Inside the Coal Industry’s Rhetorical Playbook

If citizens have heard anything about the upheaval in the U.S. coal industry, it is probably the insistence that President Obama and the EPA have waged a “war on coal.” This phrase is written into President-elect Donald Trump’s energy platform, which promises to “end the war on coal.

Protocol for a systematic review to identify and weight the indicators of risk of asthma exacerbations in children aged 5-12 years

No abstract available

Comparative primary paediatric nasal epithelial cell culture differentiation and RSV-induced cytopathogenesis following culture in two commercial media

The culture of differentiated human airway epithelial cells allows the study of pathogen-host interactions and innate immune responses in a physiologically relevant in vitro model. As the use of primary cell culture has gained popularity the availability of the reagents needed to generate these cultures has increased. In this study we assessed two different media, Promocell and PneumaCult, during the differentiation and maintenance of well-differentiated primary nasal epithelial cell cultures (WD-PNECs). We compared and contrasted the consequences of these media on WD-PNEC morphological and physiological characteristics and their responses to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection. We found that cultures generated using PneumaCult resulted in greater total numbers of smaller, tightly packed, pseudostratified cells. However, cultures from both media resulted in similar proportions of ciliated and goblet cells. There were no differences in RSV growth kinetics, although more ciliated cells were infected in the PneumaCult cultures. There was also significantly more IL-29/IFNλ1 secreted from PneumaCult compared to Promocell cultures following infection. In conclusion, the type of medium used for the differentiation of primary human airway epithelial cells may impact experimental results.</p

The complete costs of genome sequencing: a microcosting study in cancer and rare diseases from a single center in the United Kingdom

Abstract: Purpose: The translation of genome sequencing into routine health care has been slow, partly because of concerns about affordability. The aspirational cost of sequencing a genome is $1000, but there is little evidence to support this estimate. We estimate the cost of using genome sequencing in routine clinical care in patients with cancer or rare diseases. Methods: We performed a microcosting study of Illumina-based genome sequencing in a UK National Health Service laboratory processing 399 samples/year. Cost data were collected for all steps in the sequencing pathway, including bioinformatics analysis and reporting of results. Sensitivity analysis identified key cost drivers. Results: Genome sequencing costs £6841 per cancer case (comprising matched tumor and germline samples) and £7050 per rare disease case (three samples). The consumables used during sequencing are the most expensive component of testing (68–72$1000/genome in a single laboratory. This aspirational sequencing cost will likely only be achieved if consumable costs are considerably reduced and sequencing is performed at scale

Community-based asthma assessment in young children:Adaptations for a multicentre longitudinal study in South Asia

BACKGROUND: Systematic assessment of childhood asthma is challenging in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings due to the lack of standardised and validated methodologies. We describe the contextual challenges and adaptation strategies in the implementation of a community-based asthma assessment in four resource-constrained settings in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. METHOD: We followed a group of children of age 6–8 years for 12 months to record their respiratory health outcomes. The study participants were enrolled at four study sites of the ‘Aetiology of Neonatal Infection in South Asia (ANISA)’ study. We standardised the research methods for the sites, trained field staff for uniform data collection and provided a ‘Child Card’ to the caregiver to record the illness history of the participants. We visited the children on three different occasions to collect data on respiratory-related illnesses. The lung function of the children was assessed in the outreach clinics using portable spirometers before and after 6-minute exercise, and capillary blood was examined under light microscopes to determine eosinophil levels. RESULTS: We enrolled 1512 children, 95.5% (1476/1512) of them completed the follow-up, and 81.5% (1232/1512) participants attended the lung function assessment tests. Pre- and post-exercise spirometry was performed successfully in 88.6% (1091/1232) and 85.7% (1056/1232) of children who attempted these tests. Limited access to health care services, shortage of skilled human resources, and cultural diversity were the main challenges in adopting uniform procedures across all sites. Designing the study implementation plan based on the local contexts and providing extensive training of the healthcare workers helped us to overcome these challenges. CONCLUSION: This study can be seen as a large-scale feasibility assessment of applying spirometry and exercise challenge tests in community settings of LMICs and provides confidence to build capacity to evaluate children’s respiratory outcomes in future translational research studies