On a glassy carbon (GC) surface covered with a covalently bonded methylphenyl monolayer, O 2 reduction to superoxide was observed and shown to be chemically reversible above pH 10. The voltammetry is completely explained by electron tunneling through the organic monolayer, then degradation of O 2 •Ϫ in aqueous solution by known homogeneous mechanisms. As the pH is decreased below about 10, O 2 •Ϫ in solution decays to O 2 and H 2 O 2 by routes previously deduced from pulse radiolysis experiments. In contrast, a GC surface cleaned with isopropanol and activated carbon is very active toward adsorption, and a two electron reduction to peroxide is observed. An adsorbed intermediate is proposed to be a surface hydroperoxide analogous to stable organic peroxides of the general formula ROOH. On clean, unmodified GC, the pH dependence of the O 2 reduction mechanism is consistent with control of the reduction process by adsorbed O 2 •Ϫ or • O 2 H. In the absence of adsorption sites on the carbon surface, degradation of electrogenerated superoxide occurs entirely in solution.

To elucidate the entire range of proteins that are secreted by Trichoderma harzianum ETS 323 in its antagonism with Rhizoctonia solani, an in vivo interaction between them was mimicked and not only the secreted cell wall-degrading enzymes (CWDEs) but also all of the proteome were investigated. Seven CWDEs, chitinase, cellulase, xylanase, beta-1,3-glucanase, beta-1,6-glucanase, mannanase, and protease,were revealed by activity assay, in-gel activity stain, 2-DE, and LC-MS/MS analysis. Extracellular protein extracts from media that contained R. solani exhibited much higher CWDE activities than media that did not contain R. solani. Cellulase and mannanase activity, however, were insignificant. Activity stain also revealed that beta-1,3-glucanase, beta-1,6-glucanase, and xylanase activity occurred exclusively in media that contained R. solani. Furthermore, 35 of the 43 excised spots on the 2-DE gel were successfully analyzed by LC-MS/MS, and eight proteins were identified. They were two glycoside hydrolases, two proteases, two beta-glucosidases, one endochitinase and, interestingly, one amino acid oxidase. Additionally, a possible mechanism was proposed to elucidate how the cell walls of R. solani are systematically enveloped and disintegrated.

No abstract

a b s t r a c tBackground: Psoriasis, a disturbing dermatological disorder, often results in ongoing disease and disability. However, relatively little has been published quantifying the quality of life (QoL) of patients with psoriasis in Taiwan.Objectives: This study was conducted to investigate the impact of psoriasis on the QoL of patients and to explore determinant factors. Methods: A total of 200 patients, 100 patients with psoriasis and 100 patients with general skin diseases, were asked to fulfill a QoL questionnaire modified from Skindex-16 to include an additional five items pertaining to occupational impact. The clinical data were collected and the severity of psoriasis was evaluated with the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score. The data were examined to ascertain factors that impact the QoL in patients with psoriasis. Results: Compared with patients with common skin disorders, patients with psoriasis experienced a deterioration of their QoL in the aspects of symptoms, emotions, daily life function and occupational scales. After further analysis, we noted that neither the severity of disease, duration of disease, age of patients, gender, educational level of patients, nor family history is the determinant factor that worsens their QoL. Instead, the site of the lesions, especially those on exposed areas including hand and facial involvement, has a tremendous impact on their QoL. Conclusions: Psoriasis has an appreciable effect on QoL, especially when it affects the hands and face. Of the four scales included in our study, the daily life function and occupational scales revealed the greatest effect. The sense of stigma may be the key factor that results in this outcome. To improve the QoL and therapeutic effects, a team needs to be constructed which includes dermatologists, psychologists, social workers, and help from the government is needed to accomplish the task.

No abstract

No abstract

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols-PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol. This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols. Various international organizations such as the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) regularly require and publish protocols. However, outside of such organizations, few protocols are published in traditional journals and most reports of completed reviews (89%) do not mention working from a protocol 1 (2014 update under way). Many experts have called for improved documentation and availability of review protocols. In response, experts (some of whom are authors on this document) launched an international, prospective register for systematic review protocols (PROSPERO, www.crd.york.ac.

No abstract