Search

Plants are frequently subjected to abiotic and biotic stress which causes major impediments in their growth and development. It is emerging that small guanosine triphosphatases (small GTPases), also known as monomeric GTP-binding proteins, assist plants in managing environmental stress. Small GTPases function as tightly regulated molecular switches that get activated with the aid of guanosine triphosphate (GTP) and deactivated by the subsequent hydrolysis of GTP to guanosine diphosphate (GDP). All small GTPases except Rat sarcoma (Ras) are found in plants, including Ras-like in brain (Rab), Rho of plant (Rop), ADP-ribosylation factor (Arf) and Ras-like nuclear (Ran). The members of small GTPases in plants interact with several downstream effectors to counteract the negative effects of environmental stress and disease-causing pathogens. In this review, we describe processes of stress alleviation by developing pathways involving several small GTPases and their associated proteins which are important for neutralizing fungal infections, stomatal regulation, and activation of abiotic stress-tolerant genes in plants. Previous reviews on small GTPases in plants were primarily focused on Rab GTPases, abiotic stress, and membrane trafficking, whereas this review seeks to improve our understanding of the role of all small GTPases in plants as well as their interactome in regulating mechanisms to combat abiotic and biotic stress. This review brings to the attention of scientists recent research on small GTPases so that they can employ genome editing tools to precisely engineer economically important plants through the overexpression/knock-out/knock-in of stress-related small GTPase genes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Preprocedural ultrasound (US) assisted and real-time US-guided subarachnoid block (SAB) are useful adjuncts for successful SAB. This study compared the feasibility and efficacy of real-time US-guided SAB with preprocedural US-assisted and landmark-based SAB using paramedian approach. Methods: The study enroled 150 American Society of Anesthesiologists I and II patients, aged 20-65 years, scheduled for lower limb orthopaedic surgery under SAB. In group L (n = 50), the patients underwent landmark-guided SAB utilising paramedian approach. In group P (n = 50), preprocedural US-assisted SAB was instituted and in group M (n = 50) real-time US-guided SAB was administered. The number of needle attempts for a successful SAB was the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included successful SAB in first attempt, time taken to perform SAB and patients' satisfaction. Results: The number of attempts for SAB were (mean ± standard deviation = 1.05 ± 0.35, 1.00 ± 0.28, 1.03 ± 0.26) in groups L, P and M, respectively (P = 0.436). The SAB was successful in the first attempt in 82%, 82% and 80% in groups L, P and M, respectively (P = 0.207). The time taken for the successful SAB was more in group M as compared to groups L and P (groups L and M, P = 0.045 and groups P and M, P = 0.004). The patients' satisfaction score was comparable. Conclusion: Real-time US guidance for spinal anaesthesia resulted in needle attempts comparable to landmark and preprocedural US-assisted SAB in patients with a normal spine. The time required for the completion of the block was more in real-time US-guided SAB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Urodynamics (UDS) is widely used for the diagnosis of lower urinary tract dysfunction. Air‐Charged catheters (ACC), one of the newer technologies for UDS pressure recording, has been adopted in growing numbers around the world for the past 15 years. Currently, there is a lack of published studies characterizing specific performance of the ACC. Since linearity, hysteresis, pressure drift, and frequency response are important components in characterizing accuracy for catheter‐manometer systems; this study aimed to assess these four aspects in ACC. Methods: A total of 180 T‐DOC® ACC were used in three different laboratory settings to assess pressure linearity and hysteresis (15 dual‐sensor vesical and urethral and 30 single‐sensor abdominal), pressure drift over 2 h (115 single‐sensor), and frequency response (20 single‐sensor). Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Results: ACC showed linearity of 0.99 ± 0.01, 0.99 ± 0.01, and 1.01 ± 0.01; and hysteresis of 0.57 ± 0.3%, 0.76 ± 0.48%, and 1 ± 0.89% for the abdominal, vesical, and urethral sensors, respectively. A pressure drift of 2.2 ± 1.4% at 1 h and 4.4 ± 2.5% at 2 h were observed when compared to baseline pressures. The catheters did not show any amplification factor during the sweep from 1 to 30 Hz, and recorded signals up to 5 Hz attenuating higher frequency signals. Conclusions: In this study the T‐DOC® ACC showed a linear performance with minimal hysteresis associated with acceptable pressure drift, and adequate frequency response to capture clinically relevant pressures. The accurate results observed in this study suggest that these catheters are technically suitable to be used as a measuring instrument for UDS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]