The Rice Transcription Factor WRKY53 Suppresses Herbivore-Induced Defenses by Acting as a Negative Feedback Modulator of Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Activity

The mechanisms by which herbivore-attacked plants activate their defenses are well studied. By contrast, little is known about the regulatory mechanisms that allow them to control their defensive investment and avoid a defensive overshoot. We characterized a rice (Oryza sativa) WRKY gene, OsWRKY53, whose expression is rapidly induced upon wounding and induced in a delayed fashion upon attack by the striped stem borer (SSB) Chilo suppressalis. The transcript levels of OsWRKY53 are independent of endogenous jasmonic acid but positively regulated by the mitogen-activated protein kinases OsMPK3/OsMPK6. OsWRKY53 physically interacts with OsMPK3/OsMPK6 and suppresses their activity in vitro. By consequence, it modulates the expression of defensive, MPK-regulated WRKYs and thereby reduces jasmonic acid, jasmonoyl-isoleucine, and ethylene induction. This phytohormonal reconfiguration is associated with a reduction in trypsin protease inhibitor activity and improved SSB performance. OsWRKY53 is also shown to be a negative regulator of plant growth. Taken together, these results show that OsWRKY53 functions as a negative feedback modulator of MPK3/MPK6 and thereby acts as an early suppressor of induced defenses. OsWRKY53 therefore enables rice plants to control the magnitude of their defensive investment during early signaling.

Sustained impact of a short small group course with systematic feedback in addition to regular clinical clerkship activities on musculoskeletal examination skills-a controlled study.

BACKGROUND The discrepancy between the extensive impact of musculoskeletal complaints and the common deficiencies in musculoskeletal examination skills lead to increased emphasis on structured teaching and assessment. However, studies of single interventions are scarce and little is known about the time-dependent effect of assisted learning in addition to a standard curriculum. We therefore evaluated the immediate and long-term impact of a small group course on musculoskeletal examination skills. METHODS All 48 Year 4 medical students of a 6 year curriculum, attending their 8 week clerkship of internal medicine at one University department in Berne, participated in this controlled study. Twenty-seven students were assigned to the intervention of a 6×1 h practical course (4-7 students, interactive hands-on examination of real patients; systematic, detailed feedback to each student by teacher, peers and patients). Twenty-one students took part in the regular clerkship activities only and served as controls. In all students clinical skills (CS, 9 items) were assessed in an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) station, including specific musculoskeletal examination skills (MSES, 7 items) and interpersonal skills (IPS, 2 items). Two raters assessed the skills on a 4-point Likert scale at the beginning (T0), the end (T1) and 4-12 months after (T2) the clerkship. Statistical analyses included Friedman test, Wilcoxon rank sum test and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS At T0 there were no significant differences between the intervention and control group. At T1 and T2 the control group showed no significant changes of CS, MSES and IPS compared to T0. In contrast, the intervention group significantly improved CS, MSES and IPS at T1 (p < 0.001). This enhancement was sustained for CS and MSES (p < 0.05), but not for IPS at T2. CONCLUSIONS Year 4 medical students were incapable of improving their musculoskeletal examination skills during regular clinical clerkship activities. However, an additional small group, interactive clinical skills course with feedback from various sources, improved these essential examination skills immediately after the teaching and several months later. We conclude that supplementary specific teaching activities are needed. Even a single, short-lasting targeted module can have a long lasting effect and is worth the additional effort.

Italo-Swiss "Chalk and blackboard interactive 2-day workshop"-participants feedback

Ten "chalk and blackboard interactive workshops" have taken place between 2011 and 2015 in Southern Switzerland or Italy. Students, residents and expert pediatricians meet during 2 days and discuss 10-15 cases. Pediatricians promote reasoning, provide supporting information and correct statements. Emphasis is placed on history taking and examination, and on all participants being involved in a stimulating atmosphere. Thirty-seven participants were asked, ≥3 months after workshop-completion, to evaluate the workshop and a recent teaching session. Thirty answered and scored the workshop as excellent (N = 24) or above average (N = 6). The scores assigned to the workshop were higher (P < 0.001) than those assigned to the lecture-based teaching.

