Mental Health Practitioners’ Understanding of Informed Consent with Adolescents

The purpose of this study was to understand the impact of informed consent on the delivery of psychiatric services to adolescents and the way in which mental health practitioners understand and address informed consent in their treatment of adolescents. A key focus of this study examined how informed consent influenced adolescent mental health utilization and retention. The study sought to explore the following questions: (1) How do practitioners understand adolescent informed consent? (2) How does informed consent affect adolescent access to mental health treatment and utilization as perceived by practitioners? (3) How do practitioners understand and describe the impact informed consent has on adolescent engagement in mental health treatment? (4) How do practitioners experience the ramifications of informed consent in building a therapeutic relationship with adolescents

Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences

The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; Nemésio 2009a–b; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on 18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016

Brain Targeted Gold Liposomes Improve RNAi Delivery for Glioblastoma.

INTRODUCTION: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and lethal of the central nervous system (CNS) malignancies. The initiation, progression, and infiltration ability of GBMs are attributed in part to the dysregulation of microRNAs (miRNAs). Thus, targeting dysregulated miRNAs with RNA oligonucleotides (RNA interference, RNAi) has been proposed for GBM treatment. Despite promising results in the laboratory, RNA oligonucleotides have clinical limitations that include poor RNA stability and off-target effects. RNAi therapies against GBM confront an additional obstacle, as they need to cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB). METHODS: Here, we developed gold-liposome nanoparticles conjugated with the brain targeting peptides apolipoprotein E (ApoE) and rabies virus glycoprotein (RVG). First, we functionalized gold nanoparticles with oligonucleotide miRNA inhibitors (OMIs), creating spherical nucleic acids (SNAs). Next, we encapsulated SNAs into ApoE, or RVG-conjugated liposomes, to obtain SNA-Liposome-ApoE and SNA-Liposome-RVG, respectively. We characterized each nanoparticle in terms of their size, charge, encapsulation efficiency, and delivery efficiency into U87 GBM cells in vitro. Then, they were administered intravenously (iv) in GBM syngeneic mice to evaluate their delivery efficiency to brain tumor tissue. RESULTS: SNA-Liposomes of about 30-50 nm in diameter internalized U87 GBM cells and inhibited the expression of miRNA-92b, an aberrantly overexpressed miRNA in GBM cell lines and GBM tumors. Conjugating SNA-Liposomes with ApoE or RVG peptides increased their systemic delivery to the brain tumors of GBM syngeneic mice. SNA-Liposome-ApoE demonstrated to accumulate at higher extension in brain tumor tissues, when compared with non-treated controls, SNA-Liposomes, or SNA-Liposome-RVG. DISCUSSION: SNA-Liposome-ApoE has the potential to advance the translation of miRNA-based therapies for GBM as well as other CNS disorders

Reduced RBPMS Levels Promote Cell Proliferation and Decrease Cisplatin Sensitivity in Ovarian Cancer Cells

Worldwide, the number of cancer-related deaths continues to increase due to the ability of cancer cells to become chemotherapy-resistant and metastasize. For women with ovarian cancer, a staggering 70% will become resistant to the front-line therapy, cisplatin. Although many mechanisms of cisplatin resistance have been proposed, the key mechanisms of such resistance remain elusive. The RNA binding protein with multiple splicing (RBPMS) binds to nascent RNA transcripts and regulates splicing, transport, localization, and stability. Evidence indicates that RBPMS also binds to protein members of the AP-1 transcription factor complex repressing its activity. Until now, little has been known about the biological function of RBPMS in ovarian cancer. Accordingly, we interrogated available Internet databases and found that ovarian cancer patients with high RBPMS levels live longer compared to patients with low RBPMS levels. Similarly, immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis in a tissue array of ovarian cancer patient samples showed that serous ovarian cancer tissues showed weaker RBPMS staining when compared with normal ovarian tissues. We generated clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-mediated RBPMS knockout vectors that were stably transfected in the high-grade serous ovarian cancer cell line, OVCAR3. The knockout of RBPMS in these cells was confirmed via bioinformatics analysis, real-time PCR, and