Copper and iron metal resistant rhizospheric bacteria boost the plant growth and bacoside A content in Bacopa monnieri under stress conditions.

Bacteria that enhance plant growth and development and are found in the vicinity of roots are referred to as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Some beneficial bacteria help plant tolerance to many hazardous chemical elements. In this context, Cupriavidus basilensis , Novosphingobium humi , Bacillus zanthoxyli , Bacillus sp., Paenibacillus alvei , Ancylobacter aquaticus and Ralstonia syzygii metal-tolerant rhizospheric bacteria were isolated from rhizospheric soil associated with Bacopa monnieri . The beneficial effects of rhizospheric bacteria on B. monnieri plant physiology and biochemical responses were investigated under pot conditions at two levels (100µM and 500µM) of CuSO4 or FeCl3 . N. humi , A. aquaticus and R. syzygii bacterial strains were associated with significantly increased height and biomass under normal and stress conditions. An assay for indole acetic acid in isolated rhizospheric bacteria found differential secretion except Bacillus zanthoxyli . Bacoside A is a major phytocompound in B. monnieri with medicinal value; maximum induction was observed in the R. syzygii treatment. High concentration of copper and iron salts negatively influenced height, biomass and photosynthetic pigments; however N. humi , A. aquaticus , Bacilllus sp. and R. syzygii beneficial bacterial helped plants under stress conditions. Moreover, a significant enhancement in chlorophyll a and b was noticed in C. basilensis , B. zanthoxyli , Bacilllus sp., P. alvei and R. syzygii treatments, without much influence on carotenoid levels. Therefore, the present study emphasises the importance of isolating plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria for use in bacopa plants exposed to metals such as copper and iron in soil.

Comparative effectiveness and cost-efficiency of surgical approaches for thymectomy.

BACKGROUND: We compared the clinical outcomes and cost-efficiency of surgical approaches (sternotomy-open, video assisted thoracoscopic surgery, and robotic assisted thoracic surgery) for thymectomy. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 220 consecutive patients who underwent thymectomy between January 1, 2007, and January 31, 2017. Surgical approach was determined by the surgeon, but we only included cases that could be resected using any of the 3 approaches. RESULTS: Open approach was used in 69 patients, whereas minimally invasive technique was used in 151 (97, video assisted thoracoscopic surgery; 54, robotic assisted thoracic surgery). Open surgery was associated with greater total hospital cost ($22,847 ± $20,061 vs $14,504 ± $10,845, P < .001). Open group also revealed longer duration of intensive care unit (1.2 ± 2.8 vs 0.2 ± 1.3 days, P < .001) and hospital stay (4.3 ± 4.0 vs 2.0 ± 2.6 days, P < .001). There were no differences in major adverse clinical outcomes. Long-term recurrence-free survival after resection of thymoma was similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive techniques were equally efficacious compared with the open approach in the resection of the thymus. Additionally, their use was associated with decreased hospital duration of stay and reduced cost. Hence the use of minimally invasive approaches should be encouraged in the resection of thymus.