Secretory products of the haptoral reservoirs and peduncular glands in two species of Bravohollisia (Monogenea : Ancyrocephalidae)

Light and electron microscopy were used to characterize the structure of secretory cells and their products involved in attachment of two monogenean parasites of fish, in order to understand their role in the attachment process. In Bravohollisia rosetta and Bravohollisia gussevi, peduncular gland cells with two nuclei, granular endoplasmic reticulum, and Golgi bodies produce dual electron-dense (DED) secretory bodies with a homogenous electron-dense rind and a less electron-dense fibrillar core (oval and concave in B. rosetta and oval in B. gussevi). The DED secretory bodies are altered as they migrate from the gland cell to the haptoral reservoir, the superficial anchor grooves, and into the gill tissues. The contents of the DED secretory bodies are exocytosed into the reservoirs, fibrillar cores persisting in the matrix, some of which condense, forming highly electron-dense spherical bodies. Small, oval, electron-dense bodies occur in the grooves, while no inclusions are visible in the homogenous exudate within the gill tissues. The single tubular extension of the reservoir enters a bifurcate channel within the anchor via a concealed, crevice-like opening on one side of the anchor. The channel directs secretions into the left and the right grooves via concealed apertures. The secretions, introduced into the tissues by the anchors, probably assist in attachment. The secretions are manifested externally as net-like structures and observed in some cases to be still attached to the point of exudation, on anchors detached from the gill tissues. This suggests that despite having the anchors detached, the worms can still remain anchored to the gill tissues via these net-like structures. Based on this, it is postulated that the net-like secretions probably function as a safety line to anchor the worm during the onset of locomotion and in doing so reduce the risk of tearing host tissues.

Gabions: evaluation of potential as low-cost roadside barriers

This paper evaluates the potential of gabions as roadside safety barriers. Gabions have the capacity to blend into natural landscape, suggesting that they could be used as a safety barrier for low-volume road in scenic environments. In fact, gabions have already been used for this purpose in Nepal, but the impact response was not evaluated. This paper reports on numerical and experimental investigations performed on a new gabion barrier prototype. To assess the potential use as a roadside barrier, the optimal gabion unit size and mass were investigated using multibody analysis and four sets of 1:4 scaled crash tests were carried out to study the local vehicle-barrier interaction. The barrier prototype was then finalised and subjected to a TB31 crash test according to the European EN1317 standard for N1 safety barriers. The test resulted in a failure due to the rollover of the vehicle and tearing of the gabion mesh yielding a large working width. It was found that although the system potentially has the necessary mass to contain a vehicle, the barrier front face does not have the necessary stiffness and strength to contain the gabion stone filling and hence redirect the vehicle. In the EN1317 test, the gabion barrier acted as a ramp for the impacting vehicle, causing rollover. 

Topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers for treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis

BACKGROUND: Seasonal/perennial allergic conjunctivitis is the most common allergic conjunctivitis, usually with acute manifestations when a person is exposed to allergens and with typical signs and symptoms including itching, redness, and tearing. The clinical signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis are mediated by the release of histamine by mast cells. Histamine antagonists (also called antihistamines) inhibit the action of histamine by blocking histamine H1 receptors, antagonising the vasoconstrictor, and to a lesser extent, the vasodilator effects of histamine. Mast cell stabilisers inhibit degranulation and consequently the release of histamine by interrupting the normal chain of intracellular signals. Topical treatments include eye drops with antihistamines, mast cell stabilisers, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, combinations of the previous treatments, and corticosteroids. Standard treatment is based on topical antihistamines alone or topical mast cell stabilisers alone or a combination of treatments. There is clinical uncertainty about the relative efficacy and safety of topical treatment.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, for use in treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2014, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 17 July 2014. We also searched the reference lists of review articles and relevant trial reports for details of further relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, with placebo, no treatment or to any other antihistamine or mast cell stabiliser, or both, that examined people with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis, or both. The primary outcome was any participant-reported evaluation (by questionnaire) of severity of four main ocular symptoms: itching, irritation, watering eye (tearing), and photophobia (dislike of light), both separately and, if possible, by an overall symptom score. We considered any follow-up time between one week and one year.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by discussion among review authors and the involvement of a third review author. We followed standard methodological approaches used by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS: We identified 30 trials with a total of 4344 participants randomised, with 17 different drugs or treatment comparisons. The following antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers were evaluated in at least one RCT: nedocromil sodium or sodium cromoglycate, olopatadine, ketotifen, azelastine, emedastine, levocabastine (or levocabastine), mequitazine, bepotastine besilate, combination of antazoline and tetryzoline, combination of levocabastine and pemirolast potassium. The most common comparison was azelastine versus placebo (nine studies).We observed a large variability in reporting outcomes. The quality of the studies and reporting was variable, but overall the risk of bias was low. Trials evaluated only short-term effects, with a range of treatment of one to eight weeks. Meta-analysis was only possible in one comparison (olopatadine versus ketotifen). There was some evidence to support that topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo. There were no reported serious adverse events related to the use of topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It seems that all reported topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo in the short term. However, there is no long-term data on their efficacy. Direct comparisons of different antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers need to be interpreted with caution. Overall, topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers appear to be safe and well tolerated. We observed a large variability in outcomes reported. Poor quality of reporting challenged the synthesis of evidence.