Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
New Phytol ; 242(4): 1753-1770, 2024 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38146206

RESUMEN

Global change is reshaping Earth's biodiversity, but the changing distributions of nonpathogenic fungi remain largely undocumented, as do mechanisms enabling invasions. The ectomycorrhizal Amanita phalloides is native to Europe and invasive in North America. Using population genetics and genomics, we sought to describe the life history traits of this successfully invading symbiotic fungus. To test whether death caps spread underground using hyphae, or aboveground using sexual spores, we mapped and genotyped mushrooms from European and US sites. Larger genetic individuals (genets) would suggest spread mediated by vegetative growth, while many small genets would suggest dispersal mediated by spores. To test whether genets are ephemeral or persistent, we also sampled from populations over time. At nearly every site and across all time points, mushrooms resolve into small genets. Individuals frequently establish from sexual spores. But at one Californian site, a single individual measuring nearly 10 m across dominated. At two Californian sites, the same genetic individuals were discovered in 2004, 2014, and 2015, suggesting single individuals (both large and small) can reproduce repeatedly over relatively long timescales. A flexible life history strategy combining both mycelial growth and spore dispersal appears to underpin the invasion of this deadly perennial ectomycorrhizal fungus.


Asunto(s)
Amanita , Bosques , Especies Introducidas , Esporas Fúngicas , Amanita/genética , Amanita/crecimiento & desarrollo , Amanita/fisiología , Factores de Tiempo
2.
Environ Microbiome ; 19(1): 56, 2024 Aug 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39095861

RESUMEN

Soil microbiomes are heterogeneous, complex microbial communities. Metagenomic analysis is generating vast amounts of data, creating immense challenges in sequence assembly and analysis. Although advances in technology have resulted in the ability to easily collect large amounts of sequence data, soil samples containing thousands of unique taxa are often poorly characterized. These challenges reduce the usefulness of genome-resolved metagenomic (GRM) analysis seen in other fields of microbiology, such as the creation of high quality metagenomic assembled genomes and the adoption of genome scale modeling approaches. The absence of these resources restricts the scale of future research, limiting hypothesis generation and the predictive modeling of microbial communities. Creating publicly available databases of soil MAGs, similar to databases produced for other microbiomes, has the potential to transform scientific insights about soil microbiomes without requiring the computational resources and domain expertise for assembly and binning.

3.
Fontilles, Rev. leprol ; 32(4): 263-271, ene.-abr. 2020. tab, graf
Artículo en Español | IBECS (España) | ID: ibc-193432

RESUMEN

OBJETIVO: La profilaxis post-exposición de la lepra con dosis única de rifampicina (SDR-PEP) ha demostrado ser efectiva y aplicable y está recomendada por la OMS desde 2018. Esta caja de herramientas SDR-PEP se desarrolló a través de la experiencia de la profilaxis lepra post-eliminación (LPEP). Se ha diseñado para facilitar y estandarizar la implementación del seguimiento de contactos y la administración SDR-PEP en regiones y países que iniciaron la intervención. RESULTADOS: Se desarrollaron cuatro instrumentos, incorporando la evidencia existente actual para SDR-PEP y los métodos y enseñanzas del proyecto LPEP en ocho países. (1) El conjunto de diapositivas Powerpoint política/apoyo que ayudarán a los programadores sobre la evidencia, practicabilidad y recursos necesarios para SDR-PEP, (2) La colección de diapositivas PowerPoint sobre formación e implementación en el campo para formar al personal implicado en el seguimiento de contactos y PEP con SDR, (3) manual genérico de campo SDR-PEP que puede ser usado para formar un protocolo específico de campo para el seguimiento de contactos y SDR-PEP como referencia para el personal directamente implicado. Finalmente, (4) el manual director SDR-PEP, que resume los distintos componentes de la caja de herramientas y contiene las instrucciones para su uso. CONCLUSIÓN: En respuesta al interés manifestado por varios países de implementar el seguimiento de contactos de lepra con PEP con SDR, con las recomendaciones OMS sobre SDR-PEP, esta caja de herramientas basada en la evidencia concreta pero flexible, ha sido diseñada para servir a los directores de programas nacionales de lepra con un medio práctico para trasladar los planteamientos a la práctica. Está disponible gratuitamente en la página de Infolep y actualizada constantemente: https://www.leprosy-information.org/keytopic/leprosy-post-exposure-prophylaxis-lpep-programme


