Technology for mobility in SCI 10 years from now

OBJECTIVES

To identify technological advances and that are likely to have a great impact on the quality of life and participation in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI).

METHODS

In this paper we use the International Classification of Function to frame a discussion on how technology is likely to impact SCI in 10 years. In addition, we discuss the implication of technological advances on future research.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

Although technology advances are exciting, a large challenge for the research community will be how to effectively apply and deploy this technology. Advances occurring in the next 10 years that reduce cost of technology may be more important to the population with SCI than brand new technologies. Social context is everything. As a research community we must advocate for better systems of care. Advocating now for better care will lead to a world in 2020 that is ready to adopt new technologies that are truly transformative.

First Report of Xylella fastidiosa in Peach in New Mexico

Xylella fastidiosa is a gram-negative bacterium that causes disease in a wide variety of plants such as grapes, citrus trees, oleanders, and elm and coffee trees. This bacterium is xylem limited and causes disease symptoms such as leaf scorch, stunting of plant growth, branch dieback, and fruit loss. The presence of X. fastidiosa was previously reported in New Mexico where it was found to be infecting chitalpa plants and grapevines (3). In the summer of 2010, peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch) trees from two locations in northern New Mexico exhibited leaf deformity and stunting, dark green venation, slight mottling, and branch dieback. Preliminary viral diagnostic screening was performed by Agdia (Elkhart, IN) on one symptomatic tree and it was negative for all viruses tested. Three trees from two different orchards tested positive for X. fastidiosa by ELISA and PCR analysis using X. fastidiosa-specific primer sets HL (1) and RST (2). Bacterial colonies were also cultured from these samples onto periwinkle wilt media. Eight colonies obtained from these three plants tested PCR positive using the X. fastidiosa-specific primers. The 16S ribosomal and 16S-23S rRNA internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region (557 nucleotides) (GenBank Accession No. HQ292776) along with the gyrase region (400 nucleotides) (GenBank Accession No. HQ292777) was amplified from the peach total DNA samples and the bacterial colonies. Sequencing analysis of these regions indicate that the X. fastidiosa found in peach is 100% similar to other X. fastidiosa multiplex isolates including isolates from peach, pecan, sycamore, and plum trees and 99% similar to the X. fastidiosa isolates previously found in New Mexico. Further analysis of the 16S ribosomal and 16S-23S rRNA ITS sequences with maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis using Paup also groups the peach isolates into the X. fastidiosa multiplex subspecies. The gyrase sequence could not be used to differentiate the peach isolates into a subspecies grouping because of the lack of variability within the sequence. This X. fastidiosa multiplex subspecies could possibly be a threat to the New Mexico pecan industry since pecan infecting X. fastidiosa isolates belong to the same bacterial subspecies. It is not known if X. fastidiosa subspecies multiplex isolates from peach are capable of infecting pecans but they are closely genetically related. It is interesting to note that the isolates from peach are different than previously described X. fastidiosa isolates in New Mexico that were infecting chitalpa and grapes (3). X. fastidiosa has previously been described in peach; the disease is called "phony peach". The peach trees exhibited stunting and shortened internodes as reported for "phony peach". They also exhibited slight mottling and branch dieback that may be due to the environment in New Mexico or perhaps they are also exhibiting mineral deficiency symptoms in association with the X. fastidiosa disease. To our knowledge, this is the first report of X. fastidiosa in peach in New Mexico. References: (1) M. H. Francis et al. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 115:203, 2006. (2) G. V. Minsavage et al. Phytopathology 84:456, 1994. (3) J. J. Randall et al. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75:5631, 2009.

231 SEMINAL QUALITY IN WHOOPING CRANE (GRUS AMERICANA) IS AFFECTED BY STAGE OF BREEDING SEASON BUT NOT BY AGE OF INDIVIDUAL

