Drug Export Pathway of Multidrug Exporter AcrB Revealed by DARPin Inhibitors

The multidrug exporter AcrB is the inner membrane component of the AcrAB-TolC drug efflux system in Escherichia coli and is responsible for the resistance of this organism to a wide range of drugs. Here we describe the crystal structure of the trimeric AcrB in complex with a designed ankyrin-repeat protein (DARPin) inhibitor at 2.5-Å resolution. The three subunits of AcrB are locked in different conformations revealing distinct channels in each subunit. There seems to be remote conformational coupling between the channel access, exit, and the putative proton-translocation site, explaining how the proton motive force is used for drug export. Thus our structure suggests a transport pathway not through the central pore but through the identified channels in the individual subunits, which greatly advances our understanding of the multidrug export mechanism

Formation of Structure in Snowfields: Penitentes, Suncups, and Dirt Cones

Penitentes and suncups are structures formed as snow melts, typically high in the mountains. When the snow is dirty, dirt cones and other structures can form instead. Building on previous field observations and experiments, this work presents a theory of ablation morphologies, and the role of surface dirt in determining the structures formed. The glaciological literature indicates that sunlight, heating from air, and dirt all play a role in the formation of structure on an ablating snow surface. The present work formulates a mathematical model for the formation of ablation morphologies as a function of measurable parameters. The dependence of ablation morphologies on weather conditions and initial dirt thickness are studied, focusing on the initial growth of perturbations away from a flat surface. We derive a single-parameter expression for the melting rate as a function of dirt thickness, which agrees well with a set of measurements by Driedger. An interesting result is the prediction of a dirt-induced travelling instability for a range of parameters.Comment: 28 pages, 13 figure

Metal on metal hip resurfacing versus uncemented custom total hip replacement - early results

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>There is no current consensus on the most appropriate prosthesis for treating symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip in young, active patients. Modern metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HR) has gained popularity as it is theoretically more stable, bone conserving and easier to revise than total hip arthroplasty. Early results of metal on metal resurfacing have been encouraging. We have compared two well matched cohorts of patients with regard to function, pain relief and patient satisfaction.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This prospective study compares 2 cohorts of young, active patients treated with hip resurfacing (137 patients, 141 hips) and custom uncemented (CADCAM) stems (134 patients, 141 hips). All procedures were performed by a single surgeon. Outcome measures included Oxford, WOMAC and Harris hip scores as well as an activity score. Statistical analysis was performed using the unpaired student's t-test.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred and thirty four and 137 patients were included in the hip replacement and resurfacing groups respectively. The mean age of these patients was 54.6 years. The mean duration of follow up for the hip resurfacing group was 19.2 months compared to 13.4 months for the total hip replacement group.</p> <p>Pre operative oxford, Harris and WOMAC scores in the THA group were 41.1, 46.4 and 50.9 respectively while the post operative scores were 14.8, 95.8 and 5.0. In the HR group, pre- operative scores were 37.0, 54.1 and 45.9 respectively compared to 15.0, 96.8 and 6.1 post operatively. The degree of improvement was similar in both groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There was no significant clinical difference between the patients treated with hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty in the short term.</p

Mathematical evaluation of jumping distance in total hip arthroplasty: Influence of abduction angle, femoral head offset, and head diameter

Background and purpose The jumping distance (JD) is the degree of lateral translation of the femoral head center required before dislocation occurs. The smaller the distance, the higher the theoretical risk of dislocation. The aim of our study was to evaluate this jumping distance and its variation according to the characteristics of the implant, and also the theoretical gain in using large head diameters of above 38 mm

Are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure?

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that there is a learning curve for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. The purpose of this study was to assess whether implant positioning changed with surgeon experience and whether positioning and component sizing were associated with implant longevity. METHODS: We evaluated the first 361 consecutive hip resurfacings performed by a single surgeon, which had a mean follow-up of 59 months (range, 28 to 87 months). Pre and post-operative radiographs were assessed to determine the inclination of the acetabular component, as well as the sagittal and coronal femoral stem-neck angles. Changes in the precision of component placement were determined by assessing changes in the standard deviation of each measurement using variance ratio and linear regression analysis. Additionally, the cup and stem-shaft angles as well as component sizes were compared between the 31 hips that failed over the follow-up period and the surviving components to assess for any differences that might have been associated with an increased risk for failure. RESULTS: Surgeon experience was correlated with improved precision of the antero-posterior and lateral positioning of the femoral component. However, femoral and acetabular radiographic implant positioning angles were not different between the surviving hips and failures. The failures had smaller mean femoral component diameters as compared to the non-failure group (44 versus 47 millimeters). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that there may be differences in implant positioning in early versus late learning curve procedures, but that in the absence of recognized risk factors such as intra-operative notching of the femoral neck and cup inclination in excess of 50 degrees, component positioning does not appear to be associated with failure. Nevertheless, surgeons should exercise caution in operating patients with small femoral necks, especially when they are early in the learning curve

Silent soft tissue pathology is common with a modern metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: Early detection with routine metal artifact-reduction MRI scanning

Adverse reactions to metal debris have been reported to be a cause of pain in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. We assessed the incidence of both symptomatic and asymptomatic adverse reactions in a consecutive series of patients with a modern large-head metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty