Eur J Pharm Sci 2008, 97:632–653.CrossRef 25. Bimbo LM, Sarparanta

M, Santos HA, Airaksinen AJ, Mäkilä E, Laaksonen T, Peltonen L, Idasanutlin supplier Lehto VP, Hirvonen J, Salonen J: Biocompatibility of thermally hydrocarbonized porous silicon nanoparticles and their biodistribution in rats. ACS Nano 2010, 4:3023–3032.CrossRef 26. Salonen J, Lehto V-P: Fabrication and chemical surface modification of mesoporous silicon for biomedical applications. Hem Eng J 2008, 137:162–172. 27. Bimbo LM, Mäkilä E, Laaksonen T, Lehto VP, Salonen J, Hirvonen J, Santos HA: Drug permeation across intestinal epithelial cells using porous silicon nanoparticles. Biomaterials 2011, 32:2625–2633.CrossRef 28. Santos HA, Riikonen J, Salonen J, Mäkilä E, Heikkilä T, Laaksonen T, Peltonen L, Lehto VP, Hirvonen J: In vitro cytotoxicity of porous silicon microparticles: effect of the particle concentration, surface chemistry and size. Acta Biomater 2010, 6:2721–2731.CrossRef 29. Anglin EJ, Cheng L, Freeman WR, Sailor MJ: Porous silicon in drug delivery devices and materials. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2008, 60:1266–1277.CrossRef 30. McInnes SJ, Voelcker NH: Silicon-polymer hybrid materials for drug delivery. Future Med Chem 2009, 1:1051–1074.CrossRef 31. Fonder MA, Lazarus GS, Cowan DA, Aronson-Cook B, Kohli AR, Mamelak AJ: Treating the chronic wound: a practical approach to the care of nonhealing wounds and wound care

dressings. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008, 58:185–206.CrossRef 32. Hayek S, Atiyeh B, Zgheib E: Stewart-Bluefarb syndrome: review of the literature and case report of chronic ulcer treatment with heparan sulphate (Cacipliq20®). Cell press Int Wound J in Nirogacestat in vitro press. doi:10.1111/iwj.12074 33. Navati MS, Friedman JM: Sugar-derived glasses support thermal and photo-initiated electron transfer processes over macroscopic distances. J Biol Chem 2006, 281:36021–36028.CrossRef 34. Wright WW, Baez JC, Vanderkooi JM: Mixed trehalose/sucrose glasses used for protein incorporation as studied by infrared and optical spectroscopy. Anal Biochem 2002, 307:167–172.CrossRef 35. Mesároš Š, Grunfeld S, Mesárošová

A, Bustin D, Malinski T: Determination of nitric oxide saturated (stock) solution by chronoamperometry on a porphyrine microelectrode. Anal Chim Acta 1997, 339:265–270.CrossRef 36. Kojima H, Nakatsubo N, Kikuchi K, Kawahara S, Kirino Y, Nagoshi H, Hirata Y, Nagano T: Detection and imaging of nitric oxide with novel fluorescent indicators: diaminofluoresceins. Anal Chem 1998, 70:2446–2453.CrossRef 37. Zacharia IG, Deen WM: Diffusivity and solubility of nitric oxide in water and saline. Ann Biomed Eng 2005, 33:214–222.CrossRef 38. Qi L, Xu Z, Hu XJC, Zou X: Preparation and antibacterial activity of chitosan nanoparticles. Carbohydr Res 2004, 339:2693–2700.CrossRef 39. Pollock JS, Föstermann U, Mitchell JA, Warner TD, Schmidt HHHW, Nakane M, Murad F: Purification and characterization of particulate endothelium-derived relaxing factor synthase from cultured and native bovine aortic endothelial cells.

