Detection of myxoma viruses encoding a defective M135R gene from clinical cases of myxomatosis; possible implications for the role of the M135R protein as a virulence factor

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Myxoma virus is a member of the <it>Poxviridae </it>and causes disease in European rabbits. Laboratory confirmation of the clinical disease, which occurs in the autumn of most years in Denmark, has been achieved previously using antigen ELISA and electron microscopy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>An unusually large number of clinically suspected cases of myxomatosis were observed in Denmark during 2007. Myxoma virus DNA was detected, using a new real time PCR assay which targets the M029L gene, in over 70% of the clinical samples submitted for laboratory confirmation. Unexpectedly, further analysis revealed that a high proportion of these viral DNA preparations contained a frame-shift mutation within the M135R gene that has previously been identified as a virulence factor. This frame-shift mutation results in expression of a greatly truncated product. The same frame-shift mutation has also been found recently within an avirulent strain of myxoma virus (6918). However, three other frame-shift mutations found in this strain (in the genes M009L, M036L and M148R) were not shared with the Danish viruses but a single nucleotide deletion in the M138R/M139R intergenic region was a common feature.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>It appears that expression of the full-length myxoma virus M135R protein is not required for virulence in rabbits. Hence, the frame-shift mutation in the M135R gene in the nonpathogenic 6918 virus strain is not sufficient to explain the attenuation of this myxoma virus but one/some of the other frame-shift mutations alone or in conjunction with one/some of the thirty two amino acid substitutions must also contribute. The real time PCR assay for myxoma virus is a useful diagnostic tool for laboratory confirmation of suspected cases of myxomatosis.</p

Mapping and assessing ecosystem services in Europe's Overseas: A comparative analysis of MOVE case studies

International audienceMapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) has been widely applied on the European Union (EU) mainland, whereas the EU Overseas entities still bear potential for implementation. This paper presents novel applications of the MAES procedure in the EU Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories ("EU Overseas"). Eight case studies from different geographical areas were analysed through a comparative assessment by applying an established framework following key steps in the MAES process, in order to stipulate lessons learned and recommendations for MAES in the EU Overseas. These key steps include the identification of policy questions, stakeholder networks and involvement, application of MAES methods, dissemination and communication and implementation. The case studies were conducted and analysed under the umbrella of the EU MOVE pilot project, including the Azores, the Canary Islands, Saint Martin, French Guiana, Martinique, Reunion Island and the Falkland Islands. Each case study represented different governance, policy and decision-making frameworks towards biodiversity and environmental protection. Case studies predominantly addressed the policy domains of Nature and Biodiversity Conservation and Marine and Maritime Policy. Ecosystem Services (ES) were assessed across a wide range of themes, biomes and scales, focusing on terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems. Results show that the implementation of the case studies was accompanied by extensive communication and dissemination activities. First success stories were visible, where the MAES exercise led to meaningful uptake of the ES concept to policies and decision-making. Yet, there is still work to be done - major bottlenecks were identified related to the MAES implementation centring around financial resources, training and technical expertise. Addressing these aspects can contribute to an enhanced implementation of MAES in the EU Overseas in the future

The vaccinia virus DNA polymerase structure provides insights into the mode of processivity factor binding

The catalytic subunit E9 of the vaccinia virus DNA polymerase forms a functional polymerase holoenzyme by interacting with the heterodimeric processivity factor A20/D4. Here the authors present the structure of full-length E9 and show that an insertion within its palm domain binds A20, in a mode different from other family B polymerases

Consensus and Diversity in the Management of Varicocele for Male Infertility: Results of a Global Practice Survey and Comparison with Guidelines and Recommendations

Purpose: Varicocele is a common problem among infertile men. Varicocele repair (VR) is frequently performed to improve semen parameters and the chances of pregnancy. However, there is a lack of consensus about the diagnosis, indications for VR and its outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore global practice patterns on the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility. Materials and methods: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field. Results: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available. Conclusions: This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men

Consensus and diversity in the management of varicocele for male infertility: results of a global practice survey and comparison with guidelines and recommendations

Purpose Varicocele is a common problem among infertile men. Varicocele repair (VR) is frequently performed to improve semen parameters and the chances of pregnancy. However, there is a lack of consensus about the diagnosis, indications for VR and its outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore global practice patterns on the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility. Materials and Methods Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field. Results The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available. Conclusions This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men