The "Big-Bang" for modern glial biology: Translation and comments on Pío del Río-Hortega 1919 series of papers on microglia.

The word "glia" was coined in the mid-19th century and defined as "the nerve glue". For decades, it was assumed to be a uniform matrix, until cell theorists raised the "neuron doctrine" which stipulated that nervous tissue was composed of individual cells. The term "astrocytes" was introduced in the late 19th century as a synonym for glial cells, but it was Santiago Ramón y Cajal who defined a "third element" distinct from glial cells (astrocytes) and neurons. It was not until 1919 when Pío del Río-Hortega, an alumnus of the Cajal School, introduced the modern terms we use today, and thoroughly described both "oligodendrocytes" and "microglia" to clearly distinguish them from astrocytes. In a series of four papers published that year in Spanish, Río-Hortega described the distribution and morphological phenotype of microglia. He also noted that these cells were the origin of the rod cells described earlier in pathologic tissue, and recognized that resting microglia transformed into an ameboid phenotype in different types of brain diseases and pathologies. He also noted the mesodermal origin of these cells and recognized their phagocytic capacity. We here provide the first English translation of these landmark series of papers, which paved the way for modern glial research. To heighten the value and accessibility of these classic papers and their original figures, an introduction to this critical period of neuroscience is provided, along with unpublished photographs. By adding comments to the translated text, we provide sufficient context so that contemporary scientists may fully appreciate it. GLIA 2016;64:1801-1840.

Periodic gastroenterology and hepatology meetings with primary care. Reasons for consultation.

INTRODUCTION: care overload, aging of population, and increased chronic diseases lead to increased referrals from primary care, which may sometimes overload the health system. Thus, different interventions have been carried out attempting to improve these aspects. OBJECTIVES: to assess the most frequent causes of consultation of general physicians, both in joint consultations and clinical sessions held jointly with specialist consultant in primary care, in the urban and rural setting, and the influence on referrals to first consultations of gastroenterology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: a mainly training type of intervention was carried out, consisting of regular meetings in both urban and rural primary care center, to perform joint consultations and clinical sessions on patients and topics related to the specialty of gastroenterology. The intervention period (divided in two subperiods) was compared with a control period. RESULTS: most reasons for consultation were those corresponding to lower gastrointestinal tract, followed by liver disease and upper gastrointestinal tract. Significant differences were only found in distribution of diagnoses between the two centers in joint consultations. There was a relative (percent) decrease in referrals at the global level in both subperiods, only significant in the first (51.45 %), as well as in rural setting (45.24 %). CONCLUSION: common consultations motifs were similar in urban and rural settings, with some relevance of lower gastrointestinal tract disease. Most of them can be solved at primary care, with the help of consultant specialist. There is impact on referrals to the outpatient first consultations of gastroenterology, mainly in rural setting.