Vector competence of Culex quinquefasciatus Say, 1823 exposed to different densities of microfilariae of Dirofilaria immitis (Leidy, 1856)

The metropolitan region of Recife, Brazil is endemic for Dirofilaria immitis and has an environment favorable to the development of Culex quinquefasciatus. The goal of this study was to evaluate the vector competence of the Cx. quinquefasciatus RECIFE population for D. immitis transmission. A total of 2,104 females of Cx. quinquefasciatus RECIFE population were exposed to different densities of D. immitis microfilariae blood meals, ranging from 1,820 to 2,900 mf/ml of blood, in a natural membrane apparatus. The results showed a variation between 92.3% and 98.8% of females fed. The exposure of the Cx. quinquefasciatus RECIFE population to different densities of microfilariae did not influence the mortality of the mosquitoes. Infective larvae from D. immitis were observed in the Malpighian tubules beginning on the 12th day, whereas larvae were observed in the head and proboscis beginning on the 13th day following infection. The vector efficiency index (VEI) presented by the mosquitoes ranged from 7.8 to 56.5. The data demonstrates that the Cx. quinquefasciatus RECIFE population has great potential for the transmission of D. immitis, as it allowed the development of the filarid until the infectious stage at the different densities of microfilariae to which it was exposed.

Seeking good peer review in geomorphology

This paper provides an extended guide to reviewing for ESPL in particular and geomorphology in general. After a brief consideration of both how we choose reviewers and why we hope that reviewers will accept, I consider what makes a fair and constructive review. I note that we aim to publish papers with the rigour (r) necessary to sustain an original and significant contribution (q). I note that judging q is increasingly difficult because of the ever-growing size of the discipline (the Q). This is the sense in which we rarely have a full appreciation of Q, and our reviews are inevitably going to contain some bias. It is this bias that cannot be avoided (cf. Nicholas and Gordon, 2011) and makes the job of ESPL's Editors of critical importance. With this in mind, I identify six elements of a good review: (1) an introductory statement that explains your assessment of your competences in relation to the manuscript (r and Q); (2) a summative view of the originality and significance of the manuscript (q) in relation to Q: (3) a summative view of the methodological rigour of the manuscript (r); (4) identification and justification of any major concerns; (5) identification of any minor issues to be corrected if you think the manuscript merits eventual publication; and (6) note of any typographical or presentation issues to be addressed although this latter activity is also an editorial responsibility. In addition, I note the importance of a constructive review, grounded in what is written in the manuscript, justified where appropriate and avoiding reference to personal views as far as is possible. I conclude with a discussion of whether or not you should sign your review openly and the importance of reviewer confidentiality. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Achievement of at least very good partial response is a simple and robust prognostic factor in patients with multiple myeloma treated with high-dose therapy: long-term analysis of the IFM 99-02 and 99-04 Trials.

PURPOSE: The prognostic impact of complete response (CR) achievement in multiple myeloma (MM) has been shown mostly in the context of autologous stem-cell transplantation. Other levels of response have been defined because, even with high-dose therapy, CR is a relatively rare event. The purpose of this study was to analyze the prognostic impact of very good partial response (VGPR) in patients treated with high-dose therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients were included in the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome 99-02 and 99-04 trials and treated with vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (VAD) induction therapy followed by double autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). Best post-ASCT response assessment was available for 802 patients. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 67 months, median event-free survival (EFS) and 5-year EFS were 42 months and 34%, respectively, for 405 patients who achieved at least VGPR after ASCT versus 32 months and 26% in 288 patients who achieved only partial remission (P = .005). Five-year overall survival (OS) was significantly superior in patients achieving at least VGPR (74% v 61% P = .0017). In multivariate analysis, achievement of less than VGPR was an independent factor predicting shorter EFS and OS. Response to VAD had no impact on EFS and OS. The impact of VGPR achievement on EFS and OS was significant in patients with International Staging System stages 2 to 3 and for patients with poor-risk cytogenetics t(4;14) or del(17p). CONCLUSION: In the context of ASCT, achievement of at least VGPR is a simple prognostic factor that has importance in intermediate and high-risk MM and can be informative in more patients than CR.