Cannabis use is associated with a lower IR risk in HIV-HCV-coinfected patients. The benefits of cannabis-based pharmacotherapies for patients concerned with increased risk of IR and diabetes need to be evaluated in clinical research and practice.
The present study investigated the use of waste non-edible oil cakes (Jatropha, Karanja, Neem, and Mahua) as a substrate for the growth of Paecilomyces variotii and dipicolinic acid (DPA) production. Previous researches proved the efficacy of DPA in suppressing certain pathogens that are deleterious to the plants in the rhizosphere. DPA production was statistical optimized by amending non-edible oil cakes in growing media as nitrogen and sugars (Dextrose, Glucose, and Lactose) as carbon source. Plackett-Burman design (PBD), indicated that Jatropha cake, Karanja cake, and Dextrose were the most significant components (p < 0.05) of the media and were further optimized using response surface methodology (RSM). Jatropha cake, Karanja cake, and Dextrose at the concentration of 12.5, 4.5, and 10 g/l, respectively, yielded 250 mg/l of DPA, which was 2.5 fold more than that obtained from basal medium. HPLC analysis of the optimized medium (peak at retention time of 30 min) confirmed the enhanced DPA production by P. variotii. The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images showed that optimized medium impose a stress like condition (due to less C:N ratio) for the fungus and generated more spores as compared to the basal medium in which carbon source is easily available for the mycelial growth. The antimicrobial activity of the fungal extract was tested and found to be effective even at 10−2 dilution after 72 h against two plant pathogens, Fusarium oxysporum and Verticillium dahlia. Statistical experimental design of this study and the use of non-edible oil cakes as a substrate offer an efficient and viable approach for DPA production by P. variotii.
While the literature reveals some disagreement on the specific features and definition of new managerialism and its practices, there is consensus on six features (Lynch, 2014) that define the practice.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESDifferent types of modified ultrafiltration (MUF) systems evaluated showed that none of the MUF techniques adhered to the normal venous to arterial blood flow dynamics. This study compared a conventional arteriovenous modified ultrafiltration (AVMUF) system to a custom-designed venoarterial modified ultrafiltration (VAMUF) system.DESIGN AND SETTINGSRandomized, controlled clinical study conducted at the Northwest Armed Forces Military hospital in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.PATIENTS AND METHODSSixty patients who underwent MUF during the years 2007 and 2009 were divided into 2 groups: the AVMUF (n=30) and the VAMUF (n=30) groups. MUF was performed for a mean time of 12 minutes in both groups. In AVMUF, blood was removed from the aorta, hemoconcentrated, and infused into the right atrium (RA). In VAMUF, blood flow was from the RA through a hemoconcentrator and re-infused into the aorta.RESULTSResults of the study showed that the VAMUF group required a shorter ventilation time (P<.001), intensive care unit (ICU) (P=.003), and hospital stay (P=.007) than the AVMUF group. Results also demonstrated a lower percentage of fluid balance (P=.008) in the VAMUF group. The systolic (P<.001) and mean blood pressures (P<.001) were significantly higher after VAMUF, with a decrease in heart rate (P<.001) and central venous pressure (P=.002). The VAMUF group showed a significantly greater decrease of creatinine (P<.001), serum lactacte (P<.001), and uric acid (P<.027) over time with no significant differences in oximetry.CONCLUSIONResults prove that VAMUF is a more physiological technique than AVMUF.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.