Sox4 mediates Tbx3 transcriptional regulation of the gap junction protein Cx43

Tbx3, a T-box transcription factor, regulates key steps in development of the heart and other organ systems. Here, we identify Sox4 as an interacting partner of Tbx3. Pull-down and nuclear retention assays verify this interaction and in situ hybridization reveals Tbx3 and Sox4 to co-localize extensively in the embryo including the atrioventricular and outflow tract cushion mesenchyme and a small area of interventricular myocardium. Tbx3, SOX4, and SOX2 ChIP data, identify a region in intron 1 of Gja1 bound by all tree proteins and subsequent ChIP experiments verify that this sequence is bound, in vivo, in the developing heart. In a luciferase reporter assay, this element displays a synergistic antagonistic response to co-transfection of Tbx3 and Sox4 and in vivo, in zebrafish, drives expression of a reporter in the heart, confirming its function as a cardiac enhancer. Mechanistically, we postulate that Sox4 is a mediator of Tbx3 transcriptional activity

Carmustine and methotrexate in combination after whole brain radiation therapy in breast cancer patients presenting with brain metastases: a retrospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Since 1999, patients presenting with brain metastases (BM) from breast cancer (BC) are treated in our institution with a carmustine (BCNU) - methotrexate (MTX) combination. We report here our clinical experience regarding this combination.</p> <p>Patients and Methods</p> <p>Patients were treated by a combination of BCNU 100 mg/m² on day 1 and MTX 600 mg/m² on day 1 and 15 of a 28 day cycle. Treatment was continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>50 patients were treated between 1999 and 2007. 94% of the patients presented with concomitant extra-cerebral disease. Median number of previous metastatic setting chemotherapy regimens was 2 (0-5). Median number of cycles was 3 (1-20). There were 11 objective responses (23% [95%CI 12-37]) among 48 evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were 4.2 (95%CI: 2.8-5.3) and 6.9 (4.2-10.7) months respectively, with a one-year OS rate of 32% (20-46). Median Relative Dose Intensity for BCNU and MTX were 0.98 (0.31-1.1) and 0.96 (0.57-1.66) respectively. There were 2 presumed treatment-related deaths. One patient developed febrile neutropenia. Performance status, BS-BM score and presence of liver metastases were associated with OS in univariate analysis.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This combination appears to be effective and well tolerated in good performance status BC patients presenting with BM.</p

Impact of technology-based interventions for children and young people with type 1 diabetes on key diabetes self-management behaviours and prerequisites: A systematic review

Background The role of technology in the self-management of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) among children and young people is not well understood. Interventions should aim to improve key diabetes self-management behaviours (self-management of blood glucose, insulin administration, physical activity and dietary behaviours) and prerequisites (psychological outcomes and HbA1c) highlighted in the UK guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for management of T1DM. The purpose was to identify evidence to assess the effectiveness of technological tools in promoting aspects of these guidelines amongst children and young people. Methods A systematic review of English language articles was conducted using the following databases: Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, NUSearch, SAGE Journals, SpringerLink, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Sport Discus, Embase, Psychinfo and Cochrane Trials. Search terms included paediatric, type one diabetes, technology, intervention and various synonyms. Included studies examined interventions which supplemented usual care with a health care strategy primarily delivered through a technology-based medium (e.g. mobile phone, website, activity monitor) with the aim of engaging children and young people with T1DM directly in their diabetes healthcare. Studies did not need to include a comparator condition and could be randomised, non-randomised or cohort studies but not single-case studies. Results Of 30 included studies (21 RCTs), the majority measured self-monitoring of blood glucose monitoring (SMBG) frequency, clinical indicators of diabetes self-management (e.g. HbA1c) and/or psychological or cognitive outcomes. The most positive findings were associated with technology-based health interventions targeting SMBG as a behavioural outcome, with some benefits found for clinical and/or psychological diabetes self-management outcomes. Technological interventions were well accepted by children and young people. For the majority of included outcomes, clinical relevance was deemed to be little or none. Conclusions More research is required to assess which elements of interventions are most likely to produce beneficial behavioural outcomes. To produce clinically relevant outcomes, interventions may need to be delivered for at least 1 year and should consider targeting individuals with poorly managed diabetes. It is not possible to determine the impact of technology-based interventions on insulin administration, dietary habits and/or physical activity behaviour due to lack of evidence

Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework

We describe a framework for defining pilot and feasibility studies focusing on studies conducted in preparation for a randomised controlled trial. To develop the framework, we undertook a Delphi survey; ran an open meeting at a trial methodology conference; conducted a review of definitions outside the health research context; consulted experts at an international consensus meeting; and reviewed 27 empirical pilot or feasibility studies. We initially adopted mutually exclusive definitions of pilot and feasibility studies. However, some Delphi survey respondents and the majority of open meeting attendees disagreed with the idea of mutually exclusive definitions. Their viewpoint was supported by definitions outside the health research context, the use of the terms ‘pilot’ and ‘feasibility’ in the literature, and participants at the international consensus meeting. In our framework, pilot studies are a subset of feasibility studies, rather than the two being mutually exclusive. A feasibility study asks whether something can be done, should we proceed with it, and if so, how. A pilot study asks the same questions but also has a specific design feature: in a pilot study a future study, or part of a future study, is conducted on a smaller scale. We suggest that to facilitate their identification, these studies should be clearly identified using the terms ‘feasibility’ or ‘pilot’ as appropriate. This should include feasibility studies that are largely qualitative; we found these difficult to identify in electronic searches because researchers rarely used the term ‘feasibility’ in the title or abstract of such studies. Investigators should also report appropriate objectives and methods related to feasibility; and give clear confirmation that their study is in preparation for a future randomised controlled trial designed to assess the effect of an intervention

CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials [on behalf of the PAFS consensus group*]

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a guideline designed to improve the transparency and quality of the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this article we present an extension to that statement for randomised pilot and feasibility trials conducted in advance of a future definitive RCT. The checklist applies to any randomised study in which a future definitive RCT, or part of it, is conducted on a smaller scale, regardless of its design (eg, cluster, factorial, crossover) or the terms used by authors to describe the study (eg, pilot, feasibility, trial, study). The extension does not directly apply to internal pilot studies built into the design of a main trial, non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies, or phase II studies, but these studies all have some similarities to randomised pilot and feasibility studies and so many of the principles might also apply. The development of the extension was motivated by the growing number of studies described as feasibility or pilot studies and by research that has identified weaknesses in their reporting and conduct. We followed recommended good practice to develop the extension, including carrying out a Delphi survey, holding a consensus meeting and research team meetings, and piloting the checklist. The aims and objectives of pilot and feasibility randomised studies differ from those of other randomised trials. Consequently, although much of the information to be reported in these trials is similar to those in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing effectiveness and efficacy, there are some key differences in the type of information and in the appropriate interpretation of standard CONSORT reporting items. We have retained some of the original CONSORT statement items, but most have been adapted, some removed, and new items added. The new items cover how participants were identified and consent obtained; if applicable, the prespecified criteria used to judge whether or how to proceed with a future definitive RCT; if relevant, other important unintended consequences; implications for progression from pilot to future definitive RCT, including any proposed amendments; and ethical approval or approval by a research review committee confirmed with a reference number. This article includes the 26 item checklist, a separate checklist for the abstract, a template for a CONSORT flowchart for these studies, and an explanation of the changes made and supporting examples. We believe that routine use of this proposed extension to the CONSORT statement will result in improvements in the reporting of pilot trials. Editor’s note: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Pilot and Feasibility Studies journal websites

Le Village suisse comme modèle d'urbanisme

This chapter introduces systems biology, its context, aims, concepts and strategies. It then describes approaches and methods used for collection of high-dimensional structural and functional genomics data, including epigenomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics and lipidomics, and how recent technological advances in these fields have moved the bottleneck from data production to data analysis and bioinformatics. Finally, the most advanced mathematical and computational methods used for clustering, feature selection, prediction analysis, text mining and pathway analysis in functional genomics and systems biology are reviewed and discussed in the context of use cases