Clin Infect Dis 2009,48(3):e23–33.PubMedCrossRef 19. Brueggemann AB, Griffiths DT, Meats E, Peto T, Crook DW, Spratt BG: Clonal relationships between invasive and carriage Streptococcus pneumoniae and serotype- and clone-specific differences in invasive disease potential. J Infect Dis 2003,187(9):1424–1432.PubMedCrossRef 20. Sjostrom K, Spindler C, Ortqvist A, LY2874455 in vivo Kalin M, Sandgren A, Kuhlmann-Berenzon S, Henriques-Normark B: Clonal and capsular types decide whether

pneumococci will act as a primary or opportunistic pathogen. Clin Infect Dis 2006,42(4):451–459.PubMedCrossRef 21. Hiller NL, Janto B, Hogg JS, Boissy R, Yu S, Powell E, Keefe R, Ehrlich NE, Shen K, Hayes J, et al.: Comparative genomic analyses of seventeen Streptococcus pneumoniae strains: insights into the pneumococcal supragenome. J Bacteriol 2007,189(22):8186–8195.PubMedCrossRef 22. Camilli R, Del Grosso M, Iannelli F, Pantosti A: New genetic element carrying the erythromycin resistance determinant erm (TR) in Streptococcus pneumoniae . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008,52(2):619–625.PubMedCrossRef 23. Tettelin H, Nelson KE, Paulsen IT, Eisen JA, Read TD, Peterson S, Heidelberg J, DeBoy RT, Haft DH, Dodson RJ, et al.: Complete genome sequence of a virulent isolate of Streptococcus pneumoniae . Science 2001,20(293):498–506.CrossRef 24. Bagnoli F, Moschioni M, Donati C, Dimitrovska V, Ferlenghi

I, Facciotti C, Muzzi A, Giusti F, Emolo C, Sinisi A, et al.: A second pilus type in Streptococcus pneumoniae is prevalent in emerging serotypes and mediates

adhesion to host cells. J Bacteriol Lonafarnib nmr STA-9090 solubility dmso 2008,190(15):5480–5492.PubMedCrossRef 25. Brückner R, Nuhn M, Reichmann P, Weber B, Hakenbeck R: Mosaic genes and mosaic chromosomes-genomic variation in Streptococcus pneumoniae . Int J Med Microbiol 2004,294(2–3):157–168.PubMedCrossRef 26. Tettelin H, Hollingshead SK: Comparative genomics of Streptococcus pneumoniae : intra-strain diversity and genome plasticity. Washington, DC, USA: ASM Press; 2004. 27. Adamou JE, Heinrichs JH, Erwin AL, Walsh W, Gayle T, Dormitzer M, Dagan R, Brewah YA, Barren P, Lathigra R, et al.: Identification and characterization of a novel family of pneumococcal proteins that are protective against sepsis. Infect Immun 2001,69(2):949–958.PubMedCrossRef 28. Ding F, Tang P, Hsu MH, Cui P, Hu S, Yu J, Chiu CH: Genome evolution driven by host adaptations results in a more virulent and antimicrobial-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae serotype 14. BMC Genomics 2009.,10(158): 29. Hoskins J, Alborn WEJ, Arnold J, Blaszczak LC, Burgett S, DeHoff BS, Estrem ST, Fritz L, Fu DJ, Fuller W, et al.: Genome of the bacterium Streptococcus pneumoniae strain R6. J Bacteriol 2001,183(19):5709–5717.PubMedCrossRef 30. Mitchell AM, Mitchell TJ: Streptococcus pneumoniae : virulence factors and variation.

J Bacteriol 2005,187(20):7126–7137.PubMedCrossRef 42. Schmalenberger A, Drake HL, Küsel K: High unique diversity of sulfate-reducing prokaryotes characterized in a depth gradient in an acidic fen. Environ Microbiol 2007,9(5):1317–1328.PubMedCrossRef buy BAY 1895344 43. Hugenholtz P: Exploring prokaryotic diversity in the genomic era. Genome Biology 2002.,3(2): 44. Huson DH, Auch AF, Qi J, Schuster SC: MEGAN analysis of metagenomic data. Genome Res 2007,17(3):377–386.PubMedCrossRef 45. Kunin V, Copeland A, Lapidus A, Mavromatis K, Hugenholtz P: A Bioinformatician’s Guide to Metagenomics. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 2008,72(4):557–578.PubMedCrossRef 46. Mitra S, Schubach M, Huson DH: Short clones or long clones? A simulation

study on the use of paired reads in metagenomics. BMC Bioinformatics 2010., 11: 47. Jain R, Rivera MC, Lake JA: Horizontal gene transfer among genomes: The complexity hypothesis. In Nov 08–09 1998;

