Metabolic Versatility and Antibacterial Metabolite Biosynthesis Are Distinguishing Genomic Features of the Fire Blight Antagonist Pantoea vagans C9-1

Smits THM, Rezzonico F, Kamber T, et al. Metabolic Versatility and Antibacterial Metabolite Biosynthesis Are Distinguishing Genomic Features of the Fire Blight Antagonist Pantoea vagans C9-1. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(7): e22247.Background: Pantoea vagans is a commercialized biological control agent used against the pome fruit bacterial disease fire blight, caused by Erwinia amylovora. Compared to other biocontrol agents, relatively little is currently known regarding Pantoea genetics. Better understanding of antagonist mechanisms of action and ecological fitness is critical to improving efficacy. Principal Findings: Genome analysis indicated two major factors contribute to biocontrol activity: competition for limiting substrates and antibacterial metabolite production. Pathways for utilization of a broad diversity of sugars and acquisition of iron were identified. Metabolism of sorbitol by P. vagans C9-1 may be a major metabolic feature in biocontrol of fire blight. Biosynthetic genes for the antibacterial peptide pantocin A were found on a chromosomal 28-kb genomic island, and for dapdiamide E on the plasmid pPag2. There was no evidence of potential virulence factors that could enable an animal or phytopathogenic lifestyle and no indication of any genetic-based biosafety risk in the antagonist. Conclusions: Identifying key determinants contributing to disease suppression allows the development of procedures to follow their expression in planta and the genome sequence contributes to rationale risk assessment regarding the use of the biocontrol strain in agricultural systems

Patients with complex proximal tibial fractures overestimate the prognosis of their injury

PURPOSE To investigate, if patients with complex proximal tibial fracture have realistic expectations on open reduction and internal fixation. METHODS 114 patients (mean 49 years, SD ± 13) with closed AO-type B and C proximal tibial fracture were grouped (group B, respectively C). Prior to surgery expectations concerning knee function, pain, return to work/sports, and the risk for osteoarthritis was assessed with the Hospital for Special Surgery-Knee Surgery Expectations Survey (HFSS-KSE) and a non-validated ten-item survey. RESULTS 92% of patients expected at least an almost natural knee postoperatively. All items regarding restoring knee function were ranked to be at least important in both groups. 65% in group B and 47% in group C expected at most occasional pain. 83% in group B and 67% in group C expected full return to work without any limitations. Patients with low physical work intensity expected significantly shorter incapacity to work in both groups (7.8, respectively 8.9~weeks). 71% in group B and 60% in group C expected to return to sports with at most small limitations. 33% in group B and 22% in group C assumed risk for osteoarthritis will be prevented by surgery. CONCLUSION Expectations on surgery for complex proximal tibial fracture are high regardless of fracture type. The prognosis of many health and lifestyle domains was overestimated. The risk for osteoarthritis was underestimated. This study should sensitize surgeons to discuss realistic expectations. This may help to improve patient comprehension what leads to sensible expectations, resulting in improved patients´ satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER 14104, Date of registration: 06/2015

Differences in Patients’ and Surgeons’ Expectations before Shoulder Stabilization Surgery

Purpose: The primary goal of shoulder stabilization procedures is to re-establish stability and many surgeons measure the success after shoulder stabilization surgery only by the absence of re-dislocation. However, patients might also suffer from pain, loss of range of motion and strength as well as anxiety and stigmatization and therefore have other expectations from a stabilization surgery than just a stable shoulder. Purpose of this study was to analyze if surgeons know what their patients typically expect from a shoulder stabilization surgery. Furthermore, the aim was to analyze the influence of various factors on patients’ expectations. Materials and Methods: 204 patients with a diagnosis of shoulder instability scheduled for surgical treatment were included in this prospective multicentric study. Preoperatively, objective and subjective scores were obtained and patients were asked about their postoperative expectations. Additionally, 25 surgeons were interviewed with regard to what they think their patients expect from the surgery using standardized questions. Results: With regard to postoperative expectations surveyed by the Hospital for Special Surgery questionnaire (HSS), the most important goal to achieve for the patients was ‘stopping the shoulder from dislocation’, followed by ‘to improve the ability to exercise or participate in sports’ and ‘being the shoulder to be back the way it was before the issue started’. The ranking of factors for patients was ‘stability’ as the most important to achieve, followed by ‘movement’, ‘strength’, ‘pain’ and ‘cosmetics’. For surgeons, the order was ‘stability’ (p = 0.004 **), ‘movement’ (p = 0.225), ‘pain’ (p = 0.509), ‘strength’ (p = 0.007 **) and ‘cosmetics’ (p = 0.181). There was a significant difference between patients and surgeons with regard to gaining stability at the cost of movement (p = 0.001 **). Conclusion: Patients and surgeons expectations regarding outcome after surgical shoulder stabilization procedures are quite similar with limited topics of disagreement. Generally, surgeons tend to overrate the importance of stability at the costs of other factors