DOCSLIB.ORG

Opinion on Triclosan (Antimicrobial Resistance) (2010)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Opinion on Triclosan (Antimicrobial Resistance) (2010) SCCP/1251/09 Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety SCCS Opinion on triclosan Antimicrobial Resistance The SCCS approved this opinion at its 7th plenary of 22 June 2010 after public consultation SCCP/1251/09 Opinion on triclosan – antimicrobial resistance About the Scientific Committees Three independent non-food Scientific Committees provide the Commission with the scientific advice it needs when preparing policy and proposals relating to consumer safety, public health and the environment. The Committees also draw the Commission's attention to the new or emerging problems which may pose an actual or potential threat. They are: the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) and are made up of external experts. In addition, the Commission relies upon the work of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA), the European Centre for Disease prevention and Control (ECDC) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). SCCS The Committee shall provide opinions on questions concerning all types of health and safety risks (notably chemical, biological, mechanical and other physical risks) of non-food consumer products (for example: cosmetic products and their ingredients, toys, textiles, clothing, personal care and household products such as detergents, etc.) and services (for example: tattooing, artificial sun tanning, etc.). Scientific Committee members Jürgen Angerer, Ulrike Bernauer, Claire Chambers, Qasim Chaudhry, Gisela Degen, Gerhard Eisenbrand, Thomas Platzek, Suresh Chandra Rastogi, Vera Rogiers, Christophe Rousselle, Tore Sanner, Kai Savolainen, Jacqueline Van Engelen, Maria Pilar Vinardell, Rosemary Waring, Ian R. White Contact European Commission Health & Consumers Directorate C: Public Health and Risk Assessment Unit C7 - Risk Assessment Office: B232 B-1049 Brussels [email protected] © European Union, 2010 ISSN 1831-4767 ISBN 978-92-79-12484-6 doi:10.2772/11162 ND-AQ-09-001-EN-N The opinions of the Scientific Committees present the views of the independent scientists who are members of the committees. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. The opinions are published by the European Commission in their original language only. http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/index_en.htm 2 SCCP/1251/09 Opinion on triclosan – antimicrobial resistance ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Dr. J. Davison, Retired, Member of SCHER, FR Dr. J.-Y. Maillard, Cardiff University, UK Dr. J.-M. Pagès, University of Marseille, Member of SCENIHR, FR (Rapporteur) Dr K. Pfaff, BfR, DE Dr. S.C. Rastogi, Retired, Member of SCCS, DK (Chairman) Keywords: SCCS, scientific opinion, preservative, triclosan, P32, antimicrobial resistance directive 76/768/ECC, CAS 3380-34-5, EC 222-182-2 Opinion to be cited as: SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), Opinion on triclosan (antimicrobial resistance), 22 June 2010 3 SCCP/1251/09 Opinion on triclosan – antimicrobial resistance Table of Content ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...........................................................................3 ABSTRACT..........................................................................................6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................6 1. BACKGROUND..............................................................................8 2. TERMS OF REFERENCE ..................................................................8 3. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................9 3.1. Scope................................................................................................................................................................. 9 3.2. Physico-chemical properties......................................................................................................................... 10 3.3. Triclosan in biocidal formulations............................................................................................................... 12 3.4. Mode of action ............................................................................................................................................... 13 4. DEFINITIONS............................................................................. 13 5. PRODUCTION, USE AND FATE OF TRICLOSAN................................. 15 5.1. Triclosan in cosmetics................................................................................................................................... 15 5.2. Triclosan in healthcare and medical devices............................................................................................... 16 5.3. Triclosan in household and other consumer products............................................................................... 16 5.4. Triclosan in food and feed ............................................................................................................................ 17 5.4.1. Triclosan in food production.................................................................................................................... 17 5.4.2. Triclosan as disinfectant in food and feed production ...........................................................................17 5.4.3. Triclosan as food preservative ................................................................................................................. 17 5.4.4. Triclosan in animal husbandry ................................................................................................................ 18 5.4.5. Triclosan as feed preservative.................................................................................................................. 18 5.5. Triclosan in the environment ....................................................................................................................... 18 5.5.1. Fate of triclosan in the environment........................................................................................................ 18 5.5.2. Effect of triclosan on micro-flora and toxicity of metabolites ............................................................... 21 5.6. Triclosan in the human body........................................................................................................................ 22 4 SCCP/1251/09 Opinion on triclosan – antimicrobial resistance 6. MECHANISMS OF RESISTANCE TO TRICLOSAN ............................... 