Search

Background We systematically reviewed interventions that attempted to change staff practice to improve long-term care resident outcomes. Methods Studies met criteria if they used a control group, included 6 or more nursing home units and quantitatively assessed staff behavior or resident outcomes. Intervention components were coded as including education material, training, audit and feedback, monitoring, champions, team meetings, policy or procedures and organizational restructure. Results Sixty-three unique studies were broadly grouped according to clinical domain—oral health (3 studies), hygiene and infection control (3 studies), nutrition (2 studies), nursing home acquired pneumonia (2 studies), depression (2 studies) appropriate prescribing (7 studies), reduction of physical restraints (3 studies), management of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (6 studies), falls reduction and prevention (11 studies), quality improvement (9 studies), philosophy of care (10 studies) and other (5 studies). No single intervention component, combination of, or increased number of components was associated with greater likelihood of positive outcomes. Studies with positive outcomes for residents also tended to change staff behavior, however changing staff behavior did not necessarily improve resident outcomes. Studies targeting specific care tasks (e.g. oral care, physical restraints) were more likely to produce positive outcomes than those requiring global practice changes (e.g. care philosophy). Studies using intervention theories were more likely to be successful. Program logic was rarely articulated, so it was often unclear whether there was a coherent connection between the intervention components and measured outcomes. Many studies reported barriers relating to staff (e.g. turnover, high workload, attitudes) or organizational factors (e.g. funding, resources, logistics). Conclusion Changing staff practice in nursing homes is possible but complex. Interventioni

Trithorax group (trxG) and Polycomb group (PcG) proteins are epigenetic modifiers that play key roles in eukaryotic development by promoting active or repressive gene expression states, respectively. Although PcG proteins have well-defined roles in controlling developmental transitions, cell fate decisions and cellular differentiation in plants, relatively little is known about the functions of plant trxG factors. We recently determined the biological roles for the ULT1 and ULT2 trxG genes during Arabidopsis vegetative and reproductive development. Our study revealed that ULT1 and ULT2 genes have overlapping activities in regulating Arabidopsis shoot and floral stem cell activity, and that they have a redundant function in establishing the apical-basal polarity axis of the gynoecium. Here we present data that ult1 and ult1 ult2 siliques contain a significant proportion of aborted ovules, supporting an additional role for ULT1 in Arabidopsis fertility. Our results add to the number of plant developmental processes that are regulated by trxG activity.

Almost three decades of genetic and molecular analyses have resulted in detailed insights into many of the processes that take place during flower development and in the identification of a large number of key regulatory genes that control these processes. Despite this impressive progress, many questions about how flower development is controlled in different angiosperm species remain unanswered. In this chapter, we discuss some of these open questions and the experimental strategies with which they could be addressed. Specifically, we focus on the areas of floral meristem development and patterning, floral organ specification and differentiation, as well as on the molecular mechanisms underlying the evolutionary changes that have led to the astounding variations in flower size and architecture among extant and extinct angiosperms.

Almost three decades of genetic and molecular analyses have resulted in detailed insights into many of the processes that take place during flower development and in the identification of a large number of key regulatory genes that control these processes. Despite this impressive progress, many questions about how flower development is controlled in different angiosperm species remain unanswered. In this chapter, we discuss some of these open questions and the experimental strategies with which they could be addressed. Specifically, we focus on the areas of floral meristem development and patterning, floral organ specification and differentiation, as well as on the molecular mechanisms underlying the evolutionary changes that have led to the astounding variations in flower size and architecture among extant and extinct angiosperms.

Expression analysis of the CLE signaling gene family in Arabidopsis thaliana and functionalcharacterization of CLE8 in seed developmentby Elisa FiumeDoctor of Philosophy in Plant BiologyUniversity of California, BerkeleyProfessor Jennifer C. Fletcher, Chair In plants, as in all multicellular organisms, cell-to-cell communication is fundamental for coordinating growth and differentiation. Although non-peptide hormones have been long known to act as signaling molecules in plants, the sequencing of the Arabidopsis genome revealed the presence of many potential ligand-encoding genes and receptors suggesting that plants widely use them in different signaling pathways. In the past decade, signaling mediated by peptides in plants has become an emerging area of research and has been found to be utilized in a broad range of developmental processes. However, very few receptors and ligands have been functionally characterized. The Arabidopsis CLAVATA3/EMBRYO SURROUNDING REGION (ESR)-related (CLE) small polypeptide family is currently the best studied, nonetheless only few members have been assigned a function. To unveil possible developmental processes regulated by these putative signaling molecules, I undertook a systematic expression analysis of its members. These studies showed that all Arabidopsis tissues express one or more CLE gene, suggesting that CLE-mediated signaling regulates a wide range of developmental processes. Furthermore, no two CLE genes showed the same expression pattern, indicating that specificity of function is in part achieved at the regulatory level. On the other hand, many CLE genes have overlapping expression patterns, suggesting that there could be a a high degree of redundancy among the family members. The putative functional redundancy of the CLE genes has been used to explain the lack of cle single mutant phenotypes, however, many other factors could also contribute. For example, CLE genes encode small proteins and generally lack introns