European Parliament backs return of animal feed protein
//08 jul 2011
Members of the European Parliament have backed plans to allow processed animal protein back into EU animal feed. MEPs voted in favour of the Roth-Behrendt report, which recommends allowing pigs to be fed poultry protein and poultry to be fed pig protein.
The Commission's TSE Roadmap 2 proposes a possible gradual lifting of the prohibition on the feeding of processed animal proteins (PAP) to non-ruminants.
Given the EU's "protein deficit", MEPs back this idea, subject to strict conditions and safeguards. These include stipulating that the PAP must come from species not linked to TSE, and may be fed only to non-herbivores.
Prohibitions on cannibalism must remain and only processed animal proteins fit for human consumption should be used, MEPs add.
Further relaxations
The report recommends a number of relaxations to BSE rules to reflect the declining risk posed by the disease, although it stresses that any changes must maintain high animal and public health standards.
Apart from the relaxation of the animal protein feed ban item, changes to current EU laws, which the Commission is about to review, could also include new rules on removing specific risk materials from animal feed, changes to cohort culling policy and a higher age limit for BSE testing, says the non-legislative resolution, drafted by Dagmar Roth Behrendt.
MEPs reject a Commission proposal to reduce EU funding on research into transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), including BSE.
TSEs cause degeneration of brain tissue leading to death in man and animals. They include Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and Kuru in humans, bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle and scrapie in sheep and goats
Dr Anthony Falconer: 'We all have a moral responsibility to create the best services we can'
Maternity services across the UK need a radical rethink, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says.
It wants the number of hospital units cut to ensure 24-hour access to care from senior doctors and says more midwife-led units are needed for women with low-risk pregnancies.
The National Childbirth Trust welcomed the report but says the proposals do not go far enough.
NHS managers said maternity care desperately needed to be reorganised.
'Serious complications'
Too many babies are born in traditional hospital units, says the college, which also warns the current system is neither acceptable nor sustainable in its report on maternity care.
RCOG president Anthony Falconer told the BBC that most out-of-hours care was being provided by junior doctors.
You need the right person, as senior person, there immediately”
End QuoteDr Tony Falconer Royal College Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
The college estimates there are about 1,000 too few consultants to provide adequate round-the-clock cover for hospital units.
Dr Falconer said: "There is no doubt if you look at the worst scenario of serious complications, you need the right person, a senior person, there immediately."
Previous attempts to re-organise maternity care around a smaller number of hospital units have proved controversial, but Dr Falconer said if women could be convinced of the greater safety they would be prepared to travel to have their babies.
The need for change would be largely in cities or large towns, because in rural areas it might be more important to support smaller units.
The report estimates that across the UK there are 56 units with fewer than 2,500 deliveries of babies a year.
In order to take the pressure off busy hospitals, the college is also calling for an increase in the number of midwife-led units.
'Joined-up care'
Midwives have welcomed the report, saying it could improve the experience for about a third of women who have straightforward deliveries.
The proposals for maternity are part of a wider vision of delivering all women's gynaecology and obstetrics care in networks, similar to the model which has helped improve cancer treatments in England.
The National Childbirth Trust said the idea of having a network to provide joined-up care for women was one it could support but it would prefer care during pregnancy and maternity to be concentrated in one NHS organisation in each area.
The NHS confederation, which speaks for managers, described maternity care as a classic example of a service which desperately needed to be reorganised.
Chief executive Mike Farrar said politicians needed to be prepared to speak up for change.
"Where the case for change is clear, politicians should stand shoulder-to-shoulder with managers and clinicians to provide confidence to their constituents that quality and care will improve as a consequence of this change."
That has not always been the case, with two ministers in the last Labour government campaigning against the closure of units in Greater Manchester.
Hundreds of people turned out to a rally to oppose the closure of maternity services in Salford last autumn. After a review under the coalition, the NHS is pressing ahead with plans to reduce the number of units across the area from 12 to eight.
Although Scotland has reorganised some of its maternity services, there are likely to be pressures for change elsewhere in the UK.
In North Wales maternity care across three hospitals is expected to change after an initial review recently concluded improvement was needed.
