to forest fragmentation with new metrics that can integrate across the components of fragmented landscapes. Meta-analyses of findings based on consistent methods and metrics will be able to generalise over studies allowing inter-comparisons for unified answers. The database can thus help researchers in providing findings for analyses of trade-offs between land use benefits and impacts on biodiversity and to track performance of management for biodiversity conservation in human-modified landscapes.Fil: Pfeifer, Marion. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lefebvre, Veronique. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Gardner, Toby A.. Stockholm Environment Institute; SueciaFil: Arroyo Rodríguez, Víctor. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: Baeten, Lander. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Banks Leite, Cristina. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Barlow, Jos. Lancaster University; Reino UnidoFil: Betts, Matthew G.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Brunet, Joerg. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; SueciaFil: Cerezo Blandón, Alexis Mauricio. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos y Sistemas de Información; ArgentinaFil: Cisneros, Laura M.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Collard, Stuart. Nature Conservation Society of South Australia; AustraliaFil: D´Cruze, Neil. The World Society for the Protection of Animals; Reino UnidoFil: Da Silva Motta, Catarina. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia; BrasilFil: Duguay, Stephanie. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Eggermont, Hilde. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Eigenbrod, Félix. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Hadley, Adam S.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Hanson, Thor R.. No especifíca;Fil: Hawes, Joseph E.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Heartsill Scalley, Tamara. United State Department of Agriculture. Forestry Service; Puerto RicoFil: Klingbeil, Brian T.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Kolb, Annette. Universitat Bremen; AlemaniaFil: Kormann, Urs. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Kumar, Sunil. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados UnidosFil: Lachat, Thibault. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest; SuizaFil: Lakeman Fraser, Poppy. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lantschner, María Victoria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Norte. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Carlos de Bariloche; ArgentinaFil: Laurance, William F.. James Cook University; AustraliaFil: Leal, Inara R.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Lens, Luc. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Marsh, Charles J.. University of Leeds; Reino UnidoFil: Medina Rangel, Guido F.. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; ColombiaFil: Melles, Stephanie. University of Toronto; CanadáFil: Mezger, Dirk. Field Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Oldekop, Johan A.. University of Sheffield; Reino UnidoFil: Overal , Williams L.. Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Departamento de Entomologia; BrasilFil: Owen, Charlotte. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Peres, Carlos A.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Phalan, Ben. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Pidgeon, Anna Michle. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Pilia, Oriana. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Possingham, Hugh P.. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The University Of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Possingham, Max L.. No especifíca;Fil: Raheem, Dinarzarde C.. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences; Bélgica. Natural History Museum; Reino UnidoFil: Ribeiro, Danilo B.. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Ribeiro Neto, Jose D.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Robinson, Douglas W.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Robinson, Richard. Manjimup Research Centre; AustraliaFil: Rytwinski, Trina. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Scherber, Christoph. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Slade, Eleanor M.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Somarriba, Eduardo. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza; Costa RicaFil: Stouffer, Philip C.. State University of Louisiana; Estados UnidosFil: Struebig, Matthew J.. University of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Tylianakis, Jason M.. University College London; Estados Unidos. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Teja, Tscharntke. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Tyre, Andrew J.. Universidad de Nebraska - Lincoln; Estados UnidosFil: Urbina Cardona, Jose N.. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana; ColombiaFil: Vasconcelos, Heraldo L.. Universidade Federal de Uberlandia; BrasilFil: Wearn, Oliver. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Wells, Konstans. University of Adelaide; AustraliaFil: Willig, Michael R.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Wood, Eric. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Young, Richard P.. Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust; Reino UnidoFil: Bradley, Andrew V.. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Ewers, Robert M.. Imperial College London; Reino Unid

An estimate of the number of tropical tree species

The high species richness of tropical forests has long been recognized, yet there remains substantial uncertainty regarding the actual number of tropical tree species. Using a pantropical tree inventory database from closed canopy forests, consisting of 657,630 trees belonging to 11,371 species, we use a fitted value of Fisher’s alpha and an approximate pantropical stem total to estimate the minimum number of tropical forest tree species to fall between ∼40,000 and ∼53,000, i.e. at the high end of previous estimates. Contrary to common assumption, the Indo-Pacific region was found to be as species-rich as the Neotropics, with both regions having a minimum of ∼19,000–25,000 tree species. Continental Africa is relatively depauperate with a minimum of ∼4,500–6,000 tree species. Very few species are shared among the African, American, and the Indo-Pacific regions. We provide a methodological framework for estimating species richness in trees that may help refine species richness estimates of tree-dependent taxa