Western blot analysis. We found that the RBPMS knockout clones grew faster and had increased invasiveness than the control CRISPR clones. RBPMS knockout also reduced the sensitivity of the OVCAR3 cells to cisplatin treatment. Moreover, β-galactosidase (β-Gal) measurements showed that RBPMS knockdown induced senescence in ovarian cancer cells. We performed RNAseq in the RBPMS knockout clones and identified several downstream-RBPMS transcripts, including non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) and protein-coding genes associated with alteration of the tumor microenvironment as well as those with oncogenic or tumor suppressor capabilities. Moreover, proteomic studies confirmed that RBPMS regulates the expression of proteins involved in cell detoxification, RNA processing, and cytoskeleton network and cell integrity. Interrogation of the Kaplan–Meier (KM) plotter database identified multiple downstream-RBPMS effectors that could be used as prognostic and response-to-therapy biomarkers in ovarian cancer. These studies suggest that RBPMS acts as a tumor suppressor gene and that lower levels of RBPMS promote the cisplatin resistance of ovarian cancer cells

Considerations and consequences of allowing DNA sequence data as types of fungal taxa

Abstract Nomenclatural type definitions are one of the most important concepts in biological nomenclature. Being physical objects that can be re-studied by other researchers, types permanently link taxonomy (an artificial agreement to classify biological diversity) with nomenclature (an artificial agreement to name biological diversity). Two proposals to amend the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), allowing DNA sequences alone (of any region and extent) to serve as types of taxon names for voucherless fungi (mainly putative taxa from environmental DNA sequences), have been submitted to be voted on at the 11th International Mycological Congress (Puerto Rico, July 2018). We consider various genetic processes affecting the distribution of alleles among taxa and find that alleles may not consistently and uniquely represent the species within which they are contained. Should the proposals be accepted, the meaning of nomenclatural types would change in a fundamental way from physical objects as sources of data to the data themselves. Such changes are conducive to irreproducible science, the potential typification on artefactual data, and massive creation of names with low information content, ultimately causing nomenclatural instability and unnecessary work for future researchers that would stall future explorations of fungal diversity. We conclude that the acceptance of DNA sequences alone as types of names of taxa, under the terms used in the current proposals, is unnecessary and would not solve the problem of naming putative taxa known only from DNA sequences in a scientifically defensible way. As an alternative, we highlight the use of formulas for naming putative taxa (candidate taxa) that do not require any modification of the ICN.Publisher’s Note A first version of this text was prepared by the first eight authors and the last one, given here. The other listed co-authors in the article PDF support the content, and their actual contributions varied from only support to additions that substantially improved the content. The full details of all co-authors, with their affiliations, are included in Supplementary Table 1 after p.175 of the article for reasons of clarity and space. Slavomír Adamčík Institute of Botany, Plant Science and Biodiversity Centre, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dúbravská cesta 9, 845 23 Bratislava, Slovakia Teuvo Ahti Finnish Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 7, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland M. Catherine Aime Purdue University, 915 W. State St., West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, U.S.A. A. Martyn Ainsworth Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AB, United Kingdom László Albert Hungarian Mycological Society, 1087 Könyves Kálmán krt. 40, Budapest, Hungary Edgardo Albertó Instituto de Investigaciones Biotecnológicas-Instituto Tecnológico de Chascomús, Universidad Nacional de San Martin-Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Buenos Aires, Argentina Alberto Altés García Facultad de Biología, Ciencias Ambientales y Química, Universidad de Alcalá, 28805 Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain Dmitry Ageev SIGNATEC Ltd., 630090, Novosibirsk, Akademgorodok (Novosibirsk Scientific Center), Inzhenernaya str., 22, Russia Reinhard Agerer Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Menzinger Str. 67, 80638 München, Germany Begona Aguirre-Hudson Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AB, United Kingdom Joe Ammirati University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-1800, U.S.A. Harry Andersson Eichhahnweg 29a, 38108 Braunschweig, Germany Claudio Angelini Jardín Botánico Nacional Dr. Rafael Ma. Moscoso, Apartado 21-9, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic Vladimír Antonín Moravian Museum, Zeny trh 6, 659 37 Brno, Czech Republic Takayuki Aoki Genetic Resources Center, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization, 2-1-2 Kannondai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8602, Japan André Aptroot ABL Herbarium, G.v.d.Veenstraat 107, 3762 XK Soest, The Netherlands Didier Argaud 40 rue du Justemont, 57290 Fameck, France Blanca Imelda Arguello Sosa Instituto Tecnológico de Ciudad Victoria, Tecnológico Nacional de México, Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico Arne Aronsen Torødveien 54, 3135 Torød, Norway Ulf Arup Biological Museum, Lund University, Box 117, 221 00 Lund, Sweden Bita Asgari Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Tehran, Iran Boris Assyov Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2 Gagarin Str., 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria Violeta Atienza Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Universitat de València, C/Dr Moliner 50, 46100, Burjasot, Valencia, Spain Ditte Bandini Panoramastr 47, 69257 Wiesenbach, Germany João Luís Baptista-Ferreira Instituto de Biossistemas e Ciências Integrativas, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, 1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal Hans-Otto Baral Blaihofstr. 42, 72074 Tübingen, Germany Tim Baroni The State University of New York, 340 Bowers Hall, P.O. Box 2000, Cortland, New York 13045, U.S.A. Robert Weingart Barreto Universidade Federal de Viçosa, 36570-000, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil Henry Beker (1) Royal Holloway, University of London, United Kingdom; (2) Botanic Garden Meise, Nieuwelaan 38, 1860 Meise, Belgium Ann Bell 45 Gurney Road, Lower Hutt, New Zealand Jean-Michel Bellanger CEFE UMR5175, CNRS, Université de Montpellier, Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier, EPHE, INSERM, 1919 Route de Mende, 34293 Montpellier Cédex 5, France Francesco Bellù Naturmusem of Bolzano, CP 104, 39100, Bolzano, Italy Martin Bemmann Kleingemünderstraße 111, 69118 Heidelberg, Germany Mika Bendiksby NTNU, University Museum, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway Egil Bendiksen Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Gaustadalleen 21, 0349 Oslo, Norway Katriina Bendiksen Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1172 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway Lajos Benedek Szent Istvan University, Hungary Anna Bérešová-Guttová Institute of Botany, Plant Science and Biodiversity Centre, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dúbravská cesta 9, 845 23 Bratislava, Slovakia Franz Berger University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria Reinhard Berndt Herbaria Z+ZT, ETH Zürich, CHN D37, Universitätstr. 16, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland Annarosa Bernicchia Via A. Guidotti 39, 40134 Bologna, Italy Alona Yu. Biketova Institute of Biochemistry, BRC-HAS, 6726 Szeged, Temesvari krt. 62, 6726 Szeged, Hungary Enrico Bizio Società Veneziana di Micologia, Società Veneziana di Scienze Naturali, Fontego dei Turchi, Santa Croce 1730, 30135 Venice, Italy Curtis Bjork UBC Herbarium, Beaty Biodiversity Museum, University of British Columbia, Canada Teun Boekhout (1) Westerdijk Fungal Biodiversity Institute, P.O. Box 85167, 3508 AD, Utrecht, The Netherlands; (2) Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands David Boertmann Aarhus University, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark Tanja Böhning AG Geobotanik Schleswig-Holstein & Hamburg, c/o University of Kiel, Olshausenstraße 75, 24098 Kiel, Germany Florent Boittin Ascomycete.org, 36 rue de la Garde, 69005 Lyon, France Carlos G. Boluda Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève, 1292 Genève, Switzerland Menno W. Boomsluiter T.v.Lohuizenstraat 34, 8172xl, Vaassen, The Netherlands Jan Borovička Institute of Geology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Rozvojova 269, 165 00 Prague 6, Czech Republic Tor Erik Brandrud Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Gaustadalleen 21, 0349 Oslo, Norway Uwe Braun Martin-Luther-Universität, Institut für Biologie, Bereich Geobotanik, und Botanischer Garten, Herbarium, Neuwerk 21, 06099 Halle, Germany Irwin Brodo Canadian Museum of Nature, 240 McLeod Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Tatiana Bulyonkova A.P. Ershov Institute of Informatics Systems, Russian Academy of Sciences, Siberian Branch, 6 Acad. Lavrentjev pr., Novosibirsk 630090, Russia Harold H. Burdsall Jr. Fungal & Decay Diagnostics, LLC, 9350 Union Valley Road, Black Earth, Wisconsin 53515, U.S.A. Bart Buyck Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, CP 39, ISYEB, UMR 7205 CNRS MNHN UPMC EPHE, 12 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France Ana Rosa Burgaz Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain Vicent Calatayud Fundación CEAM, c/ Charles R. Darwin, 14, Parque Tecnológico, 46980 Paterna, Valencia, Spain Philippe Callac INRA, MycSA, CS 20032, 33882 Villenave d’Ornon, France Emanuele Campo Associazione Micologica Bresadola, Via Alessandro Volta 46, 38123 Trento, Italy Massimo Candusso Via Ottone Primo 90, 17021, Alassio, Savona, Italy Brigitte Capoen Queffioec, rue de Saint Gonval, 22710 Penvenan, France Joaquim Carbó Roser, 60, 17257 Torroella de Montgrí, Girona, Spain Matteo Carbone Via Don Luigi Sturzo 173 16148 Genova, Italy Rafael F. Castañeda-Ruiz Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en Agricultura, Tropical ‘Alejandro de Humboldt’, OSDE, Grupo Agrícola, Calle 1 Esq. 2, Santiago de Las Vegas, C. Habana 17200, Cuba Michael A. Castellano USDA, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Corvallis, Oregon 97330, U.S.A. Jie Chen Mae Fah Luang University, Chang Wat Chiang Rai 57100, Thailand Philippe Clerc Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève, 1292 Genève, Switzerland Giovanni Consiglio Via C. Ronzani 61, 40033 Casalecchio Bologna, Italy Gilles Corriol National Botanical Conservatory for Pyrenees and Midi-Pyrénées Region of France and BBF Herbarium, Vallon de Salut. B.P. 315. 65203 Bagnères-de-Bigorre, France Régis Courtecuisse Université Lille, Fac. Pharma. Lille, EA4483 IMPECS, 59000 Lille, France Ana Crespo Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain Cathy Cripps Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology, 119 Plant Biosciences Building, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana 59717, U.S.A. Pedro W. Crous Westerdijk Fungal Biodiversity Institute, P.O. Box 85167, 3508 AD, Utrecht, The Netherlands Gladstone Alves da Silva Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Centro de Biociências, Avenida da Engenharia, S/N, Cidade Universitária, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil Meiriele da Silva Universidade Federal de Viçosa, 36570-000, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil Marjo Dam Hooischelf 13, 6581 SL Malden, The Netherlands Nico Dam Hooischelf 13, 6581 SL Malden, The Netherlands Frank Dämmrich The Bavarian Natural History Collections (SNSB Munich), Menzinger Strasse 71, 80638, München, Germany Kanad Das Botanical Survey of India, Cryptogamic Unit, P.O. Botanic Garden, Howrah 711103, W.B., India Linda Davies Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom Eske De Crop Ghent University K.L. Ledeganckstraat 35, 9000 Ghent, Belgium Andre De Kesel Botanic Garden Meise, Nieuwelaan 38, 1860 Meise, Belgium Ruben De Lange Ghent University, K.L. Ledeganckstraat 35, 9000 Gent, Belgium Bárbara De Madrignac Bonzi Instituto de Botánica del Nordeste, Universidad Nacional de Nordeste-Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Sargento Cabral 2131, CC 209, Corrientes Capital, Argentina Thomas Edison E. dela Cruz University of Santo Tomas, Espana 1008 Manila, Philippines Lynn Delgat Ghent University, K.L. Ledeganckstraat 35, 9000 Gent, Belgium Vincent Demoulin Institut de Botanique, B.22, Université de Liège, 4000 Liège I, Belgium Dennis E. Desjardin HD Thiers Herbarium (SFSU), San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Ave, San Francisco, California 94132, U.S.A. Paul Diederich Musée national d’histoire naturelle, 25 rue Münster, 2160 Luxembourg, Luxembourg Bálint Dima (1) Institute of Biology, Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/c, 1117 Budapest, Hungary; (2) Viikki Plant Science Centre, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 65, 00014 Helsinki, Finland Maria Martha Dios Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Catamarca, Av Belgrano 300, 4700 San Fernando del Valle de Catamarca, Argentina Pradeep Kumar Divakar Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain Clovis Douanla-Meli Julius Kühn-Institut, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Institute for National and International Plant Health, Messeweg 11-12, 38104 Braunschweig, Germany Brian Douglas Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AB, United Kingdom Elisandro Ricardo Drechsler-Santos Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Campus Universitário Reitor João David Ferreira Lima, Trindade, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina CEP 88040-900, Brazil Paul S. Dyer School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom Ursula Eberhardt Abt. Botanik, Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart, Rosenstein 1, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany Damien Ertz Botanic Garden Meise, Nieuwelaan 38, 1860 Meise, Belgium Fernando Esteve-Raventós Facultad de Biología, Ciencias Ambientales y Química, Universidad de Alcalá, 28805 Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain Javier Angel Etayo Salazar Navarro Villoslada 16, 3º dcha., 31003 Pamplona, Navarra, Spain Vera Evenson Sam Mitchel Herbarium of Fungi, Denver Botanic Gardens, 1007 York Street, Denver, Colorado 80206, U.S.A. Guillaume Eyssartier Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, Jardin des plantes, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France Edit Farkas Institute of Ecology and Botany, MTA Centre for Ecological Research, 2163 Vácrátót, Hungary Alain Favre Fédération Mycologique et Botanique Dauphiné Savoie, Le Prieuré, 144 Place de l’Eglise, 74320 Sevrier, France Anna G. Fedosova Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2 Prof. Popov Street, St. Petersburg, 197376, Russia Mario Filippa Regione Monsarinero 36, 14041 Agliano Terme, Italy Péter Finy 8000 Székesfehérvár, Zsombolyai u. 56, Hungary Adam Flakus W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences, Lubicz 46, 31-512 Krakow, Poland Simón Fos Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Universitat de València, C/Dr Moliner 50, 46100, Burjasot, Valencia, Spain Jacques Fournier Las Muros, F. 09420 Rimont, France André Fraiture Botanic Garden Meise, Nieuwelaan 38, 1860 Meise, Belgium Paolo Franchi Associazione Micologica Bresadola, Via Alessandro Volta 46, 38123 Trento, Italy Ana Esperanza Franco Molano Escuela de Microbiología, Universidad de Antioquia, AA1226, Fundación Biodiversa Colombia, Medellín, Colombia Gernot Friebes Centre of Natural History, Botany & Mycology, Universalmuseum Joanneum, Weinzöttlstraße 16, 8045 Graz, Austria Andreas Frisch NTNU, University Museum, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway Alan Fryday Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, U.S.A. Giuliana Furci The Fungi Foundation, Paseo Bulnes 79 of. 112A, Santiago, Chile Ricardo Galán Márquez Facultad de Biología, Ciencias Ambientales y Química, Universidad de Alcalá, 28805 Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain Matteo Garbelotto University of California, 130 Mulford Hall #3114 Berkeley, California 94720, U.S.A. Joaquina Maria Garcia-Martin Real Jardín Botánico-CSIC, Plaza de Murillo 2, 28014, Madrid, Spain Mónica A. García Otálora Herbaria Z+ZT, ETH Zürich, CHN D37, Universitätstr. 16, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland Dania García Sánchez Universitat Rovira i Virgili, C/ Sant Llorenç 21, 43201 Reus, Tarragona, Spain Alain Gardiennet 14 rue Roulette, 21260 Véronnes, France Sigisfredo Garnica Instituto de Bioquímica y Microbiología, Universidad Austral de Chile, Isla Teja Campus, Casilla 567, Valdivia, Chile Isaac Garrido Benavent Real Jardín Botánico-CSIC, Plaza de Murillo 2, 28014, Madrid, Spain Genevieve Gates Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, Private Bag 54, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia Alice da Cruz Lima Gerlach Conservatoire et Jardin Botaniques de la ville de Genève, Genève, Switzerland Masoomeh Ghobad-Nejhad Iranian Research Organization for Science and Technology, P.O. Box 15815-3538, Tehran 15819, Iran Tatiana B. Gibertoni Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Centro de Biociências, Avenida da Engenharia, S/N, Cidade Universitária, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil Tine Grebenc Slovenian Forestry Institute, Vecna pot 2, 100 Ljubljana, Slovenia Irmgard Greilhuber University of Vienna, Rennweg 14, 1030 Vienna, Austria Bella Grishkan Institute of Evolution, University of Haifa, Aba Khoushi Ave. 199, Mt. Carmel, Haifa 3498838, Israel Johannes Z. Groenewald Westerdijk Fungal Biodiversity Institute, P.O. Box 85167, 3508 AD, Utrecht, The Netherlands Martin Grube Institute of Biology, University of Graz, Holteiasse 6, 8010 Graz, Austria Gérald Gruhn Office National des Forêts, 2 Avenue de Saint-Mandé, 75570 Paris Cedex 12, France Cécile Gueidan CSIRO — Australian National Herbarium, Clunies Ross Street, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia Gro Gulden Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1172 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway Luis FP Gusmão Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Av. Transnordestina, s/n, Bairro Novo Horizonte, CEP:44036-900, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil Josef Hafellner Institute of Biology, University of Graz, Holteiasse 6, 8010 Graz, Austria Michel Hairaud 2 Impasse des Marronniers, 79360 Poivendre de Marigny, France Marek Halama Museum of Natural History, Wrocław University, ul. H. Sienkiewicza 5, 50-335 