Evaluation of neurobehavioral abnormalities and immunotoxicity in response to oral imidacloprid exposure in domestic chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus)

ABSTRACT

Domestic chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) were exposed to imidacloprid by gavage once daily for 7 consecutive days at 0, 0.03, 0.34, 3.42, 10.25, and 15.5 mg/kg/day (n = 20 per group; 5 6-week-old males, 5 6-week-old females, 5 9-week-old males, and 5 9-week-old females). The severity and duration of neurobehavioral abnormalities were recorded. Components of the innate and adaptive immune system were assessed with 7 standard functional assays. Temporary neurobehavioral abnormalities were observed in a dose-dependent manner, including muscle tremors, ataxia, and depressed mentation. Based upon mean clinical severity scores, the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was 3.42 mg/kg/day, and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) was 10.25 mg/kg/day. The effective dose value for the presence of any neurobehavioral abnormalities in 50% of the test group (ED₅₀) was 4.62 ± 0.98 mg/kg/day. The ED₅₀ for an adjusted score that included both severity and duration of neurobehavioral abnormalities was 11.24 ± 9.33 mg/kg/day. These ED₅₀ values are equivalent to a 1 kg bird ingesting 29 or 70 imidacloprid treated soybean seeds respectively. Immunotoxicity was not documented, possible causes include the assays were insensitive, relevant immune functions were not examined, or imidacloprid is not immunotoxic at this dosing schedule in this species. Neurobehavioral abnormalities were a more sensitive indicator of the sublethal effects of imidacloprid than immunotoxicity.     

The primary health care physician and the cancer patient: tips and strategies for managing sexual health

There is a large and growing population of long-term cancer survivors. Primary care physicians (PCPs) are playing an increasingly greater role in the care of these patients across the continuum of cancer survivorship. In this role, PCPs are faced with the responsibility of managing a range of medical and psychosocial late effects of cancer treatment. In particular, the sexual side effects of treatment which are common and have significant impact on quality of life for the cancer survivor, often go unaddressed. This is an area of clinical care and research that has received increasing attention, highlighted by the presentation of this special issue on Cancer and Sexual Health. The aims of this review are 3-fold. First, we seek to overview common presentations of sexual dysfunction related to major cancer diagnoses in order to give the PCP a sense of the medical issues that the survivor may present with. Barriers to communication about sexual health issues between patient/PCPs in order are also described in order to emphasize the importance of PCPs initiating this important conversation. Next, we provide strategies and resources to help guide the PCP in the management of sexual dysfunction in cancer survivors. Finally, we discuss case examples of survivorship sexual health issues and highlight the role that a PCP can play in each of these case examples.     

Antimicrobial activity of selected synbiotics targeted for the elderly against pathogenic Escherichia coli strains

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of two synbiotic combinations, Lactobacillus fermentum with short-chain fructooligosaccharides (FOS-LF) and Bifidobacterium longum with isomaltooligosaccharides (IMO-BL), against enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7 and enteropathogenic E. coli O86. Antimicrobial activity was determined (1) by co-culturing the synbiotics and pathogens in batch cultures, and (2) with the three-stage continuous culture system (gut model), inoculated with faecal slurry from an elderly donor. In the co-culture experiments, IMO-BL was significantly inhibitory to both E. coli strains, while FOS-LF was slightly inhibitory or not inhibitory. Factors other than acid production appeared to play a role in the inhibition. In the gut models, both synbiotics effectively inhibited E. coli O157 in the first vessel, but not in vessels 2 and 3. E. coli O86 was not significantly inhibited.