Frequent traces of EBV infection in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas classified as EBV-negative by routine methods: expanding the landscape of EBV-related lymphoma

peer-reviewedThe Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) is linked to various B-cell lymphomas, including Burkitt lymphoma (BL), classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) at frequencies ranging, by routine techniques, from 5 to 10% of cases in DLBCL to >95% in endemic BL. Using higher-sensitivity methods, we recently detected EBV traces in a few EBV-negative BL cases, possibly suggesting a “hit-and-run” mechanism. Here, we used routine and higher-sensitivity methods (qPCR and ddPCR for conserved EBV genomic regions and miRNAs on microdissected tumor cells; EBNA1 mRNA In situ detection by RNAscope) to assess EBV infection in a larger lymphoma cohort [19 BL, 34 DLBCL, 44 cHL, 50 follicular lymphomas (FL), 10 T-lymphoblastic lymphomas (T-LL), 20 hairy cell leukemias (HCL), 10 mantle cell lymphomas (MCL)], as well as in several lymphoma cell lines (9 cHL and 6 BL). qPCR, ddPCR, and RNAscope consistently documented the presence of multiple EBV nucleic acids in rare tumor cells of several cases EBV-negative by conventional methods that all belonged to lymphoma entities clearly related to EBV (BL, 6/9 cases; cHL, 16/32 cases; DLBCL, 11/30 cases), in contrast to fewer cases (3/47 cases) of FL (where the role of EBV is more elusive) and no cases (0/40) of control lymphomas unrelated to EBV (HCL, T-LL, MCL). Similarly, we revealed traces of EBV infection in 4/5 BL and 6/7 HL cell lines otherwise conventionally classified as EBV negative. Interestingly, additional EBV-positive cases (1 DLBCL, 2 cHL) relapsed as EBV-negative by routine methods while showing EBNA1 expression in rare tumor cells by RNAscope. The relapse specimens were clonally identical to their onset biopsies, indicating that the lymphoma clone can largely loose the EBV genome over time but traces of EBV infection are still detectable by high-sensitivity methods. We suggest EBV may contribute to lymphoma pathogenesis more widely than currently acknowledged

Do Student Samples Provide an Accurate Estimate of the General Public?

Most psychological studies rely on student samples. Students are usually considered as more homogenous than representative samples both within and across countries. However, little is known about the nature of the differences between student and representative samples. This is an important gap, also because knowledge about the degree of difference between student and representative samples may allow to infer from the former to the latter group. Across 59 countries and 12 personality (Big-5) and attitudinal variables we found that differences between students and general public were partly substantial, incoherent, and contradicted previous findings. Two often used cultural variables, embeddedness and intellectual autonomy, failed to explain the differences between both groups across countries. We further found that students vary as much as the general population both between and within countries. In summary, our results indicate that generalizing from students to the general public can be problematic when personal and attitudinal variables are used, as students vary mostly randomly from the general public. Findings are also discussed in terms of the replication crisis within psychology

The Psychological Science Accelerator's COVID-19 rapid-response dataset

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Psychological Science Accelerator coordinated three large-scale psychological studies to examine the effects of loss-gain framing, cognitive reappraisals, and autonomy framing manipulations on behavioral intentions and affective measures. The data collected (April to October 2020) included specific measures for each experimental study, a general questionnaire examining health prevention behaviors and COVID-19 experience, geographical and cultural context characterization, and demographic information for each participant. Each participant started the study with the same general questions and then was randomized to complete either one longer experiment or two shorter experiments. Data were provided by 73,223 participants with varying completion rates. Participants completed the survey from 111 geopolitical regions in 44 unique languages/dialects. The anonymized dataset described here is provided in both raw and processed formats to facilitate re-use and further analyses. The dataset offers secondary analytic opportunities to explore coping, framing, and self-determination across a diverse, global sample obtained at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which can be merged with other time-sampled or geographic data