7% in each group (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.23; P = 0.99). At 90 days, 6.8% of survivors in the higher-intensity group (27 of 399), as compared with 4.4% BX-795 mouse of survivors in the lower-intensity group (18 of 411), were still receiving renal-replacement therapy (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.86 to 2.92; P = 0.14). Hypophosphatemia was more common in the higher-intensity group than in the lower-intensity group (65% vs. 54%, P< 0.001).\n\nConclusions\n\nIn critically ill patients with acute kidney injury, treatment with higher-intensity continuous renal-replacement therapy did not reduce mortality

at 90 days. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00221013.)”
“RAR1, SGT1, and HSP90 are important components of effector-triggered immunity (ETI) ACY-738 inhibitor in diverse plants, where RAR1 and SGT1 are thought to serve as HSP90 co-chaperones. We show that ETI in soybean requires RAR1 and SGT1 but

not HSP90. Rsv1-mediated extreme resistance to Soybean mosaic virus (SMV) and Rpg-1b-mediated resistance to Pseudomonas syringae were compromised in plants silenced for GmRAR1 and GmSGT1-2 but not GmHSP90. This suggests that RAR1- or SGT1-dependant signaling is not always associated with a dependence on HSP90. Unlike in Arabidopsis, SGT1 in soybean also mediates ETI against the bacterial pathogen P. syringae. Similar to Arabidopsis, soybean RAR1 and SGT1 proteins interact with each other and two related

HSP90 proteins. Plants silenced for GmHSP90 genes or GmRAR1 exhibited altered morphology, suggesting that these proteins also contribute to developmental processes. Silencing GmRAR1 and GmSGT1-2 impaired resistance to virulent bacteria and systemic acquired resistance (SAR) in soybean as well. Because the Arabidopsis rar1 mutant also showed a defect in SAR, we conclude that RAR1 and SGT1 serve as a point of convergence for basal resistance, ETI, and SAR. We demonstrate that, although soybean defense signaling pathways recruit structurally conserved components, they have distinct requirements for specific proteins.”
“Objectives The aim of the study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of treating femoropopliteal in-stent restenosis (ISR) with debulking with excimer laser followed by implantation of a VIABAHN endoprosthesis. Background The optimal 3-MA treatment strategy for femoropopliteal ISR is unclear. Methods The SALVAGE study is a multicenter prospective registry involving nine US centers. Patients with femoropopliteal ISR with moderate to severe intermittent claudication or critical limb ischemia (Rutherford categories 25) and an ankle-brachial index (ABI) =0.8 were treated with excimer laser and the VIABAHN endoprosthesis. The primary efficacy endpoint is primary patency at 12 months as measured by duplex ultrasonography. The primary safety endpoint is the major adverse event (MAE) rate at 30 days.