Identification and Characterisation of Pseudomonas 16S Ribosomal DNA from Ileal Biopsies of Children with Crohn's Disease

Molecular analysis of bacterial 16S rRNA genes has made a significant contribution to the identification and characterisation of bacterial flora in the human gut. In particular, this methodology has helped characterise bacterial families implicated in the aetiology of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In this study we have used a genus specific bacterial 16S PCR to investigate the prevalence and diversity of Pseudomonas species derived from the ileum of children with Crohn's disease (CD), and from control children with non-inflammatory bowel disease (non-IBD) undergoing their initial endoscopic examination. Fifty eight percent of CD patients (18/32) were positive using the Pseudomonas PCR, while significantly fewer children in the non-IBD group, 33% (12/36), were PCR positive for Pseudomonas (p<0.05, Fischer's exact test). Pseudomonas specific 16S PCR products from 13 CD and 12 non-IBD children were cloned and sequenced. Five hundred and eighty one sequences were generated and used for the comparative analysis of Pseudomonas diversity between CD and non-IBD patients. Pseudomonas species were less diverse in CD patients compared with non-IBD patients. In particular P.aeruginosa was only identified in non-IBD patients.     

Mutations in the aph(2")-Ic gene are responsible for increased levels of aminoglycoside resistance

Random PCR mutagenesis of the enterococcal aph(2")-Ic gene followed by selection for mutant enzymes that confer enhanced levels of aminoglycoside resistance resulted in mutants of APH(2")-Ic with His-258-Leu and Phe-108-Leu substitutions, all of which conferred rises in the MICs of several aminoglycosides. The mutated residues are located outside conserved regions of aminoglycoside phosphotransferases.     

A comparison between the electronic magnification (EM) and true magnification (TM) of breast phantom images using a CDMAM phantom

Purpose

To provide a comparison between the image quality of electronically magnified (EM) and geometric, or true, magnification (TM) mammographic images.

Materials and methods

One Computed Radiography (CR), one Digital Radiography (DR) and two screen–film (S–F) imaging systems were investigated. A Contrast-Detail Mammography (CDMAM) phantom was used as a test object. Three contact images and three sets of TM images with a magnification factor of 1.8 were taken on all systems. Software was used to zoom the contact images by a factor of 1.8 to produce EM images. Two observers evaluated all of the images. An Image Quality Figure and contrast detail curve were used to analyze the observer data and Mann–Whitney U-tests were performed to determine the statistical significance of the results.

Results

No significant differences were found between soft copy and hard copy for any imaging modality. No significant difference in contrast detail detectability (CDD) was seen between EM images from the two digital systems and TM images on S–F systems. The results for the DR EM images and S–F TM images also showed no differences. The CDD of DR TM images was significantly better than both EM and S–F TM images.

Conclusion

Digitally zoomed images offer the same level of CDD as S–F TM images, and so may be viably used in their place. DR systems offer greater CDD than conventional S–F images, when comparing the TM images. This implies that doses can be greatly reduced for TM views using DR systems, while maintaining acceptable image quality.     

The construct validity of a rating scale designed to assess spirituality and spiritual care

A postal survey, containing a questionnaire and covering letter, was distributed to 1029 ward-based nurses, of all grades, in a Large NHS Trust in an attempt to establish how nurses perceived spirituality and spiritual care. A response rate of 55.3% (n = 549) was obtained. Part of the questionnaire contained "The Spirituality and Spiritual Care Rating Scale" (SSCRS) a newly constructed instrument to aid the investigation and measurement of Spirituality and Spiritual Care. Factor Analysis was performed in an attempt to establish construct validity and to identify any underlying associations between items in the scale. It suggested a 17-item instrument with four factor-based subscales: Spirituality, Spiritual Care, Religiosity and Personalised Care. The 17-item SSCRS demonstrated a reasonable level of internal consistency reliability, having a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.64. Confirmatory Factor Analysis is recommended in order to cross-validate and refine this new Rating Scale.     

Comparison of prostate volume, shape, and contouring variability determined from preimplant magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images

PurposeTo compare preimplant prostate contours and contouring variability between magnetic resonance (MR) and transrectal ultrasound images.Methods and MaterialsTwenty-three patients were imaged using ultrasound (US) and MR before permanent brachytherapy treatment. Images were anonymized, randomized, and duplicated, and the prostate was independently delineated by five radiation oncologists. Contours were compared in terms of volume, dimensions, posterior rectal indentation, and observer variability. The Jaccard index quantified spatial overlap between contours from duplicated images.ResultsThe mean US/MR volume ratio was 0.99 ± 0.08 (p = 0.5). The width, height, and length ratios for the prostate were 0.98 ± 0.06 (p = 0.09), 0.99 ± 0.08 (p = 0.4), and 1.05 ± 0.14 (p = 0.1). Rectal indentation was larger on US by 0.18 mL (p = 0.01) and correlated with prostate volume (p < 0.01). MR and US interobserver variability in volume were similar at 3.5 ± 1.7 and 3.3 ± 1.9 mL (p = 0.6). Intraobserver variability was smaller on US at 1.4 ± 1.1 mL compared with MR at 2.4 ± 2.2 mL (p = 0.01). Local intraobserver variability was lower on US at the midgland slice (p < 0.01) but lower on MR at the base (p < 0.01) and apex (p < 0.01) slices.ConclusionsUS is comparable to MR for preimplant prostate delineation, with no significant difference in volume and dimensions. Rectal indentation because of the transrectal ultrasound probe was measurable, although the effects were small. Intraobserver variability was lower on US for the prostate volume but was lower on MR locally at the base and apex. However, the difference was not observed for the interobserver variability, which was similar between MR and US.