Large-scale genome-wide association studies and meta-analyses of longitudinal change in adult lung function.

BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous loci influencing cross-sectional lung function, but less is known about genes influencing longitudinal change in lung function. METHODS: We performed GWAS of the rate of change in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) in 14 longitudinal, population-based cohort studies comprising 27,249 adults of European ancestry using linear mixed effects model and combined cohort-specific results using fixed effect meta-analysis to identify novel genetic loci associated with longitudinal change in lung function. Gene expression analyses were subsequently performed for identified genetic loci. As a secondary aim, we estimated the mean rate of decline in FEV1 by smoking pattern, irrespective of genotypes, across these 14 studies using meta-analysis. RESULTS: The overall meta-analysis produced suggestive evidence for association at the novel IL16/STARD5/TMC3 locus on chromosome 15 (P  =  5.71 × 10(-7)). In addition, meta-analysis using the five cohorts with ≥3 FEV1 measurements per participant identified the novel ME3 locus on chromosome 11 (P  =  2.18 × 10(-8)) at genome-wide significance. Neither locus was associated with FEV1 decline in two additional cohort studies. We confirmed gene expression of IL16, STARD5, and ME3 in multiple lung tissues. Publicly available microarray data confirmed differential expression of all three genes in lung samples from COPD patients compared with controls. Irrespective of genotypes, the combined estimate for FEV1 decline was 26.9, 29.2 and 35.7 mL/year in never, former, and persistent smokers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale GWAS, we identified two novel genetic loci in association with the rate of change in FEV1 that harbor candidate genes with biologically plausible functional links to lung function

Contribution of S6K1/MAPK signaling pathways in the response to oxidative stress: activation of RSK and MSK by hydrogen peroxide

Trobareu correccions de l'article a: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/annotation/0b485bd9-b1b2-4c60-ab22-3ac5d271dc59Cells respond to different kind of stress through the coordinated activation of signaling pathways such as MAPK or p53. To find which molecular mechanisms are involved, we need to understand their cell adaptation. The ribosomal protein, S6 kinase 1 (S6K1), is a common downstream target of signaling by hormonal or nutritional stress. Here, we investigated the initial contribution of S6K1/MAPK signaling pathways in the cell response to oxidative stress produced by hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). To analyze S6K1 activation, we used the commercial anti-phospho-Thr389-S6K1 antibody most frequently mentioned in the bibliography. We found that this antibody detected an 80-90 kDa protein that was rapidly phosphorylated in response to H2O2 in several human cells. Unexpectedly, this phosphorylation was insensitive to both mTOR and PI3K inhibitors, and knock-down experiments showed that this protein was not S6K1. RSK and MSK proteins were candidate targets of this phosphorylation. We demonstrated that H2O2 stimulated phosphorylation of RSK and MSK kinases at residues that are homologous to Thr389 in S6K1. This phosphorylation required the activity of either p38 or ERK MAP kinases. Kinase assays showed activation of RSK and MSK by H2O2. Experiments with mouse embryonic fibroblasts from p38 animals" knockout confirmed these observations. Altogether, these findings show that the S6K1 signaling pathway is not activated under these conditions, clarify previous observations probably misinterpreted by non-specific detection of proteins RSK and MSK by the anti-phospho-Thr389-S6K1 antibody, and demonstrate the specific activation of MAPK signaling pathways through ERK/p38/RSK/MSK by H2O2

Genetic analysis and natural history of Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease CMTX1 due to GJB1 variants

Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) due to GJB1 variants (CMTX1) is the second most common form of CMT. It is an X-linked disorder characterised by progressive sensory and motor neuropathy with males affected more severely than females. Many reported GJB1 variants remain classified as variants of uncertain significance (VUS). In this large, international, multicentre study we prospectively collected demographic, clinical and genetic data on patients with CMT associated with GJB1 variants. Pathogenicity for each variant was defined using adapted American College of Medical Genetics criteria. Baseline and longitudinal analyses were conducted to study genotype-phenotype correlations, to calculate longitudinal change using the CMT Examination Score (CMTES), to compare males versus females, and pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants versus VUS. We present 387 patients from 295 families harbouring 154 variants in GJB1. Of these, 319 patients (82.4%) were deemed to have P/LP variants, 65 had VUS (16.8%) and 3 benign variants (0.8%; excluded from analysis); an increased proportion of patients with P/LP variants compared with using ClinVar's classification (74.6%). Male patients (166/319, 52.0%, P/LP only) were more severely affected at baseline. Baseline measures in patients with P/LP variants and VUS showed no significant differences, and regression analysis suggested the disease groups were near identical at baseline. Genotype-phenotype analysis suggested c.-17G>A produces the most severe phenotype of the five most common variants, and missense variants in the intracellular domain are less severe than other domains. Progression of disease was seen with increasing CMTES over time up to 8 years follow-up. Standard response mean (SRM), a measure of outcome responsiveness, peaked at 3 years with moderate responsiveness (change in CMTES (ΔCMTES) = 1.3 ± 2.6, p = 0.00016, SRM = 0.50). Males and females progressed similarly up to 8 years, but baseline regression analysis suggested that over a longer period, females progress more slowly. Progression was most pronounced for mild phenotypes (CMTES = 0-7; 3-year ΔCMTES = 2.3 ± 2.5, p = 0.001, SRM = 0.90). Enhanced variant interpretation has yielded an increased proportion of GJB1 variants classified as P/LP and will aid future variant interpretation in this gene. Baseline and longitudinal analysis of this large cohort of CMTX1 patients describes the natural history of the disease including the rate of progression; CMTES showed moderate responsiveness for the whole group at 3 years and higher responsiveness for the mild group at 3, 4 and 5 years. These results have implications for patient selection for upcoming clinical trials

