Silicon enhancement for endorsement of Xanthomonas albilineans infection in sugarcane.

Silicon (Si) is considered to be a plant growth and development regulator element as well as provide the regulatory response against various biotic stressors. However, the potential mechanism of Si enhancement to regulate plant disease resistance remains to be studied. Therefore, the current study evaluated the effects of Si application on the performance of sugarcane against Xanthomonas albilineans (Xa) infection. Si was applied exogenously (0, 3.85 and 7.70 g Si/kg soil) and the results show that plant height, stem circumference and leaf width of siliconized sugarcane have been improved, which effectively reduced the disease index (0.17-0.21) and incidence (58.2%-69.1%) after Xa infection. Lowest values of MDA (348.5 nmol g-1 FW) and H2O2 (3539.4 mmol/L) were observed in 7.70 g Si/kg soil followed by in 3.85 g Si/kg soil (MDA: 392.6 nmol g-1 FW and H2O2: 3134.6 mmol/L) than that of the control. Whereas, PAL enzyme activity (50.8 mmol/L), JA (230.2 mmol/L) and SA (2.7 ug mL-1) contents were significantly higher in 7.70 g Si/kg soil followed by in 3.85 g Si/kg soil (PAL: 46.3 mmol/L, JA: 182.7 mmol/L and SA: 2.4 ug mL-1) as compared to control. The lower MDA, H2O2 level and higher enzymatic activities were associated with the highest expression levels of their metabolic pathway associated genes i.e., ShMAPK1, ShLOX, ShPAL, ShAOS, ShAOC, ShC4H, ShCAT, Sh4CL and ShNPR1 (22.08, 15.56, 10.42, 3.35, 2.54, 2.14, 1.82, 1.67 and 1.22 folds, respectively) in 7.70 g Si/kg soil as compared to other experimental units and control. Overall, the results of current study indicates that siliconized sugarcane more actively regulates disease resistance through modulation of growth and MDA, H2O2, SA and JA associated metabolic pathways.

The efficacy and safety of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for ≥10-mm colorectal polyps: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a promising strategy for nonpedunculated colorectal polyp removal. However, the efficacy and safety of the technique for the treatment of ≥ 10-mm colorectal polyps remain unclear. We aimed to comprehensively assess the efficacy and safety of UEMR for polyps sized 10-19 mm and ≥ 20 mm. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles from January 2012 to November 2019. Primary outcomes were the rates of adverse events and residual polyps. Secondary outcomes were the complete resection, en bloc resection, and R0 resection rates. RESULTS: 18 articles including 1142 polyps from 1093 patients met our inclusion criteria. The overall adverse event and residual polyp rates were slightly lower for UEMR when removing colorectal polyps of 10-19 mm vs. ≥ 20 mm (3.5 % vs. 4.3 % and 1.2 % vs. 2.6 %, respectively). The UEMR-related complete resection rate was slightly higher for colorectal polyps of 10-19 mm vs. ≥ 20 mm (97.9 % vs. 92.0 %). However, the en bloc and R0 resection rates were dramatically higher for UEMR removal of polyps of 10-19 mm vs. ≥ 20 mm (83.4 % vs. 36.1 % and 73.0 % vs. 40.0 %, respectively). In addition, univariate meta-regression revealed that polyp size was an independent predictor for complete resection rate (P = 0.03) and en bloc resection (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: UEMR was an effective and safe technique for the removal of ≥ 10-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps. However, UEMR exhibited low en bloc and R0 resection rates for the treatment of ≥ 20-mm polyps.