Comparison of alternative methods of contact tracing in a syphilis control program

The purpose of this study was to compare the relative effectiveness of alternative methods of tracing named contacts of syphilis patients. A total of 236 contacts, identified by patients in two City of Houston Department of Health and Human Services clinics during the period April 1 through July 31, 1987, were studied. After contacts were grouped by sex and age, the proportion brought to examination by each of three methods, and by a combination of methods, was determined for each subgroup.^ The study found that 78.4% of all the 236 named sex contacts reported were located and brought to examination by the various methods of contact tracing and that 21.6% were missed. Of the 185 contacts examined, a combination of methods identified 47.7% of the cases, telephone contact, 28.6%, field contact, 16.9%, and patient referral, 11.8%.^ Of the 236 contacts reported, males made up 56.8% and females 43.2%. Contact tracing was more successful among females, with 81.4% of the 102 named female contacts, as compared to 76.1% of the 134 named male contacts being brought to examination. It is not known whether equal efforts were exerted in the follow-up of both male and female contacts. In both female and male subgroups, a combination of methods brought over 40% of sex contacts to examination. Telephone contact among females yielded 27.7% of the cases and field contact 18.1%, whereas in males, telephone contact identified 29.4% of the cases and field contact 15.7%. Patient referral was the least productive method in both sex groups, locating 12.8% in males as compared to 10.8% in females.^ On an age specific basis, a combination of methods was the most effective method in the 15-39 age group, whereas telephone contact was most effective in the 40-44 age group, and field contact in the 50-54 age group. Of all the methods of contact tracing, patient referral was the least productive in most age groups.^ Future studies of contact tracing should incorporate several important variables which were not examined in this study. ^

Clinical and microbiological aspects of linezolid resistance mediated by the cfr gene encoding a 23S rRNA methyltransferase.

The cfr (chloramphenicol-florfenicol resistance) gene encodes a 23S rRNA methyltransferase that confers resistance to linezolid. Detection of linezolid resistance was evaluated in the first cfr-carrying human hospital isolate of linezolid and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (designated MRSA CM-05) by dilution and diffusion methods (including Etest). The presence of cfr was investigated in isolates of staphylococci colonizing the patient's household contacts and clinical isolates recovered from patients in the same unit where MRSA CM-05 was isolated. Additionally, 68 chloramphenicol-resistant Colombian MRSA isolates recovered from hospitals between 2001 and 2004 were screened for the presence of the cfr gene. In addition to erm(B), the erm(A) gene was also detected in CM-05. The isolate belonged to sequence type 5 and carried staphylococcal chromosomal cassette mec type I. We were unable to detect the cfr gene in any of the human staphylococci screened (either clinical or colonizing isolates). Agar and broth dilution methods detected linezolid resistance in CM-05. However, the Etest and disk diffusion methods failed to detect resistance after 24 h of incubation. Oxazolidinone resistance mediated by the cfr gene is rare, and acquisition by a human isolate appears to be a recent event in Colombia. The detection of cfr-mediated linezolid resistance might be compromised by the use of the disk diffusion or Etest method.

Regulation of {\it myogenin\/} transcription during mouse embryogenesis

The formation of skeletal muscle during vertebrate development involves the induction of mesoderm and subsequent generation of myoblasts that ultimately differentiate into mature muscles. The recent identification of a group of myogenic regulators that can convert fibroblasts to myoblasts has contributed to our understanding of the molecular events that underlie the establishment of the skeletal muscle phenotype. Members of this group of myogenic regulators share a helix-loop-helix (HLH) motif that mediates DNA binding. The myogenic HLH proteins bind to the consensus sequence CANNTG, referred to as an E-box, and activate muscle-specific transcription. In addition to E-boxes, other motifs, such as the MEF-2 binding site, have been shown to mediate muscle-specific transcription. The myogenic HLH proteins are expressed in the myogenic precursors in somites and limb buds, and in differentiated muscle fibers during embryogenesis, consistent with their roles as regulators for muscle development. The myogenic HLH proteins appear to auto-activate their own and cross-activate one another's expression in cultured cells. Myogenin is one of the myogenic HLH proteins and likely the regulator for terminal muscle differentiation. Myogenin is a common target of diverse regulatory pathways. To search for upstream regulators of myogenin, we studied regulation of myogenin transcription during mouse embryogenesis. We showed that the myogenin promoter contains a binding site for MEF-2, which can mediate indirectly the autoregulation of myogenin transcription. We found that a transgene under the control of a 1.5 kb 5$\sp\prime$ flanking sequence can recapitulate the temporal and spatial expression pattern of the endogenous myogenin gene during mouse embryogenesis. By tracing embryonic cells that activate myogenin-lacZ during embryogenesis, we found no evidence that lacZ was expressed in myogenic precursors migrating from somites to limb buds, suggesting the existence of regulators other than myogenic HLH proteins that can maintain cells in the myogenic lineage. Mutations of an E-box and a MEF-2 site in the myogenin promoter suppressed transcription in subsets of myogenic precursors in mouse embryos. These results suggest that myogenic HLH proteins and MEF-2 participate in separable regulatory pathways controlling myogenin transcription and provide evidence for positional regulation of myogenic regulators in the embryo. ^