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Scientifc evidence regularly guides policy decisions1 , with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2 . In April 2020, an infuential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to eforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams fnding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy efectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed efects and there were no efects for highlighting individual benefts or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct diferences in efects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientifc evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.Fil: Ruggeri, Kai. New York Air National Guard; Estados Unidos. Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health; Estados Unidos. University of Cambridge; Estados UnidosFil: Stock, Friederike. Max Planck Institute for Human Development; Alemania. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin; AlemaniaFil: Haslam, S. Alexander. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Capraro, Valerio. Università degli Studi di Milano; ItaliaFil: Boggio, Paulo. Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie; Brasil. National Institute of Science and Technology on Social and Affective Neuroscience; BrasilFil: Ellemers, Naomi. Utrecht University; Países Bajos. University of Utrecht; Países BajosFil: Cichocka, Aleksandra. University Of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Douglas, Karen M.. University Of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Rand, David G.. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Estados UnidosFil: van der Linden, Sander. University of Cambridge; Estados UnidosFil: Cikara, Mina. Harvard University; Estados UnidosFil: Finkel, Eli J.. Northwestern University; Estados UnidosFil: Druckman, James N.. Northwestern University; Estados UnidosFil: Wohl, Michael J. A.. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Petty, Richard E.. Ohio State University; Estados UnidosFil: Tucker, Joshua A.. University of New York; Estados UnidosFil: Shariff, Azim. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Gelfand, Michele. University of Stanford; Estados UnidosFil: Packer, Dominic. Lehigh University; Estados UnidosFil: Jetten, Jolanda. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Van Lange, Paul A. M.. Universitat zu Köln; Alemania. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; Países BajosFil: Pennycook, Gordon. Cornell University; Estados UnidosFil: Peters, Ellen. University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Navajas Ahumada, Joaquin Mariano. Universidad Torcuato Di Tella; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Papa, Francesca. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; FranciaFil: Galizzi, Matteo M.. The London School of Economics and Political Science; Reino UnidoFil: Milkman, Katherine L.. University of Pennsylvania; Estados UnidosFil: Petrović, Marija. University of Belgrade; SerbiaFil: Van Bavel, Jay J.. University of New York; Estados UnidosFil: Willer, Robb. University of Stanford; Estados Unido

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process. In April 2020, an influential paper proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process. In April 2020, an influential paper proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization

Does General Parenting Context Modify Adolescents' Appraisals and Coping with a Situation of Parental Regulation? The Case of Autonomy-Supportive Parenting

Theory and research suggest that adolescents differ in their appraisals and coping reactions in response to parental regulation. Less is known, however, about factors that determine these differences in adolescents’ responses. In this study, we examined whether adolescents' appraisals and coping reactions depend upon parents’ situation-specific autonomy-supportive or controlling communication style (i.e., the situation) in interaction with adolescents’ past experiences with general autonomy-supportive parenting (i.e., the parenting context). Whereas in Study 1 (N = 176) adolescents’ perceived general autonomy-supportive parenting context was assessed at one point in time, in Study 2 (N = 126) it was assessed multiple times across a 6-year period, allowing for an estimation of trajectories of perceived autonomy-supportive parenting context. In each study, adolescents read a vignette-based scenario depicting a situation of maternal regulation (i.e., a request to study more), which was communicated in either an autonomy-supportive or a controlling way. Following this scenario, they reported upon their appraisals and their anticipated coping reactions. Results of each study indicated that both the autonomy-supportive (relative to the controlling) situation and the perceived autonomy-supportive parenting context generally related to more positive appraisals (i.e., more autonomy need satisfaction, less autonomy need frustration), as well as to more constructive coping responses (i.e., less oppositional defiance and submission, more negotiation and accommodation). In addition, situation × context interactions were found, whereby adolescents growing up in a more autonomy-supportive context seemed to derive greater benefits from the exposure to an autonomy-supportive situation and reacted more constructively to a controlling situation

An international effort towards developing standards for best practices in analysis, interpretation and reporting of clinical genome sequencing results in the CLARITY Challenge

There is tremendous potential for genome sequencing to improve clinical diagnosis and care once it becomes routinely accessible, but this will require formalizing research methods into clinical best practices in the areas of sequence data generation, analysis, interpretation and reporting. The CLARITY Challenge was designed to spur convergence in methods for diagnosing genetic disease starting from clinical case history and genome sequencing data. DNA samples were obtained from three families with heritable genetic disorders and genomic sequence data were donated by sequencing platform vendors. The challenge was to analyze and interpret these data with the goals of identifying disease-causing variants and reporting the findings in a clinically useful format. Participating contestant groups were solicited broadly, and an independent panel of judges evaluated their performance. RESULTS: A total of 30 international groups were engaged. The entries reveal a general convergence of practices on most elements of the analysis and interpretation process. However, even given this commonality of approach, only two groups identified the consensus candidate variants in all disease cases, demonstrating a need for consistent fine-tuning of the generally accepted methods. There was greater diversity of the final clinical report content and in the patient consenting process, demonstrating that these areas require additional exploration and standardization. CONCLUSIONS: The CLARITY Challenge provides a comprehensive assessment of current practices for using genome sequencing to diagnose and report genetic diseases. There is remarkable convergence in bioinformatic techniques, but medical interpretation and reporting are areas that require further development by many groups