Entwicklung eines deutschsprachigen Fragebogens zur Durchführung von Multisource-Feedback in der ärztlichen Weiterbildung

Fragestellung/Einleitung: Multisource-Feedback (MSF) ist ein anerkanntes Instrument zur Überprüfung und Verbesserung der ärztlichen Tätigkeit [1]. Es beinhaltet Feedback, das von MitarbeiterInnen verschiedener Tätigkeitsbereiche und verschiedener Hierarchiestufen gegeben wird. Das Feedback wird anonym mithilfe eines Fragebogens gegeben, der verschiedene Kriterien der ärztlichen Kompetenz beschreibt. Das Feedback wird anschlieβend für die zu beurteilenden ÄrztInnen in einem Gespräch von einer/m SupervisorIn zusammengefasst. Bislang existiert kein deutschsprachiger Fragebogen für Multisource-Feedback für die ärztliche Tätigkeit. Unsere Zielsetzung war es daher, einen deutschsprachigen Fragebogen zu erstellen und diesen bzgl. relevanter Validitätskriterien zu untersuchen. Methoden: Zur Erstellung des Fragebogens sammelten wir die beste verfügbare Evidenz der entsprechenden Literatur. Wir wählten einen validierten englischen Fragebogen, der bereits in der Weiterbildung in Groβbritannien angewendet wird [2] und den wichtigsten Kriterien entspricht. Dieser wurde übersetzt und in einigen Bereichen erweitert, um ihn sprachlichen Gegebenheiten und lokalen Bedürfnissen anzupassen. Bezüglich der Validität wurden zwei Kriterien untersucht: Inhaltsvalidität (content validity evidence) und Antwortprozesse (response process validity evidence). Um die Inhaltsvalidität zu untersuchen, wurde in einer Expertenrunde diskutiert, ob der übersetzte Fragebogen die erwarteten Kompetenzen widerspiegelt. Im Anschluss wurden die Antwortprozesse mithilfe eines sog. „think-alouds“ mit ÄrztInnen in Weiterbildung und ihren AusbilderInnen untersucht. Ergebnisse: Der resultierende Fragebogen umfasst 20 Fragen. Davon sind 15 Items den Bereichen „Klinische Fähigkeiten“, „Umgang mit Patienten“, „Umgang mit Kollegen“ und „Arbeitsweise“ zuzuordnen. Diese Fragen werden auf einer fünfstufigen Likert-Skala beantwortet. Zusätzlich bietet jede Frage die Möglichkeit, einen Freitext zu besonderen Stärken und Schwächen der KandidatInnen aufzuführen. Weiterhin gibt es fünf globale Fragen zu Stärken und Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten, äuβeren Einflüssen, den Arbeitsbedingungen und nach Zweifeln an der Gesundheit oder Integrität des Arztes/ der Ärztin. In der Expertenrunde wurde der Fragebogen als für den deutschsprachigen Raum ohne Einschränkungen anwendbar eingeschätzt. Die Analyse der Antwortprozesse führte zu kleineren sprachlichen Anpassungen und bestätigt, dass der Fragebogen verständlich und eindeutig zu beantworten ist und das gewählte Konstrukt der ärztlichen Tätigkeit vollständig umschreibt. Diskussion/Schlussfolgerung: Wir entwickelten einen deutschsprachigen Fragebogen zur Durchführung von Multisource-Feedback in der ärztlichen Weiterbildung. Wir fanden Hinweise für die Validität dieses Fragebogens bzgl. des Inhalts und der Antwortprozesse. Zusätzliche Untersuchungen zur Validität wie z.B. die durch den Fragebogen entstehenden Auswirkungen (consequences) sind vorgesehen. Dieser Fragebogen könnte zum breiteren Einsatz von MSF in der ärztlichen Weiterbildung auch im deutschsprachigen Raum beitragen. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. You are free: to Share - to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited. See license information at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/.

