This study was designed to compare the effect of the prebiotic and antimicrobial growth promoter (AGP) on the growth performance, blood constituents, intestinal bacteriology and histomorphometric parameters as well as humeral immunity of broiler chicks. A total of 90 unsexed commercial Cobb chicks were randomly assigned to 3 dietary treatments (control, AGP and prebiotic groups), each group contains 30 chicks. Each group subdivided into 3 replicates, 10 chicks each, and was reared for 42 days. The prebiotic supplemented group showed a significant improvement in growth performance parameters in comparison to the control and AGP-supplemented groups. Total leukcocytic count, lymphocyte percent, total protein, total globulin and gamma globulin were significantly increased in the broilers fed on prebiotics. Moreover, prebiotics supplementation significantly reduced heterophil percent, heterophil/ lymphocyte ratio (H/L ratio), albumin/globulin ratio, aspartate and alanine aminotransferase (AST and ALT), uric acid and creatinine compared to the AGP-supplemented and control groups. The AGP-supplemented group exhibited a significant reduction in the total aerobic count when compared to the control and prebiotic-supplemented groups. However, the prebiotic supplemented group showed a significant reduction in the coliform count when compared to the control and antibiotic supplemented groups. The prebiotic supplemented group induced a significant increase in the villus height (VH) all over the small intestine. In addition, it induced a significant increase in villus height: crypt depth ratio in the duodenum and jejunum in comparison to the control and antibiotic supplemented groups. However, there were no significant differences among the different groups regard to the crypt depth (CD) in the duodenum and jejunum. Prebiotics could be considered as safe and effective antimicrobial alternatives for broiler chicks' growth performance, immunity and intestinal bacteriology and morphology.

No abstract

Arab partners launched an eight-month intervention in Libya. This was said to be necessary because Mu'amar Gaddafi, Libya's longtime ruler, was responding to mass protests against his over forty-year dictatorial reign by waging war on his own people. As President Barack Obama explained, without international intervention "the calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun. Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow." 1 Initially, this operation was "hailed as a model intervention." 2 With minimal losses and virtually no boots on the ground, the intervention prevented what many feared would be a humanitarian catastrophe. Six years later, however, it is widely recognized that the Libyan intervention was a failure. As President Obama put it, in a model understatement, "Libya is a mess." 3 Instead of transitioning into even a semifunctioning state, Libya has devolved into a lawless vortex of terrorists, refugees, human traffickers, and arms traders. 4 This was the result of a series of political miscalculations. As a report by the British House of Commons concluded:[T]he Government failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element. By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya. The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa. 5

No abstract

No abstract

The present study was planned to evaluate the influence of synbiotic and enramycin on the broiler immunity and growth performance. In a complete randomized design, 90 unsexed day old Cobb broiler chicks were randomly assigned into three treatments with three replicated. The first control group fed basal diet only, the 2 nd group consumed basal diet plus enramycin (0.5g/kg diet), and the 3 rd group fed basal diet fortified with synbiotic (0.5g/kg diet) up to 42 days. The results revealed a significant (P<0.05) improvement of the growth performance considerations, phagocytic index, and phagocytic percentage in synbiotic fortified group in comparison with other groups. Oral supplementation with synbiotic resulted in up regulation of interleukin-4 (IL-4) and interferon-γ (IFN-γ) in cecal tonsils and spleens when compared with the control and enramycin groups. However, the antibody titers against Newcastle disease (ND), Avian Influenza (AI), and Infectious Bronchitis (IB) viruses were not obviously changed between the tested groups at both 28 and 42 days. Moreover, the enramycin caused a significant (P<0.05) adverse effect on the liver function enzymes as compared with other groups. In conclusion, the synbiotic can be considered as a potential feed additive alternative to antibiotic with desired effect as an enhancer for both cellular and gut immunity, as a growth promoter without adverse effect on the liver healthiness.

No abstract

Background:Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory arthritis affecting 20:30% of patients with skin Psoriasis (PsO). It is strongly associated with obesity, particularly excess visceral adiposity, which leads to insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, and hypertension (HTN).All the previous findings are grouped in Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) which increase the risk of development of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by five folds and cardiovascular disease (CVD) by two folds.Objectives:The aim of this work was to define those who fulfill MetS criteria in PsA patients thus of greater risk to develop CVD and T2DM.Methods:Fifty PsA patients diagnosed according to the CASPAR criteria and 50 matched healthy controls were included in this study.All patients were subjected to thorough clinical evaluation of the musculoskeletal system. The disease activity was assessed by DAPSA and BASDAI. Skin severity was assessed by the PASI. Disability assessment was done by the HAQ-DI. Laboratory investigations included: CRP, uric acid and diabetic profile (includingHOMA-IR) and lipid profile in patients and control subjects.Subjects were defined as having MetS according to International Diabetes Federation (IDF) criteria:Abdominal obesity was measured by Waist circumference (WC) for Egyptian cutoffs values (WC>100.5 cm in men and >96.25 cm in women).The subjects must have central obesity to identify MetS plus any two of the following four factors:1) Raised triglycerides level (TG) ≥ 150 mg/dL or on specific treatment.2) Reduced levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL <40 mg/dL in males and <50mg/dL in females or on specific treatment.3) HTN: (systolic: ≥130mm H g or diastolic: ≥ 85 mm Hg) or on treatment for HTN.4) Raised fasting glucose levels (≥ 100 mg/dL), or previously diagnosed T2DM.Results:Metabolic syndrome was significantly higher among PsA patients than control group (42% Vs 16% respectively).Regarding frequency of MetS components, obesity was the highest component among PsA patients (62%) as illustrated in Figure 1.CRP mean level was significantly higher in PsA patients compared to control group with p <0.001*. CRP serum level showed a positive significant correlation with DAPSA score and HOMA-IR (P= 0.031, 0.002 respectively)Correlations between MetS components and (disease activity, skin severity and physical function) are shown in Table 1.Conclusion:1-There is high frequency of MetS in PsA patients compared to control group.2- Obesity and DMT2 were the most common components of MetS.References:[1]Eder L, Harvey P, Chandran V, Rosen CF, Dutz J, Elder JT, et al. Gaps in diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with psoriatic disease: an international multicenter study. The Journal of rheumatology. 2018:jrheum. 170379.[2]Alberti KGMM, Zimmet P, Shaw J. Metabolic syndrome—a new world-wide definition. A consensus statement from the international diabetes federation. Diabetic medicine. 2006;23(5):469-80.Psoriatic ArthritisMetabolic syndromeWCBMITGHDLFBSHOMA-IRSystolic BPDiastolic BPDAPSArs-0.2330.0810.086-0.1160.2630.3870.136-0.170P0.3080.7280.7100.6160.2500.0830.5570.462BASDAIrs0.798*0.1520.060-0.110-0.424-0.2940.168-0.027P<0.001*0.5090.7980.6360.0550.1960.4670.906PASIrs0.435*0.2260.363-0.521*-0.276-0.253-0.054-0.060P0.049*0.3240.1060.015*0.2270.2680.8180.795HAQ-DIrs0.1890.1760.168-0.286-0.240-0.184-0.343-0.276P0.4130.4450.4660.2090.2950.4240.1280.225Disclosure of Interests:None declared