Irvine, California. Natl Acad Sciences; 3801–3806. 48. Raes J, Korbel JO, Lercher MJ, von Mering C, Bork P: Prediction of effective genome size in metagenomic samples. see more Genome Biol 2007,8(1):R10.PubMedCrossRef 49. Quaiser A, Zivanovic Y, Moreira D, López-García P: Comparative metagenomics of bathypelagic plankton and bottom sediment from the Sea of Marmara. ISME J 2011,5(2):285–304.PubMedCrossRef 50. Valentine DL: Emerging topics in marine methane biogeochemistry. Ann Rev Mar Sci 2011,3(1):147–171.PubMedCrossRef 51. Nauhaus K, Treude T, Boetius A, Krüger M: Environmental regulation of the anaerobic

oxidation of methane: a comparison of ANME-I and ANME-II communities. Environ Microbiol 2005,7(1):98–106.PubMedCrossRef 52. Merkel A, Chernykh N, Kanapatskii T, Pimenov N: Detection of methanotrophic archaea in pockmark sediments (Gdansk Deep, Baltic Sea) by sequence analysis of the gene encoding the α subunit Olopatadine of methyl-coenzyme M reductase. Microbiology 2010,79(6):849–852.CrossRef 53. Pernthaler A, Dekas AE, Brown CT, Goffredi SK, Embaye T, Orphan VJ: Diverse syntrophic partnerships from deep-sea methane vents revealed by direct cell capture and metagenomics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008,105(19):7052–7057.PubMedCrossRef 54. Duffy M, Kinnaman F, Valentine DL, Keller E, Clark JF: Gaseous emission rates from natural petroleum seeps in the Upper Ojai Valley, California. Environmental Geosciences 2007,14(4):197–207.CrossRef 55. Norwegian High-Throughput Sequencing Centre (NSC) [http://​www.​sequencing.​uio.​no/​] 56. Gomez-Alvarez V, Teal TK, Schmidt TM: Systematic artifacts in metagenomes from complex microbial communities. ISME J 2009, 3:1314–1317.PubMedCrossRef 57. 454 Replicate Filter [http://​microbiomes.​msu.​edu/​replicates/​] 58. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ: Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 1990,215(3):403–410.PubMed 59. Bioportal [http://​www.​bioportal.​uio.​no] 60.

Tumor volumes were similar in nanoscale and conventional Photosan groups 6 days after treatment; however, after this time point, tumor were significantly smaller in the former group compared with the latter (p < 0.05) , as shown in Figure 4A and the digital photograph before treatment (Figure 4B) and 14 days after treatment 4c. www.selleckchem.com/products/Trichostatin-A.html Table 2 Subcutaneous xenograft tumor volumes (cm 3 ) in nude mice   Group A Group B Group C P(A/B) P(A/C) P(B/C) 1. 15 15 15 – - – 2. 0.525 ± 0.019 0.520 ± 0.013 0.527 ± 0.015 0.588 0.876 0.487 3.

0.867 ± 0.031 0.250 ± 0.010* 0.412 ± 0.013* 0.000 0.000 0.856 4. 1.236 ± 0.039 0.112 ± 0.013* 0.217 ± 0.011* 0.000 0.000 0.770 5. 1.750 ± 0.169 0.035 ± 0.014*# 0.105 ± 0.038* 0.000 0.000 0.020 6. 2.251 ± 0.162 0.114 ± 0.020*# 0.406 ± 0.050* 0.000 0.000 0.001

7. 2.451 ± 0.397 0.266 ± 0.042*# 0.608 ± 0.076* 0.000 0.000 0.008 8. 2.657 ± 0.411 0.475 ± 0.058*# 1.058 ± 0.170* 0.000 0.000 0.004 9. 3.050 ± 0.438 0.623 ± 0.108*# 1.551 ± 0.180* 0.000 0.000 0.000 1. Number of animals; 2. Before treatment; 3. 2 days after treatment; 4. 4 days after treatment; 5. 6 days after treatment; 6. 8 days after treatment; 7. 10 days after treatment; 8. 12 days after treatment; 9. 14 days after treatment; Selleckchem P505-15 Group A – blank control; Group B – nanoscale Photosan group; Group C – conventional Photosan group; P(A/B) – P value for comparing group A and group B; P(A/C) – P value for comparing group A and group C; P(B/C) – P value for comparing group B and group C. *Significantly different (P < 0.05) from group A, #Significantly different (P < 0.05) from group C. Figure 4 Tumor volumes after treatments during 14 days (A) and their digital photographs (B). (A) When tumor volumes reached approximately 0.5 cm3, one group of the mice did not receive any treatment (A, Control group) and two groups of the mice received treatment with conventional Photosan (C, Free PS group) and nanoscale photosensitizer (B, PS-load HSNP group), respectively. The tumor sizes were measured in the following

