Gestión del conocimiento: perspectiva multidisciplinaria. Volumen 13

El libro “Gestión del Conocimiento. Perspectiva Multidisciplinaria”, Volumen 13 de la Colección Unión Global, es resultado de investigaciones. Los capítulos del libro, son resultados de investigaciones desarrolladas por sus autores. El libro es una publicación internacional, seriada, continua, arbitrada, de acceso abierto a todas las áreas del conocimiento, orientada a contribuir con procesos de gestión del conocimiento científico, tecnológico y humanístico. Con esta colección, se aspira contribuir con el cultivo, la comprensión, la recopilación y la apropiación social del conocimiento en cuanto a patrimonio intangible de la humanidad, con el propósito de hacer aportes con la transformación de las relaciones socioculturales que sustentan la construcción social de los saberes y su reconocimiento como bien público. El libro “Gestión del Conocimiento. Perspectiva Multidisciplinaria”, Volumen 13, de la Colección Unión Global, es resultado de investigaciones. Los capítulos del libro, son resultados de investigaciones desarrolladas por sus autores. El libro cuenta con el apoyo de los grupos de investigación: Universidad Sur del Lago “Jesús María Semprúm” (UNESUR) - Zulia – Venezuela; Universidad Politécnica Territorial de Falcón Alonso Gamero (UPTFAG) - Falcón – Venezuela; Universidad Politécnica Territorial de Mérida Kléber Ramírez (UPTM) - Mérida - Venezuela; Universidad Guanajuato (UG) - Campus Celaya - Salvatierra - Cuerpo Académico de Biodesarrollo y Bioeconomía en las Organizaciones y Políticas Públicas (CABBOPP) - Guanajuato – México; Centro de Altos Estudios de Venezuela (CEALEVE) - Zulia – Venezuela, Centro Integral de Formación Educativa Especializada del Sur (CIFE - SUR) - Zulia – Venezuela; Centro de Investigaciones Internacionales SAS (CEDINTER) - Antioquia – Colombia y diferentes grupos de investigación del ámbito nacional e internacional que hoy se unen para estrechar vínculos investigativos, para que sus aportes científicos formen parte de los libros que se publiquen en formatos digital e impreso

Caracterización de Lipopolisacárido en una cepa mutante de Leptospira Interrogans Serovar Lai

A lipopolysaccharide (LPS) mutant of Leptospira interrogans serovar Lai was selected using a monoclonal antibody F70C711 against one O antigen epitope. Absence of this epitope in the mutant strain was demonstrated by MAT (microscopic agglutination test) and western blot analysis. SDS-PAGE profiles of both wild type and mutant strains showed a loss of molecular mass in the band corresponding to the O antigen, in the mutant strain. Additionally, the results of PCR and sequencing of locus rfb of the mutant strain confirmed that orf 14 was truncated; the putative function of this gene is an O antigen polymerase.Un mutante de lipopolisacárido (LPS) de Leptospira interrogans serovar Lai fue seleccionado utilizando el anticuerpo monoclonal F70C711 que reacciona con un epitopo del antígeno O de LPS. La ausencia de este epitopo en la cepa mutante fue demostrada por el ensayo de aglutinación microscópica (MAT) y el análisis de western blot. Los perfiles electroforéticos (SDS-PAGE) de las cepas original y mutante, mostraron que la cepa mutante a experimentado una pérdida de masa molecular en la banda que corresponde a la región del antígeno O. Los resultados de PCR y secuenciamiento de los genes del locus rfb confirmaron que la cepa mutante tiene el marco de lectura abierto (orf) 14 truncado y la función putativa para este gen es de una enzima polimerasa de antígeno O

Molecular phylogeny of 42 species of Culicoides (Diptera, Ceratopogonidae) from three continents

The genus Culicoides includes vectors of important animal diseases such as bluetongue and Schmallenberg virus (BTV and SBV). This genus includes 1300 species classified in 32 subgenera and 38 unclassified species. However, the phylogenetic relationships between different subgenera of Culicoides have never been studied. Phylogenetic analyses of 42 species belonging to 12 subgenera and 8 ungrouped species of genus Culicoides from Ecuador, France, Gabon, Madagascar and Tunisia were carried out using two molecular markers (28S rDNA D1 and D2 domains and COI mtDNA). Sequences were subjected to non-probabilistic (maximum parsimony) and probabilistic (Bayesian inference (BI)) approaches. The subgenera Monoculicoides, Culicoides, Haematomyidium, Hoffmania, Remmia and Avaritia (including the main vectors of bluetongue disease) were monophyletic, whereas the subgenus Oecacta was paraphyletic. Our study validates the subgenus Remmia (= Schultzei group) as a valid subgenus, outside of the subgenus Oecacta. In Europe, Culicoides obsoletus, Culicoides scoticus and Culicoides chiopterus should be part of the Obsoletus complex whereas Culicoides dewulfi should be excluded from this complex. Our study suggests that the current Culicoides classification needs to be revisited with modern tools

Molecular phylogeny of 42 species of

The genus Culicoides includes vectors of important animal diseases such as bluetongue and Schmallenberg virus (BTV and SBV). This genus includes 1300 species classified in 32 subgenera and 38 unclassified species. However, the phylogenetic relationships between different subgenera of Culicoides have never been studied. Phylogenetic analyses of 42 species belonging to 12 subgenera and 8 ungrouped species of genus Culicoides from Ecuador, France, Gabon, Madagascar and Tunisia were carried out using two molecular markers (28S rDNA D1 and D2 domains and COI mtDNA). Sequences were subjected to non-probabilistic (maximum parsimony) and probabilistic (Bayesian inference (BI)) approaches. The subgenera Monoculicoides, Culicoides, Haematomyidium, Hoffmania, Remmia and Avaritia (including the main vectors of bluetongue disease) were monophyletic, whereas the subgenus Oecacta was paraphyletic. Our study validates the subgenus Remmia (= Schultzei group) as a valid subgenus, outside of the subgenus Oecacta. In Europe, Culicoides obsoletus, Culicoides scoticus and Culicoides chiopterus should be part of the Obsoletus complex whereas Culicoides dewulfi should be excluded from this complex. Our study suggests that the current Culicoides classification needs to be revisited with modern tools

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