Fructan as a New Carbohydrate Sink in Transgenic Potato Plants.

Fructans are polyfructose molecules that function as nonstructural storage carbohydrates in several plant species that are important crops. We have been studying plants for their ability to synthesize and degrade fructans to determine if this ability is advantageous. We have also been analyzing the ability to synthesize fructan in relation to other nonstructural carbohydrate storage forms like starch. To study this, we induced fructan accumulation in normally non-fructan-storing plants and analyzed the metabolic and physiological properties of such plants. The normally non-fructan-storing potato plant was modified by introducing the microbial fructosyltransferase genes so that it could accumulate fructans. Constructs were created so that the fructosyltransferase genes of either Bacillus subtilis (sacB) or Streptococcus mutans (ftf) were fused to the vacuolar targeting sequence of the yeast carboxypeptidase Y (cpy) gene. These constructs were placed under the control of the constitutive cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter and introduced into potato tissue. The regenerated potato plants accumulated high molecular mass (>5 [times] 106 D) fructan molecules in which the degree of polymerization of fructose units exceeded 25,000. Fructan accumulation was detected in every plant tissue tested. The fructan content in the transgenic potato plants tested varied between 1 and 30% of dry weight in leaves and 1 and 7% of dry weight in microtubers. Total nonstructural neutral carbohydrate content in leaves of soil-grown plants increased dramatically from 7% in the wild type to 35% in transgenic plants. Our results demonstrated that potato plants can be manipulated to store a foreign carbohydrate by introducing bacterial fructosyltransferase genes. This modification affected photosynthate partitioning in microtubers and leaves and increased nonstructural carbohydrate content in leaves

Safe shortening of antibiotic treatment duration for complicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAFE trial): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial comparing 4 and 6 weeks of antibiotic treatment

Introduction A major knowledge gap in the treatment of complicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) is the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy. Safe shortening of antibiotic therapy has the potential to reduce adverse drug events, length of hospital stay and costs. The objective of the SAFE trial is to evaluate whether 4 weeks of antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to 6 weeks in patients with complicated SAB.Methods and analysis The SAFE-trial is a multicentre, non-inferiority, open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial evaluating 4 versus 6 weeks of antibiotic therapy for complicated SAB. The study is performed in 15 university hospitals and general hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible patients are adults with methicillin-susceptible SAB with evidence of deep-seated or metastatic infection and/or predictors of complicated SAB. Only patients with a satisfactory clinical response to initial antibiotic treatment are included. Patients with infected prosthetic material or an undrained abscess of 5 cm or more at day 14 of adequate antibiotic treatment are excluded. Primary outcome is success of therapy after 180 days, a combined endpoint of survival without evidence of microbiologically confirmed disease relapse. Assuming a primary endpoint occurrence of 90% in the 6 weeks group, a non-inferiority margin of 7.5% is used. Enrolment of 396 patients in total is required to demonstrate non-inferiority of shorter antibiotic therapy with a power of 80%. Currently, 152 patients are enrolled in the study.Ethics and dissemination This is the first randomised controlled trial evaluating duration of antibiotic therapy for complicated SAB. Non-inferiority of 4 weeks of treatment would allow shortening of treatment duration in selected patients with complicated SAB. This study is approved by the Medical Ethics Committee VUmc (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) and registered under NL8347 (the Netherlands Trial Register). Results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration number NL8347 (the Netherlands Trial Register)

Preliminary report on Lower Tertiary - Upper Cretaceous and Dinantian-Famennian rocks in the boreholes Heugem-1/1 A and Kastanjelaan-2 (Maastricht, The Netherlands).

peer reviewe

Efficacy of "seeking safety" in a Dutch population of traumatized substance-use disorder outpatients: Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 121948.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)Background Traumatic experiences and, more specifically, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are highly prevalent among substance use disorder (SUD) patients. This comorbidity is associated with worse treatment outcomes in substance use treatment programs and more crisis interventions. International guidelines advise an integrated approach to the treatment of trauma related problems and SUD. Seeking Safety is an integrated treatment program that was developed in the United States. The aim of the current study is to test the efficacy of this program in the Netherlands in an outpatient SUD population. Methods/Design A randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be used to test the efficacy of Seeking Safety compared to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) in a population of SUD outpatients. Each treatment will consist of 12 group sessions. The primary outcome measure will be substance use severity. Secondary outcome measures are PTSD and trauma symptoms, coping skills, functioning, and cognitions. Questionnaires will be administered at the start of treatment, at the end of treatment (three months after the start of treatment) and at follow-up (six months after the start of treatment). Discussion This study protocol presents a RCT in which the efficacy of an integrated treatment for comorbid PTSD and SUD, Seeking Safety, is evaluated in a SUD outpatient population compared to CBT. It is expected that the intervention group will show significantly more improvement in substance use severity compared to the control group at end-of-treatment and at follow-up. Furthermore, a lower drop-out rate is expected for the intervention group. If the intervention proves to be effective, it can be implemented. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted to evaluate the two treatments.8 p