BMP-SMAD Signaling Regulates Lineage Priming, but Is Dispensable for Self-Renewal in Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells

Naive mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs) are in a metastable state and fluctuate between inner cell mass- and epiblast-like phenotypes. Here, we show transient activation of the BMP-SMAD signaling pathway in mESCs containing a BMP-SMAD responsive reporter transgene. Activation of the BMP-SMAD reporter transgene in naive mESCs correlated with lower levels of genomic DNA methylation, high expression of 5-methylcytosine hydroxylases Tet1/2 and low levels of DNA methyltransferases Dnmt3a/b. Moreover, naive mESCs, in which the BMP-SMAD reporter transgene was activated, showed higher resistance to differentiation. Using double Smad1;Smad5 knockout mESCs, we showed that BMP-SMAD signaling is dispensable for self-renewal in both naive and ground state. These mutant mESCs were still pluripotent, but they exhibited higher levels of DNA methylation than their wild-type counterparts and had a higher propensity to differentiate. We showed that BMP-SMAD signaling modulates lineage priming in mESCs, by transiently regulating the enzymatic machinery responsible for DNA methylation

BMP-SMAD Signaling Regulates Lineage Priming, but Is Dispensable for Self-Renewal in Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells

Biological and Soft Matter Physic

Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI): A Prospective Longitudinal Observational Study

BACKGROUND: Current classification of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is suboptimal, and management is based on weak evidence, with little attempt to personalize treatment. A need exists for new precision medicine and stratified management approaches that incorporate emerging technologies. OBJECTIVE: To improve characterization and classification of TBI and to identify best clinical care, using comparative effectiveness research approaches. METHODS: This multicenter, longitudinal, prospective, observational study in 22 countries across Europe and Israel will collect detailed data from 5400 consenting patients, presenting within 24 hours of injury, with a clinical diagnosis of TBI and an indication for computed tomography. Broader registry-level data collection in approximately 20 000 patients will assess generalizability. Cross sectional comprehensive outcome assessments, including quality of life and neuropsychological testing, will be performed at 6 months. Longitudinal assessments will continue up to 24 months post TBI in patient subsets. Advanced neuroimaging and genomic and biomarker data will be used to improve characterization, and analyses will include neuroinformatics approaches to address variations in process and clinical care. Results will be integrated with living systematic reviews in a process of knowledge transfer. The study initiation was from October to December 2014, and the recruitment period was for 18 to 24 months. EXPECTED OUTCOMES: Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI should provide novel multidimensional approaches to TBI characterization and classification, evidence to support treatment recommendations, and benchmarks for quality of care. Data and sample repositories will ensure opportunities for legacy research. DISCUSSION: Comparative effectiveness research provides an alternative to reductionistic clinical trials in restricted patient populations by exploiting differences in biology, care, and outcome to support optimal personalized patient management

Variation in Structure and Process of Care in Traumatic Brain Injury: Provider Profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study.

INTRODUCTION: The strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. METHODS: We designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions. RESULTS: All 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers. CONCLUSION: Even among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches

Variation in structure and process of care in traumatic brain injury: Provider profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study

Introduction: The strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. Methods: We designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions.Results: All 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers. Conclusion: Even among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches.</p

Preparing for hard times: Scalp and intracranial physiological signatures of proactive cognitive control

Item does not contain fulltextAbstract Based on reward and difficulty information, people can strategically adjust proactive cognitive control. fMRI research shows that motivated proactive control is implemented through fronto-parietal control networks that are triggered by reward and difficulty cues. Here, we investigate electrophysiological signatures of proactive control. Previously, the contingent negative variation (CNV) in the ERPs and oscillatory power in the theta (4–8 Hz) and alpha band (8–14 Hz) have been suggested as signatures of control implementation. However, experimental designs did not always separate control implementation from motor preparation. Critically, we used a mental calculation task to investigate effects of proactive control implementation on the CNV and on theta and alpha power, in absence of motor preparation. In the period leading up to task onset, we found a more negative CNV, increased theta power, and decreased alpha power for hard versus easy calculations, showing increased proactive control implementation when a difficult task was expected. These three measures also correlated with behavioral performance, both across trials and across subjects. In addition to scalp EEG in healthy participants, we collected intracranial local field potential recordings in an epilepsy patient. We observed a slow-drift component that was more pronounced for hard trials in a hippocampal location, possibly reflecting task-specific preparation for hard mental calculations. The current study thus shows that difficulty information triggers proactive control in absence of motor preparation and elucidates its neurophysiological signatures