14 days. Significantly different (P < 0.05) from group A, #Significantly different (P < 0.05) from group C. The digital photograph of the tumor volumes of the three groups 4-Aminobutyrate aminotransferase before treatment (B) and 14 days after treatment (C). Where, A is the control group; B is PS-load HSNP group and C is the Free PS group. Primary liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma) is the most common type of malignant tumor in China. Although surgical excision and liver transplantation therapies can significantly prolong the survival of liver cancer patients, most patients are only diagnosed at later stages and cannot be surgically treated. Therefore, non-surgical approaches play a vital role in the treatment of primary liver cancer; however, non-surgical approaches have generally exhibited extremely limited therapeutic efficacy [17].

PubMedCrossRef 45. Ulbrandt ND, Newitt JA, Bernstein HD: The E. coli signal recognition

particle is required for the insertion of a subset of inner membrane proteins. Cell 1997, 88:187–196.PubMedCrossRef Authors’ contributions TB designed and carried out the experiments; TB, AB and MA drafted the manuscript; MA developed the statistical test; RPM wrote extensions for Matlab. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.”
“Background Pasteurella multocida is a Gram-negative bacterium that causes a wide range of clinical presentations in a wide range of host species [1]. It has been shown to cause respiratory disease in many animals, including cattle [2], sheep [3] and pigs [4, 5] although it is also found in the respiratory tract of apparently healthy animals CHIR-99021 ic50 [6]. The organism also causes haemorrhagic septicaemia (HS) in bovids, mainly in South and Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa [7]. In pigs P. multocida contributes to atrophic rhinitis [4] and in rabbits the organism is associated with a syndrome called “”snuffles”" [8]. Fowl cholera in avian species is a source of great

economic losses in commercial poultry flocks and also affects wild birds [9]. In humans, P. multocida infections are mainly associated with animal bites [10, 11]. Historically, phenotypic methods have been used to differentiate strains and it has been shown that different serotypes are associated with different hosts OSI-027 ic50 and clinical presentations [12]. However the usefulness of phenotypic methods is limited due to the lack of discriminatory power and the fact that they do not reflect population structure [13]. Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) provides

a standardised system of typing by sequence analysis of several housekeeping genes, allowing strains to be compared Celastrol worldwide and the relationship between isolates to be explored [14]. MLST can be used to explore the global epidemiology of an organism, for example identifying niche-associated strains (strains that are predominantly associated with a particular host or organ system) [15–17]. This information can be used to develop disease control measures, targeted towards these niche-associated strains. An MLST scheme has recently been established for P. multocida, the Pasteurella multocida Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) scheme [18, 19]. This scheme was originally designed to type avian isolates and these comprise the bulk of submitted data; it has since been used by the international research community to submit data relating to several other host species. An alternative scheme, the Pasteurella multocida Multi-host MLST scheme [20] (hereafter referred to as “”the alternative MLST scheme”") is also available but at the time of data analysis it was not possible to submit isolates into this database. Pasteurella isolates from avian species have high levels of diversity; there were 26 sequence types (STs) in 63 Australian avian P.

Radiology 239(2):488–496CrossRefPubMed 13. Bauer JS, Kohlmann S, Eckstein F, Mueller D, Lochmuller EM, Link TM (2006) Structural analysis of trabecular bone of the proximal femur using multislice computed tomography: a comparison with dual X-ray absorptiometry for predicting biomechanical strength in vitro. Calcif Tissue Int 78(2):78–89CrossRefPubMed 14. Link TM, Vieth V, Langenberg R, Meier N, Lotter A, Newitt D, Majumdar S BMN 673 datasheet (2003) Structure analysis of high resolution magnetic resonance imaging of the proximal femur: in vitro correlation with biomechanical strength and BMD. Calcif Tissue Int 72(2):156–165CrossRefPubMed 15. Wachter NJ, Augat P, Mentzel M, Sarkar MR, Krischak GD,

Kinzl L, Claes LE (2001) Predictive value of bone mineral density and morphology determined by peripheral quantitative computed tomography for cancellous SN-38 bone strength of the proximal femur. Bone 28(1):133–139CrossRefPubMed 16. Boehm HF, Link TM, Monetti R, Kuhn V, Eckstein F, Raeth

C, Reiser M (2006) Analysis of the topological properties of the proximal femur on a regional scale: evaluation of multi-detector CT-scans for the assessment of biomechanical strength using local Minkowski functionals in 3D. Proc SPIE 61446X.1:61446X.8 17. Boehm HF, Link TM, Monetti R, Mueller D, Rummeny EJ, Newitt D, Majumdar S, Raeth C (2004) Application of the Minkowski functionals in 3D to high-resolution MR images of trabecular bone: prediction of the biomechanical strength by nonlinear topological measures. Proc SPIE 5370:172–180CrossRef 18. Boehm HF,

Raeth C, Monetti RA, Mueller D, Newitt D, Majumdar S, Rummeny E, Morfill G, Link TM (2003) Local 3D scaling properties for the analysis of trabecular bone extracted from high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of human trabecular bone: comparison with bone mineral density in the prediction of biomechanical strength in vitro. Invest Radiol 38(5):269–280CrossRefPubMed 19. Carballido-Gamio J, Phan C, Link TM, Majumdar S (2006) Characterization of trabecular bone structure from high-resolution magnetic resonance images using fuzzy logic. Magn Reson Imaging 24(8):1023–1029CrossRefPubMed 20. Mueller D, Link GPX6 TM, Monetti R, Bauer J, Boehm H, Seifert-Klauss V, Rummeny EJ, Morfill GE, Raeth C (2006) The 3D-based scaling index algorithm: a new structure measure to analyze trabecular bone architecture in high-resolution MR images in vivo. Osteoporos Int 17(10):1483–1493CrossRefPubMed 21. Patel PV, Eckstein F, Carballido-Gamio J, Phan C, Matsuura M, Lochmuller EM, Majumdar S, Link TM (2007) Fuzzy logic structure analysis of trabecular bone of the calcaneus to estimate proximal femur fracture load and discriminate subjects with and without vertebral fractures using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 T and 3 T. Calcif Tissue Int 81(4):294–304CrossRefPubMed 22.

PubMedCrossRef 36. Greengenes ARB database ’greengenes513274.arb. http://​greengenes.​lbl.​gov/​Download/​Sequence_​Data/​Arb_​databases/​ 37. Bray JR, Curtis JT: An ordination of the upland forest LY3023414 clinical trial communities of Southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr 1957, 27:325–349.CrossRef 38. Clarke KR: Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 1993, 18:117–143.CrossRef 39. Ramette A: Multivariate analyses in microbial ecology. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2007, 62:142–160.PubMedCrossRef 40. Clarke KR, Warwick RM: Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. 2nd edition. Plymouth, UK: PRIMER-E, Ltd.; 2001. 41. Rees GN, Baldwin DS, Watson GO, Perryman S, Nielsen DL:

Ordination and significance testing of microbial community composition derived from terminal restriction fragment length polymorphisms: application of multivariate statistics. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2004, 86:339–347.PubMedCrossRef 42. Bethke CM, Sanford RA, Kirk MF, Jin Q, Flynn TM: The thermodynamic ladder in geomicrobiology. Am J Sci 2011, 311:183–210.CrossRef 43.

Lovley DR, Selleckchem CHIR99021 Goodwin S: Hydrogen concentrations as an indicator of the predominant terminal electron-accepting reactions in aquatic sediments. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 1988, 52:2993–3003.CrossRef 44. Heimann A, Jakobsen R, Blodau C: Energetic constraints on H 2 -dependent terminal electron accepting processes in anoxic environments: a Palmatine review of observations and model approaches. Environ Sci Technol 2010, 44:24–33.PubMedCrossRef 45. Scheller S, Goenrich M, Boecher R, Thauer RK, Jaun B: The key nickel enzyme of methanogenesis catalyses the anaerobic oxidation of methane. Nature 2010, 465:606–608.PubMedCrossRef 46. Hu S, Zeng RJ, Burow LC, Lant P, Keller J, Yuan Z: Enrichment of denitrifying

