Mercury sources to Lake Ozette and Lake Dickey : highly contaminated remote coastal lakes, Washington State, USA

Author Posting. © The Author(s), 2009. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Springer for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 208 (2009): 275-286, doi:10.1007/s11270-009-0165-y.Mercury concentrations in largemouth bass and mercury accumulation rates in age-dated sediment cores were examined at Lake Ozette and Lake Dickey in Washington State. Goals of the study were to compare concentrations in fish tissues at the two lakes with lakes in a larger statewide dataset and evaluate factors influencing lake loading at Ozette and Dickey, which may include: catchment disturbances, coastal mercury cycling, and the role of trans-Pacific Asian mercury. Mercury fish tissue concentrations at the lakes were among the highest recorded in Washington State. Wet deposition and historical atmospheric monitoring from the area show no indication of enhanced deposition from Asian sources or coastal atmospheric processes. Sediment core records from the lakes displayed rapidly increasing sedimentation rates coinciding with commercial logging. The unusually high mercury flux rates and mercury tissue concentrations recorded at Lake Ozette and Lake Dickey appear to be associated with logging within the catchments

TLR1/2, TLR7, and TLR9 Signals Directly Activate Human Peripheral Blood Naive and Memory B Cell Subsets to Produce Cytokines, Chemokines, and Hematopoietic Growth Factors

Recently, it has been reported that using multiple signals, murine and human B cells secrete several cytokines with pro-inflammatory and immunoregulatory properties. We present the first comprehensive analysis of 24 cytokines, chemokines, and hematopoietic growth factors production by purified human peripheral blood B cells (CD19+), and naive (CD19+CD27-) and memory (CD19+CD27+) B cells in response to direct and exclusive signaling provided by toll-like receptor (TLR) ligands Pam3CSK (TLR1/TLR2), Imiquimod (TLR7), and GpG-ODN2006 (TLR9). All three TLR ligands stimulated B cells (CD19+) to produce cytokines IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α, IL-13, and IL-10, and chemokines MIP-1α, MIP-1β, MCP-1, IP-10, and IL-8. However, GM-CSF and G-CSF production was predominantly induced by TLR2 agonist. Most cytokines/chemokines/hematopoietic growth factors were predominantly or exclusively produced by memory B cells, and in general, TLR2 signal was more powerful than signal provided viaTLR7 and TLR9. No significant secretion of eotaxin, IFN-α, IFN-γ, IL-2, IL-3, IL-4, IL-5, IL-7, IL-15, IL-17, IL-12p40, IL-12p70, and TNF-β (lymphotoxin) was observed. These data demonstrate that human B cells can be directly activated viaTLR1/TLR2, TLR7, and TLR9 to induce secretion of cytokines, chemokines, and hematopoietic growth factors and suggest a role of B cells in immune response against microbial pathogenesis and immune homeostasis

Cancer Cells Expressing Toll-like Receptors and the Tumor Microenvironment

Toll-like receptors (TLRs) play a crucial role in the innate immune response and the subsequent induction of adaptive immune responses against microbial infection or tissue injury. Recent findings show that functional TLRs are expressed not only on immune cells but also on cancer cells. TLRs play an active role in carcinogenesis and tumor progression during chronic inflammation that involves the tumor microenvironment. Damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) derived from injured normal epithelial cells and necrotic cancer cells appear to be present at significant levels in the tumor microenvironment, and their stimulation of specific TLRs can foster chronic inflammation. This review discusses how carcinogenesis, cancer progression, and site-specific metastasis are related to interactions between cancer cells, immune cells, and DAMPs through TLR activation in the tumor microenvironment

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.</p> <p>Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.</p> <p>Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.</p

Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation

Background: With the development of increasing evidence for the use of manipulation in the management of musculoskeletal conditions, there is growing interest in identifying the appropriate indications for care. Recently, attempts have been made to develop clinical prediction rules, however the validity of these clinical prediction rules remains unclear and their impact on care delivery has yet to be established. The current study was designed to evaluate the literature on the validity and reliability of the more common methods used by doctors of chiropractic to inform the choice of the site at which to apply spinal manipulation. Methods: Structured searches were conducted in Medline, PubMed, CINAHL and ICL, supported by hand searches of archives, to identify studies of the diagnostic reliability and validity of common methods used to identify the site of treatment application. To be included, studies were to present original data from studies of human subjects and be designed to address the region or location of care delivery. Only English language manuscripts from peer-reviewed journals were included. The quality of evidence was ranked using QUADAS for validity and QAREL for reliability, as appropriate. Data were extracted and synthesized, and were evaluated in terms of strength of evidence and the degree to which the evidence was favourable for clinical use of the method under investigation. Results: A total of 2594 titles were screened from which 201 articles met all inclusion criteria. The spectrum of manuscript quality was quite broad, as was the degree to which the evidence favoured clinical application of the diagnostic methods reviewed. The most convincing favourable evidence was for methods which confirmed or provoked pain at a specific spinal segmental level or region. There was also high quality evidence supporting the use, with limitations, of static and motion palpation, and measures of leg length inequality. Evidence of mixed quality supported the use, with limitations, of postural evaluation. The evidence was unclear on the applicability of measures of stiffness and the use of spinal x-rays. The evidence was of mixed quality, but unfavourable for the use of manual muscle testing, skin conductance, surface electromyography and skin temperature measurement. Conclusions: A considerable range of methods is in use for determining where in the spine to administer spinal manipulation. The currently published evidence falls across a spectrum ranging from strongly favourable to strongly unfavourable in regard to using these methods. In general, the stronger and more favourable evidence is for those procedures which take a direct measure of the presumptive site of care– methods involving pain provocation upon palpation or localized tissue examination. Procedures which involve some indirect assessment for identifying the manipulable lesion of the spine–such as skin conductance or thermography–tend not to be supported by the available evidence.https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-709X-21-3