Helper response to experimentally manipulated predation risk in the cooperatively breeding cichlid Neolamprologus pulcher

Background We manipulated predation risk in a field experiment with the cooperatively breeding cichlid Neolamprologus pulcher by releasing no predator, a medium- or a large-sized fish predator inside underwater cages enclosing two to three natural groups. We assessed whether helpers changed their helping behaviour, and whether within-group conflict changed, depending on these treatments, testing three hypotheses: ‘pay-to-stay’ PS, ‘risk avoidance’ RA, or (future) reproductive benefits RB. We also assessed whether helper food intake was reduced under risk, because this might reduce investments in other behaviours to save energy. Methodology/Principal Findings Medium and large helpers fed less under predation risk. Despite this effect helpers invested more in territory defence, but not territory maintenance, under the risk of predation (supporting PS). Experimentally covering only the breeding shelter with sand induced more helper digging under predation risk compared to the control treatment (supporting PS). Aggression towards the introduced predator did not differ between the two predator treatments and increased with group member size and group size (supporting PS and RA). Large helpers increased their help ratio (helping effort/breeder aggression received, ‘punishment’ by the dominant pair in the group) in the predation treatments compared to the control treatment, suggesting they were more willing to PS. Medium helpers did not show such effects. Large helpers also showed a higher submission ratio (submission/ breeder aggression received) in all treatments, compared to the medium helpers (supporting PS). Conclusions/Significance We conclude that predation risk reduces helper food intake, but despite this effect, helpers were more willing to support the breeders, supporting PS. Effects of breeder punishment suggests that PS might be more important for large compared to the medium helpers. Evidence for RA was also detected. Finally, the results were inconsistent with RB.

Impact of Bone Harvesting Techniques on Cell Viability and the Release of Growth Factors of Autografts

Background: Autogenous bone grafts obtained by different harvesting techniques behave differently during the process of graft consolidation; the underlying reasons are however not fully understood. One theory is that harvesting techniques have an impact on the number and activity of the transplanted cells which contribute to the process of graft consolidation. Materials and Methods: To test this assumption, porcine bone grafts were harvested with four different surgical procedures: bone mill, piezosurgery, bone drilling (bone slurry), and bone scraper. After determining cell viability, the release of molecules affecting bone formation and resorption was assessed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and immunoassay. The mitogenic and osteogenic activity of the conditioned media was evaluated in a bioassay with isolated bone cells. Results: Cell viability and the release of molecules affecting bone formation were higher in samples harvested by bone mill and bone scraper when compared with samples prepared by bone drilling and piezosurgery. The harvesting procedure also affected gene expression, for example, bone mill and bone scraper samples revealed significantly higher expression of growth factors such as bone morphogenetic protein-2 and vascular endothelial growth factor compared with the two other modalities. Receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand expression was lowest in bone scraper samples. Conclusion: These data can provide a scientific basis to better understand the impact of harvesting techniques on the number and activity of transplanted cells, which might contribute to the therapeutic outcome of the augmentation procedure.

Cancer therapy modulates VEGF signaling and viability in adult rat cardiac microvascular endothelial cells and cardiomyocytes

