Evaluation of the Expression and Protective Potential of Leptospiral Sphingomyelinases

Leptospirosis is a zoonotic disease of global distribution, which affects both animals and humans. Pathogenic leptospires, the bacteria that cause this disease, require iron for their growth, and these spirochetes probably use their hemolysins, such as the sphingomyelinases, as a way to obtain this important nutrient from host red blood cells during infection. We expressed and purified the leptospiral sphingomyelinases Sph1, Sph2, Sph4, and SphH in a heterologous system. However, the recombinant proteins were not able to lyse sheep erythrocytes, despite having regular secondary structures. Transcripts for all sphingomyelinases tested were detected by RT-PCR analyses, but only Sph2 and SphH native proteins could be detected in Western blot assays using Leptospira whole extracts as well as in renal tubules of infected hamsters. Moreover, antibodies present in the serum of a human patient with laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis recognized Sph2, indicating that this sphingomyelinase is expressed and exposed to the immune system during infection in humans. However, in an animal challenge model, none of the sphingomyelinases tested conferred protection against leptospirosis.

European 1: A globally important clonal complex of Mycobacterium bovis

We have identified a globally important clonal complex of Mycobacterium bovis by deletion analysis of over one thousand strains from over 30 countries. We initially show that over 99% of the strains of M. bovis, the cause of bovine tuberculosis, isolated from cattle in the Republic of Ireland and the UK are closely related and are members of a single clonal complex marked by the deletion of chromosomal region RDEu1 and we named this clonal complex European 1 (Eu1). Eu1 strains were present at less than 14% of French, Portuguese and Spanish isolates of M. bovis but are rare in other mainland European countries and Iran. However, strains of the Eu1 clonal complex were found at high frequency in former trading partners of the UK (USA, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Canada). The Americas, with the exception of Brazil, are dominated by the Eu1 clonal complex which was at high frequency in Argentina, Chile, Ecuador and Mexico as well as North America. Eu1 was rare or absent in the African countries surveyed except South Africa. A small sample of strains from Taiwan were non-Eu1 but, surprisingly, isolates from Korea and Kazakhstan were members of the Eu1 clonal complex. The simplest explanation for much of the current distribution of the Eu1 clonal complex is that it was spread in infected cattle, such as Herefords, from the UK to former trading partners, although there is evidence of secondary dispersion since. This is the first identification of a globally dispersed clonal complex M. bovis and indicates that much of the current global distribution of this important veterinary pathogen has resulted from relatively recent International trade in cattle. Crown Copyright (C) 2011 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

GLOBAL POSTURAL REEDUCATION AND STATIC STRETCHING EXERCISES IN THE TREATMENT OF MYOGENIC TEMPOROMANDIBULAR DISORDERS: A RANDOMIZED STUDY

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare 2 different interventions, global postural reeducation (GPR) and static stretching exercises (SS), in the treatment of women with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). Methods: A total of 28 subjects with TMDs were randomized into 2 treatment groups: GPR, where therapy involved muscle global chain stretching, or SS, with conventional static stretching; but only 24 completed the study. Eight treatment sessions lasting 40 minutes each (weekly) were performed. Assessments were conducted at baseline, immediately after treatment end, and 2 months later. Measurements included pain intensity at the temporomandibular joint, headache, cervicalgia, teeth clenching, ear symptoms, restricted sleep, and difficulties for mastication, using a visual analogue scale. In addition, electromyographic activity and pain thresholds were measured at the masseter, anterior temporalis, stemocleidomastoid, and upper trapezius muscles. Two-way analysis of variance with Tukey post hoc test was used for between-group comparisons. Significance level was .05. Results: Comparing the pain assessments using the visual analogue scale, no significant differences were seen with the exception of severity of headaches at treatment end (GPR, 3.92 +/- 2.98 cm; SS, 1.64 +/- 1.66 cm; P < .024). In addition, no significant differences were seen for pain thresholds and for electromyographic activity (P > .05). Conclusions: For the subjects in this study, both GPR and SS were similarly effective for the treatment of TMDs with muscular component. They equally reduced pain intensity, increased pain thresholds, and decreased electromyographic activity. (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2010;33:500-507)