19 and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)20
Received 21 April 2011; revised 2 June 2011; accepted 3 June 2011
1Department of Psychiatry, Autism Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; 2Department of Psychiatry, Herchel Smith Building for Brain and Mind
Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK and 3MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge, UK
Correspondence: Dr MD Spencer, Department of Psychiatry, Autism Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Douglas House, 18b Trumpington Road, Cambridge
Table 1 Main activations to happy and fearful versus neutral faces
MNI coordinates P-value
(FWE-corrected)
Z-score Cluster
size
Region
x y z kE (voxels)
Happy versus neutral faces
Control group
28 10 54 0.002 5.07 129 Left superior frontal gyrus
46 20 16 0.003 4.90 78 Right temporal pole
42 14 16 0.004 4.86 200 Left temporal pole
36 62 24 0.006 4.76 77 Left temporoparietal junction
54 64 10 0.009 4.66 115 Left posterior STS
44 52 28 0.010 4.65 60 Right FFA
4 26 54 0.012 4.60 64 Left dorsomedial prefrontal cortex
66 28 2 0.015 4.54 32 Right middle STS
28 92 8 0.018 4.51 26 Right cuneus
62 52 4 0.026 4.41 26 Left middle STS
24 94 8 0.031 4.37 20 Left cuneus
Sibling group
Nil
Autism group
Nil
Fearful versus neutral faces
Control group
44 48 22 0.006 4.78 38 Right FFA
Sibling group
40 42 16 0.005 4.80 33 Right FFA
Autism group
Nil
Abbreviations: FFA, fusiform face area; FWE, family-wise error; MNI, Montreal Neuroimaging Institute; STS, superior temporal sulcus.
Activated brain regions, corresponding MNI coordinates, cluster sizes, Z-scores and P-values. All analyses are corrected for multiple comparisons, and P-values are
expressed following whole brain level FWE correction at the threshold of Po0.05.
A novel functional brain imaging endophenotype of autism
MD Spencer et al
3
Translational Psychiatry
We conducted analyses of variance within PASW Statistics
18 to measure the overall effect of group on the primary
contrast activation data (happy minus neutral and fearful
minus neutral) for each region of interest. Age and sex were
modeled as covariates in all analyses. Similarly, we used
analyses of variance to investigate autism versus control,
control versus sibling and autism versus sibling differences,
again taking age and sex as covariates. We investigated
linear trend effects across the three groups using polynomial
regression, and where a statistically significant linear effect
was found, we examined the quadratic effect to confirm that
this was nonsignificant. We plotted the mean activation
contrast estimate (expressed in arbitrary units±standard
error of the mean) for the three study groups.
To investigate whether the atypical response to happy
versus neutral faces was driven by an atypical response to
happy or neutral faces, or to both, we examined the response
to faces versus fixation crosses. First-level analysis was as
above, taking the primary contrasts as happy and neutral
faces versus fixation crosses. Second-level statistical analysis
proceeded as described above for the emotional versus
neutral contrasts.
Results
Neural response to facial expressions of emotion: happy
versus neutral faces. We examined the differential
response within the brain to happy compared with neutral
faces. In controls, happy faces elicited increased activation
compared with neutral faces (Figure 1 and Table 1) within a
range of areas strongly implicated in face processing,
empathy and mentalizing: the right (P¼0.003) and left
(P¼0.004) temporal poles, left temporoparietal junction
(P¼0.006), left posterior STS (P¼0.009), right FFA
(P¼0.010), dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (P¼0.012) and
right (P¼0.015) and left (P¼0.026) middle STS. Increased
activation was also detected in the left superior frontal gyrus
(P¼0.002) and the right (P¼0.018) and left (P¼0.031)
cuneus. All P-values are expressed following correction for
multiple comparisons on a whole-brain level FWE basis. In
contrast, no activation differences were detected within
sibling and autism groups at the threshold of Po0.05 FWE
corrected.
To investigate biomarkers of familial risk compared with
autism versus control differences, we examined betweengroup
differences in the fMRI response in autism, sibling and
control participants within the specific brain regions identified
above as being significantly activated in controls to happy
versus neutral faces (listed in Table 1). For all 11 brain
regions, activation was significantly reduced in autism
compared with controls, with siblings demonstrating an
intermediate degree of impairment.
