Search

Summary: Background: Candida auris, an emerging nosocomial pathogen, exhibits phenotypic variation. Non‐aggregating C. auris isolates display greater biofilm‐forming capacity and virulence than aggregate‐forming isolates. Most of the studies till date have focused on clinical isolates. The biofilm‐forming capacity of colonising isolates remains uninvestigated. Objectives: The present study aimed to elucidate the biofilm‐forming capacity of the colonising isolates of C. auris, correlate it with their aggregation behaviour and antifungal susceptibility, and compare it with that of the isolates from blood‐stream infection. Methods: Colonising and clinical (candidemia) isolates of C. auris were screened for aggregation behaviour, biofilm‐forming capacity and antifungal susceptibility testing. Aggregation behaviour was assessed microscopically. Biofilm‐forming capacity was determined on 96‐well flat‐bottomed microtitre plates. Antifungal susceptibility testing was performed by broth microdilution assay. Results: Aggregative and non‐aggregative phenotypes were found to be predominantly associated with colonising and clinical isolates, respectively, with the former ones being stronger biofilm producers in the colonising group. Non‐aggregative isolates in the colonising group showed lower susceptibility to amphotericin B and fluconazole than aggregative isolates. In contrast, no association was noted between biofilm formation, aggregation behaviour and antifungal susceptibility amongst the clinical isolates. Conclusion: Biofilm formation is a strain‐dependent trait in C. auris, strongly associated with the type and phenotypic behaviour of the isolates. Colonising isolates of this fungus were found to be predominantly aggregative in nature, with a higher biofilm‐forming capacity than non‐aggregative ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although Christianity was introduced to and embraced by Batswana over two centuries ago, some Batswana still hold dear to their traditions, customs and cultures, which, at times, are not in line with the Word of God. Volz (2008:112) concedes that, although European missionaries introduced Batswana to Christianity, they had hardly any control over how early Batswana converts perceived and adapted their teachings. In some instances, dikgosi,¹ as traditional leaders, are still facing a serious conundrum of being a Christian, on the one hand, and a custodian of culture, on the other. This is in line with the view expressed by Amanze (2003:43) that many Christians, especially members of the African Independent Churches, live a strange life, with one foot rooted in the African traditional beliefs and the other in Christian beliefs and practices. Given the statement "For there is only one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5), the question is: Where does this place traditions, customs and culture?. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disciplines such as archaeology, anthropology and history exercise a seemingly disproportionate influence on race relations in settler democracies. In South Australia, this influence has complex and unbroken genealogies linked to the beginnings of British settlement and the Protectors of Aborigines. This colonising character survives, and we argue that researchers working in Aboriginal heritage can be positioned as the new Protectors of Aborigines, reinvigorating a colonising network of power relations that remains critical in determining Indigenous interests and futures. In response Ngarrindjeri are theorising and strategising a transformative programme for decentring the new Protectors that avoids contexts where authenticity is at question or fundamental to the negotiations. Mapping actor networks revealed in everyday meetings and performances, and understanding local/global cultures of governmentality, have been necessary to safely bring Indigenous interests into Aboriginal heritage research, planning and policy, without activating the colonial archive and recycling Aboriginalist myths. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]