Evaluation of 16S rRNA gene PCR sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection: a prospective multicenter cross-sectional study

There is no standard method for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI). The contribution of 16S rRNA gene PCR sequencing on a routine basis remains to be defined. We performed a prospective multicenter study to assess the contributions of 16S rRNA gene assays in PJI diagnosis. Over a 2-year period, all patients suspected to have PJIs and a few uninfected patients undergoing primary arthroplasty (control group) were included. Five perioperative samples per patient were collected for culture and 16S rRNA gene PCR sequencing and one for histological examination. Three multicenter quality control assays were performed with both DNA extracts and crushed samples. The diagnosis of PJI was based on clinical, bacteriological, and histological criteria, according to Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines. A molecular diagnosis was modeled on the bacteriological criterion (≥ 1 positive sample for strict pathogens and ≥ 2 for commensal skin flora). Molecular data were analyzed according to the diagnosis of PJI. Between December 2010 and March 2012, 264 suspected cases of PJI and 35 control cases were included. PJI was confirmed in 215/264 suspected cases, 192 (89%) with a bacteriological criterion. The PJIs were monomicrobial (163 cases [85%]; staphylococci, n = 108; streptococci, n = 22; Gram-negative bacilli, n = 16; anaerobes, n = 13; others, n = 4) or polymicrobial (29 cases [15%]). The molecular diagnosis was positive in 151/215 confirmed cases of PJI (143 cases with bacteriological PJI documentation and 8 treated cases without bacteriological documentation) and in 2/49 cases without confirmed PJI (sensitivity, 73.3%; specificity, 95.5%). The 16S rRNA gene PCR assay showed a lack of sensitivity in the diagnosis of PJI on a multicenter routine basis

Uridine Metabolism in the Goldfish Retina During Optic Nerve Regeneration: Cell-Free Preparations

The activities of uridine kinase (EC 2.7.1.48), uridine monophosphate (UMP) kinase (EC 2.7.1.3.14), and uridine diphosphate (UDP) kinase (EC 2.7.4.6) were measured in retinal high-speed supernatant fractions following unilateral optic nerve crush in the goldfish. The enzyme activities followed a similar time course, with initial increases 2-3 days following nerve crush, peak activity at 4 days, and a gradual return to basal levels by day 21. The magnitude of the stimulation on day 4 was about 35% in each case. Activities of two enzymes of intermediary metabolism, pyruvate kinase (EC 2.7.1.40) and lactic dehydrogenase (EC 1.1.1.27), were not altered, indicating that the coordinate increases in nucleoside and nucleotide kinase activities were specific responses to the nerve injury. The increased labeling could not be explained by altered phosphohydrolytic activities. The nature of the enhancement was further studied in UDP kinase, the most active of the kinases examined. Neither low-molecular-weight components nor substrate availability could account for the observed increase in UDP kinase in the 4 day post-crush retinas. The K m , for UDP was unaltered, and a mixing experiment did not support the possibility that stimulatory or inhibitory factors played a role. The enhancement of UDP kinase activity was blocked by injection of actinomycin D following nerve crush. The results suggest that the observed increases in enzymes of uridine metabolism result from their increased formation following nerve crush.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/65504/1/j.1471-4159.1981.tb01714.x.pd

Toward a comprehensive view of cancer immune responsiveness: a synopsis from the SITC workshop.