22 6.1. General considerations on biocide resistance in bacteria .......................................................................... 22 6.2. General considerations on the study of triclosan........................................................................................ 24 6.3. Mechanisms of bacterial resistance to triclosan ......................................................................................... 24 6.4. Mutation rates and transfer of resistance ................................................................................................... 27 6.5. Induction of resistance.................................................................................................................................. 27 6.6. Bacterial cross-resistance to triclosan and antibiotics ............................................................................... 28 6.6.1. General considerations ............................................................................................................................. 28 6.6.2. Triclosan and cross-resistance ................................................................................................................. 28 6.7. Triclosan resistance in bacteria in situ ........................................................................................................ 30 7. TRICLOSAN BIOAVAILABILITY AND FORMULATION EFFECTS............. 31 8. MEASUREMENT OF RESISTANCE AND CROSS-RESISTANCE .............. 32 9. DATA GAPS ON SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ...................................... 33 9.1. Scientific gaps:............................................................................................................................................... 33 9.2. Technical gaps:.............................................................................................................................................. 33 10. RISK ASSESSMENT................................................................... 33 10.1. Limitation in activity................................................................................................................................. 34 10.2. Genetic and bacterial point of view ......................................................................................................... 34 10.3. Environment point of view ....................................................................................................................... 34 10.4. Biofilm formation in specific environmental conditions........................................................................ 35 11. CONCLUSIONS......................................................................... 35 12. OPINION................................................................................. 36 13. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ......... 37 14. MINORITY OPINION.................................................................. 37
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chemical Disinfectants for Biohazardous Materials (3/21)
    Safe Operating Procedure (Revised 3/21) CHEMICAL DISINFECTANTS FOR BIOHAZARDOUS MATERIALS ____________________________________________________________________________ Chemicals used for biohazardous decontamination are called sterilizers, disinfectants, sanitizers, antiseptics and germicides. These terms are sometimes equivalent, but not always, but for the purposes of this document all the chemicals described herein are disinfectants. The efficacy of every disinfectant is based on several factors: 1) organic load (the amount of dirt and other contaminants on the surface), 2) microbial load, 3) type of organism, 4) condition of surfaces to be disinfected (i.e., porous or nonporous), and 5) disinfectant concentration, pH, temperature, contact time and environmental humidity. These factors determine if the disinfectant is considered a high, intermediate or low-level disinfectant, in that order. Prior to selecting a specific disinfectant, consider the relative resistance of microorganisms. The following table provides information regarding chemical disinfectant resistance of various biological agents. Microbial Resistance to Chemical Disinfectants: Type of Microbe Examples Resistant Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (Mad Prions Cow) Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease Bacillus subtilis; Clostridium sporogenes, Bacterial Spores Clostridioides difficile Mycobacterium bovis, M. terrae, and other Mycobacteria Nontuberculous mycobacterium Poliovirus; Coxsackievirus; Rhinovirus; Non-enveloped or Small Viruses Adenovirus Trichophyton spp.; Cryptococcus sp.;
    [Show full text]
  • EH&S COVID-19 Chemical Disinfectant Safety Information
    COVID-19 CHEMICAL DISINFECTANT SAFETY INFORMATION Updated June 24, 2020 The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an increase in the number of disinfection products used throughout UW departments. This document provides general information about EPA-registered disinfectants, such as potential health hazards and personal protective equipment recommendations, for the commonly used disinfectants at the UW. Chemical Disinfectant Base / Category Products Potential Hazards Controls ● Ethyl alcohol Highly flammable and could form explosive Disposable nitrile gloves Alcohols ● ● vapor/air mixtures. ● Use in well-ventilated areas away from o Clorox 4 in One Disinfecting Spray Ready-to-Use ● May react violently with strong oxidants. ignition sources ● Alcohols may de-fat the skin and cause ● Wear long sleeve shirt and pants ● Isopropyl alcohol dermatitis. ● Closed toe shoes o Isopropyl Alcohol Antiseptic ● Inhalation of concentrated alcohol vapor 75% Topical Solution, MM may cause irritation of the respiratory tract (Ready to Use) and effects on the central nervous system. o Opti-Cide Surface Wipes o Powell PII Disinfectant Wipes o Super Sani Cloth Germicidal Wipe 201 Hall Health Center, Box 354400, Seattle, WA 98195-4400 206.543.7262 ￜ fax 206.543.3351ￜ www.ehs.washington.edu ● Formaldehyde Formaldehyde in gas form is extremely Disposable nitrile gloves for Aldehydes ● ● flammable. It forms explosive mixtures with concentrations 10% or less ● Paraformaldehyde air. ● Medium or heavyweight nitrile, neoprene, ● Glutaraldehyde ● It should only be used in well-ventilated natural rubber, or PVC gloves for ● Ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA) areas. concentrated solutions ● The chemicals are irritating, toxic to humans ● Protective clothing to minimize skin upon contact or inhalation of high contact concentrations.
    [Show full text]
  • Decontamination of Rooms, Medical Equipment and Ambulances Using an Aerosol of Hydrogen Peroxide Disinfectant B.M
    Journal of Hospital Infection (2006) 62, 149–155 www.elsevierhealth.com/journals/jhin Decontamination of rooms, medical equipment and ambulances using an aerosol of hydrogen peroxide disinfectant B.M. Andersena,*, M. Rascha, K. Hochlina, F.-H. Jensenb, P. Wismarc, J.-E. Fredriksend aDepartment of Hospital Infection, Ulleva˚l University Hospital, Oslo, Norway bDivision of Pre-hospital Care, Ulleva˚l University Hospital, Oslo, Norway cDepartment of Medical Equipment, Ulleva˚l University Hospital, Oslo, Norway dHealth and Environment AS, Oslo, Norway Received 17 November 2004; accepted 1 July 2005 KEYWORDS Summary A programmable device (Sterinis, Gloster Sante Europe) Room decontamina- providing a dry fume of 5% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) disinfectant was tion; Ambulance tested for decontamination of rooms, ambulances and different types of decontamination; medical equipment. Pre-set concentrations were used according to the Medical equipment decontamination; volumes of the rooms and garages. Three cycles were performed with Hydrogen peroxide increasing contact times. Repetitive experiments were performed using fume decontamina- Bacillus atrophaeus (formerly Bacillus subtilis) Raven 1162282 spores to tion; Spore test control the effect of decontamination; after a sampling plan, spore strips were placed in various positions in rooms, ambulances, and inside and outside the items of medical equipment. Decontamination was effective in 87% of 146 spore tests in closed test rooms and in 100% of 48 tests in a surgical department when using three cycles. One or two cycles had no effect. The sporicidal effect on internal parts of the medical equipment was only 62.3% (220 tests). When the devices were run and ventilated during decontamination, 100% (57/57) of spore strips placed inside were decontaminated.
    [Show full text]
  • National Center for Toxicological Research
    National Center for Toxicological Research Annual Report Research Accomplishments and Plans FY 2015 – FY 2016 Page 0 of 193 Table of Contents Preface – William Slikker, Jr., Ph.D. ................................................................................... 3 NCTR Vision ......................................................................................................................... 7 NCTR Mission ...................................................................................................................... 7 NCTR Strategic Plan ............................................................................................................ 7 NCTR Organizational Structure .......................................................................................... 8 NCTR Location and Facilities .............................................................................................. 9 NCTR Advances Research Through Outreach and Collaboration ................................... 10 NCTR Global Outreach and Training Activities ............................................................... 12 Global Summit on Regulatory Science .................................................................................................12 Training Activities .................................................................................................................................14 NCTR Scientists – Leaders in the Research Community .................................................. 15 Science Advisory Board ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Disinfectants for Use Against the COVID-19 Virus
    When it comes to choosing a disinfectant to combat the COVID-19 virus, research and health authorities suggest not all disinfectants are equally effective. The difference is in their active ingredient(s). HEALTH CANADA AND U.S. EPA ASSESSMENTS The work to evaluate disinfectants perhaps best starts with lists of approved disinfectants compiled by government health authorities. Health Canada has compiled a list of 85 hard surface disinfectant products (as of March 20, 2020) that meet their requirements for disinfection of emerging pathogens, including the virus that causes COVID-19. It can be accessed here. You can wade through the entire list. But if you locate the Drug Identification Number (DIN) on the disinfectant product label or the safety data sheet (SDS), then you can use the search function to quickly see if the product meets Health Canada requirements. A second list, updated on March 19, 2020, provides 287 products that meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19. This list can be found here. Like the Health Canada list, you can wade through this one too. However, to best use this list, you should locate the U.S. EPA registration number on the product label or SDS, and use that number to search the list. The U.S. EPA registration number of a product consists of two sets of numbers separated by a hyphen. The first set of numbers refers to the company identification number, and the second set of numbers following the hyphen represents the product number.
    [Show full text]
  • Safer Disinfectant Use in Child Care and Schools During the COVID-19 Pandemic
    Safer Disinfectant Use in Child Care and Schools During the COVID-19 Pandemic Vickie Leonard, PhD Environmental Health in Early Care and Educaon Project, Western States Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit (WSPEHSU) 1 Why Should We Be Concerned about Environmental Health in ECE? 2 Why Should We Be Concerned about Environmental Health in ECE? • There are 8 million children in child care centers in the U.S. A child may spend up to 12,500 hours in an ECE facility. A million child care providers work in these centers in the U.S. Half are child-bearing age. • Many toxicants found in child care facilities are not addressed in state child care health and safety regulations. • No agency at the state or federal level is charged with ensuring children’s health and safety in and around schools and ECE facilities. • No systematic means exists for collecting data on environmental exposures in these buildings. • Teachers have more protection in these buildings (unions, OSHA) than children do 3 Why Should We Be Concerned about Environmental Health in ECE? • Many people think that adults and children are exposed to, and affected by, toxic chemicals in the same way. • This is not the case. • Children • have higher exposures to toxicants in the environment, • are more vulnerable to the effects of those toxicants than adults. 4 Cleaning and Disinfec?ng Products: A Major Source of Exposure in Child Care and Schools • Products used to clean, sanitize and disinfect child care facilities and schools are a good example of the pervasive and unregulated use of toxic chemicals that put the health of our children at risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Effectiveness Disinfection of 2%
    ORIGINAL RESEARCH Journal of Dentomaxillofacial Science (J Dentomaxillofac Sci ) December 2018, Volume 3, Number 3: 169-171 P-ISSN.2503-0817, E-ISSN.2503-0825 Comparison of effectiveness disinfection of 2% Original Research glutaraldehyde and 4.8% chloroxylenol on tooth extraction instruments in the Department of Oral CrossMark http://dx.doi.org/10.15562/jdmfs.v3i2.794 Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of North Sumatera Month: December Ahyar Riza,* Isnandar, Indra B. Siregar, Bernard Volume No.: 3 Abstract Objective: To compare disinfecting effectiveness of 2% glutaraldehyde while the control group was treated with 4.8% chloroxylenol. Each Issue: 2 and 4.8% chloroxylenol on tooth extraction instruments at the instrument was pre-cleaned using a brush, water and soap for both Department of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of North groups underwent the disinfection process. Sumatera. Results: The results were statistically analyzed using Mann-Whitney Material and Methods: This was an experimental study with post- Test. The comparison between glutaraldehyde and chloroxylenol First page No.: 147 test only control group design approach. Purposive technique is showed a significant difference to the total bacteria count on applied to collect samples which are lower molar extraction forceps. In instrument after disinfection (p=0.014 < 0.05). this study, sample were divided into 2 groups and each consisting of 18 Conclusion: 2% glutaraldehyde was more effective than 4.8% P-ISSN.2503-0817 instruments. The treatment group was treated with 2% glutaraldehyde chloroxylenol at disinfecting lower molar extraction forceps. Keyword: Disinfection, Glutaraldehyde, Chloroxylenol, Forceps E-ISSN.2503-0825 Cite this Article: Riza A, Siregar IB, Isnandar, Bernard.
