The Two Different Isoforms of the RSC Chromatin Remodeling Complex Play Distinct Roles in DNA Damage Responses

The RSC chromatin remodeling complex has been implicated in contributing to DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair in a number of studies. Both survival and levels of H2A phosphorylation in response to damage are reduced in the absence of RSC. Importantly, there is evidence for two isoforms of this complex, defined by the presence of either Rsc1 or Rsc2. Here, we investigated whether the two isoforms of RSC provide distinct contributions to DNA damage responses. First, we established that the two isoforms of RSC differ in the presence of Rsc1 or Rsc2 but otherwise have the same subunit composition. We found that both rsc1 and rsc2 mutant strains have intact DNA damage-induced checkpoint activity and transcriptional induction. In addition, both strains show reduced non-homologous end joining activity and have a similar spectrum of DSB repair junctions, suggesting perhaps that the two complexes provide the same functions. However, the hypersensitivity of a rsc1 strain cannot be complemented with an extra copy of RSC2, and likewise, the hypersensitivity of the rsc2 strain remains unchanged when an additional copy of RSC1 is present, indicating that the two proteins are unable to functionally compensate for one another in DNA damage responses. Rsc1, but not Rsc2, is required for nucleosome sliding flanking a DNA DSB. Interestingly, while swapping the domains from Rsc1 into the Rsc2 protein does not compromise hypersensitivity to DNA damage suggesting they are functionally interchangeable, the BAH domain from Rsc1 confers upon Rsc2 the ability to remodel chromatin at a DNA break. These data demonstrate that, despite the similarity between Rsc1 and Rsc2, the two different isoforms of RSC provide distinct functions in DNA damage responses, and that at least part of the functional specificity is dictated by the BAH domains

A role for pharmacists in community-based post-discharge warfarin management: protocol for the 'the role of community pharmacy in post hospital management of patients initiated on warfarin' study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Shorter periods of hospitalisation and increasing warfarin use have placed stress on community-based healthcare services to care for patients taking warfarin after hospital discharge, a high-risk period for these patients. A previous randomised controlled trial demonstrated that a post-discharge service of 4 home visits and point-of-care (POC) International Normalised Ratio (INR) testing by a trained pharmacist improved patients' outcomes. The current study aims to modify this previously trialled service model to implement and then evaluate a sustainable program to enable the smooth transition of patients taking warfarin from the hospital to community setting.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The service will be trialled in 8 sites across 3 Australian states using a prospective, controlled cohort study design. Patients discharged from hospital taking warfarin will receive 2 or 3 home visits by a trained 'home medicines review (HMR)-accredited' pharmacist in their 8 to 10 days after hospital discharge. Visits will involve a HMR, comprehensive warfarin education, and POC INR monitoring in collaboration with patients' general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists. Patient outcomes will be compared to those in a control, or 'usual care', group. The primary outcome measure will be the proportion of patients experiencing a major bleeding event in the 90 days after discharge. Secondary outcome measures will include combined major bleeding and thromboembolic events, death, cessation of warfarin therapy, INR control at 8 days post-discharge and unplanned hospital readmissions from any cause. Stakeholder satisfaction will be assessed using structured postal questionnaire mailed to patients, GPs, community pharmacists and accredited pharmacists at the completion of their study involvement.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study design incorporates several aspects of prior interventions that have been demonstrated to improve warfarin management, including POC INR testing, warfarin education and home visits by trained pharmacists. It faces several potential challenges, including the tight timeframe for patient follow-up in the post-discharge period. Its strengths lie in a strong multidisciplinary team and the utilisation of existing healthcare frameworks. It is hoped that this study will provide the evidence to support the national roll-out of the program as a new Australian professional community pharmacy service.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number <a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/trial_view.aspx?ID=82959">12608000334303</a>.</p

Effectiveness and safety of opicapone in Parkinson's disease patients with motor fluctuations: The OPTIPARK open-label study

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of opicapone, a once-daily catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitor, have been established in two large randomized, placebo-controlled, multinational pivotal trials. Still, clinical evidence from routine practice is needed to complement the data from the pivotal trials. METHODS: OPTIPARK (NCT02847442) was a prospective, open-label, single-arm trial conducted in Germany and the UK under clinical practice conditions. Patients with Parkinson’s disease and motor fluctuations were treated with opicapone 50 mg for 3 (Germany) or 6 (UK) months in addition to their current levodopa and other antiparkinsonian treatments. The primary endpoint was the Clinician’s Global Impression of Change (CGI-C) after 3 months. Secondary assessments included Patient Global Impressions of Change (PGI-C), the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8), and the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (NMSS). Safety assessments included evaluation of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). RESULTS: Of the 506 patients enrolled, 495 (97.8%) took at least one dose of opicapone. Of these, 393 (79.4%) patients completed 3 months of treatment. Overall, 71.3 and 76.9% of patients experienced any improvement on CGI-C and PGI-C after 3 months, respectively (full analysis set). At 6 months, for UK subgroup only (n = 95), 85.3% of patients were judged by investigators as improved since commencing treatment. UPDRS scores at 3 months showed statistically significant improvements in activities of daily living during OFF (mean ± SD change from baseline: − 3.0 ± 4.6, p < 0.0001) and motor scores during ON (− 4.6 ± 8.1, p < 0.0001). The mean ± SD improvements of − 3.4 ± 12.8 points for PDQ-8 and -6.8 ± 19.7 points for NMSS were statistically significant versus baseline (both p < 0.0001). Most of TEAEs (94.8% of events) were of mild or moderate intensity. TEAEs considered to be at least possibly related to opicapone were reported for 45.1% of patients, with dyskinesia (11.5%) and dry mouth (6.5%) being the most frequently reported. Serious TEAEs considered at least possibly related to opicapone were reported for 1.4% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Opicapone 50 mg was effective and generally well-tolerated in PD patients with motor fluctuations treated in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in July 2016 at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02847442)

Do physician outcome judgments and judgment biases contribute to inappropriate use of treatments? Study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There are many examples of physicians using treatments inappropriately, despite clear evidence about the circumstances under which the benefits of such treatments outweigh their harms. When such over- or under- use of treatments occurs for common diseases, the burden to the healthcare system and risks to patients can be substantial. We propose that a major contributor to inappropriate treatment may be how clinicians judge the likelihood of important treatment outcomes, and how these judgments influence their treatment decisions. The current study will examine the role of judged outcome probabilities and other cognitive factors in the context of two clinical treatment decisions: 1) prescription of antibiotics for sore throat, where we hypothesize overestimation of benefit and underestimation of harm leads to over-prescription of antibiotics; and 2) initiation of anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), where we hypothesize that underestimation of benefit and overestimation of harm leads to under-prescription of warfarin.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>For each of the two conditions, we will administer surveys of two types (Type 1 and Type 2) to different samples of Canadian physicians. The primary goal of the Type 1 survey is to assess physicians' perceived outcome probabilities (both good and bad outcomes) for the target treatment. Type 1 surveys will assess judged outcome probabilities in the context of a representative patient, and include questions about how physicians currently treat such cases, the recollection of rare or vivid outcomes, as well as practice and demographic details. The primary goal of the Type 2 surveys is to measure the specific factors that drive individual clinical judgments and treatment decisions, using a 'clinical judgment analysis' or 'lens modeling' approach. This survey will manipulate eight clinical variables across a series of sixteen realistic case vignettes. Based on the survey responses, we will be able to identify which variables have the greatest effect on physician judgments, and whether judgments are affected by inappropriate cues or incorrect weighting of appropriate cues. We will send antibiotics surveys to family physicians (300 per survey), and warfarin surveys to both family physicians and internal medicine specialists (300 per group per survey), for a total of 1,800 physicians. Each Type 1 survey will be two to four pages in length and take about fifteen minutes to complete, while each Type 2 survey will be eight to ten pages in length and take about thirty minutes to complete.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This work will provide insight into the extent to which clinicians' judgments about the likelihood of important treatment outcomes explain inappropriate treatment decisions. This work will also provide information necessary for the development of an individualized feedback tool designed to improve treatment decisions. The techniques developed here have the potential to be applicable to a wide range of clinical areas where inappropriate utilization stems from biased judgments.</p

Operons

Operons (clusters of co-regulated genes with related functions) are common features of bacterial genomes. More recently, functional gene clustering has been reported in eukaryotes, from yeasts to filamentous fungi, plants, and animals. Gene clusters can consist of paralogous genes that have most likely arisen by gene duplication. However, there are now many examples of eukaryotic gene clusters that contain functionally related but non-homologous genes and that represent functional gene organizations with operon-like features (physical clustering and co-regulation). These include gene clusters for use of different carbon and nitrogen sources in yeasts, for production of antibiotics, toxins, and virulence determinants in filamentous fungi, for production of defense compounds in plants, and for innate and adaptive immunity in animals (the major histocompatibility locus). The aim of this article is to review features of functional gene clusters in prokaryotes and eukaryotes and the significance of clustering for effective function