anaerobic methane oxidizing microorganisms. Environmental Microbiology Reports 2009, 1:377–384.PubMedCrossRef 47. Raghoebarsing AA, Pol A, van de Pas-Schoonen KT, Smolders AJP, Ettwig KF, Rijpstra WIC, Schouten S, Damste JSS, Op den Camp HJM, Jetten MSM, Strous M: A microbial consortium couples anaerobic methane oxidation to denitrification. Nature 2006, 440:918–921.PubMedCrossRef 48. Hubbell SP: The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2001. 49. Nevin KP, Lovley DR: Lack of production of electron-shuttling compounds or solubilization of Fe(III) during reduction of insoluble Fe(III) oxide by Geobacter metallireducens . Appl Environ Microbiol 2000, 66:2248–2251.PubMedCrossRef 50. Gramp JP, Bigham JM, Jones FS, Tuovinen OH: Formation of Fe-sulfides in cultures of sulfate-reducing bacteria. J Hazard Mater 2010, 175:1062–1067.PubMedCrossRef 51. Jin Q, Bethke CM: The thermodynamics and kinetics of microbial metabolism. Am J Sci 2007, 307:643–677.CrossRef 52. Little AEF, Robinson CJ, Peterson SB, Raffa KF, Handelsman J: Rules of engagement: interspecies interactions that regulate microbial communities.

[24] did not find these effects associated with fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter infections. In Campylobacter, resistance to Protein Tyrosine Kinase inhibitor quinolones and macrolides is primarily associated with mutations in the gyrA and 23S rRNA genes, respectively [20, 25]. The involvement of the CmeABC multidrug efflux pump in resistance to both classes of antimicrobials

has also been recognized [26, 27]. Information about antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter at different levels of production is important for the development of control strategies for this pathogen. In addition, differentiation of antimicrobial-resistant strains is necessary to investigate the epidemiology of resistance. Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis of the flaA gene (fla typing) and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) are two genotyping methods used to successfully differentiate Campylobacter strains [28, 29]. This study was conducted to assess the ciprofloxacin and erythromycin resistance in Campylobacter isolated from turkey at the processing level. Fla typing, PFGE, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing were used to characterize a subset of ciprofloxacin- and/or erythromycin-resistant and susceptible Campylobacter isolates obtained from pre and post chill turkey carcasses and chill water. Results Antimicrobial susceptibility testing Figure 1A and 1B shows

the MICs of 801 Campylobacter isolates to ciprofloxacin and erythromycin. Few isolates were co-resistant to both antimicrobials (2 from plant A [0.45% of plant A isolates] and 9 from plant B [2.5% of plant B isolates]). Resistant isolates were recovered from carcasses at pre chill and BKM120 mouse post chill at both plants. No significant difference (P > 0.01) was observed between the number VEGFR inhibitor of ciprofloxacin-resistant or erythromycin-resistant isolates obtained from either process stage at plant A (Table 1). Figure 1 Antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of Campylobacter isolates (n = 801).

Isolates from plant A (n = 439; open bars) and plant B (n = 362; black bars) were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility using agar dilution. A. The frequency of MICs obtained for ciprofloxacin. The arrow denotes the breakpoint of ≥ 4 μg/ml. B. The frequency of MICs obtained for erythromycin. The arrow denotes the breakpoint of ≥ 32 μg/ml. Table 1 Antimicrobial resistance and sampling stage distribution of Campylobacter isolates (n = 801).     Plant A     Plant B   Sampling Stage Total Isolates Ciprofloxacin Resistance Erythromycin Resistance Total Isolates Ciprofloxacin Resistance Erythromycin Resistance Pre Chill 225 a (51) b 7 c (3.1) d 46 c (20) d 242 a (67) b 99 c (41) d 6 c (2.5) d Post Chill 209 (48) 16 (7.7) 35 (17) 119 (33) 37 (31) 4 (3.4) Chill Water 5 (1.1) 1 (20) 1 (20) 1 (0.3) 1 (100) 0 (0) Total 439 24 c (5.5) e 82 c (19) e 362 137 c (38) e 10 c (2.8) e a Number of total isolates tested. b Percentage of total isolates tested. c Number of isolates resistant.

