Trophic relationships between protists and bacteria and fungi drive the biogeography of rhizosphere soil microbial community and impact plant physiological and ecological functions.

Rhizosphere microorganisms play a vital role in enhancing plant health, productivity, and the accumulation of secondary metabolites. Currently, there is a limited understanding of the ecological processes that control the assembly of community. To address the role of microbial interactions in assembly and for functioning of the rhizosphere soil microbiota, we collected rhizosphere soil samples from Anisodus tanguticus on the Tibetan Plateau spanning 1500 kilometers, and sequenced the bacteria, fungi, archaea, and protist communities. We observed a significant but weak distance-decay relationship in the microbial communities of rhizosphere soil. Our comprehensive analysis of spatial, abiotic, and biotic factors showed that trophic relationships between protists and bacteria and fungi predominantly influenced the alpha and beta diversity of bacterial, fungal, and protistan communities, while abiotic factors had a greater impact on archaeal communities, including soil pH, available phosphorus, total phosphorus and mean annual temperature. Importantly, microbial interactions had a more significant influence on Anisodus tanguticus physiological and ecological functions compared to individual microorganisms. Network analyses revealed that bacteria occupy a central position of the co-occurrence network and play a crucial role of connector within this community. The addition of protists increased the stability of bacterial, fungal, and archaeal networks. Overall, our findings indicate that trophic relationships play an important role in assembly and for functioning of the rhizosphere soil microbiota. Bacterial communities serve as a crucial link between different kingdoms of microorganisms in the rhizosphere community. These findings help us to fully harness the beneficial functions of rhizosphere microorganisms for plants and achieve sustainable use of biological resources.

Evidence-Based Management of Depression in Palliative Care: A Systematic Review.

Depression can be quite common in the palliative care population. The estimated prevalence ranges from 24% to 70%. Depression in this population leads to a decreased quality of life and may lead to a desire for an earlier death. We conducted a systematic review to establish a better understanding of the available treatment interventions, both pharmacological and nonpharmacological specific to the palliative population. PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases were searched using the MeSH terms: Palliative Care, Palliative Medicine, Terminal Illness, End of Life Care, and Depression or Depressive Disorder, as well as the keywords palliative care, care palliative, and depression. We considered all published peer-reviewed articles written in English and pertaining to humans. Articles were hand searched from citations. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for study quality appraisal. Thirty-nine eligible articles were found; 29 articles examined nonpharmacological options, while 10 focused on pharmacological options. The 29 articles discussing nonpharmacological methods discussed 22 interventions. Of the 22 interventions, 10 showed therapeutic benefit. Of the 10 studies focusing on pharmacological interventions, seven showed therapeutic benefit. This is the first systematic review that examined both nonpharmacological and pharmacological methods to treat depression in the palliative setting. There is evidence to indicate that methylphenidate and antidepressants can provide a therapeutic benefit for palliative care patients with depressive symptoms. This benefit may be enhanced when these medications are used in combination. The use of music therapy or future-focused psychotherapy may also be beneficial in the treatment of depression.

Why are hospital doctors not referring to Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry? - a systemic review.

BACKGROUND: Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry (CLP) is a subspecialty of psychiatry that provides care to inpatients under non-psychiatric care. Despite evidence of benefits of CLP for inpatients with psychiatric comorbidities, referral rates from hospital doctors remain low. This review aims to understand barriers to CLP inpatient referral as described in the literature. METHODS: We searched on Medline, PsychINFO, CINAHL and SCOPUS, using MESH and the following keywords: 1) Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry, Consultation Liaison Psychiatry, Consultation Psychiatry, Liaison Psychiatry, Hospital Psychiatry, Psychosomatic Medicine, the 2) Referral, Consultation, Consultancy and 3) Inpatient, Hospitalized patient, Hospitalized patient. We considered papers published between 1 Jan 1965 and 30 Sep 2015 and all articles written in English that contribute to understanding of barriers to CLP referral were included. RESULTS: Thirty-five eligible articles were found and they were grouped thematically into three categories: (1) Systemic factors; (2) Referrer factors; (3) Patient factors. Systemic factors that improves referrals include a dedicated CLP service, active CLP consultant and collaborative screening of patients. Referrer factors that increases referrals include doctors of internal medicine specialty and comfortable with CLP. Patients more likely to be referred tend to be young, has psychiatric history, live in an urban setting or has functional psychosis. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review that examines factors that influence CLP inpatient referrals. Although there is research in this area, it is of limited quality. Education could be provided to hospital doctors to better recognise mental illness. Collaborative screening of vulnerable groups could prevent inpatients from missing out on psychiatric care. CLP clinicians should use the knowledge gained in this review to provide quality engagement with referrers.