Urban heat mitigation by green and blue infrastructure: Drivers, effectiveness, and future needs.

The combination of urbanization and global warming leads to urban overheating and compounds the frequency and intensity of extreme heat events due to climate change. Yet, the risk of urban overheating can be mitigated by urban green-blue-grey infrastructure (GBGI), such as parks, wetlands, and engineered greening, which have the potential to effectively reduce summer air temperatures. Despite many reviews, the evidence bases on quantified GBGI cooling benefits remains partial and the practical recommendations for implementation are unclear. This systematic literature review synthesizes the evidence base for heat mitigation and related co-benefits, identifies knowledge gaps, and proposes recommendations for their implementation to maximize their benefits. After screening 27,486 papers, 202 were reviewed, based on 51 GBGI types categorized under 10 main divisions. Certain GBGI (green walls, parks, street trees) have been well researched for their urban cooling capabilities. However, several other GBGI have received negligible (zoological garden, golf course, estuary) or minimal (private garden, allotment) attention. The most efficient air cooling was observed in botanical gardens (5.0 ± 3.5°C), wetlands (4.9 ± 3.2°C), green walls (4.1 ± 4.2°C), street trees (3.8 ± 3.1°C), and vegetated balconies (3.8 ± 2.7°C). Under changing climate conditions (2070-2100) with consideration of RCP8.5, there is a shift in climate subtypes, either within the same climate zone (e.g., Dfa to Dfb and Cfb to Cfa) or across other climate zones (e.g., Dfb [continental warm-summer humid] to BSk [dry, cold semi-arid] and Cwa [temperate] to Am [tropical]). These shifts may result in lower efficiency for the current GBGI in the future. Given the importance of multiple services, it is crucial to balance their functionality, cooling performance, and other related co-benefits when planning for the future GBGI. This global GBGI heat mitigation inventory can assist policymakers and urban planners in prioritizing effective interventions to reduce the risk of urban overheating, filling research gaps, and promoting community resilience.

Chromosomal aberrations in pregnancy and fetal loss: Insight on the effect of consanguinity, review of 1625 cases.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy loss affects 10%-15% of pregnancies and is caused by several factors, maternal and fetal. Most common cause is chromosomal aneuploidy and has traditionally been detected by karyotyping product of conception and/or fetal tissue. In recent years, array comparative genomic hybridization (a-CGH) has been used because of its higher detection and lower failure rates. METHODS: DNA was extracted from 1625 products of abortion or fetal tissue. In 1,104 cases both quantitative fluorescent-polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) and a-CGH, and in 521 cases only a-CGH, was performed. RESULTS: The detection rate using QF-PCR and a-CGH is 20% compared to 12.7%, overall, and 15.7%, excluding failed samples, by karyotypes in our center. QF-PCR and a-CGH failed in 1.9% of cases, while the failure rate for karyotypes was 20.1%. The difference of detection and failure rates is significant (p-value < 0.001 and p-value < 0.001 respectively). Unexpectedly we also found a significant difference in frequency of imbalances in related versus unrelated couples. (χ2  = 11.4926, p-value < 0.001). CONCLUSION: It is highly likely that the pregnancy loss in consanguineous couples is caused by other genetic and immune mechanisms. It is plausible that, through the same mechanism by which single gene disorders have a higher prevalence of manifesting disease in consanguineous couples, they can cause lethal genetic disorders leading to pregnancy loss and intra-uterine fetal death (IUFD) in these couples. Our findings suggest that this is a matter for further study as it will greatly influence the approach to counseling and managing consanguineous couples with pregnancy loss.

Prenatal Screening for Aneuploidies Using QF-PCR and Karyotyping: A Comprehensive Study in Iranian Population.

BACKGROUND: We have investigated the efficacy of QF-PCR for the prenatal recognition of common aneuploidy and compared our findings with cytogenetic results in our laboratories. METHODS: A total of 4058 prenatal samples (4031 amniotic fluid and 27 chorionic villous samples) were analyzed by QF-PCR using several selected STR markers together with amelogenin. Results were compared to those obtained by conventional cytogenetic analysis. RESULTS: We detected 139 (3.42%) numerical abnormalities in our subjects by QF-PCR. Concordant QF-PCR and karyotype results were obtained in 4001 (98.59%) of the samples. An abnormal karyotype associated with adverse clinical outcome undetected by QF-PCR was found in 16.66% (n = 28) of samples. Using QF-PCR alone, we were able to detect abnormalities in 98.59% of all referred families; however the karyotyping results improved the detection rate to 99.85% of the referred cases. Individuals with neonatal screening result with 1:10 risk ratio showed 11.29% abnormal karyotype while this number was 2.16% in mothers with risk ratio of 1:250 or less. CONCLUSION: In countries where large scale conventional cytogenetic is hampered by its high cost and lack of technical expertise, QF-PCR may be used as the first line of screening for detection of chromosomal abnormalities. We also recommend QF-PCR for all the families that are seeking prenatal diagnosis of single gene disorders aneuploidies screening to be added to their work up.