The wonders of flap endonucleases: structure, function, mechanism and regulation.

Processing of Okazaki fragments to complete lagging strand DNA synthesis requires coordination among several proteins. RNA primers and DNA synthesised by DNA polymerase α are displaced by DNA polymerase δ to create bifurcated nucleic acid structures known as 5'-flaps. These 5'-flaps are removed by Flap Endonuclease 1 (FEN), a structure-specific nuclease whose divalent metal ion-dependent phosphodiesterase activity cleaves 5'-flaps with exquisite specificity. FENs are paradigms for the 5' nuclease superfamily, whose members perform a wide variety of roles in nucleic acid metabolism using a similar nuclease core domain that displays common biochemical properties and structural features. A detailed review of FEN structure is undertaken to show how DNA substrate recognition occurs and how FEN achieves cleavage at a single phosphate diester. A proposed double nucleotide unpairing trap (DoNUT) is discussed with regards to FEN and has relevance to the wider 5' nuclease superfamily. The homotrimeric proliferating cell nuclear antigen protein (PCNA) coordinates the actions of DNA polymerase, FEN and DNA ligase by facilitating the hand-off intermediates between each protein during Okazaki fragment maturation to maximise through-put and minimise consequences of intermediates being released into the wider cellular environment. FEN has numerous partner proteins that modulate and control its action during DNA replication and is also controlled by several post-translational modification events, all acting in concert to maintain precise and appropriate cleavage of Okazaki fragment intermediates during DNA replication

Clinimetric evaluation of active range of motion measures in patients with non-specific neck pain: a systematic review

The study is to provide a critical analysis of the research literature on clinimetric properties of instruments that can be used in daily practice to measure active cervical range of motion (ACROM) in patients with non-specific neck pain. A computerized literature search was performed in Medline, Cinahl and Embase from 1982 to January 2007. Two reviewers independently assessed the clinimetric properties of identified instruments using a criteria list. The search identified a total of 33 studies, investigating three different types of measurement instruments to determine ACROM. These instruments were: (1) different types of goniometers/inclinometers, (2) visual estimation, and (3) tape measurements. Intra- and inter-observer reliability was demonstrated for the cervical range of motion instrument (CROM), Cybex electronic digital instrument (EDI-320) and a single inclinometer. The presence of agreement was assessed for the EDI-320 and a single inclinometer. The CROM received a positive rating for construct validity. When clinical acceptability is taken into account both the CROM and the single inclinometer can be considered appropriate instruments for measuring the active range of motion in patients with non-specific neck pain in daily practice. Reliability is the aspect most frequently evaluated. Agreement, validity and responsiveness are documented less frequently

Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation

Background: With the development of increasing evidence for the use of manipulation in the management of musculoskeletal conditions, there is growing interest in identifying the appropriate indications for care. Recently, attempts have been made to develop clinical prediction rules, however the validity of these clinical prediction rules remains unclear and their impact on care delivery has yet to be established. The current study was designed to evaluate the literature on the validity and reliability of the more common methods used by doctors of chiropractic to inform the choice of the site at which to apply spinal manipulation. Methods: Structured searches were conducted in Medline, PubMed, CINAHL and ICL, supported by hand searches of archives, to identify studies of the diagnostic reliability and validity of common methods used to identify the site of treatment application. To be included, studies were to present original data from studies of human subjects and be designed to address the region or location of care delivery. Only English language manuscripts from peer-reviewed journals were included. The quality of evidence was ranked using QUADAS for validity and QAREL for reliability, as appropriate. Data were extracted and synthesized, and were evaluated in terms of strength of evidence and the degree to which the evidence was favourable for clinical use of the method under investigation. Results: A total of 2594 titles were screened from which 201 articles met all inclusion criteria. The spectrum of manuscript quality was quite broad, as was the degree to which the evidence favoured clinical application of the diagnostic methods reviewed. The most convincing favourable evidence was for methods which confirmed or provoked pain at a specific spinal segmental level or region. There was also high quality evidence supporting the use, with limitations, of static and motion palpation, and measures of leg length inequality. Evidence of mixed quality supported the use, with limitations, of postural evaluation. The evidence was unclear on the applicability of measures of stiffness and the use of spinal x-rays. The evidence was of mixed quality, but unfavourable for the use of manual muscle testing, skin conductance, surface electromyography and skin temperature measurement. Conclusions: A considerable range of methods is in use for determining where in the spine to administer spinal manipulation. The currently published evidence falls across a spectrum ranging from strongly favourable to strongly unfavourable in regard to using these methods. In general, the stronger and more favourable evidence is for those procedures which take a direct measure of the presumptive site of care– methods involving pain provocation upon palpation or localized tissue examination. Procedures which involve some indirect assessment for identifying the manipulable lesion of the spine–such as skin conductance or thermography–tend not to be supported by the available evidence.https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-709X-21-3