Linking Auxin with Photosynthetic Rate via Leaf Venation

International audienceLand plants lose vast quantities of water to the atmosphere during photosynthetic gas exchange. In angiosperms, a complex network of veins irrigates the leaf, and it is widely held that the density and placement of these veins determines maximum leaf hydraulic capacity and thus maximum photosynthetic rate. This theory is largely based on interspecific comparisons and has never been tested using vein mutants to examine the specific impact of leaf vein morphology on plant water relations. Here we characterize mutants at the Crispoid (Crd) locus in pea (Pisum sativum), which have altered auxin homeostasis and activity in developing leaves, as well as reduced leaf vein density and aberrant placement of free-ending veinlets. This altered vein phenotype in crd mutant plants results in a significant reduction in leaf hydraulic conductance and leaf gas exchange. We find Crispoid to be a member of the YUCCA family of auxin biosynthetic genes. Our results link auxin biosynthesis with maximum photosynthetic rate through leaf venation and substantiate the theory that an increase in the density of leaf veins coupled with their efficient placement can drive increases in leaf photosynthetic capacity

Bilateral Remote Ischemic Conditioning in Children:a two-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial in young children undergoing cardiac surgery

Objective: The study objective was to determine whether adequately delivered bilateral remote ischemic preconditioning is cardioprotective in young children undergoing surgery for 2 common congenital heart defects with or without cyanosis.Methods: We performed a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial at 2 centers in the United Kingdom. Children aged 3 to 36 months undergoing tetralogy of Fallot repair or ventricular septal defect closure were randomized 1:1 to receive bilateral preconditioning or sham intervention. Participants were followed up until hospital discharge or 30 days. The primary outcome was area under the curve for high-sensitivity troponin-T in the first 24 hours after surgery, analyzed by intention-to-treat. Right atrial biopsies were obtained in selected participants.Results: Between October 2016 and December 2020, 120 eligible children were randomized to receive bilateral preconditioning (n = 60) or sham intervention (n = 60). The primary outcome, area under the curve for high-sensitivity troponin-T, was higher in the preconditioning group (mean: 70.0 ± 50.9 μg/L/h, n = 56) than in controls (mean: 55.6 ± 30.1 μg/L/h, n = 58) (mean difference, 13.2 μg/L/h; 95% CI, 0.5-25.8; P = .04). Subgroup analyses did not show a differential treatment effect by oxygen saturations (pinteraction = .25), but there was evidence of a differential effect by underlying defect (pinteraction = .04). Secondary outcomes and myocardial metabolism, quantified in atrial biopsies, were not different between randomized groups.Conclusions: Bilateral remote ischemic preconditioning does not attenuate myocardial injury in children undergoing surgical repair for congenital heart defects, and there was evidence of potential harm in unstented tetralogy of Fallot. The routine use of remote ischemic preconditioning cannot be recommended for myocardial protection during pediatric cardiac surgery

Describing the impact of health research: a Research Impact Framework

BACKGROUND: Researchers are increasingly required to describe the impact of their work, e.g. in grant proposals, project reports, press releases and research assessment exercises. Specialised impact assessment studies can be difficult to replicate and may require resources and skills not available to individual researchers. Researchers are often hard-pressed to identify and describe research impacts and ad hoc accounts do not facilitate comparison across time or projects. METHODS: The Research Impact Framework was developed by identifying potential areas of health research impact from the research impact assessment literature and based on research assessment criteria, for example, as set out by the UK Research Assessment Exercise panels. A prototype of the framework was used to guide an analysis of the impact of selected research projects at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Additional areas of impact were identified in the process and researchers also provided feedback on which descriptive categories they thought were useful and valid vis-à-vis the nature and impact of their work. RESULTS: We identified four broad areas of impact: I. Research-related impacts; II. Policy impacts; III. Service impacts: health and intersectoral and IV. Societal impacts. Within each of these areas, further descriptive categories were identified. For example, the nature of research impact on policy can be described using the following categorisation, put forward by Weiss: Instrumental use where research findings drive policy-making; Mobilisation of support where research provides support for policy proposals; Conceptual use where research influences the concepts and language of policy deliberations and Redefining/wider influence where research leads to rethinking and changing established practices and beliefs. CONCLUSION: Researchers, while initially sceptical, found that the Research Impact Framework provided prompts and descriptive categories that helped them systematically identify a range of specific and verifiable impacts related to their work (compared to ad hoc approaches they had previously used). The framework could also help researchers think through implementation strategies and identify unintended or harmful effects. The standardised structure of the framework facilitates comparison of research impacts across projects and time, which is useful from analytical, management and assessment perspectives

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background Third-generation aromatase inhibitors are more effective than tamoxifen for preventing recurrence in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive invasive breast cancer. However, it is not known whether anastrozole is more effective than tamoxifen for women with hormone-receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Here, we compare the efficacy of anastrozole with that of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Methods In a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we recruited women who had been diagnosed with locally excised, hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Eligible women were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by central computer allocation to receive 1 mg oral anastrozole or 20 mg oral tamoxifen every day for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by major centre or hub and was done in blocks (six, eight, or ten). All trial personnel, participants, and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation and only the trial statistician had access to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was all recurrence, including recurrent DCIS and new contralateral tumours. All analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis (in all women who were randomised and did not revoke consent for their data to be included) and proportional hazard models were used to compute hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN37546358. Results Between March 3, 2003, and Feb 8, 2012, we enrolled 2980 postmenopausal women from 236 centres in 14 countries and randomly assigned them to receive anastrozole (1449 analysed) or tamoxifen (1489 analysed). Median follow-up was 7·2 years (IQR 5·6–8·9), and 144 breast cancer recurrences were recorded. We noted no statistically significant difference in overall recurrence (67 recurrences for anastrozole vs 77 for tamoxifen; HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·64–1·23]). The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95% CI <1·25), but its superiority to tamoxifen was not (p=0·49). A total of 69 deaths were recorded (33 for anastrozole vs 36 for tamoxifen; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·58–1·50], p=0·78), and no specific cause was more common in one group than the other. The number of women reporting any adverse event was similar between anastrozole (1323 women, 91%) and tamoxifen (1379 women, 93%); the side-effect profiles of the two drugs differed, with more fractures, musculoskeletal events, hypercholesterolaemia, and strokes with anastrozole and more muscle spasm, gynaecological cancers and symptoms, vasomotor symptoms, and deep vein thromboses with tamoxifen. Conclusions No clear efficacy differences were seen between the two treatments. Anastrozole offers another treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS, which may be be more appropriate for some women with contraindications for tamoxifen. Longer follow-up will be necessary to fully evaluate treatment differences

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative sars-cov-2 infection: An international cohort study

Background The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (740%) had emergency surgery and 280 (248%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (261%) patients. 30-day mortality was 238% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (512%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 380% (219 of 577), accounting for 817% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 175 [95% CI 128-240], p&lt;00001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (230 [165-322], p&lt;00001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3-5 versus grades 1-2 (235 [157-353], p&lt;00001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (155 [101-239], p=0046), emergency versus elective surgery (167 [106-263], p=0026), and major versus minor surgery (152 [101-231], p=0047). Interpretation Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Idarubicin dose escalation during consolidation therapy for adult acute myeloid leukemia

Purpose Higher doses of the anthracycline daunorubicin during induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have been shown to improve remission rates and survival. We hypothesized that improvements in outcomes in adult AML may be further achieved by increased anthracycline dose during consolidation therapy. Patients and Methods Patients with AML in complete remission after induction therapy were randomly assigned to receive two cycles of consolidation therapy with cytarabine 100 mg/m daily for 5 days, etoposide 75 mg/m daily for 5 days, and idarubicin 9 mg/m daily for either 2 or 3 days (standard and intensive arms, respectively). The primary end point was leukemia-free survival (LFS). Results Two hundred ninety-three patients 16 to 60 years of age, excluding those with core binding factor AML and acute promyelocytic leukemia, were randomly assigned to treatment groups (146 to the standard arm and 147 to the intensive arm). Both groups were balanced for age, karyotypic risk, and FLT3–internal tandem duplication and NPM1 gene mutations. One hundred twenty patients in the standard arm (82%) and 95 patients in the intensive arm (65%) completed planned consolidation (P, .001). Durations of severe neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were prolonged in the intensive arm, but there were no differences in serious nonhematological toxicities. With a median follow-up of 5.3 years (range, 0.6 to 9.9 years), there was a statistically significant improvement in LFS in the intensive arm compared with the standard arm (3-year LFS, 47% [95% CI, 40% to 56%] v 35% [95% CI, 28% to 44%]; P = .045). At 5 years, the overall survival rate was 57% in the intensive arm and 47% in the standard arm (P = .092). There was no evidence of selective benefit of intensive consolidation within the cytogenetic or FLT3–internal tandem duplication and NPM1 gene mutation subgroups. Conclusion An increased cumulative dose of idarubicin during consolidation therapy for adult AML resulted in improved LFS, without increased nonhematologic toxicity

Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls

Background The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea. Methods We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up. Findings We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01–1.03), male (1.54, 1.16–2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06–3.13 and 4.19, 2.14–8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09–2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00–1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00–1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission). Interpretation Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19. Funding PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders