COX-2 and PPARγ expression are potential markers of recurrence risk in mammary duct carcinoma in-situ

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In women with duct carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) receiving breast conservation therapy (BCT), in-breast recurrences are seen in approximately 10%, but cannot be accurately predicted using clinical and histological criteria. We performed a case-control study to identify protein markers of local recurrence risk in DCIS.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Women treated for DCIS with BCT, who later developed in-breast recurrence (cases) were matched by age and year of treatment to women who remained free of recurrence (controls).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 69 women were included in the study, 31 cases and 38 controls. Immunohistochemical evaluation of DCIS tissue arrays was performed for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER-2/neu, cyclin D1, p53, p21, cycloxygenase-2 (COX-2) and peroxisome proliferator activated receptor γ (PPARγ). Two markers were significantly different between cases and controls on univariate analysis: strong COX-2 expression was associated with increased risk of recurrence, with 67% vs. 24% positivity in cases and controls p = 0.006; and nuclear expression of PPARγ was associated with protection from recurrence with 4% vs. 27% positivity in cases and controls, p = 0.024. In a multivariate model which included size, grade, COX-2 and PPARγ positivity, we found COX-2 positivity to be a strong independent risk factor for recurrence (OR 7.90, 95% CI 1.72–36.23)., whereas size and grade were of borderline significance. PPARγ expression continued to demonstrate a protective trend, (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06–1.84).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our findings suggest that COX-2 and PPARγ should be investigated further as biologic markers to predict DCIS recurrence, particularly since they are also potential therapeutic targets.</p

Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Among Patients With Arthritis

Introduction: Previous studies suggest that people with arthritis have high rates of using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) approaches for managing their arthritis, in addition to conventional treatments such as prescription medications. However, little is known about the use of CAM by diagnosis, or which forms of CAM are most frequently used by people with arthritis. This study was designed to provide detailed information about use of CAM for symptoms associated with arthritis in patients followed in primary care and specialty clinics in North Carolina. Methods: Using a cross-sectional design, we drew our sample from primary care (n = 1,077) and specialist (n = 1,063) physician offices. Summary statistics were used to calculate differences within and between diagnostic groups, practice settings, and other characteristics. Logistic regression models clustered at the site level were used to determine the effect of patient characteristics on ever and current use of 9 CAM categories and an overall category of "any use." Results: Most of the participants followed by specialists (90.5%) and a slightly smaller percentage of those in the primary care sample (82.8%) had tried at least 1 complementary therapy for arthritis symptoms. Participants with fibromyalgia used complementary therapies more often than those with rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, or chronic joint symptoms. More than 50% of patients in both samples used over-the-counter topical pain relievers, more than 25% used meditation or drew on religious or spiritual beliefs, and more than 19% used a chiropractor. Women and participants with higher levels of education were more likely to report current use of alternative therapies. Conclusion: Most arthritis patients in both primary care and specialty settings have used CAM for their arthritis symptoms. Health care providers (especially musculoskeletal specialists) should discuss these therapies with all arthritis patients

Signal transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1) gain-of-function mutations and disseminated coccidioidomycosis and histoplasmosis

Background: Impaired signaling in the IFN-g/IL-12 pathway causes susceptibility to severe disseminated infections with mycobacteria and dimorphic yeasts. Dominant gain-of-function mutations in signal transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1) have been associated with chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis. Objective: We sought to identify the molecular defect in patients with disseminated dimorphic yeast infections. Methods: PBMCs, EBV-transformed B cells, and transfected U3A cell lines were studied for IFN-g/IL-12 pathway function. STAT1 was sequenced in probands and available relatives. Interferon-induced STAT1 phosphorylation, transcriptional responses, protein-protein interactions, target gene activation, and function were investigated. Results: We identified 5 patients with disseminated Coccidioides immitis or Histoplasma capsulatum with heterozygous missense mutations in the STAT1 coiled-coil or DNA-binding domains. These are dominant gain-of-function mutations causing enhanced STAT1 phosphorylation, delayed dephosphorylation, enhanced DNA binding and transactivation, and enhanced interaction with protein inhibitor of activated STAT1. The mutations caused enhanced IFN-g–induced gene expression, but we found impaired responses to IFN-g restimulation. Conclusion: Gain-of-function mutations in STAT1 predispose to invasive, severe, disseminated dimorphic yeast infections, likely through aberrant regulation of IFN-g–mediated inflammationFil: Sampaio, Elizabeth P.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados Unidos. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratorio de Leprologia; BrasilFil: Hsu, Amy P.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Pechacek, Joseph. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Hannelore I.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados Unidos. Erasmus Medical Center. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease; Países BajosFil: Dias, Dalton L.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Paulson, Michelle L.. Clinical Research Directorate/CMRP; Estados UnidosFil: Chandrasekaran, Prabha. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Rosen, Lindsey B.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Carvalho, Daniel S.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados Unidos. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Laboratorio de Leprologia; BrasilFil: Ding, Li. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Vinh, Donald C.. McGill University Health Centre. Division of Infectious Diseases; CanadáFil: Browne, Sarah K.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Datta, Shrimati. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Allergic Diseases. Allergic Inflammation Unit; Estados UnidosFil: Milner, Joshua D.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Allergic Diseases. Allergic Inflammation Unit; Estados UnidosFil: Kuhns, Douglas B.. Clinical Services Program; Estados UnidosFil: Long Priel, Debra A.. Clinical Services Program; Estados UnidosFil: Sadat, Mohammed A.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Host Defenses. Infectious Diseases Susceptibility Unit; Estados UnidosFil: Shiloh, Michael. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases; Estados UnidosFil: De Marco, Brendan. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases; Estados UnidosFil: Alvares, Michael. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Allergy and Immunology; Estados UnidosFil: Gillman, Jason W.. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases; Estados UnidosFil: Ramarathnam, Vivek. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases; Estados UnidosFil: de la Morena, Maite. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Allergy and Immunology; Estados UnidosFil: Bezrodnik, Liliana. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital General de Niños "Ricardo Gutierrez"; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Moreira, Ileana. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital General de Niños "Ricardo Gutierrez"; ArgentinaFil: Uzel, Gulbu. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Johnson, Daniel. University of Chicago. Comer Children; Estados UnidosFil: Spalding, Christine. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Zerbe, Christa S.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Wiley, Henry. National Eye Institute. Clinical Trials Branch; Estados UnidosFil: Greenberg, David E.. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases; Estados UnidosFil: Hoover, Susan E.. University of Arizona. College of Medicine. Valley Fever Center for Excellence; Estados UnidosFil: Rosenzweig, Sergio D.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Host Defenses Infectious Diseases Susceptibility Unit; Estados Unidos. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Primary Immunodeficiency Clinic; Estados UnidosFil: Galgiani, John N.. University of Arizona. College of Medicine. Valley Fever Center for Excellence; Estados UnidosFil: Holland, Steven M.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados Unido

2018 Scholars at Work Conference Program

Program for the 2018 Scholars at Work Conference at Minnesota State University, Mankato on March 30, 2018

Isometric handgrip as an adjunct for blood pressure control: a primer for clinicians

Considered a global health crisis by the World Health Organization, hypertension (HTN) is the leading risk factor for death and disability. The majority of treated patients do not attain evidence-based clinical targets, which increases the risk of potentially fatal complications. HTN is the most common chronic condition seen in primary care; thus, implementing therapies that lower and maintain BP to within-target ranges is of tremendous public health importance. Isometric handgrip (IHG) training is a simple intervention endorsed by the American Heart Association as a potential adjuvant BP-lowering treatment. With larger reductions noted in HTN patients, IHG training may be especially beneficial for those who (a) have difficulties continuing or increasing drug-based treatment; (b) are unable to attain BP control despite optimal treatment; (c) have pre-HTN or low-risk stage I mild HTN; and (d) wish to avoid medications or have less pill burden. IHG training is not routinely prescribed in clinical practice. To shift this paradigm, we focus on (1) the challenges of current HTN management strategies; (2) the effect of IHG training; (3) IHG prescription; (4) characterizing the population for whom it works best; (5) clinical relevance; and (6) important next steps to foster broader implementation by clinical practitioners

The genomic landscape of balanced cytogenetic abnormalities associated with human congenital anomalies

Despite the clinical significance of balanced chromosomal abnormalities (BCAs), their characterization has largely been restricted to cytogenetic resolution. We explored the landscape of BCAs at nucleotide resolution in 273 subjects with a spectrum of congenital anomalies. Whole-genome sequencing revised 93% of karyotypes and demonstrated complexity that was cryptic to karyotyping in 21% of BCAs, highlighting the limitations of conventional cytogenetic approaches. At least 33.9% of BCAs resulted in gene disruption that likely contributed to the developmental phenotype, 5.2% were associated with pathogenic genomic imbalances, and 7.3% disrupted topologically associated domains (TADs) encompassing known syndromic loci. Remarkably, BCA breakpoints in eight subjects altered a single TAD encompassing MEF2C, a known driver of 5q14.3 microdeletion syndrome, resulting in decreased MEF2C expression. We propose that sequence-level resolution dramatically improves prediction of clinical outcomes for balanced rearrangements and provides insight into new pathogenic mechanisms, such as altered regulation due to changes in chromosome topology

Two-locus genome-wide linkage scan for prostate cancer susceptibility genes with an interaction effect

Prostate cancer represents a significant worldwide public health burden. Epidemiological and genetic epidemiological studies have consistently provided data supporting the existence of inherited prostate cancer susceptibility genes. Segregation analyses of prostate cancer suggest that a multigene model may best explain familial clustering of this disease. Therefore, modeling gene–gene interactions in linkage analysis may improve the power to detect chromosomal regions harboring these disease susceptibility genes. In this study, we systematically screened for prostate cancer linkage by modeling two-locus gene–gene interactions for all possible pairs of loci across the genome in 426 prostate cancer families from Johns Hopkins Hospital, University of Michigan, University of Umeå, and University of Tampere. We found suggestive evidence for an epistatic interaction for six sets of loci (target chromosome-wide/reference marker-specific P ≤0.0001). Evidence for these interactions was found in two independent subsets from within the 426 families. While the validity of these results requires confirmation from independent studies and the identification of the specific genes underlying this linkage evidence, our approach of systematically assessing gene–gene interactions across the entire genome represents a promising alternative approach for gene identification for prostate cancer.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/47598/1/439_2005_Article_99.pd

Inverting the model of genomics data sharing with the NHGRI Genomic Data Science Analysis, Visualization, and Informatics Lab-space

The NHGRI Genomic Data Science Analysis, Visualization, and Informatics Lab-space (AnVIL; https://anvilproject.org) was developed to address a widespread community need for a unified computing environment for genomics data storage, management, and analysis. In this perspective, we present AnVIL, describe its ecosystem and interoperability with other platforms, and highlight how this platform and associated initiatives contribute to improved genomic data sharing efforts. The AnVIL is a federated cloud platform designed to manage and store genomics and related data, enable population-scale analysis, and facilitate collaboration through the sharing of data, code, and analysis results. By inverting the traditional model of data sharing, the AnVIL eliminates the need for data movement while also adding security measures for active threat detection and monitoring and provides scalable, shared computing resources for any researcher. We describe the core data management and analysis components of the AnVIL, which currently consists of Terra, Gen3, Galaxy, RStudio/Bioconductor, Dockstore, and Jupyter, and describe several flagship genomics datasets available within the AnVIL. We continue to extend and innovate the AnVIL ecosystem by implementing new capabilities, including mechanisms for interoperability and responsible data sharing, while streamlining access management. The AnVIL opens many new opportunities for analysis, collaboration, and data sharing that are needed to drive research and to make discoveries through the joint analysis of hundreds of thousands to millions of genomes along with associated clinical and molecular data types

Non-structural carbohydrates in woody plants compared among laboratories

Non-structural carbohydrates (NSC) in plant tissue are frequently quantified to make inferences about plant responses to environmental conditions. Laboratories publishing estimates of NSC of woody plants use many different methods to evaluate NSC. We asked whether NSC estimates in the recent literature could be quantitatively compared among studies. We also asked whether any differences among laboratories were related to the extraction and quantification methods used to determine starch and sugar concentrations. These questions were addressed by sending sub-samples collected from five woody plant tissues, which varied in NSC content and chemical composition, to 29 laboratories. Each laboratory analyzed the samples with their laboratory-specific protocols, based on recent publications, to determine concentrations of soluble sugars, starch and their sum, total NSC. Laboratory estimates differed substantially for all samples. For example, estimates for Eucalyptus globulus leaves (EGL) varied from 23 to 116 (mean = 56) mg g⁻¹ for soluble sugars, 6–533 (mean = 94) mg g⁻¹ for starch and 53–649 (mean = 153) mg g⁻¹ for total NSC. Mixed model analysis of variance showed that much of the variability among laboratories was unrelated to the categories we used for extraction and quantification methods (method category R² = 0.05–0.12 for soluble sugars, 0.10–0.33 for starch and 0.01–0.09 for total NSC). For EGL, the difference between the highest and lowest least squares means for categories in the mixed model analysis was 33 mg g⁻¹ for total NSC, compared with the range of laboratory estimates of 596 mg g⁻¹. Laboratories were reasonably consistent in their ranks of estimates among tissues for starch (r = 0.41–0.91), but less so for total NSC (r = 0.45–0.84) and soluble sugars (r = 0.11–0.83). Our results show that NSC estimates for woody plant tissues cannot be compared among laboratories. The relative changes in NSC between treatments measured within a laboratory may be comparable within and between laboratories, especially for starch. To obtain comparable NSC estimates, we suggest that users can either adopt the reference method given in this publication, or report estimates for a portion of samples using the reference method, and report estimates for a standard reference material. Researchers interested in NSC estimates should work to identify and adopt standard methods.This is the publisher’s final pdf. The published article is copyrighted by the author(s) and published by Oxford University Press. The published article can be found at: http://treephys.oxfordjournals.org/Keywords: soluble sugars, starch, particle size, reference method, standardization, non-structural carbohydrate chemical analysis, extraction and quantification consistenc

Harnessing the NEON data revolution to advance open environmental science with a diverse and data-capable community

It is a critical time to reflect on the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) science to date as well as envision what research can be done right now with NEON (and other) data and what training is needed to enable a diverse user community. NEON became fully operational in May 2019 and has pivoted from planning and construction to operation and maintenance. In this overview, the history of and foundational thinking around NEON are discussed. A framework of open science is described with a discussion of how NEON can be situated as part of a larger data constellation—across existing networks and different suites of ecological measurements and sensors. Next, a synthesis of early NEON science, based on >100 existing publications, funded proposal efforts, and emergent science at the very first NEON Science Summit (hosted by Earth Lab at the University of Colorado Boulder in October 2019) is provided. Key questions that the ecology community will address with NEON data in the next 10 yr are outlined, from understanding drivers of biodiversity across spatial and temporal scales to defining complex feedback mechanisms in human–environmental systems. Last, the essential elements needed to engage and support a diverse and inclusive NEON user community are highlighted: training resources and tools that are openly available, funding for broad community engagement initiatives, and a mechanism to share and advertise those opportunities. NEON users require both the skills to work with NEON data and the ecological or environmental science domain knowledge to understand and interpret them. This paper synthesizes early directions in the community’s use of NEON data, and opportunities for the next 10 yr of NEON operations in emergent science themes, open science best practices, education and training, and community building