A comparison of medical education in Germany and the United States: From applying to medical school to the beginnings of residency

Both Germany and the United States of America have a long tradition of science and medical excellence reaching back as far as the nineteenth century. The same tribute must be paid to the medical educational system in both countries. Despite significant initial similarities and cross-inspiration, the paths from enrolling in a medical university to graduating as a medical doctor in Germany and the US seem to have become much different. To fill a void in literature, the authors' objective therefore is to delineate both structures of medical education in an up-to-date review and examine their current differences and similarities. Recent medical publications, legal guidelines of governmental or official organizations, articles in media, as well as the authors' personal experiences are used as sources of this report.Tuition loans of over $200,000 are not uncommon for students in the US after graduating from medical schools, which are often private institutions. In Germany, however, the vast majority of medical universities are tax-funded and, for this reason, free of tuition. Significant differences and surprisingly multiple similarities exist between these two systems, despite one depending on government and the other on private organizations. Germany currently employs an integrated medical curriculum that typically begins right after high school and consists of a 2-year long pre-clinical segment teaching basic sciences and a 4-year clinical segment leading medical students to the practical aspects of medicine. On the other hand, the US education is a two-stage process. After successful completion of a Bachelor's degree in college, an American student goes through a 4-year medical program encompassing 2 years of basic science and 2 years of clinical training. In this review, we will address some of these similarities and major differences.Deutschland und die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika haben beide eine lange Tradition der Naturwissenschaft und medizinischen Exzellenz, die bis weit in das neunzehnte Jahrhundert zurückreicht. Den gleichen Tribut muss man den medizinischen Ausbildungssystemen beider Länder zollen. Trotz zu Beginn bedeutsamer Ähnlichkeiten und gewisser Querinspiration scheinen sich die Wege von der Immatrikulation an einer medizinischen Fakultät bis zum Studienabschluss als Arzt in Deutschland und den USA getrennt zu haben. Um eine Lücke in der Fachliteratur zu schließen, ist das Ziel der Autoren, die beiden Strukturen der medizinischen Ausbildung mittels einer aktuellen Übersichtsschrift darzustellen und deren Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten zu untersuchen. Die neusten medizinischen Publikationen, verbindliche Richtlinien von amtlichen oder offiziellen Organisationen, Artikel in der Presse, aber auch die persönlichen Erfahrungen der Autoren dienen als Quellen für diese Arbeit.Studienkredite von über$200.000 sind nicht selten für Studenten in den USA nach deren Abschluss an einer medizinischen Hochschule, die meist in privatem Eigentum ist. In Deutschland dagegen ist die große Mehrheit der Universitäten mit medizinischen Fakultäten in öffentlicher Hand, aus Steuern finanziert und deshalb frei von Studiengebühren. Signifikante Unterschiede doch auch überraschenderweise eine Reihe von Ähnlichkeiten existieren zwischen den Systemen der zwei Länder, obwohl eines von privaten Einrichtungen und das andere von staatlichen Hochschulen abhängig ist. Deutschland verwendet aktuell ein ganzheitliches medizinisches Curriculum, das klassischerweise direkt nach dem Abitur beginnt und aus zwei Jahren vorklinischer und vier Jahren klinischer Ausbildung besteht, wobei letzteres die Studenten an die praktischen Aspekte der Medizin heranführen soll. Auf der anderen Seite herrscht in den USA ein zweistufiger Ausbildungsprozess. Nach erfolgreichem Erreichen eines Bachelorgrads im College führt der Weg eines amerikanischen Studenten durch ein vierjähriges Medizinstudium, welches aus zwei Jahren Grundlagenlehre und zwei Jahren klinischer Ausbildung besteht. In dieser Überblicksarbeit werden wir uns mit einigen dieser Gemeinsamkeiten und Hauptunterschiede befassen

Anti‐metastatic vaccination of tumor‐bearing mice with il‐2‐gene‐inserted tumor cells

IL‐2 gene was introduced through retroviral vectors into the highly malignant and poorly immunogenic 3LL‐D122 clone. Both high and low D122‐11‐2 secretors showed elimination of tumorigenicity in syngeneic immune‐competent mice; however, in nude mice only the high IL‐2 secretor showed reduced tumorigenicity as compared with parental D 122 cells. Also, following intravenous inoculation, only the high IL‐2 secretor showed reduced generation of metastases, whereas the low IL‐2 secretors were as highly metastatic as parental cells. These results seem to indicate that low levels of IL‐2 secreted by tumor cells are sufficient to activate T cells, while higher levels are needed in order to activate non‐T‐cell effectors. D122‐IL‐2 secretors induced high levels of anti‐tumor CTL, while their sensitivity to the lytic activity of these CTL was similar to the sensitivity of D122 cells, thus indicating that the elevation of immunogenicity of IL‐2 secretors was essentially due to the secreted IL‐2. In accordance with CTL induction, pre‐immunization with IL‐2 secretors protected mice against subsequent challenge of parental cells. Moreover, immunization in an “immunotherapy protocol” i.e., vaccination of mice carrying an established tumor of parental D122 cells with inactivated D122‐IL‐2 infectants, almost completely eliminated the generation of lung metastases by D122 cells, thus providing a rationale for the use of IL‐2 gene transferred tumor cells as a modality for treatment of metastasis

European school of Oncology position paper. Gene therapy for the medical oncologist

SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Characterization of the Recombinant Adenovirus Vector AdYB-1: Implications for Oncolytic Vector Development

Conditionally replicating adenoviruses are a promising new modality for the treatment of cancer. However, early clinical trials demonstrate that the efficacy of current vectors is limited. Interestingly, DNA replication and production of viral particles do not always correlate with virus-mediated cell lysis and virus release depending on the vector utilized for infection. However, we have previously reported that nuclear accumulation of the human transcription factor YB-1 by regulating the adenoviral E2 late promoter facilitates viral DNA replication of E1-deleted adenovirus vectors which are widely used for cancer gene therapy. Here we report the promotion of virus-mediated cell killing as a new function of the human transcription factor YB-1. In contrast to the E1A-deleted vector dl312 the first-generation adenovirus vector AdYB-1, which overexpresses YB-1 under cytomegalovirus promoter control, led to necrosis-like cell death, virus production, and viral release after infection of A549 and U2OS tumor cell lines. Our data suggest that the integration of YB-1 in oncolytic adenoviruses is a promising strategy for developing oncolytic vectors with enhanced potency against different malignancies