This work was motivated by the incomplete characterization of the role of vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) in the stressed heart in consideration of upcoming cancer treatment options challenging the natural VEGF balance in the myocardium. We tested, if the cytotoxic cancer therapy doxorubicin (Doxo) or the anti-angiogenic therapy sunitinib alters viability and VEGF signaling in primary cardiac microvascular endothelial cells (CMEC) and adult rat ventricular myocytes (ARVM). ARVM were isolated and cultured in serum-free medium. CMEC were isolated from the left ventricle and used in the second passage. Viability was measured by LDH-release and by MTT-assay, cellular respiration by high-resolution oxymetry. VEGF-A release was measured using a rat specific VEGF-A ELISA-kit. CMEC were characterized by marker proteins including CD31, von Willebrand factor, smooth muscle actin and desmin. Both Doxo and sunitinib led to a dose-dependent reduction of cell viability. Sunitinib treatment caused a significant reduction of complex I and II-dependent respiration in cardiomyocytes and the loss of mitochondrial membrane potential in CMEC. Endothelial cells up-regulated VEGF-A release after peroxide or Doxo treatment. Doxo induced HIF-1α stabilization and upregulation at clinically relevant concentrations of the cancer therapy. VEGF-A release was abrogated by the inhibition of the Erk1/2 or the MAPKp38 pathway. ARVM did not answer to Doxo-induced stress conditions by the release of VEGF-A as observed in CMEC. VEGF receptor 2 amounts were reduced by Doxo and by sunitinib in a dose-dependent manner in both CMEC and ARVM. In conclusion, these data suggest that cancer therapy with anthracyclines modulates VEGF-A release and its cellular receptors in CMEC and ARVM, and therefore alters paracrine signaling in the myocardium.

Perinatal care at the limit of viability between 22 and 26 completed weeks of gestation in Switzerland. 2011 revision of the Swiss recommendations

Perinatal care of pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery and of preterm infants born at the limit of viability (22-26 completed weeks of gestation) requires a multidisciplinary approach by an experienced perinatal team. Limited precision in the determination of both gestational age and foetal weight, as well as biological variability may significantly affect the course of action chosen in individual cases. The decisions that must be taken with the pregnant women and on behalf of the preterm infant in this context are complex and have far-reaching consequences. When counselling pregnant women and their partners, neonatologists and obstetricians should provide them with comprehensive information in a sensitive and supportive way to build a basis of trust. The decisions are developed in a continuing dialogue between all parties involved (physicians, midwives, nursing staff and parents) with the principal aim to find solutions that are in the infant's and pregnant woman's best interest. Knowledge of current gestational age-specific mortality and morbidity rates and how they are modified by prenatally known prognostic factors (estimated foetal weight, sex, exposure or nonexposure to antenatal corticosteroids, single or multiple births) as well as the application of accepted ethical principles form the basis for responsible decision-making. Communication between all parties involved plays a central role. The members of the interdisciplinary working group suggest that the care of preterm infants with a gestational age between 22 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks should generally be limited to palliative care. Obstetric interventions for foetal indications such as Caesarean section delivery are usually not indicated. In selected cases, for example, after 23 weeks of pregnancy have been completed and several of the above mentioned prenatally known prognostic factors are favourable or well informed parents insist on the initiation of life-sustaining therapies, active obstetric interventions for foetal indications and provisional intensive care of the neonate may be reasonable. In preterm infants with a gestational age between 24 0/7 and 24 6/7 weeks, it can be difficult to determine whether the burden of obstetric interventions and neonatal intensive care is justified given the limited chances of success of such a therapy. In such cases, the individual constellation of prenatally known factors which impact on prognosis can be helpful in the decision making process with the parents. In preterm infants with a gestational age between 25 0/7 and 25 6/7 weeks, foetal surveillance, obstetric interventions for foetal indications and neonatal intensive care measures are generally indicated. However, if several prenatally known prognostic factors are unfavourable and the parents agree, primary non-intervention and neonatal palliative care can be considered. All pregnant women with threatening preterm delivery or premature rupture of membranes at the limit of viability must be transferred to a perinatal centre with a level III neonatal intensive care unit no later than 23 0/7 weeks of gestation, unless emergency delivery is indicated. An experienced neonatology team should be involved in all deliveries that take place after 23 0/7 weeks of gestation to help to decide together with the parents if the initiation of intensive care measures appears to be appropriate or if preference should be given to palliative care (i.e., primary non-intervention). In doubtful situations, it can be reasonable to initiate intensive care and to admit the preterm infant to a neonatal intensive care unit (i.e., provisional intensive care). The infant's clinical evolution and additional discussions with the parents will help to clarify whether the life-sustaining therapies should be continued or withdrawn. Life support is continued as long as there is reasonable hope for survival and the infant's burden of intensive care is acceptable. If, on the other hand, the health car...