Antimicrobial peptides within the Yellowtail Kingfish (Seriola lalandi).

A number of Seriola species are currently farmed or being investigated as future aquaculture species in countries around the world. However they face a number of issues and limitations which will need to be overcome to ensure future stability and growth, one of which are disease outbreaks. Despite this, very little has been done to understand the immune system of Seriola species and very few immune genes have been characterised. Antimicrobial peptides (AMP) are naturally occurring low molecular weight polypeptides that play a major role in an organism's immune system and act effectively as a first line of defence. This investigation isolates the full length cDNA sequences of two AMP's, piscidin and hepcidin from the yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi). The full-length cDNA of the piscidin gene encodes a 65 amino acid prepropeptide, containing a 25-residue peptide, predicted to form an amphipathic helix-loop-helix structure. Phylogenetic analysis using fish piscidin sequences, showed that this AMP is only found in bony fish within the Acanthomorpha clade and that a possible three groups within the piscidin family exists, with S. lalandi belonging to a particular group. The full-length cDNA of the hepcidin gene encodes a 90 amino acid preprohepcidin, which contains a typical RX(R/K)R motif for cleavage of the mature peptide which comprises of eight conserved cysteine residues. Phylogenetic analysis of known vertebrate hepcidin antimicrobial peptide (HAMP) sequences, shows sequences from the Neoteleostei clade of bony fish form two very separate groups, HAMP1 and HAMP2, with the S. lalandi hepcidin gene grouped with the HAMP1 sequences. HAMP2 sequences are found to have multiple copies within fish and genome analysis showed very clearly that these two groups of genes are located on separate regions on the genome, with the multiple HAMP2 copies formed from tandem gene duplications. Lastly, using qPCR the expression of the S. lalandi piscidin gene within healthy fish was highest within, spleen and gills and lowest in liver, whereas hepcidin was highest in the liver with little or no expression in the spleen and gills.

Susceptibility (risk and protective) factors for in-patient violence and self-harm: prospective study of structured professional judgement instruments START and SAPROF, DUNDRUM-3 and DUNDRUM-4 in forensic mental health services.

BACKGROUND: The START and SAPROF are newly developed fourth generation structured professional judgement instruments assessing strengths and protective factors. The DUNDRUM-3 and DUNDRUM-4 also measure positive factors, programme completion and recovery in forensic settings. METHODS: We compared these instruments with other validated risk instruments (HCR-20, S-RAMM), a measure of psychopathology (PANSS) and global function (GAF). We prospectively tested whether any of these instruments predict violence or self harm in a secure hospital setting (n = 98) and whether they had true protective effects, interacting with and off-setting risk measures. RESULTS: SAPROF and START-strengths had strong inverse (negative) correlations with the HCR-20 and S-RAMM. SAPROF correlated strongly with GAF (r = 0.745). In the prospective in-patient study, SAPROF predicted absence of violence, AUC = 0.847 and absence of self-harm AUC = 0.766. START-strengths predicted absence of violence AUC = 0.776, but did not predict absence of self-harm AUC = 0.644. The DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery scales also predicted in-patient violence (AUC 0.832 and 0.728 respectively), and both predicted in-patient self-harm (AUC 0.750 and 0.713 respectively). When adjusted for the HCR-20 total score however, SAPROF, START-S, DUNDRUM-3 and DUNDRUM-4 scores were not significantly different for those who were violent or for those who self harmed. The SAPROF had a significant interactive effect with the HCR-dynamic score. Item to outcome studies often showed a range of strengths of association with outcomes, which may be specific to the in-patient setting and patient group studied. CONCLUSIONS: The START and SAPROF, DUNDRUM-3 and DUNDRUM-4 can be used to assess both reduced and increased risk of violence and self-harm in mentally ill in-patients in a secure setting. They were not consistently better than the GAF, HCR-20, S-RAMM, or PANSS when predicting adverse events. Only the SAPROF had an interactive effect with the HCR-20 risk assessment indicating a true protective effect but as structured professional judgement instruments all have additional content (items) complementary to existing risk assessments, useful for planning treatment and risk management.

Prospective study of factors influencing conditional discharge from a forensic hospital: the DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery structured professional judgement instruments and risk.