OBJECTIVE: Leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin (SDRPEP) has proven effective and feasible, and is recommended by WHO since 2018. This SDR-PEP toolkit was developed through the experience of the leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis (LPEP) programme. It has been designed to facilitate and standardise the implementation of contact tracing and SDR-PEP administration in regions and countries that start the intervention. RESULTS: Four tools were developed, incorporating the current evidence for SDRPEP and the methods and learnings from the LPEP project in eight countries. (1) the SDR-PEP policy/advocacy PowerPoint slide deck which will help to inform policy makers about the evidence, practicalities and resources needed for SDR-PEP, (2) the SDR-PEP field implementation training PowerPoint slide deck to be used to train front line staff to implement contact tracing and PEP with SDR, (3) the SDR-PEP generic field guide which can be used as a basis to create a location specific field protocol for contact tracing and SDR-PEP serving as a reference for frontline field staff. Finally, (4) the SDR-PEP toolkit guide, summarising the different components of the toolkit and providing instructions on its optimal use. CONCLUSION: In response to interest expressed by countries to implement contact tracing and leprosy PEP with SDR in the light of the WHO recommendation of SDRPEP, this evidence-based, concrete yet flexible toolkit has been designed to serve national leprosy programme managers and support them with the practical means to translate policy into practice. The toolkit is freely accessible on the Infolep homepages and updated as required: https://www.leprosy-information.org/keytopic/leprosy-postexposure-prophylaxis-lpep-programme


Asunto(s)
Humanos , Profilaxis Posexposición/métodos , Lepra/prevención & control , Rifampin/administración & dosificación , Leprostáticos/administración & dosificación , Dosis Única
4.
Fontilles, Rev. leprol ; 31(5): 375-393, mayo-ago. 2018. ilus, tab, graf
Artículo en Español | IBECS (España) | ID: ibc-175731

RESUMEN

Se requieren nuevos planteamientos para incrementar el control de la lepra, disminuir el número de personas afectadas y cortar la transmisión. Para conseguir este objetivo las mejores soluciones son la detección precoz. El cribaje de contactos y la quimioprofilaxis. El Programa Profilaxis Post-exposición a la Lepra (LPEP) ayuda a demostrar la viabilidad de integrar el rastreo de contactos y dosis única de rifampicina (SDR) en las actividades rutinarias de control de la enfermedad. El programa LPEP está implementado entre los programas de control de la lepra de Brasil, Camboya, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka y Tanzania. Se centra en tres objetivos: rastro de contactos de nuevos pacientes diagnosticados de lepra, cribaje de contactos y administración de SDR a los contactos seleccionados. Las adaptaciones de protocolos países-específicos se refieren a la definición de contacto, edad mínima para SDR y personal implicado. La calidad de la evidencia se mantiene mediante coordinación central, documentación detallada y supervisión. Ya se han completado alrededor de 2 años de trabajo de campo en siete países en julio de 2017. Los 5,941 pacientes índice registrados (89·4% de los registrados) han identificado un total de 123,311 contactos, de los cuales el 99·1% ha sido rastreado y cribado. De entre ellos, se identificaron 406 nuevos pacientes de lepra (329/100,000) y a 10,883 (8·9%) no se les administró SDR por diversos motivos. También 785 contactos (6·7%) rehusó tomar la profilaxis con SDR. En total, se administró SDR al 89·0% de los contactos registrados. La profilaxis post-exposición con SDR es segura; se puede integrar en los programas rutinarios de control de la lepra y es generalmente bien aceptada por el paciente índice, sus contactos y el personal sanitario. El programa también consigue estimular los programas locales de control de la lepra


Innovative approaches are required to further enhance leprosy control, reduce the number of people developing leprosy, and curb transmission. Early case detection, contact screening, and chemoprophylaxis currently is the most promising approach to achieve this goal. The Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) programme generates evidence on the feasibility of integrating contact tracing and single-dose rifampicin (SDR) administration into routine leprosy control activities in different settings. The LPEP programme is implemented within the leprosy control programmes of Brazil, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. Focus is on three key interventions: tracing the contacts of newly diagnosed leprosy patients; screening the contacts for leprosy; and administering SDR to eligible contacts. Country-specific protocol adaptations refer to contact definition, minimal age for SDR, and staff involved. Central coordination, detailed documentation and rigorous supervision ensure quality evidence. Around 2 years of field work had been completed in seven countries by July 2017. The 5,941 enrolled index patients (89·4% of the registered) identified a total of 123,311 contacts, of which 99·1% were traced and screened. Among them, 406 new leprosy patients were identified (329/100,000), and 10,883 (8·9%) were excluded from SDR for various reasons. Also, 785 contacts (0·7%) refused the prophylactic treatment with SDR. Overall, SDR was administered to 89·0% of the listed contacts. Post-exposure prophylaxis with SDR is safe; can be integrated into the routines of different leprosy control programmes; and is generally well accepted by index patients, their contacts and the health workforce. The programme has also invigorated local leprosy control


Asunto(s)
Humanos , Asunción de Riesgos , Profilaxis Posexposición/métodos , Profilaxis Posexposición/organización & administración , Lepra/epidemiología , Lepra/prevención & control , Rifampin/administración & dosificación , Diagnóstico Precoz , Lepra/transmisión
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA