| 1. |
- Deiner, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Human plasma biomarker responses to inhalational general anaesthesia without surgery
- 2020
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Anaesthesia. - : Elsevier BV. - 0007-0912. ; 125:3, s. 282-290
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Postoperative neurocognitive disorders may arise in part from adverse effects of general anaesthetics on the CNS, especially in older patients or individuals otherwise vulnerable to neurotoxicity because of systemic disease or the presence of pre-existing neuropathology. Previous studies have documented cytokine and injury biomarker responses to surgical procedures that included general anaesthesia, but it is not clear to what degree anaesthetics contribute to these responses. Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study of 59 healthy volunteers aged 40-80 yr who did not undergo surgery. Plasma markers of neurological injury and inflammation were measured immediately before and 5 h after induction of general anaesthesia with 1 minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane. Biomarkers included interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), C-reactive protein (CRP), and neural injury (tau, neurofilament light [NF-L], and glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP]). Results: Baseline biomarkers were in the normal range, although NF-L and GFAP were elevated as a function of age. At 5 h after induction of anaesthesia, plasma tau, NF-L, and GFAP were significantly decreased relative to baseline. Plasma IL-6 was significantly increased after anaesthesia, but by a biologically insignificant degree (<1 pg ml(-1)); plasma TNF-alpha and CRP were unchanged. Conclusions: Sevoflurane general anaesthesia without surgery, even in older adults, did not provoke an inflammatory state or neuronal injury at a concentration that is detectable by an acute elevation of measured plasma biomarkers in the early hours after exposure.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Rodriguez-Ezpeleta, Naiara, et al.
(författare)
-
Trade-offs between reducing complex terminology and producing accurate interpretations from environmental DNA : Comment on “Environmental DNA: What's behind the term?” by Pawlowski et al., (2020)
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Molecular Ecology. - : Wiley. - 0962-1083 .- 1365-294X. ; 30:19, s. 4601-4605
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In a recent paper, “Environmental DNA: What's behind the term? Clarifying the terminology and recommendations for its future use in biomonitoring,” Pawlowski et al. argue that the term eDNA should be used to refer to the pool of DNA isolated from environmental samples, as opposed to only extra-organismal DNA from macro-organisms. We agree with this view. However, we are concerned that their proposed two-level terminology specifying sampling environment and targeted taxa is overly simplistic and might hinder rather than improve clear communication about environmental DNA and its use in biomonitoring. This terminology is based on categories that are often difficult to assign and uninformative, and it overlooks a fundamental distinction within eDNA: the type of DNA (organismal or extra-organismal) from which ecological interpretations are derived.
|
|
| 5. |
- Hupało, Kamil, et al.
(författare)
-
An urban Blitz with a twist : rapid biodiversity assessment using aquatic environmental DNA
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Environmental DNA. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 2637-4943 .- 2637-4943. ; 3:1, s. 200-213
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- As global biodiversity declines, there is an increasing need to create an educated and engaged society. Having people of all ages participate in measuring biodiversity where they live helps to create awareness. Recently, the use of environmental DNA (eDNA) for biodiversity surveys has gained momentum. Here, we explore whether sampling eDNA and sequencing it can be used as a means of rapidly surveying urban biodiversity for educational purposes. We sampled 2 × 1 L of water from each of 15 locations in the city of Trondheim, Norway, including a variety of freshwater, marine, and brackish habitats. DNA was extracted, amplified in triplicate targeting the barcoding fragment of COI gene, and sequenced. The obtained data were analyzed on the novel mBRAVE platform, an online open‐access software and computing resource. The water samples were collected in 2 days by two people, and the laboratory analysis was completed in 5 days by one person. Overall, we detected the presence of 506 BINs identified as belonging to 435 taxa, representing at least 265 putative species. On average, only 5.4% of the taxa were shared among six replicates per site. Based on the observed diversity, three distinct clusters were detected and related to the geographic distribution of sites. There were some taxa shared between the habitats, with a substantial presence of terrestrial biota. Here we propose a new form of BioBlitz, where with noninvasive sampling effort combined with swift processing and straightforward online analyses, hundreds of species can be detected. Thus, using eDNA analysis of water is useful for rapid biodiversity surveys and valuable for educational purposes. We show that rapid eDNA surveys, combined with openly available services and software, can be used as an educational tool to raise awareness about the importance of biodiversity.
|
|