2006). Using in part the same data base, Travier et al. (2002) found significantly raised incidence rates for Hodgkin’s disease and leukaemia (but not for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma) in female but not in male launderers, dry-cleaners and pressers employed in the laundry, ironing or dyeing industry in both the 1960 and 1970 Swedish censuses and PU-H71 in vitro followed until 1989. The incidence of cervical cancer was not increased in this particular group. In Sweden, PER has been the quantitatively most important agent for dry-cleaning during the second half of the 20th century (Kemikalieinspektionen 1990; Johansen et al. 2005), and

to assess further the potential carcinogenicity of PER, we decided to follow-up a previously assembled, national cohort Selleck VX-680 of dry-cleaning and laundry workers by cross-linking with the national cancer register. Materials and methods As part of a Scandinavian initiative (Olsen et al. 1990), a nationwide study of pregnancy outcome in dry-cleaning workers, was undertaken in the mid-1980s (Ahlborg 1990a). A questionnaire mailed to all “washing establishments” recorded in the Swedish Postal Address Registry (n = 1,254) yielded a response rate of 37.9%. The questionnaire

called for information about both the establishment (company) and the workers over a period of 11 years (1973–1983). Production volumes and washing techniques were requested as well as details of any chemicals used. No information on PER exposure at the company or individual level was available, but estimates of the proportion of PER and other detergents employed (as reported by the companies over the period of interest) were used as proxy. Names check and ten-digit personal identity numbers (PINs) of the workers (Ludvigsson et al. 2009), their occupation, dates of hire and termination of employment were also requested. At least one month duration of employment was required for inclusion in the original study. All data were checked for the present study, and unidentifiable subjects

or those not fulfilling original or current inclusion criteria were excluded from the analysis. Data from 14 companies were lost in the process, leaving workers from 461 companies for the study. The size of the companies involved varied from small family businesses to establishments with several hundred employees. Each subject was assigned to one of three exposure categories based on information from the companies: the PER subgroup (genuine dry-cleaners and laundries with a proportion of dry-cleaning with PER only), the Laundry subgroup (laundries only, no PER) or Other (any combination of water, PER, chlorofluorocarbons (typically Freon 113) and sporadic cases of white spirit, naphta or trichloroethylene).

Such analyses might also highlight novel targets for antimicrobials. Moreover, expression profiling is considered as a fingerprint to find common and distinct responses that could aid in the design of combined therapies of unrelated compounds, to which AMP might contribute. However, this type of studies

are still scarce in the case of AMP, with only a few examples in bacteria [26–29] and fungi, mostly yeast [30–33]. Transcriptome AZD9291 mouse profiling has been used to characterize the response of the model yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to distinct antifungals [34–39], including selected AMP [30, 33]. In this study we aim to compare at a genomic scale the effects onto S. cerevisiae of two AMP with distinctive properties. Melittin is an α-helical membrane active peptide identified from honeybee venom that is recognized as a model pore-forming peptide for the study of peptide interaction with lipid bilayers and cell permeating properties [40]. On the other hand, PAF26 is a short de novo-designed hexapeptide [41], which shares sequence similarity with other AMP from natural [42] or synthetic origin

[43, 44]. It has activity against plant pathogenic fungi as well as several microorganisms of clinical relevance, including the yeast Candida and several dermatophytic fungi [45]. PAF26 at low micromolar (sub-inhibitory) concentrations has been recently shown to have cell penetrating properties in MLN2238 in vitro the mycelium and conidia of the filamentous plant pathogen Penicillium digitatum [46] and the model fungus Neurospora crassa (A. Muñoz and N. Read, unpublished observations). Contrary to melittin, PAF26 is less active against

bacteria and is not haemolytic under assay conditions in which other peptides including melittin are [45]. We combined global analyses of transcriptomic changes upon exposure of S. cerevisiae to sub-lethal concentrations of either PAF26 or melittin with sensitivity PLEK2 tests of strains lacking genes identified by the transcriptomic data. Our results both reinforce and extend similar studies undertaken previously with two unrelated α-helical AMP [33], and reveal that PAF26 and melittin have common but also distinctive effects on yeast. Results Antimicrobial activity of peptides PAF26 and melittin against S. cerevisiae PAF26 and the pore-forming peptide melittin inhibited yeast growth [41], as was confirmed herein with strain FY1679 (Figure 1A and Additional File 1) in experiments that show a slight 2-fold higher potency of melittin. Dose-response experiments with additional strains of yeast with distinct genetic backgrounds and at two temperatures of incubation confirmed the activity of both peptides and also indicated a differential sensitivity of strains (Additional File 1).