Oligocene CO2 decline promoted C4 photosynthesis in grasses.

C4 photosynthesis is an adaptation derived from the more common C3 photosynthetic pathway that confers a higher productivity under warm temperature and low atmospheric CO2 concentration [1, 2]. C4 evolution has been seen as a consequence of past atmospheric CO2 decline, such as the abrupt CO2 fall 32-25 million years ago (Mya) [3-6]. This relationship has never been tested rigorously, mainly because of a lack of accurate estimates of divergence times for the different C4 lineages [3]. In this study, we inferred a large phylogenetic tree for the grass family and estimated, through Bayesian molecular dating, the ages of the 17 to 18 independent grass C4 lineages. The first transition from C3 to C4 photosynthesis occurred in the Chloridoideae subfamily, 32.0-25.0 Mya. The link between CO2 decrease and transition to C4 photosynthesis was tested by a novel maximum likelihood approach. We showed that the model incorporating the atmospheric CO2 levels was significantly better than the null model, supporting the importance of CO2 decline on C4 photosynthesis evolvability. This finding is relevant for understanding the origin of C4 photosynthesis in grasses, which is one of the most successful ecological and evolutionary innovations in plant history.

The origins of C4 grasslands: integrating evolutionary and ecosystem science.

The evolution of grasses using C4 photosynthesis and their sudden rise to ecological dominance 3 to 8 million years ago is among the most dramatic examples of biome assembly in the geological record. A growing body of work suggests that the patterns and drivers of C4 grassland expansion were considerably more complex than originally assumed. Previous research has benefited substantially from dialog between geologists and ecologists, but current research must now integrate fully with phylogenetics. A synthesis of grass evolutionary biology with grassland ecosystem science will further our knowledge of the evolution of traits that promote dominance in grassland systems and will provide a new context in which to evaluate the relative importance of C4 photosynthesis in transforming ecosystems across large regions of Earth.

Perioperative nutrition is still a surgical orphan: results of a Swiss-Austrian survey.

Background/Objectives:There is strong evidence for the beneficial effects of perioperative nutrition in patients undergoing major surgery. We aimed to evaluate implementation of current guidelines in Switzerland and Austria.Subjects/Methods:A survey was conducted in 173 Swiss and Austrian surgical departments. We inquired about nutritional screening, perioperative nutrition and estimated clinical significance.Results:The overall response rate was 55%, having 69% (54/78) responders in Switzerland and 44% (42/95) in Austria. Most centres were aware of reduced complications (80%) and shorter hospital stay (59%). However, only 20% of them implemented routine nutritional screening. Non-compliance was because of financial (49%) and logistic restrictions (33%). Screening was mainly performed in the outpatient's clinic (52%) or during admission (54%). The nutritional risk score was applied by 14% only; instead, various clinical (78%) and laboratory parameters (56%) were used. Indication for perioperative nutrition was based on preoperative screening in 49%. Although 23% used preoperative nutrition, 68% applied nutritional support pre- and postoperatively. Preoperative nutritional treatment ranged from 3 days (33%), to 5 (31%) and even 7 days (20%).Conclusions:Although malnutrition is a well-recognised risk factor for poor post-operative outcome, surgeons remain reluctant to implement routine screening and nutritional support according to evidence-based guidelines.

Perioperative nutrition in abdominal surgery: recommendations and reality.

Introduction. Preoperative malnutrition is a major risk factor for increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. Definition and diagnosis of malnutrition and its treatment is still subject for controversy. Furthermore, practical implementation of nutrition-related guidelines is unknown. Methods. A review of the available literature and of current guidelines on perioperative nutrition was conducted. We focused on nutritional screening and perioperative nutrition in patients undergoing digestive surgery, and we assessed translation of recent guidelines in clinical practice. Results and Conclusions. Malnutrition is a well-recognized risk factor for poor postoperative outcome. The prevalence of malnutrition depends largely on its definition; about 40% of patients undergoing major surgery fulfil current diagnostic criteria of being at nutritional risk. The Nutritional Risk Score is a pragmatic and validated tool to identify patients who should benefit from nutritional support. Adequate nutritional intervention entails reduced (infectious) complications, hospital stay, and costs. Preoperative oral supplementation of a minimum of five days is preferable; depending on the patient and the type of surgery, immune-enhancing formulas are recommended. However, surgeons' compliance with evidence-based guidelines remains poor and efforts are necessary to implement routine nutritional screening and nutritional support.