    [Show full text]
  • A Screening-Based Approach to Circumvent Tumor Microenvironment
    JBXXXX10.1177/1087057113501081Journal of Biomolecular ScreeningSingh et al. 501081research-article2013 Original Research Journal of Biomolecular Screening 2014, Vol 19(1) 158 –167 A Screening-Based Approach to © 2013 Society for Laboratory Automation and Screening DOI: 10.1177/1087057113501081 Circumvent Tumor Microenvironment- jbx.sagepub.com Driven Intrinsic Resistance to BCR-ABL+ Inhibitors in Ph+ Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Harpreet Singh1,2, Anang A. Shelat3, Amandeep Singh4, Nidal Boulos1, Richard T. Williams1,2*, and R. Kiplin Guy2,3 Abstract Signaling by the BCR-ABL fusion kinase drives Philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL) and chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). Despite their clinical activity in many patients with CML, the BCR-ABL kinase inhibitors (BCR-ABL-KIs) imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib provide only transient leukemia reduction in patients with Ph+ ALL. While host-derived growth factors in the leukemia microenvironment have been invoked to explain this drug resistance, their relative contribution remains uncertain. Using genetically defined murine Ph+ ALL cells, we identified interleukin 7 (IL-7) as the dominant host factor that attenuates response to BCR-ABL-KIs. To identify potential combination drugs that could overcome this IL-7–dependent BCR-ABL-KI–resistant phenotype, we screened a small-molecule library including Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs. Among the validated hits, the well-tolerated antimalarial drug dihydroartemisinin (DHA) displayed potent activity in vitro and modest in vivo monotherapy activity against engineered murine BCR-ABL-KI–resistant Ph+ ALL. Strikingly, cotreatment with DHA and dasatinib in vivo strongly reduced primary leukemia burden and improved long-term survival in a murine model that faithfully captures the BCR-ABL-KI–resistant phenotype of human Ph+ ALL.
    [Show full text]
  • Silver As a Drinking-Water Disinfectant
    Silver as a drinking-water disinfectant Silver as a drinking-water disinfectant Alternative drinking-water disinfectants: silver ISBN 978-92-4-151369-2 © World Health Organization 2018 Some rights reserved. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo). Under the terms of this licence, you may copy, redistribute and adapt the work for non-commercial purposes, provided the work is appropriately cited, as indicated below. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. If you adapt the work, then you must license your work under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If you create a translation of this work, you should add the following disclaimer along with the suggested citation: “This translation was not created by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the binding and authentic edition”. Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Suggested citation. Alternative drinking-water disinfectants: bromine, iodine and silver. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Cataloguing-in-Publication (CIP) data. CIP data are available at http://apps.who.int/iris. Sales, rights and licensing. To purchase WHO publications, see http://apps.who.int/bookorders.
    [Show full text]
  • Infection Prevention & Control Chlorhexidine
    Winnipeg Regional Health Authority Acute Care Infection Prevention & Control Manual INFECTION PREVENTION & CONTROL CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE CONCENTRATION FOR HAND HYGIENE COMMUNICATION FORM PART 1: ISSUE & RECOMMENDATIONS Issue: The WRHA Infection Prevention and Control program (IP&C) was requested to research and recommend acceptable concentrations of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) (2% versus 4%) for hand hygiene in all programs within WRHA sites, to ensure appropriate products are being used, and facilitate standardization. Recommendations: Use 2% CHG hand cleansers for hand hygiene when antimicrobial hand soap is indicated. Do NOT use 4% CHG for hand hygiene as the minimal improvement in efficacy (from 2%), does not warrant the increased frequency of skin irritation and breakdown, which ultimately impedes effective hand hygiene practices. PART 2: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION OF ISSUE, OPTIONS AND ANALYSIS & REFERENCES Discussion of Issue: There are several different hand hygiene products used within and between WRHA sites. All areas should adhere to recommended hand hygiene products, as determined by available evidence. There are differences in when specific hand hygiene products are indicated. It is important to identify the appropriate product to use for the appropriate reason, as supported by evidence. Options and Analysis: 1. CHG has a cumulative effect when applied to the skin. In hand hygiene, this effect remains and is sustained, especially when hand hygiene is repeated. 2% CHG is appropriate for hand antisepsis because of the cumulative effect.1 2. Literature regarding differences between 2% and 4% CHG identifies there is minimal difference in efficacy between 2% and 4% CHG for hand antisepsis and cleansing.2 3. The frequency of skin irritation is concentration dependent, with products containing 4% most likely to cause dermatitis when used frequently for hand antisepsis.
    [Show full text]
  • (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2014/0004156A1 Mellstedt Et Al
    US 2014.0004156A1 (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2014/0004156A1 Mellstedt et al. (43) Pub. Date: Jan. 2, 2014 (54) BOLOGICAL INHIBITORS OF ROR1 Publication Classification CAPABLE OF INDUCING CELL, DEATH (51) Int. C. (76) Inventors: Hakan Mellstedt, Stockholm (SE): C07K 6/28 (2006.01) Hodjattallah Rabbani, Stockholm (SE); CI2N IS/II3 (2006.01) Ingrid Teige, Lund (SE) (52) U.S. C. CPC ............ C07K 16/28 (2013.01); CI2N 15/1138 (21) Appl. No.: 13/516,925 (2013.01) USPC ...... 424/400; 530/387.9; 536/24.5:536/23.1; (22) PCT Filed: Dec. 10, 2010 435/320.1; 435/325; 435/375; 424/139.1; (86). PCT No.: PCT/EP2010/007524 514/44. A:536/23.53; 435/331 S371 (c)(1), (57) ABSTRACT (2), (4) Date: Mar. 1, 2013 The invention relates to antibodies and siRNA molecules for (30) Foreign Application Priority Data inducing cell death by the specific binding of ROR1, domains thereof of nucleotide molecules encoding ROR1. There are Dec. 18, 2009 (GB) ................................... O922143.3 also provided methods involving and uses of the antibodies Jun. 3, 2010 (GB) ................................... 1OO93O7.8 and siRNA molecules of the invention. Patent Application Publication Jan. 2, 2014 Sheet 1 of 25 US 2014/0004156A1 L/S.*L/SdXL|-WLIXCRIO6] N Patent Application Publication Jan. 2, 2014 Sheet 2 of 25 US 2014/0004156A1 a bi-saw exit-8 ext: xx x: i. s: s x 8. : xxx xx . ex* x8. gri syst {{..} : twic s yxi-xxii. 33. 8 M. : : ised-east x 8. Patent Application Publication Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Avant-Propos Le Format De Présentation De Cette Thèse Correspond À Une Recommandation À La Spécialité
    Avant-propos Le format de présentation de cette thèse correspond à une recommandation à la spécialité Maladies infectieuses, à l’intérieur du Master des Sciences de la Vie et de la Santé qui dépend de l’Ecole Doctorale des Sciences de la Vie de Marseille. Le candidat est amené à respecter les règles qui lui sont imposées et qui comportent un format de thèse utilisé dans le Nord de l’Europe et qui permet un meilleur rangement que les thèses traditionnelles. Par ailleurs, la partie introduction et bibliographie est remplacée par une revue envoyée dans un journal afin de permettre une évaluation extérieure de la qualité de la revue et de permettre à l’étudiant de commencer le plus tôt possible une bibliographie sur le domaine de cette thèse. Par ailleurs, la thèse est présentée sur article publié, accepté, ou soumis associé d’un bref commentaire donnant le sens général du travail. Cette forme de présentation a paru plus en adéquation avec les exigences de la compétition internationale et permet de se concentrer sur des travaux qui bénéficieront d’une diffusion internationale. Professeur Didier RAOULT 2 Remerciements J’adresse mes remerciements aux personnes qui ont contribué à la réalisation de ce travail. En premier lieu, au Professeur Didier RALOUT, qui m’a accueillie au sein de l’IHU Méditerranée Infection. Au Professeur Serge MORAND, au Docteur Marie KEMPF et au Professeur Philippe COLSON de m’avoir honorée en acceptant d’être rapporteurs et examinateurs de cette thèse. Je souhaite particulièrement remercier : Le Professeur Jean-Marc ROLAIN, de m’avoir accueillie dans son équipe et m’avoir orientée et soutenue tout au long de ces trois années de thèse.
    [Show full text]