An investigation of thermodynamics, microscopic structure, depolarized Rayleigh scattering, and collision dynamics in Xe-N-2 supercritical mixtures

We would like to dedicate this work to the late Professor W. A. Steele (W.A.S.), Penn State University, USA. NATO Research-Project SA 5-2-05(CRG 950087) JARC (97) 288 is acknowledged for project funding to J.S., H.V. and W.A.S. The Greek State Scholarships Foundation (IKY) is acknowledged for an award based on performance to S. M. This work was supported by computational time granted from the Greek Research & Technology Network (GRNET) in the National HPC facility ARIS. The CPU time of the Computing Centre of the University of Athens (Greece) is gratefully acknowledged. This research utilized Queen Mary’s Mid-Plus computational facilities, supported by QMUL Research-IT and funded by EPSRC grant EP/K000128/1. J.K. acknowledges financial support from the NSF Grant No. CHE-1565872 to Millard Alexander

Evaluation of a candidate breast cancer associated SNP in ERCC4 as a risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Results from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/BRCA2 (CIMBA)

Background: In this study we aimed to evaluate the role of a SNP in intron 1 of the ERCC4 gene (rs744154), previously reported to be associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer in the general population, as a breast cancer risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Methods: We have genotyped rs744154 in 9408 BRCA1 and 5632 BRCA2 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) and assessed its association with breast cancer risk using a retrospective weighted cohort approach. Results: We found no evidence of association with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 (per-allele HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.93–1.04, P=0.5) or BRCA2 (per-allele HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.89–1.06, P=0.5) mutation carriers. Conclusion: This SNP is not a significant modifier of breast cancer risk for mutation carriers, though weak associations cannot be ruled out. A Osorio1, R L Milne2, G Pita3, P Peterlongo4,5, T Heikkinen6, J Simard7, G Chenevix-Trench8, A B Spurdle8, J Beesley8, X Chen8, S Healey8, KConFab9, S L Neuhausen10, Y C Ding10, F J Couch11,12, X Wang11, N Lindor13, S Manoukian4, M Barile14, A Viel15, L Tizzoni5,16, C I Szabo17, L Foretova18, M Zikan19, K Claes20, M H Greene21, P Mai21, G Rennert22, F Lejbkowicz22, O Barnett-Griness22, I L Andrulis23,24, H Ozcelik24, N Weerasooriya23, OCGN23, A-M Gerdes25, M Thomassen25, D G Cruger26, M A Caligo27, E Friedman28,29, B Kaufman28,29, Y Laitman28, S Cohen28, T Kontorovich28, R Gershoni-Baruch30, E Dagan31,32, H Jernström33, M S Askmalm34, B Arver35, B Malmer36, SWE-BRCA37, S M Domchek38, K L Nathanson38, J Brunet39, T Ramón y Cajal40, D Yannoukakos41, U Hamann42, HEBON37, F B L Hogervorst43, S Verhoef43, EB Gómez García44,45, J T Wijnen46,47, A van den Ouweland48, EMBRACE37, D F Easton49, S Peock49, M Cook49, C T Oliver49, D Frost49, C Luccarini50, D G Evans51, F Lalloo51, R Eeles52, G Pichert53, J Cook54, S Hodgson55, P J Morrison56, F Douglas57, A K Godwin58, GEMO59,60,61, O M Sinilnikova59,60, L Barjhoux59,60, D Stoppa-Lyonnet61, V Moncoutier61, S Giraud59, C Cassini62,63, L Olivier-Faivre62,63, F Révillion64, J-P Peyrat64, D Muller65, J-P Fricker65, H T Lynch66, E M John67, S Buys68, M Daly69, J L Hopper70, M B Terry71, A Miron72, Y Yassin72, D Goldgar73, Breast Cancer Family Registry37, C F Singer74, D Gschwantler-Kaulich74, G Pfeiler74, A-C Spiess74, Thomas v O Hansen75, O T Johannsson76, T Kirchhoff77, K Offit77, K Kosarin77, M Piedmonte78, G C Rodriguez79, K Wakeley80, J F Boggess81, J Basil82, P E Schwartz83, S V Blank84, A E Toland85, M Montagna86, C Casella87, E N Imyanitov88, A Allavena89, R K Schmutzler90, B Versmold90, C Engel91, A Meindl92, N Ditsch93, N Arnold94, D Niederacher95, H Deißler96, B Fiebig97, R Varon-Mateeva98, D Schaefer99, U G Froster100, T Caldes101, M de la Hoya101, L McGuffog49, A C Antoniou49, H Nevanlinna6, P Radice4,5 and J Benítez1,3 on behalf of CIMB

First international workshop of the ATM and cancer risk group (4-5 December 2019).

The first International Workshop of the ATM and Cancer Risk group focusing on the role of Ataxia-Telangiectasia Mutated (ATM) gene in cancer was held on December 4 and 5, 2019 at Institut Curie in Paris, France. It was motivated by the fact that germline ATM pathogenic variants have been found to be associated with different cancer types. However, due to the lack of precise age-, sex-, and site-specific risk estimates, no consensus on management guidelines for variant carriers exists, and the clinical utility of ATM variant testing is uncertain. The meeting brought together epidemiologists, geneticists, biologists and clinicians to review current knowledge and on-going challenges related to ATM and cancer risk. This report summarizes the meeting sessions content that covered the latest results in family-based and population-based studies, the importance of accurate variant classification, the effect of radiation exposures for ATM variant carriers, and the characteristics of ATM-deficient tumors. The report concludes that ATM variant carriers outside of the context of Ataxia-Telangiectasia may benefit from effective cancer risk management and therapeutic strategies and that efforts to set up large-scale studies in the international framework to achieve this goal are necessary

An evaluation of the polymorphisms Ins16bp and Arg72Pro in p53 as breast cancer risk modifiers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

The close functional relationship between p53 and the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 has promoted the investigation of various polymorphisms in the p53 gene as possible risk modifiers in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Specifically, two polymorphisms in p53, c.97-147ins16bp and p.Arg72Pro have been analysed as putative breast cancer susceptibility variants, and it has been recently reported that a p53 haplotype combining the absence of the 16-bp insertion and the presence of proline at codon 72 (No Ins-72Pro) was associated with an earlier age at the onset of the first primary tumour in BRCA2 mutation carriers in the Spanish population. In this study, we have evaluated this association in a series of 2932 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2

Kaposin-B Enhances the PROX1 mRNA Stability during Lymphatic Reprogramming of Vascular Endothelial Cells by Kaposi's Sarcoma Herpes Virus

Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) is the most common cancer among HIV-positive patients. Histogenetic origin of KS has long been elusive due to a mixed expression of both blood and lymphatic endothelial markers in KS tumor cells. However, we and others discovered that Kaposi's sarcoma herpes virus (KSHV) induces lymphatic reprogramming of blood vascular endothelial cells by upregulating PROX1, which functions as the master regulator for lymphatic endothelial differentiation. Here, we demonstrate that the KSHV latent gene kaposin-B enhances the PROX1 mRNA stability and plays an important role in KSHV-mediated PROX1 upregulation. We found that PROX1 mRNA contains a canonical AU-rich element (ARE) in its 3′-untranslated region that promotes PROX1 mRNA turnover and that kaposin-B stimulates cytoplasmic accumulation of the ARE-binding protein HuR through activation of the p38/MK2 pathway. Moreover, HuR binds to and stabilizes PROX1 mRNA through its ARE and is necessary for KSHV-mediated PROX1 mRNA stabilization. Together, our study demonstrates that kaposin-B plays a key role in PROX1 upregulation during lymphatic reprogramming of blood vascular endothelial cells by KSHV

The TP53 Arg72Pro and MDM2 309G>T polymorphisms are not associated with breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Background: The TP53 pathway, in which TP53 and its negative regulator MDM2 are the central elements, has an important role in carcinogenesis, particularly in BRCA1- and BRCA2-mediated carcinogenesis. A single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the promoter region of MDM2 (309T>G, rs2279744) and a coding SNP of TP53 (Arg72Pro, rs1042522) have been shown to be of functional significance. Methods: To investigate whether these SNPs modify breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, we pooled genotype data on the TP53 Arg72Pro SNP in 7011 mutation carriers and on the MDM2 309T>G SNP in 2222 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Data were analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model within a retrospective likelihood framework. Results: No association was found between these SNPs and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 (TP53: per-allele hazard ratio (HR)=1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93–1.10, Ptrend=0.77; MDM2: HR=0.96, 95%CI: 0.84–1.09, Ptrend=0.54) or for BRCA2 mutation carriers (TP53: HR=0.99, 95%CI: 0.87–1.12, Ptrend=0.83; MDM2: HR=0.98, 95%CI: 0.80–1.21, Ptrend=0.88). We also evaluated the potential combined effects of both SNPs on breast cancer risk, however, none of their combined genotypes showed any evidence of association. Conclusion: There was no evidence that TP53 Arg72Pro or MDM2 309T>G, either singly or in combination, influence breast cancer risk in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. O M Sinilnikova1,2, A C Antoniou3, J Simard4, S Healey5, M Léoné1, D Sinnett6,7, A B Spurdle5, J Beesley5, X Chen5, kConFab8, M H Greene9, J T Loud9, F Lejbkowicz10, G Rennert10, S Dishon10, I L Andrulis11,12, OCGN11, S M Domchek13, K L Nathanson13, S Manoukian14, P Radice15,16, I Konstantopoulou17, I Blanco18, A L Laborde19, M Durán20, A Osorio21, J Benitez21, U Hamann22, F B L Hogervorst23, T A M van Os24, H J P Gille25, HEBON23, S Peock3, M Cook3, C Luccarini26, D G Evans27, F Lalloo27, R Eeles28, G Pichert29, R Davidson30, T Cole31, J Cook32, J Paterson33, C Brewer34, EMBRACE3, D J Hughes35, I Coupier36,37, S Giraud1, F Coulet38, C Colas38, F Soubrier38, E Rouleau39, I Bièche39, R Lidereau39, L Demange40, C Nogues40, H T Lynch41, GEMO1,2,42, R K Schmutzler43, B Versmold43, C Engel44, A Meindl45, N Arnold46, C Sutter47, H Deissler48, D Schaefer49, U G Froster50, GC-HBOC43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50, K Aittomäki51, H Nevanlinna52, L McGuffog3, D F Easton3, G Chenevix-Trench5 and D Stoppa-Lyonnet42 on behalf of the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/

Ultradeep Sequencing of a Human Ultraconserved Region Reveals Somatic and Constitutional Genomic Instability

Ultradeep sequencing of genomes permits the detection of very low-level genomic instability in non-neoplastic tissues of patients with the most common form of inherited colorectal cancer

Neonatal cerebrovascular autoregulation.

Cerebrovascular pressure autoregulation is the physiologic mechanism that holds cerebral blood flow (CBF) relatively constant across changes in cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP). Cerebral vasoreactivity refers to the vasoconstriction and vasodilation that occur during fluctuations in arterial blood pressure (ABP) to maintain autoregulation. These are vital protective mechanisms of the brain. Impairments in pressure autoregulation increase the risk of brain injury and persistent neurologic disability. Autoregulation may be impaired during various neonatal disease states including prematurity, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), intraventricular hemorrhage, congenital cardiac disease, and infants requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Because infants are exquisitely sensitive to changes in cerebral blood flow (CBF), both hypoperfusion and hyperperfusion can cause significant neurologic injury. We will review neonatal pressure autoregulation and autoregulation monitoring techniques with a focus on brain protection. Current clinical therapies have failed to fully prevent permanent brain injuries in neonates. Adjuvant treatments that support and optimize autoregulation may improve neurologic outcomes