Microbial electrochemical Cr(VI) reduction in a soil continuous flow system

Microbial electrochemical technologies represent innovative approaches to contaminated soil and groundwater remediation and provide a flexible framework for removing organic and inorganic contaminants by integrating electrochemical and biological techniques. To simulate in situ microbial electrochemical treatment of groundwater plumes, this study investigates Cr(VI) reduction within a bioelectrochemical continuous flow (BECF) system equipped with soil-buried electrodes, comparing it to abiotic and open-circuit controls. Continuous-flow systems were tested with two chromium-contaminated solutions (20-50 mg Cr(VI)/L). Additional nutrients, buffers, or organic substrates were introduced during the tests in the systems. With an initial Cr(VI) concentration of 20 mg/L, 1.00 mg Cr(VI)/(L day) bioelectrochemical removal rate in the BECF system was observed, corresponding to 99.5% removal within nine days. At the end of the test with 50 mg Cr(VI)/L (156 days), the residual Cr(VI) dissolved concentration was two orders of magnitude lower than that in the open circuit control, achieving 99.9% bioelectrochemical removal in the BECF. Bacteria belonging to the orders Solirubrobacteriales, Gaiellales, Bacillales, Gemmatimonadales, and Propionibacteriales characterized the bacterial communities identified in soil samples; differently, Burkholderiales, Mycobacteriales, Cytophagales, Rhizobiales, and Caulobacterales characterized the planktonic bacterial communities. The complexity of the microbial community structure suggests the involvement of different microorganisms and strategies in the bioelectrochemical removal of chromium. In the absence of organic carbon, microbial electrochemical removal of hexavalent chromium was found to be the most efficient way to remove Cr(VI), and it may represent an innovative and sustainable approach for soil and groundwater remediation. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;00:1-17. © 2024 The Author(s). Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC)

Central de abastecimiento de Lima

Tesi

Peanut allergy in Italy: A unique Italian perspective

Background Peanut allergy has not been well characterized in Italy. Objective Our aim was to better define the clinical features of peanut allergy in Italy and to detect the peanut proteins involved in allergic reactions. Methods A total of 22 centers participated in a prospective survey of peanut allergy over a 6-month period. Clinical histories were confirmed by in vivo and/or in vitro diagnostic means in all cases. Potential risk factors for peanut allergy occurrence were considered. Levels of IgE to Arachis hypogea (Ara h) 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 and profilin were measured. Results A total of 395 patients (aged 2-80 years) were enrolled. Of the participants, 35% reported local reactions, 38.2% reported systemic reactions, and 26.6% experienced anaphylaxis. The sensitization profile was dominated by Ara h 9 (77% of patients were sensitized to it), whereas 35% were sensitized to pathogenesis-related protein 10 (PR-10) and 26% were sensitized to seed storage proteins (SSPs). Sensitization to 2S albumins (Ara h 2 and Ara h 6) or lipid transfer protein (LTP) was associated with the occurrence of more severe symptoms, whereas profilin and PR-10 sensitization were associated with milder symptoms. Cosensitization to profilin reduced the risk of severe reactions in both Ara h 2– and LTP-sensitized patients. SSP sensitization prevailed in younger patients whereas LTP prevailed in older patients (P < .01). SSP sensitization occurred mainly in northern Italy, whereas LTP sensitization prevailed in Italy's center and south. Atopic dermatitis, frequency of peanut ingestion, peanut consumption by other family members, or use of peanut butter did not seem to be risk factors for peanut allergy onset. Conclusions In Italy, peanut allergy is rare and dominated by LTP in the country's center and south and by SSP in the north. These 2 sensitizations seem mutually exclusive. The picture differs from that in Anglo-Saxon countries

Development of a method for generating SNP interaction-aware polygenic risk scores for radiotherapy toxicity

Aim: To identify the effect of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) interactions on the risk of toxicity following radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PCa) and propose a new method for polygenic risk score incorporating SNP-SNP interactions (PRSi). Materials and methods: Analysis included the REQUITE PCa cohort that received external beam RT and was followed for 2 years. Late toxicity endpoints were: rectal bleeding, urinary frequency, haematuria, nocturia, decreased urinary stream. Among 43 literature-identified SNPs, the 30% most strongly associated with each toxicity were tested. SNP-SNP combinations (named SNP-allele sets) seen in >= 10% of the cohort were condensed into risk (RS) and protection (PS) scores, respectively indicating increased or decreased toxicity risk. Performance of RS and PS was evaluated by logistic regression. RS and PS were then combined into a single PRSi evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: Among 1,387 analysed patients, toxicity rates were 11.7% (rectal bleeding), 4.0% (urinary frequency), 5.5% (haematuria), 7.8% (nocturia) and 17.1% (decreased urinary stream). RS and PS combined 8 to 15 different SNP-allele sets, depending on the toxicity endpoint. Distributions of PRSi differed significantly in patients with/without toxicity with AUCs ranging from 0.61 to 0.78. PRSi was better than the classical summed PRS, particularly for the urinary frequency, haematuria and decreased urinary stream endpoints. Conclusions: Our method incorporates SNP-SNP interactions when calculating PRS for radiotherapy toxicity. Our approach is better than classical summation in discriminating patients with toxicity and should enable incorporating genetic information to improve normal tissue complication probability models. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V