Tumor immunology has changed the landscape of cancer treatment. Yet, not all patients benefit as cancer immune responsiveness (CIR) remains a limitation in a considerable proportion of cases. The multifactorial determinants of CIR include the genetic makeup of the patient, the genomic instability central to cancer development, the evolutionary emergence of cancer phenotypes under the influence of immune editing, and external modifiers such as demographics, environment, treatment potency, co-morbidities and cancer-independent alterations including immune homeostasis and polymorphisms in the major and minor histocompatibility molecules, cytokines, and chemokines. Based on the premise that cancer is fundamentally a disorder of the genes arising within a cell biologic process, whose deviations from normality determine the rules of engagement with the host\u27s response, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a task force of experts from various disciplines including, immunology, oncology, biophysics, structural biology, molecular and cellular biology, genetics, and bioinformatics to address the complexity of CIR from a holistic view. The task force was launched by a workshop held in San Francisco on May 14-15, 2018 aimed at two preeminent goals: 1) to identify the fundamental questions related to CIR and 2) to create an interactive community of experts that could guide scientific and research priorities by forming a logical progression supported by multiple perspectives to uncover mechanisms of CIR. This workshop was a first step toward a second meeting where the focus would be to address the actionability of some of the questions identified by working groups. In this event, five working groups aimed at defining a path to test hypotheses according to their relevance to human cancer and identifying experimental models closest to human biology, which include: 1) Germline-Genetic, 2) Somatic-Genetic and 3) Genomic-Transcriptional contributions to CIR, 4) Determinant(s) of Immunogenic Cell Death that modulate CIR, and 5) Experimental Models that best represent CIR and its conversion to an immune responsive state. This manuscript summarizes the contributions from each group and should be considered as a first milestone in the path toward a more contemporary understanding of CIR. We appreciate that this effort is far from comprehensive and that other relevant aspects related to CIR such as the microbiome, the individual\u27s recombined T cell and B cell receptors, and the metabolic status of cancer and immune cells were not fully included. These and other important factors will be included in future activities of the taskforce. The taskforce will focus on prioritization and specific actionable approach to answer the identified questions and implementing the collaborations in the follow-up workshop, which will be held in Houston on September 4-5, 2019

Correction to: Toward a comprehensive view of cancer immune responsiveness: a synopsis from the SITC workshop.

Following publication of the original article [1], the author reported that an author name, Roberta Zappasodi, was missed in the authorship list

ACC/AHA guideline update for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery - Executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee to Update the 1996 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery)

These guidelines represent an update of those published in 1996 and are intended for physicians who are involved in the preoperative, operative, and postoperative care of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. They provide a framework for considering cardiac risk of noncardiac surgery in a variety of patient and surgical situations. The overriding theme of these guidelines is that preoperative intervention is rarely necessary simply to lower the risk of surgery unless such intervention is indicated irrespective of the preoperative context. The purpose of preoperative evaluation is not simply to give medical clearance but rather to perform an evaluation of the patient’s current medical status; make recommendations concerning the evaluation, management, and risk of cardiac problems over the entire perioperative period; and provide a clinical risk profile that the patient, primary physician, anesthesiologist, and surgeon can use in making treatment decisions that may influence short- and long-term cardiac outcomes. The goal of the consultation is to identify the most appropriate testing and treatment strategies to optimize care of the patient, provide assessment of both short- and long-term cardiac risk, and avoid unnecessary testing in this era of cost containment

ACC/AHA guideline update for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery - Executive summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1996 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery)

These guidelines represent an update of those published in 1996 and are intended for physicians who are involved in the preoperative, operative, and postoperative care of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. They provide a framework for considering cardiac risk of noncardiac surgery in a variety of patient and surgical situations. The overriding theme of these guidelines is that preoperative intervention is rarely necessary simply to lower the risk of surgery unless such intervention is indicated irrespective of the preoperative context. The purpose of preoperative evaluation is not simply to give medical clearance but rather to perform an evaluation of the patient’s current medical status; make recommendations concerning the evaluation, management, and risk of cardiac problems over the entire perioperative period; and provide a clinical risk profile that the patient, primary physician, anesthesiologist, and surgeon can use in making treatment decisions that may influence short- and long-term cardiac outcomes. The goal of the consultation is to identify the most appropriate testing and treatment strategies to optimize care of the patient, provide assessment of both short- and long-term cardiac risk, and avoid unnecessary testing in this era of cost containment

ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing: Summary article. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to update the 1997 exercise testing guidelines)

"The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines regularly reviews existing guidelines to determine when an update or full revision is needed. This process gives priority to areas where major changes in text, and particularly recommendations, are mentioned on the basis of new understanding or evidence. Minor changes in verbiage and references are discouraged. The ACC/AHA guidelines for exercise testing that were published in 1997 have now been updated. The full-text guidelines incorporating the updated material are available on the Internet (www.acc.org or www.americanheart.org) in both a version that shows the changes in the 1997 guidelines in strike-over (deleted text) and highlighting (new text) and a “clean” version that fully incorporates the changes. This article describes the 10 major areas of change reflected in the update in a format that we hope can be read and understood as a stand-alone document. The table of contents from the full-length guideline (see next page) indicates the location of these changes. Interested readers are referred to the full-length Internet version to completely understand the context of these changes. All new references appear in boldface type; all original references appear in normal type.