BACKGROUND: We set out to examine whether structured professional judgement instruments DUNDRUM-3 programme completion (D-3) and DUNDRUM-4 recovery (D-4) scales along with measures of risk, mental state and global function could distinguish between those forensic patients detained in a secure forensic hospital (not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to stand trial) who were subsequently discharged by a mental health review board. We also examined the interaction between these measures and risk, need for therapeutic security and eventual conditional discharge. METHODS: A naturalistic observational cohort study was carried out for 56 patients newly eligible for conditional discharge. Patients were rated using the D-3, D-4 and other scales including HCR-20, S-RAMM, START, SAPROF, PANSS and GAF and then observed over a period of twenty three months during which they were considered for conditional discharge by an independent Mental Health Review Board. RESULTS: The D-3 distinguished which patients were subsequently discharged by the Mental Health Review board (AUC = 0.902, p < 0.001) as did the D-4 (AUC = 0.848, p < 0.001). Item to outcome analysis showed each item of the D-3 and D-4 scales performed significantly better than random. The HCR-20 also distinguished those later discharged (AUC = 0.838, p < 0.001) as did the S-RAMM, START, SAPROF, PANSS and GAF. The D-3 and D-4 scores remained significantly lower (better) for those discharged even when corrected for the HCR-20 total score. Item to outcome analyses and logistic regression analysis showed that the strongest antecedents of discharge were the GAF and the DUNDRUM-3 programme completion scores. CONCLUSIONS: Structured professional judgement instruments should improve the quality, consistency and transparency of clinical recommendations and decision making at mental health review boards. Further research is required to determine whether the DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery instruments predict those who are or are not recalled or re-offend after conditional discharge.

Prospective in-patient cohort study of moves between levels of therapeutic security: the DUNDRUM-1 triage security, DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery scales and the HCR-20.

BACKGROUND: We examined whether new structured professional judgment instruments for assessing need for therapeutic security, treatment completion and recovery in forensic settings were related to moves from higher to lower levels of therapeutic security and added anything to assessment of risk. METHODS: This was a prospective naturalistic twelve month observational study of a cohort of patients in a forensic hospital placed according to their need for therapeutic security along a pathway of moves from high to progressively less secure units in preparation for discharge. Patients were assessed using the DUNDRUM-1 triage security scale, the DUNDRUM-3 programme completion scale and the DUNDRUM-4 recovery scale and assessments of risk of violence, self harm and suicide, symptom severity and global function. Patients were subsequently observed for positive moves to less secure units and negative moves to more secure units. RESULTS: There were 86 male patients at baseline with mean follow-up 0.9 years, 11 positive and 9 negative moves. For positive moves, logistic regression indicated that along with location at baseline, the DUNDRUM-1, HCR-20 dynamic and PANSS general symptom scores were associated with subsequent positive moves. The receiver operating characteristic was significant for the DUNDRUM-1 while ANOVA co-varying for both location at baseline and HCR-20 dynamic score was significant for DUNDRUM-1. For negative moves, logistic regression showed DUNDRUM-1 and HCR-20 dynamic scores were associated with subsequent negative moves, along with DUNDRUM-3 and PANSS negative symptoms in some models. The receiver operating characteristic was significant for the DUNDRUM-4 recovery and HCR-20 dynamic scores with DUNDRUM-1, DUNDRUM-3, PANSS general and GAF marginal. ANOVA co-varying for both location at baseline and HCR-20 dynamic scores showed only DUNDRUM-1 and PANSS negative symptoms associated with subsequent negative moves. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians appear to decide moves based on combinations of current and imminent (dynamic) risk measured by HCR-20 dynamic score and historical seriousness of risk as measured by need for therapeutic security (DUNDRUM-1) in keeping with Scott's formulation of risk and seriousness. The DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery scales have utility as dynamic measures that can off-set perceived 'dangerousness'.

Therapeutic alliance in forensic mental health: coercion, consent and recovery.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI) and Interpersonal Trust in Physician (ITP) in a forensic psychiatry hospital, where all patients were detained under mental health legislation for psychosis. We hypothesised that working alliance and trust are bilateral and can be measured. METHOD: We adapted the WAI and ITP minimally so that patients rated both their treating psychiatrist and primary nurse. We also adapted them minimally so that clinicians could rate WAI and ITP with the patient. A total of 81 of 83 patients completed the assessments. The clinicians (seven consultant psychiatrists and 43 nurses) also completed a minimally altered version of the same questionnaires. All three (patient, nurse and psychiatrist) were blind to the ratings of the others. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha was greater than 0.9 for both patient and clinician versions of the WAI and greater than 0.8 for the ITP. The WAI and ITP correlated with each other (Spearman r > 0.67 for patients, for psychiatrists and for nurses). Patients rated clinicians higher than clinicians rated patients. Ratings were higher in pre-discharge wards than in acute wards. Patients' ratings of WAI for their psychiatrist and nurse correlated r = 0.75, and patients rating of IPT for psychiatrist and nurse correlated 0.67. Psychiatrists correlated with nurses 0.38 for WAI, 0.53 for IPT. Psychiatrists and patients mutual ratings correlated r = 0.35 for WAI, 0.24 for IPT. Nurses and patients correlated r = 0.34 for WAI, 0.25 for IPT. All correlations were statistically significant. Mental state (PANSS) and global function (GAF) correlated with all ratings and confounded most patient-clinician correlations. CONCLUSION: Working alliance and interpersonal trust can be measured reliably even in forensic settings. The extent to which they measure a mutual quality is unclear.