Hydration in Deep Eutectic Solvents Induces Non-monotonic Changes in the Conformation and Stability of Proteins

The preservation of labile biomolecules presents a major challenge in chemistry, and deep eutectic solvents (DESs) have emerged as suitable environments for this purpose. However, how the hydration of DESs impacts the behavior of proteins is often neglected. Here, we demonstrate that the amino acid environment and secondary structure of two proteins (bovine serum albumin and lysozyme) and an antibody (immunoglobulin G) in 1:2 choline chloride:glycerol and 1:2 choline chloride:urea follow a re-entrant behavior with solvent hydration. A dome-shaped transition is observed with a folded or partially folded structure at very low (40 wt % H2O) DES hydration, while protein unfolding increases between those regimes. Hydration also affects protein conformation and stability, as demonstrated for bovine serum albumin in hydrated 1:2 choline chloride:glycerol. In the neat DES, bovine serum albumin remains partially folded and unexpectedly undergoes unfolding and oligomerization at low water content. At intermediate hydration, the protein begins to refold and gradually retrieves the native monomer–dimer equilibrium. However, ca. 36 wt % H2O is required to recover the native folding fully. The half-denaturation temperature of the protein increases with decreasing hydration, but even the dilute DESs significantly enhance the thermal stability of bovine serum albumin. Also, protein unfolding can be reversed by rehydrating the sample to the high hydration regime, also recovering protein function. This correlation provides a new perspective to understanding protein behavior in hydrated DESs, where quantifying the DES hydration becomes imperative to identifying the folding and stability of proteinsA.S.F. acknowledges the Spanish Ministerio de Universidades for the awarded Maria Zambrano fellowship. Also, the research in this study was performed with financial support from Vinnova─Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems within the NextBioForm Competence Centre and from The Crafoord Foundation (grant #20190750). The authors thank the Institute Laue-Langevin for the awarded beamtime (8-03-1049)S

Quantifying cerebral asymmetries for language in dextrals and adextrals with random-effects meta analysis

Speech and language-related functions tend to depend on the left hemisphere more than the right in most right-handed (dextral) participants. This relationship is less clear in non-right handed (adextral) people, resulting in surprisingly polarized opinion on whether or not they are as lateralized as right handers. The present analysis investigates this issue by largely ignoring methodological differences between the different neuroscientific approaches to language lateralization, as well as discrepancies in how dextral and adextral participants were recruited or defined. Here we evaluate the tendency for dextrals to be more left hemisphere dominant than adextrals, using random effects meta analyses. In spite of several limitations, including sample size (in the adextrals in particular), missing details on proportions of groups who show directional effects in many experiments, and so on, the different paradigms all point to proportionally increased left hemispheric dominance in the dextrals. These results are analyzed in light of the theoretical importance of these subtle differences for understanding the cognitive neuroscience of language, as well as the unusual asymmetry in most adextrals

Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the detection of dementia in clinically unevaluated people aged 65 and over in community and primary care populations

BACKGROUND: The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a cognitive test that is commonly used as part of the evaluation for possible dementia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) at various cut points for dementia in people aged 65 years and over in community and primary care settings who had not undergone prior testing for dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), LILACS (BIREME), ALOIS, BIOSIS previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), and Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science). We also searched specialised sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). We attempted to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data by contacting researchers in this field. We first performed the searches in November 2012 and then fully updated them in May 2014. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches, and we did not use any methodological filters as a method to restrict the search overall. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that compared the 11‐item (maximum score 30) MMSE test (at any cut point) in people who had not undergone prior testing versus a commonly accepted clinical reference standard for all‐cause dementia and subtypes (Alzheimer disease dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia). Clinical diagnosis included all‐cause (unspecified) dementia, as defined by any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Clinical Dementia Rating. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least three authors screened all citations.Two authors handled data extraction and quality assessment. We performed meta‐analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver‐operator curves (HSROC) method and the bivariate method. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 24,310 citations after removal of duplicates. We reviewed the full text of 317 full‐text articles and finally included 70 records, referring to 48 studies, in our synthesis. We were able to perform meta‐analysis on 28 studies in the community setting (44 articles) and on 6 studies in primary care (8 articles), but we could not extract usable 2 x 2 data for the remaining 14 community studies, which we did not include in the meta‐analysis. All of the studies in the community were in asymptomatic people, whereas two of the six studies in primary care were conducted in people who had symptoms of possible dementia. We judged two studies to be at high risk of bias in the patient selection domain, three studies to be at high risk of bias in the index test domain and nine studies to be at high risk of bias regarding flow and timing. We assessed most studies as being applicable to the review question though we had concerns about selection of participants in six studies and target condition in one study. The accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia was reported at 18 cut points in the community (MMSE score 10, 14‐30 inclusive) and 10 cut points in primary care (MMSE score 17‐26 inclusive). The total number of participants in studies included in the meta‐analyses ranged from 37 to 2727, median 314 (interquartile range (IQR) 160 to 647). In the community, the pooled accuracy at a cut point of 24 (15 studies) was sensitivity 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.90 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.95); at a cut point of 25 (10 studies), sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93), specificity 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92); and in seven studies that adjusted accuracy estimates for level of education, sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00), specificity 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.85). There was insufficient data to evaluate the accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia subtypes.We could not estimate summary diagnostic accuracy in primary care due to insufficient data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The MMSE contributes to a diagnosis of dementia in low prevalence settings, but should not be used in isolation to confirm or exclude disease. We recommend that future work evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of tests in the context of the diagnostic pathway experienced by the patient and that investigators report how undergoing the MMSE changes patient‐relevant outcomes

The Changing Landscape for Stroke\ua0Prevention in AF: Findings From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase 2

Background GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, global registry program describing antithrombotic treatment patterns in patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke. Phase 2 began when dabigatran, the first non\u2013vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), became available. Objectives This study sought to describe phase 2 baseline data and compare these with the pre-NOAC era collected during phase 1. Methods During phase 2, 15,641 consenting patients were enrolled (November 2011 to December 2014); 15,092 were eligible. This pre-specified cross-sectional analysis describes eligible patients\u2019 baseline characteristics. Atrial fibrillation disease characteristics, medical outcomes, and concomitant diseases and medications were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Of the total patients, 45.5% were female; median age was 71 (interquartile range: 64, 78) years. Patients were from Europe (47.1%), North America (22.5%), Asia (20.3%), Latin America (6.0%), and the Middle East/Africa (4.0%). Most had high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc [Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age  6575 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74 years, Sex category] score  652; 86.1%); 13.9% had moderate risk (CHA2DS2-VASc = 1). Overall, 79.9% received oral anticoagulants, of whom 47.6% received NOAC and 32.3% vitamin K antagonists (VKA); 12.1% received antiplatelet agents; 7.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. For comparison, the proportion of phase 1 patients (of N = 1,063 all eligible) prescribed VKA was 32.8%, acetylsalicylic acid 41.7%, and no therapy 20.2%. In Europe in phase 2, treatment with NOAC was more common than VKA (52.3% and 37.8%, respectively); 6.0% of patients received antiplatelet treatment; and 3.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. In North America, 52.1%, 26.2%, and 14.0% of patients received NOAC, VKA, and antiplatelet drugs, respectively; 7.5% received no antithrombotic treatment. NOAC use was less common in Asia (27.7%), where 27.5% of patients received VKA, 25.0% antiplatelet drugs, and 19.8% no antithrombotic treatment. Conclusions The baseline data from GLORIA-AF phase 2 demonstrate that in newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients, NOAC have been highly adopted into practice, becoming more frequently prescribed than VKA in Europe and North America. Worldwide, however, a large proportion of patients remain undertreated, particularly in Asia and North America. (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [GLORIA-AF]; NCT01468701

Frontline treatment with the combination obinutuzumab \ub1 chlorambucil for chronic lymphocytic leukemia outside clinical trials: Results of a multinational, multicenter study by ERIC and the Israeli CLL study group

In recent years, considerable progress has been made in frontline therapy for elderly/physically unfit patients with CLL. The combination of obinutuzumab and chlorambucil (O-Clb) has been shown to prolong progression free survival (PFS, median PFS-31.5 months) and overall survival (OS) compared to chlorambucil alone. More recently, obinutuzumab given in combination with either ibrutinib or venetoclax improved PFS but not OS when compared to O-Clb. In this retrospective multinational, multicenter co-operative study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of frontline treatment with O \ub1 Clb in unfit patients with CLL, in a \u201creal-world\u201d setting. Patients with documented del (17p13.1)/TP53 mutation were excluded. A total of 437 patients (median age, 75.9 years; median CIRS score, 8; median creatinine clearance, 61.1 mL/min) were included. The clinical overall response rate was 80.3% (clinical complete and partial responses in 38.7% and 41.6% of patients, respectively). Median observation time was 14.1 months and estimated median PFS was 27.6 months (95% CI, 24.2-31.0). In a multivariate analysis, high-risk disease [del (11q22.3) and/or IGHV-unmutated], lymph nodes of diameter > 5 cm, obinutuzumab monotherapy and reduced cumulative dose of obinutuzumab, were all independently associated with shorter PFS. The median OS has not yet been reached and estimated 2-year OS is 88%. In conclusion, in a \u201creal-world\u201d setting, frontline treatment with O-Clb achieves PFS comparable to that reported in clinical trials. Inferior outcomes were noted in patients with del (11q22.3) and/or unmutated IGHV and those treated with obinutuzumab-monotherapy. Thus, O-Clb can be still considered as legitimate frontline therapy for unfit CLL patients with low-risk disease