Improving residency training with the help of multisource feedback: Generation of a model of influencing factors

Background: Feedback is considered to be one of the most important drivers of learning. One form of structured feedback used in medical settings is multisource feedback (MSF). This feedback technique provides the opportunity to gain a differentiated view on a doctor’s performance from several perspectives using a questionnaire and a facilitating conversation, in which learning goals are formulated. While many studies have been conducted on the validity, reliability and feasibility of the instrument, little is known about the impact of factors that might influence the effects of MSF on clinical performance. Summary of Work: To study under which circumstances MSF is most effective, we performed a literature review on Google Scholar with focus on MSF and feedback in general. Main key-words were: MSF, multi-source-feedback, multi source feedback, and feedback each combined with influencing/ hindering/ facilitating factors, effective, effectiveness, doctors-intraining, and surgery. Summary of Results: Based on the literature, we developed a preliminary model of facilitating factors. This model includes five main factors influencing MSF: questionnaire, doctor-in-training, group of raters, facilitating supervisor, and facilitating conversation. Discussion and Conclusions: Especially the following points that might influence MSF have not yet been sufficiently studied: facilitating conversation with the supervisor, individual aspects of doctors-in-training, and the causal relations between influencing factors. Overall there are only very few studies focusing on the impact of MSF on actual and long-term performance. We developed a preliminary model of hindering and facilitating factors on MSF. Further studies are needed to better understand under which circumstances MSF is most effective. Take-home messages: The preliminary model might help to guide further studies on how to implement MSF to use it at its full potential.

The unstable CO2 feedback cycle on ocean planets

Ocean planets are volatile-rich planets, not present in our Solar system, which are thought to be dominated by deep, global oceans. This results in the formation of high-pressure water ice, separating the planetary crust from the liquid ocean and, thus, also from the atmosphere. Therefore, instead of a carbonate-silicate cycle like on the Earth, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is governed by the capability of the ocean to dissolve carbon dioxide (CO2). In our study, we focus on the CO2 cycle between the atmosphere and the ocean which determines the atmospheric CO2 content. The atmospheric amount of CO2 is a fundamental quantity for assessing the potential habitability of the planet's surface because of its strong greenhouse effect, which determines the planetary surface temperature to a large degree. In contrast to the stabilizing carbonate-silicate cycle regulating the long-term CO2 inventory of the Earth atmosphere, we find that the CO2 cycle feedback on ocean planets is negative and has strong destabilizing effects on the planetary climate. By using a chemistry model for oceanic CO2 dissolution and an atmospheric model for exoplanets, we show that the CO2 feedback cycle can severely limit the extension of the habitable zone for ocean planets.

Short structured feedback training is equivalent to a mechanical feedback device in two-rescuer BLS: a randomised simulation study.

BACKGROUND Resuscitation guidelines encourage the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) feedback devices implying better outcomes after sudden cardiac arrest. Whether effective continuous feedback could also be given verbally by a second rescuer ("human feedback") has not been investigated yet. We, therefore, compared the effect of human feedback to a CPR feedback device. METHODS In an open, prospective, randomised, controlled trial, we compared CPR performance of three groups of medical students in a two-rescuer scenario. Group "sCPR" was taught standard BLS without continuous feedback, serving as control. Group "mfCPR" was taught BLS with mechanical audio-visual feedback (HeartStart MRx with Q-CPR-Technology™). Group "hfCPR" was taught standard BLS with human feedback. Afterwards, 326 medical students performed two-rescuer BLS on a manikin for 8 min. CPR quality parameters, such as "effective compression ratio" (ECR: compressions with correct hand position, depth and complete decompression multiplied by flow-time fraction), and other compression, ventilation and time-related parameters were assessed for all groups. RESULTS ECR was comparable between the hfCPR and the mfCPR group (0.33 vs. 0.35, p = 0.435). The hfCPR group needed less time until starting chest compressions (2 vs. 8 s, p < 0.001) and showed fewer incorrect decompressions (26 vs. 33 %, p = 0.044). On the other hand, absolute hands-off time was higher in the hfCPR group (67 vs. 60 s, p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS The quality of CPR with human feedback or by using a mechanical audio-visual feedback device was similar. Further studies should investigate whether extended human feedback training could further increase CPR quality at comparable costs for training.