Activation in siblings was significantly reduced compared
with controls for 7 of the 11 brain regions: the left superior
frontal gyrus (P¼0.001; F¼11.664), the right (P¼0.002;
F¼9.986) and left (P¼0.005; F¼8.551) temporal poles, the
right middle (P¼0.004; F¼9.068) and left posterior
(P¼0.016; F¼6.064) STS, the left dorsomedial prefrontal
cortex (P¼0.005; F¼8.570) and the right FFA (P¼0.044;
F¼4.184) (univariate analyses of variance, covarying for age
and sex; Figures 1 and 2). Furthermore, for all 11 regions,
activation in the autism group was significantly reduced
compared with controls, the effect of group was significant
across all the three groups, and polynomial regression linear
contrast effects across all the three groups were significant
Middle
STS
Temporal
pole
FFA
-28 -16 +2
4.6
4.8
5.2
5.0
Superior DMPFC
frontal
Cuneus
Left Right
Posterior
STS
TPJ
P = 0.001 P = 0.002 P = 0.004
+10
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.3
-0.1
autism sibling control
autism sibling control
autism sibling control
autism sibling control autism sibling control
autism sibling control autism sibling control
autism sibling control autism sibling control
autism sibling control autism sibling control
contrast estimate +/- SE
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.4
-0.2
contrast estimate +/- SE
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.3
-0.2
contrast estimate +/- SE
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
contrast estimate +/- SE
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
contrast estimate +/- SE
0.1
0.2
0.0
contrast estimate +/- SE
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.0
contrast estimate +/- SE
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
contrast estimate +/- SE
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.3
-0.2
contrast estimate +/- SE
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
contrast estimate +/- SE
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
contrast estimate +/- SE
+24 +54
P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P < 0.001
Left superior
frontal gyrus
Right temporal pole Right middle STS
Left posterior
STS
Left DMPFC Left temporal pole
P = 0.005
P < 0.001
P = 0.016
P = 0.002
P = 0.005
P < 0.001
Right FFA Left middle STS
P = 0.044
P < 0.001
P = 0.003 P = 0.007
P < 0.001 P = 0.001
Left cuneus
Left TPJ Right cuneus
Figure 1 Neural response to happy versus neutral faces. Activation differences
(means±s.e.m.) between the functional magnetic resonance imaging response to
happy and neutral faces in adolescents with autism (n¼40), unaffected siblings
(n¼40) and controls (n¼40). Activation map indicates neural response to happy
versus neutral faces in controls, and shows activations to happy versus neutral
faces (Po0.05, FWE corrected) overlaid onto the canonical Montreal Neurological
Institute (MNI) 152 template brain image (axial section, z-coordinate indicated in
Montreal Neurological Institute space), with the colored bar indicating the T-value of
the plotted activation differences. DMPFC, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex; FFA,
fusiform face area; STS, superior temporal sulcus; TPJ, temporoparietal junction.
A novel functional brain imaging endophenotype of autism
MD Spencer et al
4
Translational Psychiatry
with no significant quadratic component. For all 11 regions,
activation in the autism group did not differ statistically
significantly from activation in siblings (Table 2).
Neural response to facial expression of emotion: fearful
versus neutral faces. In controls and in siblings, fearful
faces elicited increased activation compared with neutral
faces (Figure 3 and Table 1) within the right FFA (controls:
P¼0.006, siblings P¼0.005; FWE corrected). However, the
autism group did not display any significant activation
differences at the threshold Po0.05 FWE corrected.
As with the happy versus neutral analyses above, we
examined between-group differences in the fMRI response in
autism, sibling and control participants within the right FFA,
characterized above as the brain region significantly activated
in controls in fearful versus neutral faces. Activation in the
autism group was significantly reduced compared with
controls and a significant polynomial regression linear
contrast effect with no significant quadratic component was
detected across all the three groups (Figure 3 and Table 2).
However, activation in the sibling group did not differ
significantly from activation in controls or the autism group.
Neural response to faces versus fixation crosses. These
findings demonstrate a clear linear progression across
autism, sibling and control groups for atypical fMRI
activation to happy versus neutral faces. To address the
question as to whether the neural basis for this marker is an
atypical neural response to happy faces, neutral faces or to
both, we used the same brain regions defined by the
significant activations within controls to happy versus
neutral faces (comprising the 11 clusters listed in Table 1)
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.3
-0.2
autism sibling
Middle STS Superior frontal
gyrus
Right Left
Temporal pole Temporal pole
control autism sibling control
autism sibling control autism sibling control
contrast estimate +/- SE
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.3
-0.2
contrast estimate +/- SE
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.3
-0.1
contrast estimate +/- SE
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.3
-0.1
-0.2
contrast estimate +/- SE
P = 0.004 P = 0.001
P = 0.005
P < 0.001
P < 0.001 P < 0.001
P < 0.001
P = 0.002
Figure 2 Differences between ‘unaffected’ siblings and controls with no family history of autism in the neural response to happy versus neutral faces. Activation differences
(means±s.e.m.) between the functional magnetic resonance imaging response to happy and neutral faces in adolescents with autism (n¼40), unaffected siblings (n¼40)
and controls (n¼40). Activation map corrected for multiple comparisons at Po0.05 family-wise error corrected, and overlaid onto a three-dimensional-rendered template
brain within MRIcron. STS, superior temporal sulcus.
Table 2 Between-group differences in activations to emotional versus neutral faces
Region of significant activation
in controls
Between-group differences
P-value (F-statistic)
Effect of group
(across all three groups)
Polynomial regression
linear trend effect
Control versus
sibling
Control
versus
autism
Sibling versus
autism
P-value
(F statistic)
P-value
Happy versus neutral faces
Left superior frontal gyrus 0.001 (11.664) o0.001 (17.222) NS o0.001 (9.448) o0.001
Right temporal pole 0.002 (9.986) o0.001 (13.703) NS o0.001 (8.994) o0.001
