Immune modulation alters brain opioid activities: Evidence for a role of muramyl dipeptide in the process of neuroimmunemodulation

During the last twenty years a scientific basis for the anecdotal reports of an interaction between the brain and the immune system has established neuroimmunemodulation as a new field of study in the biomedical sciences. A means for the brain to exert a regulatory influence upon various lymphoid reactions has been well established by many investigators world wide. This dissertation was geared to test the central hypothesis that the immune system, in turn, produces signals which affect CNS functions. Specifically, it is shown through several different experiments, behavioral and electrophysiologic, that the immune modifiers interferon-alpha, gamma irradiation, cyclosporine-A and muramyl-dipeptide modify brain opioid related activities. Each agent attenuates naloxone-precipitated morphine withdrawal following either systemic or intracranial injection. Each agent also has effects upon either the acute antinociceptive or hypothermic activities of morphine. Finally, each agent modifies baseline evoked electrical activity of several brain areas of awake freely-behaving rats. Later studies demonstrate that muramyl-dipeptide modifies the unit firing rate of single neurons in the brain following either systemic or localized administration within the brain. These results suggest that the immune system produces signals which affect brain activity; and thus, support the contention of a bi-directional interaction between the brain and the immune system. ^

The evidence for groundwater as a source of enteric illness in developing countries: A systematic review of the literature

Groundwater constitutes approximately 30% of freshwater globally and serves as a source of drinking water in many regions. Groundwater sources are subject to contamination with human pathogens (viruses, bacteria and protozoa) from a variety of sources that can cause diarrhea and contribute to the devastating global burden of this disease. To attempt to describe the extent of this public health concern in developing countries, a systematic review of the evidence for groundwater microbially-contaminated at its source as risk factor for enteric illness under endemic (non-outbreak) conditions in these countries was conducted. Epidemiologic studies published in English language journals between January 2000 and January 2011, and meeting certain other criteria, were selected, resulting in eleven studies reviewed. Data were extracted on microbes detected (and their concentrations if reported) and on associations measured between microbial quality of, or consumption of, groundwater and enteric illness; other relevant findings are also reported. In groundwater samples, several studies found bacterial indicators of fecal contamination (total coliforms, fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci, enterococci and E. coli), all in a wide range of concentrations. Rotavirus and a number of enteropathogenic bacteria and parasites were found in stool samples from study subjects who had consumed groundwater, but no concentrations were reported. Consumption of groundwater was associated with increased risk of diarrhea, with odds ratios ranging from 1.9 to 6.1. However, limitations of the selected studies, especially potential confounding factors, limited the conclusions that could be drawn from them. These results support the contention that microbial contamination of groundwater reservoirs—including with human enteropathogens and from a variety of sources—is a reality in developing countries. While microbially-contaminated groundwaters pose risk for diarrhea, other factors are also important, including water treatment, water storage practices, consumption of other water sources, water quantity and access to it, sanitation and hygiene, housing conditions, and socio-economic status. Further understanding of the interrelationships between, and the relative contributions to disease risk of, the various sources of microbial contamination of groundwater can guide the allocation of resources to interventions with the greatest public health benefit. Several recommendations for future research, and for practitioners and policymakers, are presented.^