Perioperative nutrition is still a surgical orphan

Objective: To assess if screening programs and treatment of preoperative malnutrition have been implemented into surgical practice to decrease morbidity. There is strong evidence that postoperative morbidity can be minimized by early identifying and treating patients at nutritional risk before major surgery.The validated nutritional risk score (NRS) is recommended by the European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition for nutritional screening. It remains unclear whether routine preoperative nutritional assessment and perioperative nutrition is widely implemented.Methods: A survey was conducted in 173 Swiss and Austrian surgical departments. Implementation of nutritional screening, perioperative nutrition, and estimated impact on clinical outcome were assessed. Non-responders were repeatedly contacted by the authors.Results: The overall response rate was 55%, whereby 69% (54/78) of Swiss and 44% (42/95) of Austrian centers responded. Despite 80% and 59% of the responding centers are aware of a reduced complication rate and shortened hospital stay, respectively, only 20% of them implemented routine nutritional screening. Financial (49%) and logistic restrictions (33%) are the predominant reasons against the routine clinical use. Screening is mainly performed either in the outpatient's clinic (52%) or during admission (54%). The NRS is only used by 14%. Instead, various clinical (78%), e.g. BMI and laboratory findings (56%), e.g. albumine, are used. Indication for perioperative nutrition is based on preoperative screening in 49%.While 23% use preoperative nutrition, 68% apply nutritional support pre- and postoperatively. Preoperative nutritional treatment ranged from three days (33%), to five days (31%) and even seven days (20%).Conclusion: Despite malnutrition is well recognized as major risk factor for increased postoperative morbidity, the majority of surgeons are reluctant to implement routine screening and nutritional support. If nutritional assessment is performed, local institutional screening parameters are still preferred. It remains difficult to overcome traditions, and to change surgeon's mind.

Immunonutrition in gastrointestinal surgery.

Background: Patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery are at increased risk of developing complications. The use of immunonutrition (IN) in such patients is not widespread because the available data are heterogeneous, and some show contradictory results with regard to complications, mortality and length of hospital stay. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 1985 and September 2009 that assessed the clinical impact of perioperative enteral IN in major gastrointestinal elective surgery were included in a meta-analysis. Results: Twenty-one RCTs enrolling a total of 2730 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Twelve were considered as high-quality studies. The included studies showed significant heterogeneity with respect to patients, control groups, timing and duration of IN, which limited group analysis. IN significantly reduced overall complications when used before surgery (odds ratio (OR) 0.48, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.34 to 0.69), both before and after operation (OR 0.39, 0.28 to 0.54) or after surgery (OR 0.46, 0.25 to 0.84). For these three timings of IN administration, ORs of postoperative infection were 0.36 (0.24 to 0.56), 0.41 (0.28 to 0.58) and 0.53 (0.40 to 0.71) respectively. Use of IN led to a shorter hospital stay: mean difference -2.12 (95 per cent c.i. -2.97 to -1.26) days. Beneficial effects of IN were confirmed when low-quality trials were excluded. Perioperative IN had no influence on mortality (OR 0.90, 0.46 to 1.76). Conclusion: Perioperative enteral IN decreases morbidity and hospital stay but not mortality after major gastrointestinal surgery; its routine use can be recommended.

