Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (1526) (remove)
Language
- German (1121)
- English (394)
- Portuguese (7)
- French (1)
- Multiple languages (1)
- Dutch (1)
- Russian (1)
Keywords
- Nachhaltigkeit (8)
- Logistik (6)
- Nutritional footprint (5)
- Danube (4)
- Electroporation (4)
- Evaluation (4)
- Lemnaceae (4)
- Neurodynamik (4)
- Physiotherapie (4)
- Sustainability (4)
Institute
Äpfel besitzen mehrere Allergene, die beim Essen innerhalb von 5–10 min zu Symptomen im Mundbereich führen – und deshalb von Apfelallergikern nicht gegessen werden können. In Deutschland haben rund 7,5 Mio. Menschen spezifische Antikörper gegen das Hauptallergen (Mal d 1) in Äpfeln entwickelt und sind damit sensibilisiert. Mindestens 3,5 Mio. von ihnen entwickeln die teilweise erheblichen allergischen Symptome als Ausdruck eines Oralen Allergie-Syndroms. Es gibt bisher keine medikamentöse Therapie gegen diese Allergie.
Apfelallergiker können daher nur auf Äpfel ganz verzichten, oder vorher erhitzte Äpfel essen oder Sorten suchen, die wenig Allergene enthalten und deshalb als allergikerfreundliche Apfelsorten bezeichnet werden können.
Alleinige Bestimmungen von Allergenen im Labor können nicht voraussagen, ob ein Apfel ohne allergische Symptome von Apfelallergikern gegessen werden kann; dazu bedarf es klinischer Prüfungen.
Wir beschreiben eine standardisierte klinische, orale Provokationstestung, die zur Charakterisierung eines allergenarmen, allergikerfreundlichen Apfels bzw. Apfelsorte benutzt werden kann.. Die Ergebnisse solcher mindestens dreijährigen Tests können zur Verleihung des ECARF-Siegels für allergikerfreundliche Produkte genutzt werden.
The apple fruit (Malus domestica L. Borkh) is one of the most popular fruits worldwide. Beyond their beneficial properties, apples contain proteins that trigger allergic reactions in susceptible consumers. Mal d1 to d4 are allergens present in a variety of different isoforms in apples. In this study, we used proteomics to quantify all four Mal d proteins in 52 apple genotypes with varying allergenic potentials. A total of 195, 17, 14, and 18 peptides were found to be related to Mal d1, d2, d3, and d4 proteins, respectively of which 25 different Mal d proteins could be unambiguously identified. The allergenic potential of the Mal d isoforms was characterized by comparing the isoform abundance with the allergenic score of genotypes from oral challenge tests. The detected Mal d peptides presumably have different IgE binding properties and could be used as potential molecular markers to discriminate between hypoallergenic and hyperallergenic cultivars.
Currently, only non-imaging chlorophyll fluorescence measurements are used to identify the Lower Oxygen Limit (LOL) in Dynamic Controlled Atmosphere - Chlorophyll Fluorescence (DCA-CF) storage. The disadvantage of non-imaging fluorescence is that no statement can be made about the spatial heterogeneity of the sample. In contrast, chlorophyll fluorescence imaging can detect spatial heterogeneity of photosynthetic activity and has been established in research for some decades because the information benefit is higher. In this study, the chlorophyll fluorescence (Fo, Fm, Fv, Fv/Fm) of apples (Malus x domestica, BORKH.) was measured with a fluorescence imaging system in situ during storage. Intact apples of ‘Braeburn’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ were stored under low-oxygen stress conditions (< 1 kPa). The metabolic shift from aerobic to fermentative metabolism was made visible with the chlorophyll fluorescence imaging and was spatially localized on the sample. Furthermore, a method was developed to identify the LOL based on the chlorophyll fluorescence imaging combined with the histogram division method. This method considers the heterogeneity of the fluorescence and bundles the measured Fo data as histograms. Our results showed that the fluorescence imaging combined with the histogram division method can be a powerful tool for identifying the LOL.
Background:
Etomidate is typically used as an induction agent in cardiac surgery because it has little impact on hemodynamics. It is a known suppressor of adrenocortical function and may increase the risk for post-operative infections, sepsis, and mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether etomidate increases the risk of postoperative sepsis (primary outcome) and infections (secondary outcome) compared to propofol.
Methods:
This was a retrospective before–after trial (IRB EA1/143/20) performed at a tertiary medical center in Berlin, Germany, between 10/2012 and 01/2015. Patients undergoing cardiac surgery were investigated within two observation intervals, during which etomidate and propofol were the sole induction agents.
Results:
One-thousand, four-hundred, and sixty-two patients, and 622 matched pairs, after caliper propensity-score matching, were included in the final analysis. Sepsis rates did not differ in the matched cohort (etomidate: 11.5% vs. propofol: 8.2%, p = 0.052). Patients in the etomidate interval were more likely to develop hospital-acquired pneumonia (etomidate: 18.6% vs. propofol: 14.0%, p = 0.031).
Conclusion:
Our study showed that a single-dose of etomidate is not statistically associated with higher postoperative sepsis rates after cardiac surgery, but is associated with a higher incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia. However, there is a notable trend towards a higher sepsis rate.