The whooping crane is one of the most critically endangered species in North America. The species underwent a severe genetic bottleneck with only 16 individuals remaining in the wild as of 1942. Captive breeding began in 1966 and continues to produce chicks for release in order to establish new wild populations. However, captive birds experience poor reproduction with approximately 40% of eggs being infertile. Males have been known to reach sexual maturity at 5 years of age and continue to reproduce almost as long as the duration of their adult life (i.e. 40 years). Understanding factors affecting seminal quality may assist in identifying and correcting causes of suboptimal reproduction. Our objectives were to determine the influence of age and reproductive seasonality on seminal quality. We hypothesised that seminal quality variations among whooping cranes and ejaculates within a given individual over time were due to bird age and stage of breeding season. In 2010, twenty-nine whooping cranes of 5 age groups housed at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (Laurel, MD, USA) were studied: ≤5 years (n = 3); 6–10 years (n = 7); 11–15 years (n = 7); 16–20 years (n = 4); >20 years old (n = 8). Semen was collected using a manual manipulation technique at 3 stages of the breeding season: early (March, n = 29) mid (April, n = 24), and late (May, n = 14). Samples were evaluated for seminal volume and sperm concentration, motility, and morphology, with data evaluated by analysis of variance. Bird age had no influence on seminal quality, whereas stage of breeding season affected seminal volume and the proportion of sperm with normal morphology (95% confidence interval). Specifically, samples collected during Mid breeding season had the highest volume (mean ± SEM; early: 42.0 ± 8.0 μL; mid: 66.0 ± 15.2 μL; late: 39.7 ± 17.8 μL), but lowest proportions of structurally normal sperm (early: 78.4 ± 3.7%: mid: 61.5 ± 3.2%; late: 69.7 ± 3.4%). There was a significant difference (P = 0.06) in sperm concentration among stages of the breeding season (early: 66.3 ± 18.8 × 106 sperm mL–1; mid: 179.2 ± 46.2 × 106 sperm mL–1; late: 91.4 ± 47.8 × 106 sperm mL–1). Sperm motility was unaffected by season (early: 36.4 ± 3.5%; mid: 45.9 ± 4.1%; late: 48.0 ± 4.9%). In summary, there is a peak in seminal quality that corresponds with higher volume and more sperm during the mid stage of the season, although with higher instances of structural abnormalities. Despite the small founder base for this species, males in this population produce sperm with no variation in seminal quality across a wide variation in age.

Abstract PD09-07: Breast Cancer Patients with WHO Class II Obesity or Greater (BMI ≥35) Have Poorer Overall Survival after Receiving Chemotherapy Compared to Similar Patients with Lower Body Mass Index

Background: Breast cancer (BCa) is the most common non-cutaneous malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality among US women. Obesity has commonly been associated with increased risk for malignancy. There have been few studies looking at the effect of obesity on prognosis in BCa patients receiving chemotherapy (ctx). This retrospective study, conducted at the Medical College of Georgia utilizing tumor registry data, assesses the correlation between body mass index (BMI) and overall survival (OS) in BCa patients receiving ctx.

Methods: Data were obtained from the MCG Tumor Registry (Augusta, GA). Inclusion criteria were all BCa patients receiving ctx between 1997 and 2006. The estimated hazard ratio (HR) from Cox regression was used to measure the association between BMI and OS among these patients. Race, age at diagnosis, stage at diagnosis, and body surface area were considered for inclusion as covariates in the regression model. Results: Data on height and weight from the first day of ctx were collected for a sample of 259 women who received ctx for breast cancer. BMI values were calculated based on these data and categorized using WHO BMI classification parameters. The initial analysis examined women with BMI ≥25 (WHO criteria of overweight or more), which classified 186 women (71.8%) as overweight or more and 73 women (28.2%) as under/normal weight. This analysis did not yield a significant association with OS (unadjusted HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.69-1.82; p = 0.652). The next analysis examined women with BMI ≥30 (WHO criteria of class I obesity or more), which classified 115 women (44.4%) as class I obese or more and 144 (55.6%) as non-obese. This cut off demonstrated a decreased

OS for the obese patients, but the results were not statistically significant (unadjusted HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.72-1.69; p = 0.650). The final analysis examined women with BMI ≥35 (WHO criteria of class II obesity or more); this yielded 67 women (25.9%) classified as class II obese or more and 192 women (74.1%) classified as less than class II obese. This analysis demonstrated a decreased OS for class II obese or more patients (unadjusted HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.00-2.43; p = 0.049). The only other factor that was significantly associated with OS was stage at diagnosis. When the HR for class II obese or more patients was adjusted for stage, statistical significance was retained (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.00-2.44; p = 0.048). Discussion: Women with BCa treated with ctx who are WHO class II obese (BMI ≥35) or more have significantly lower overall survival than women with BMI < 35 regardless of race or age at diagnosis. The statistical significance for OS was also retained when adjusted for stage. A primary limitation of our study was a small sample size. Adjustments to ctx dosing in patients with BMI ≥35 may also affect survival outcomes. Future studies will examine the effect of the type and dosing of ctx regimens used, comorbidities, and actual cause of death in this cohort of patients.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr PD09-07.