Pharmacological treatment of youth substance use disorders.

While the majority of youth who experiment with alcohol and drugs do not develop problematic levels of use, 5% of adolescents and 15% of young adults meet criteria for a substance use disorder (SUD). Pharmacotherapy, in combination with behavioral interventions, has the potential to increase the likelihood of successful treatment for youth struggling with SUD; however, the literature in this area is limited. To date, there are no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications for adolescent SUD, other than buprenorphine, which has been approved down to 16 years of age for opioid use disorder. Despite alcohol and cannabis being the most commonly used substances during adolescence, only three medications have been tested among this demographic, and only two have warranted further study (i.e., naltrexone for alcohol and -acetylcysteine for cannabis use disorder). Although less common in adolescents and young adults, the most promising pharmacological findings for this age group are for opioid (buprenorphine) and tobacco (bupropion and varenicline) use disorders. In addition, despite the recent marked increases in electronic nicotine delivery systems (i.e., vaping) among youth, treatment strategies are still in their infancy and no recommendation exists for how to promote cessation for youth vaping. Current findings are limited by: small, demographically homogeneous samples; few trials, including a substantial number of youth younger than 18; low retention; medication adherence rates; and minimal information on effective dosing levels and long-term outcomes. Overall, pharmacotherapy may be a potentially effective strategy to increase treatment effects; however, more rigorous research trials are warranted before FDA approval would be granted for any of the potential adjunctive medications in this age group

Religion, Spirituality, and Ethics in Psychiatric Practice

The interface of religion, spirituality, and psychiatric practice has long been of interest to the ethical psychiatrist. Some prominent early psychotherapists had a strained relationship with religion and spirituality. They posited that religion and spirituality were forms of mental illness, which discouraged the discussion of these values during treatment despite the fact that many patients subscribed to a religious or spiritual viewpoint. Contrarily, others supported a harmonious relationship with religion and spirituality and served as trailblazers for the incorporation of religion and spirituality into psychiatric treatment.As the field of psychiatry continues to evolve, additional dimensions of the relationship between religion, spirituality, and psychiatric practice must be explored. Today, many modern psychiatrists appreciate the importance of incorporating religion and spirituality into treatment, but questions such as whether it is ethical to practice psychiatry from a particular religious or spiritual viewpoint or for psychiatrists to advertise that they subscribe to a particular religion or spirituality and to engage in religious or spiritual practices with their patients remain nuanced and complex. In this resource document, the authors put forth and examine the ramifications of a bio-psycho-social-religious/spiritual model for psychological development and functioning, with this fourth dimension shifting the focus from symptom reduction alone to include other aspects of human flourishing such as resilience, meaning-making, and hope

\u3ci\u3eDrosophila\u3c/i\u3e Muller F Elements Maintain a Distinct Set of Genomic Properties Over 40 Million Years of Evolution

The Muller F element (4.2 Mb, ~80 protein-coding genes) is an unusual autosome of Drosophila melanogaster; it is mostly heterochromatic with a low recombination rate. To investigate how these properties impact the evolution of repeats and genes, we manually improved the sequence and annotated the genes on the D. erecta, D. mojavensis, and D. grimshawi F elements and euchromatic domains from the Muller D element. We find that F elements have greater transposon density (25–50%) than euchromatic reference regions (3–11%). Among the F elements, D. grimshawi has the lowest transposon density (particularly DINE-1: 2% vs. 11–27%). F element genes have larger coding spans, more coding exons, larger introns, and lower codon bias. Comparison of the Effective Number of Codons with the Codon Adaptation Index shows that, in contrast to the other species, codon bias in D. grimshawi F element genes can be attributed primarily to selection instead of mutational biases, suggesting that density and types of transposons affect the degree of local heterochromatin formation. F element genes have lower estimated DNA melting temperatures than D element genes, potentially facilitating transcription through heterochromatin. Most F element genes (~90%) have remained on that element, but the F element has smaller syntenic blocks than genome averages (3.4–3.6 vs. 8.4–8.8 genes per block), indicating greater rates of inversion despite lower rates of recombination. Overall, the F element has maintained characteristics that are distinct from other autosomes in the Drosophila lineage, illuminating the constraints imposed by a heterochromatic milieu