Modifiable predictors of depression following childhood maltreatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Although maltreatment experiences in childhood increase the risk for depression, not all maltreated children become depressed. This review aims to systematically examine the existing literature to identify modifiable factors that increase vulnerability to, or act as a buffer against, depression, and could therefore inform the development of targeted interventions. Thirteen databases (including Medline, PsychINFO, SCOPUS) were searched (between 1984 and 2014) for prospective, longitudinal studies published in English that included at least 300 participants and assessed associations between childhood maltreatment and later depression. The study quality was assessed using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale checklist. Meta-analyses (random effects models) were performed on combined data to estimate the effect size of the association between maltreatment and depression. Meta-regressions were used to explore effects of study size and quality. We identified 22 eligible articles (N=12 210 participants), of which 6 examined potential modifiable predictors of depression following maltreatment. No more than two studies examined the same modifiable predictor; therefore, it was not possible to examine combined effects of modifiable predictors with meta-regression. It is thus difficult to draw firm conclusions from this study, but initial findings indicate that interpersonal relationships, cognitive vulnerabilities and behavioral difficulties may be modifiable predictors of depression following maltreatment. There is a lack of well-designed, prospective studies on modifiable predictors of depression following maltreatment. A small amount of initial research suggests that modifiable predictors of depression may be specific to maltreatment subtypes and gender. Corroboration and further investigation of causal mechanisms is required to identify novel targets for intervention, and to inform guidelines for the effective treatment of maltreated children

Potential Role for Peptidylarginine Deiminase 2 (PAD2) in Citrullination of Canine Mammary Epithelial Cell Histones

Peptidylarginine Deiminases (PADs) convert arginine residues on substrate proteins to citrulline. Previous reports have documented that PAD2 expression and activity varies across the estrous cycle in the rodent uterus and pituitary gland, however, the expression and function of PAD2 in mammary tissue has not been previously reported. To gain more insight into potential reproductive roles for PAD2, in this study we evaluated PAD2 expression and localization throughout the estrous cycle in canine mammary tissue and then identified possible PAD2 enzymatic targets. Immunohistochemical and immunofluorescence analysis found PAD2 expression is low in anestrus, limited to a distinct, yet sparse, subset of epithelial cells within ductal alveoli during estrus/early diestrus, and encompasses the entire epithelium of the mammary duct in late diestrus. At the subcellular level, PAD2 is expressed in the cytoplasm, and to a lesser extent, the nucleus of these epithelial cells. Surprisingly, stimulation of canine mammary tumor cells (CMT25) shows that EGF, but not estrogen or progesterone, upregulates PAD2 transcription and translation suggesting EGF regulation of PAD2 and possibly citrullination in vivo. To identify potential PAD2 targets, anti-pan citrulline western blots were performed and results showed that citrullination activity is limited to diestrus with histones appearing to represent major enzymatic targets. Use of site-specific anti-citrullinated histone antibodies found that the N-terminus of histone H3, but not H4, appears to be the primary target of PAD activity in mammary epithelium. This observation supports the hypothesis that PAD2 may play a regulatory role in the expression of lactation related genes via histone citrullination during diestrus

Horizontal gene transfer in Histophilus somni and its role in the evolution of pathogenic strain 2336, as determined by comparative genomic analyses

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pneumonia and myocarditis are the most commonly reported diseases due to <it>Histophilus somni</it>, an opportunistic pathogen of the reproductive and respiratory tracts of cattle. Thus far only a few genes involved in metabolic and virulence functions have been identified and characterized in <it>H. somni </it>using traditional methods. Analyses of the genome sequences of several <it>Pasteurellaceae </it>species have provided insights into their biology and evolution. In view of the economic and ecological importance of <it>H. somni</it>, the genome sequence of pneumonia strain 2336 has been determined and compared to that of commensal strain 129Pt and other members of the <it>Pasteurellaceae</it>.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The chromosome of strain 2336 (2,263,857 bp) contained 1,980 protein coding genes, whereas the chromosome of strain 129Pt (2,007,700 bp) contained only 1,792 protein coding genes. Although the chromosomes of the two strains differ in size, their average GC content, gene density (total number of genes predicted on the chromosome), and percentage of sequence (number of genes) that encodes proteins were similar. The chromosomes of these strains also contained a number of discrete prophage regions and genomic islands. One of the genomic islands in strain 2336 contained genes putatively involved in copper, zinc, and tetracycline resistance. Using the genome sequence data and comparative analyses with other members of the <it>Pasteurellaceae</it>, several <it>H. somni </it>genes that may encode proteins involved in virulence (<it>e.g</it>., filamentous haemaggutinins, adhesins, and polysaccharide biosynthesis/modification enzymes) were identified. The two strains contained a total of 17 ORFs that encode putative glycosyltransferases and some of these ORFs had characteristic simple sequence repeats within them. Most of the genes/loci common to both the strains were located in different regions of the two chromosomes and occurred in opposite orientations, indicating genome rearrangement since their divergence from a common ancestor.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Since the genome of strain 129Pt was ~256,000 bp smaller than that of strain 2336, these genomes provide yet another paradigm for studying evolutionary gene loss and/or gain in regard to virulence repertoire and pathogenic ability. Analyses of the complete genome sequences revealed that bacteriophage- and transposon-mediated horizontal gene transfer had occurred at several loci in the chromosomes of strains 2336 and 129Pt. It appears that these mobile genetic elements have played a major role in creating genomic diversity and phenotypic variability among the two <it>H. somni </it>strains.</p

The Present and Future Role of Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Maize in IPM

Commercial, genetically-modified (GM) maize was first planted in the United States (USA, 1996) and Canada (1997) but now is grown in 13 countries on a total of over 35 million hectares (\u3e24% of area worldwide). The first GM maize plants produced a Cry protein derived from the soil bacteriumBacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which made them resistant to European corn borer and other lepidopteran maize pests. New GM maize hybrids not only have resistance to lepidopteran pests but some have resistance to coleopteran pests and tolerance to specific herbicides. Growers are attracted to the Btmaize hybrids for their convenience and because of yield protection, reduced need for chemical insecticides, and improved grain quality. Yet, most growers worldwide still rely on traditional integrated pest management (IPM) methods to control maize pests. They must weigh the appeal of buying insect protection “in the bag” against questions regarding economics, environmental safety, and insect resistance management (IRM). Traditional management of maize insects and the opportunities and challenges presented by GM maize are considered as they relate to current and future insect-resistant products. Four countries, two that currently have commercialize Bt maize (USA and Spain) and two that do not (China and Kenya), are highlighted. As with other insect management tactics (e.g., insecticide use or tillage), GM maize should not be considered inherently compatible or incompatible with IPM. Rather, the effect of GM insect-resistance on maize IPM likely depends on how the technology is developed and used