Preoperative nutritional screening by the specialist instead of the nutritional risk score might prevent excess nutrition: a multivariate analysis of nutritional risk factors.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the current study was to assess whether widely used nutritional parameters are correlated with the nutritional risk score (NRS-2002) to identify postoperative morbidity and to evaluate the role of nutritionists in nutritional assessment. METHODS: A randomized trial on preoperative nutritional interventions (NCT00512213) provided the study cohort of 152 patients at nutritional risk (NRS-2002 ≥3) with a comprehensive phenotyping including diverse nutritional parameters (n=17), elaborated by nutritional specialists, and potential demographic and surgical (n=5) confounders. Risk factors for overall, severe (Dindo-Clavien 3-5) and infectious complications were identified by univariate analysis; parameters with P<0.20 were then entered in a multiple logistic regression model. RESULTS: Final analysis included 140 patients with complete datasets. Of these, 61 patients (43.6%) were overweight, and 72 patients (51.4%) experienced at least one complication of any degree of severity. Univariate analysis identified a correlation between few (≤3) active co-morbidities (OR=4.94; 95% CI: 1.47-16.56, p=0.01) and overall complications. Patients screened as being malnourished by nutritional specialists presented less overall complications compared to the not malnourished (OR=0.47; 95% CI: 0.22-0.97, p=0.043). Severe postoperative complications occurred more often in patients with low lean body mass (OR=1.06; 95% CI: 1-1.12, p=0.028). Few (≤3) active co-morbidities (OR=8.8; 95% CI: 1.12-68.99, p=0.008) were related with postoperative infections. Patients screened as being malnourished by nutritional specialists presented less infectious complications (OR=0.28; 95% CI: 0.1-0.78), p=0.014) as compared to the not malnourished. Multivariate analysis identified few co-morbidities (OR=6.33; 95% CI: 1.75-22.84, p=0.005), low weight loss (OR=1.08; 95% CI: 1.02-1.14, p=0.006) and low hemoglobin concentration (OR=2.84; 95% CI: 1.22-6.59, p=0.021) as independent risk factors for overall postoperative complications. Compliance with nutritional supplements (OR=0.37; 95% CI: 0.14-0.97, p=0.041) and supplementation of malnourished patients as assessed by nutritional specialists (OR=0.24; 95% CI: 0.08-0.69, p=0.009) were independently associated with decreased infectious complications. CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional support based upon NRS-2002 screening might result in overnutrition, with potentially deleterious clinical consequences. We emphasize the importance of detailed assessment of the nutritional status by a dedicated specialist before deciding on early nutritional intervention for patients with an initial NRS-2002 score of ≥3.

Prevalence of ragweed allergy in rural Geneva - a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of ragweed allergy is increasing worldwide. Ragweed distribution and abundance is spreading in Europe in a wide area ranging from the Rhone valley in France to Hungary and Ukraine, where the rate of the prevalence can peak at as high as 12%. Low-grade ragweed colonisation was seen in Geneva and Ticino, less than two decades ago. There were fears that allergies to ragweed would increase Switzerland. The intent of this study was to assess the rate of prevalence of sensitisation and allergy to ragweed in the population living in the first rural Swiss setting where ragweed had been identified in 1996, and to evaluate indirectly the efficacy of elimination and containment strategies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 2009, 35 adults in a rural village in the Canton of Geneva were recruited. Data were collected by means of questionnaires and skin-prick tests were done on each participant. The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee. RESULTS: Based on questionnaires, 48.6% had rhinitis (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.9-64.4; n = 17/35) and 17.1% asthma (95% CI 8.1-32.6; n = 6/35). Atopy was diagnosed in 26.4% (95% CI 12.9-44.4) of the sample (n = 9/34). Ragweed sensitisation was found in 2.9% (95% CI 0.7-19.7; n = 1/34), mugwort sensitisation in 2.9% (95% CI 0.1-14.9; n = 1/35), alder sensitisation in 17.1% (95% CI 6.6-33.6; n = 6/35), ash sensitisation in 12.5% (95% CI 3.5-29.0; n = 4/32) and grass sensitisation in 22.9% (95% CI 10.4-40.1; n = 8/35). Ragweed (95% CI 0.1-14.9; n = 1/34) and mugwort allergies (95% CI 0.1-14.9; n = 1/35) were both found in 2.9% of the population. CONCLUSION: This study showed a surprisingly low incidence of ragweed sensitisation and allergy, of 2.9% and 2.9%, respectively, 20 years after the first ragweed detection in Geneva. The feared rise in ragweed allergy seems not to have happened in Switzerland, compared with other ragweed colonised countries. These results strongly support early field strategies against ragweed.