Wrocław, Poland Nils Hallenberg University of Gothenburg, Box 461, 40530 Göteborg, Sweden Roy E. Halling Institute of Systematic Botany, New York Botanical Garden, 2900 Southern Blvd, Bronx, New York 10458-5126, U.S.A. Karen Hansen Swedish Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 50007, 104 05 Stockholm, Sweden Christoffer Bugge Harder Texas Tech University, Box 42122, Lubbock, Texas 79409, U.S.A. Jacob Heilmann-Clausen Natural History Museum of Denmark, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 København, Denmark Stip Helleman Sweelinck 78, 5831KT Boxmeer, The Netherlands Alain Henriot Mycological Society of France, 20 rue Rottembourg, 12th arrondissement, Paris, France Margarita Hernandez-Restrepo Westerdijk Fungal Biodiversity Institute, P.O. Box 85167, 3508 AD, Utrecht, The Netherlands Raphaël Herve 24 rue des Fougères, 86550 Mignaloux-Beauvoir, France Caroline Hobart 84 Stafford Road, Sheffield, South Yorkshire S2 2SF, United Kingdom Mascha Hoffmeister Julius Kühn-Institut, Institute for Epidemiology and Pathogen Diagnostics, Braunschweig, Germany Klaus Høiland University of Oslo, P.O.Box 1066, Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway Jan Holec National Museum, Herbarium PRM, Cirkusová 1740, 193 00 Praha 9, Czech Republic Håkon Holien Faculty of Bioscience and Aquaculture, NORD University, P.O. Box 2501, 7729 Steinkjer, Norway Karen Hughes University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996, U.S.A. Vit Hubka Faculty of Science, Charles University, Benátská 2, 128 01 Praha 2, Czech Republic Seppo Huhtinen Herbarium TUR, Biodiversity Unit, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland Boris Ivančević Natural History Museum, Njegoševa 51, P.O. Box 401, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia Marian Jagers Reelaan 13, 7522 LR Enschede, The Netherlands Walter Jaklitsch Institute of Forest Entomology, Forest Pathology and Forest Protection, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Vienna, Austria AnnaElise Jansen Stationsstraat 10, 6701 AM Wageningen, the Netherlands Ruvishika S. Jayawardena Mae Fah Luang University, Chang Wat Chiang Rai 57100, Thailand Thomas Stjernegaard Jeppesen Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 København Ø, Denmark Mikael Jeppson Lilla Håjumsgatan 4, 46135 Trollhättan, Sweden Peter Johnston Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland 1072, New Zealand Per Magnus Jørgensen University of Bergen, Allégaten 41, P.O. Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway Ingvar Kärnefelt Biological Museum, Lund University, Box 117, 221 00 Lund, Sweden Liudmila B. Kalinina Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2 Prof. Popov Street, St. Petersburg, 197376, Russia Gintaras Kantvilas Tasmanian Herbarium (HO), Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, P.O. Box 5058, UTAS LP.O., Sandy Bay, Tasmania 7005, Australia Mitko Karadelev Institute of Biology, Faculty of Natural Science and Mathematics, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Arhimedova 5, 1000 Skopje, Republic of Macedonia Taiga Kasuya Faculty of Risk and Crisis Management, Chiba Institute of Science, 3 Shiomi-cho, Choshi, Chiba 288-0025, Japan Ivona Kautmanová Natural History Museum, Slovak National Museum, Bratislava, Slovakia Richard W. Kerrigan RWK Research, Kittanning, Pennsylvania 16201, U.S.A. Martin Kirchmair Institut für Mikrobiologie, Universität Innsbruck, Technikerstraße 25, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria Anna Kiyashko Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2 Prof. Popov Street, St. Petersburg, 197376, Russia Dániel G. Knapp Institute of Biology, Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/c, 1117 Budapest, Hungary Henning Knudsen Natural History Museum of Denmark, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 København, Denmark Kerry Knudsen Faculty of Environmental Sciences, University of Life Sciences at Prague, Prague, Czech Republic Tommy Knutsson Nedra Västerstad 111, 380 62 Mörbylånga, Sweden Miroslav Kolařík Institute of Microbiology ASCR, Videnska 1083, 142 20 Prague 4, Czech Republic Urmas Kõljalg Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, 40 Lai Street, Tartu 51005, Estonia Alica Košuthová Swedish Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 50007, 104 05 Stockholm, Sweden Attila Koszka Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Kaposvar University, 7400 Kaposvar, Hungary Heikki Kotiranta Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140, 00251 Helsinki, Finland Vera Kotkova Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2 Prof. Popov Street, St. Petersburg, 197376, Russia Ondřej Koukol Faculty of Science, Charles University, Benátská 2, 128 01 Praha 2,

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline