Enamel Formation Genes Influence Enamel Microhardness Before and After Cariogenic Challenge

There is evidence for a genetic component in caries susceptibility, and studies in humans have suggested that variation in enamel formation genes may contribute to caries. For the present study, we used DNA samples collected from 1,831 individuals from various population data sets. Single nucleotide polymorphism markers were genotyped in selected genes (ameloblastin, amelogenin, enamelin, tuftelin, and tuftelin interacting protein 11) that influence enamel formation. Allele and genotype frequencies were compared between groups with distinct caries experience. Associations with caries experience can be detected but they are not necessarily replicated in all population groups and the most expressive results was for a marker in AMELX (p = 0.0007). To help interpret these results, we evaluated if enamel microhardness changes under simulated cariogenic challenges are associated with genetic variations in these same genes. After creating an artificial caries lesion, associations could be seen between genetic variation in TUFT1 (p = 0.006) and TUIP11 (p = 0.0006) with enamel microhardness. Our results suggest that the influence of genetic variation of enamel formation genes may influence the dynamic interactions between the enamel surface and the oral cavity. © 2012 Shimizu et al

Evaluating Forecasting Methods

Ideally, forecasting methods should be evaluated in the situations for which they will be used. Underlying the evaluation procedure is the need to test methods against reasonable alternatives. Evaluation consists of four steps: testing assumptions, testing data and methods, replicating outputs, and assessing outputs. Most principles for testing forecasting methods are based on commonly accepted methodological procedures, such as to prespecify criteria or to obtain a large sample of forecast errors. However, forecasters often violate such principles, even in academic studies. Some principles might be surprising, such as do not use R-square, do not use Mean Square Error, and do not use the within-sample fit of the model to select the most accurate time-series model. A checklist of 32 principles is provided to help in systematically evaluating forecasting methods

Enamel Formation Genes Influence Enamel Microhardness Before and After Cariogenic Challenge

Abstract There is evidence for a genetic component in caries susceptibility, and studies in humans have suggested that variation in enamel formation genes may contribute to caries. For the present study, we used DNA samples collected from 1,831 individuals from various population data sets. Single nucleotide polymorphism markers were genotyped in selected genes (ameloblastin, amelogenin, enamelin, tuftelin, and tuftelin interacting protein 11) that influence enamel formation. Allele and genotype frequencies were compared between groups with distinct caries experience. Associations with caries experience can be detected but they are not necessarily replicated in all population groups and the most expressive results was for a marker in AMELX (p = 0.0007). To help interpret these results, we evaluated if enamel microhardness changes under simulated cariogenic challenges are associated with genetic variations in these same genes. After creating an artificial caries lesion, associations could be seen between genetic variation in TUFT1 (p = 0.006) and TUIP11 (p = 0.0006) with enamel microhardness. Our results suggest that the influence of genetic variation of enamel formation genes may influence the dynamic interactions between the enamel surface and the oral cavity

Enamel Formation Genes Influence Enamel Microhardness Before and After Cariogenic Challenge

There is evidence for a genetic component in caries susceptibility, and studies in humans have suggested that variation in enamel formation genes may contribute to caries. For the present study, we used DNA samples collected from 1,831 individuals from various population data sets. Single nucleotide polymorphism markers were genotyped in selected genes (ameloblastin, amelogenin, enamelin, tuftelin, and tuftelin interacting protein 11) that influence enamel formation. Allele and genotype frequencies were compared between groups with distinct caries experience. Associations with caries experience can be detected but they are not necessarily replicated in all population groups and the most expressive results was for a marker in AMELX (p = 0.0007). To help interpret these results, we evaluated if enamel microhardness changes under simulated cariogenic challenges are associated with genetic variations in these same genes. After creating an artificial caries lesion, associations could be seen between genetic variation in TUFT1 (p = 0.006) and TUIP11 (p = 0.0006) with enamel microhardness. Our results suggest that the influence of genetic variation of enamel formation genes may influence the dynamic interactions between the enamel surface and the oral cavity

Correlations of enamel microhardness values in the several experimental points.

<p>Statistically significant correlations are presented in bold font.</p