LIBRO: Prevención de las infecciones nosocomiales, 2a edicíon, Guía práctica

Prevencíon de las infecciones nosocomiales, 2a edicíon, Guía práctica		Prevention of hospital-acquired infections, 2nd edition. A practical guide
Índice		Contents
Introducción		Introduction
Capítulo I. Epidemiología de las infecciones nosocomiales		Chapter I. Epidemiology of nosocomial infections
Capítulo II. Programas de control de infecciones		Chapter II. Infection control programmes
Capítulo III. Vigilancia de las infecciones nosocomiales		Chapter III. Nosocomial infection surveillance
Capítulo IV. Forma de abordar los brotes		Chapter IV. dealing with outbreaks
Capítulo V. Prevención de las infecciones nosocomiales		Chapter V. Prevention of nosocomial infections
Capítulo VI. Prevención de las infecciones nosocomiales endémicas comunes		Chapter VI. Prevention of common endemic nosocomial infections
Capítulo VII. Precauciones para el control de infecciones durante la atencíon del paciente		Chapter VII. Infection control precautiopns in patient care
Capítulo VIII. Medio ambiente		Chapter VIII. Environment
Capítulo IX. Uso de antimicrobianos y farmacorresistencia		Chapter IX. Antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance
Capítulo X. Prevención de infecciones del personal		Chapter X. Preventing infections of staff
Anexo 1. Lecturas recomendadas		Annex 1. Suggested further reading
Anexo 2. Recursos disponibles en Internet		Annex 2. Internet resources
DESCARGAR ESPAÑOL		DOWNLOAD ENGLISH

-----------------------------------------------------------
Sigue este Blog en Facebook y Twitter

Xenotropic retrovirus Bxv1 in human pancreatic β cell lines

It has been reported that endogenous retroviruses can contaminate human cell lines that have been passaged as xenotransplants in immunocompromised mice. We previously developed and described 2 human pancreatic β cell lines (EndoC-βH1 and EndoC-βH2) that were generated in this way. Here, we have shown that B10 xenotropic virus 1 (Bxv1), a xenotropic endogenous murine leukemia virus (MuLV), is present in these 2 recently described cell lines. We determined that Bxv1 was also present in SCID mice that were used for in vivo propagation of EndoC-βH1/2 cells, suggesting that contamination occurred during xenotransplantation. EndoC-βH1/2 cells released Bxv1 particles that propagated to human 293T and Mus dunni cells. Mobilization assays demonstrated that Bxv1 transcomplements defective MuLV-based retrovectors. In contrast, common rodent β cell lines, rat INS-1E and RIN-5F cells and mouse MIN6 and βTC3 cells, displayed either no or extremely weak xenotropic helper activity toward MuLV-based retrovectors, although xenotropic retrovirus sequences and transcripts were detected in both mouse cell lines. Bxv1 propagation from EndoC-βH1/2 to 293T cells occurred only under optimized conditions and was overall poorly efficient. Thus, although our data imply that MuLV-based retrovectors should be cautiously used in EndoC-βH1/2 cells, our results indicate that an involuntary propagation of Bxv1 from these cells can be easily avoided with good laboratory practices.

REFERENCE:

Kirkegaard JS, et al. Xenotropic retrovirus Bxv1 in human pancreatic β cell lines. J Clin Invest. 2016 Mar 1;126(3):1109-13.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Sigue este Blog en Facebook y Twitter

Use and misuse of material transfer agreements: lessons in proportionality from research, repositories, and litigation

Material transfer agreements exist to facilitate the exchange of materials and associated data between researchers as well as to protect the interests of the researchers and their institutions. But this dual mandate can be a source of frustration for researchers, creating administrative burdens and slowing down collaborations. We argue here that in most cases in pre-competitive research, a simple agreement would suffice; the more complex agreements and mechanisms for their negotiation should be reserved for cases where the risks posed to the institution and the potential commercial value of the research reagents is high.

REFERENCE:
Bubela T, Guebert J, Mishra A. Use and misuse of material transfer agreements: lessons in proportionality from research, repositories, and litigation. PLoS Biol. 2015 Feb 3;13(2):e1002060.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Sigue este Blog en Facebook y Twitter

Virus contaminations of cell cultures – A biotechnological view

In contrast to contamination by microbes and mycoplasma, which can be relatively easily detected, viral contamination present a serious threat because of the difficulty in detecting some viruses and the lack of effective methods of treating infected cell cultures. While some viruses are capable of causing morphological changes to infected cells (e.g. cytopathic effect)which are detectable by microscopy some viral contaminations result in the integration of the viral genome as provirus, this causes no visual evidence, by means of modification of the cellular morphology. Virus production from such cell lines, are potentially dangerous for other cell cultures (in research labs)by cross contaminations, or for operators and patients (in the case of the production of injectable biologicals) because of potential infection. The only way to keep cell cultures for research, development, and the biotech industry virus-free is the prevention of such contaminations. Cell cultures can become contaminated by the following means: firstly, they may already be contaminated as primary cultures (because the source of the cells was already infected), secondly, they were contaminated due to the use of contaminated raw materials, or thirdly, they were contaminated via an animal passage. This overview describes the problems and risks associated with viral contaminations in animal cell culture, describes the origins of these contaminations as well as the most important virsuses associated with viral contaminations in cell culture. In addition, ways to prevent viral contaminations as well as measures undertaken to avoid and assess risks for viral contaminations as performed in the biotech industry are briefly described.
REFERENCE:
Merten, O.-W. “Virus Contaminations of Cell Cultures – A Biotechnological View.” Cytotechnology 39.2 (2002): 91–116. PMC. Web. 3 Apr. 2017.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Sigue este Blog en Facebook y Twitter

Material Transfer Agreements: A University Perspective

Fragment:
Scientists have traditionally shared research materials freely, and indeed an important criterion for scientific publication has been the unfettered ability of other researchers to experimentally reproduce and thereby test published results. That ability to replicate results will often rely on access to the underlying biological materials or information, but that access is not assured today. So what has changed? Probably the most significant factor has been the narrowing of the gap between fundamental research and commercial developments, particularly in the biomedical arena, but it is also evident in agricultural biology (Rai and Eisenberg, 2001). Materials that at one time would have been useful almost exclusively for fundamental research purposes are increasingly seen as having direct commercial value, and this has generated a new breed of company that focuses on leveraging novel research tools to discover new commercially valuable traits, genes, or compounds. Naturally, these companies are reluctant to share their “crown jewels” without making sure that their business interests are protected. Also of significance has been the changing role of universities, which are today actively using the patent system as a means of transferring its research results into the private sector and often conduct research that is sponsored by private companies.

REFERENCE:
Streitz, Wendy D., and Alan B. Bennett. “Material Transfer Agreements: A University Perspective.” Plant Physiology 133.1 (2003): 10–13. PMC. Web. 30 Mar. 2017.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sigue este Blog en Facebook y Twitter