PDBe: improved accessibility of macromolecular structure data from PDB and EMDB

© 2015 The Authors. Published by OUP. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv1047The Protein Data Bank in Europe (http://pdbe.org) accepts and annotates depositions of macromolecular structure data in the PDB and EMDB archives and enriches, integrates and disseminates structural information in a variety of ways. The PDBe website has been redesigned based on an analysis of user requirements, and now offers intuitive access to improved and value-added macromolecular structure information. Unique value-added information includes lists of reviews and research articles that cite or mention PDB entries as well as access to figures and legends from full-text open-access publications that describe PDB entries. A powerful new query system not only shows all the PDB entries that match a given query, but also shows the 'best structures' for a given macromolecule, ligand complex or sequence family using data-quality information from the wwPDB validation reports. A PDBe RESTful API has been developed to provide unified access to macromolecular structure data available in the PDB and EMDB archives as well as value-added annotations, e.g. regarding structure quality and up-to-date cross-reference information from the SIFTS resource. Taken together, these new developments facilitate unified access to macromolecular structure data in an intuitive way for non-expert users and support expert users in analysing macromolecular structure data.The Wellcome Trust [88944, 104948]; UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/J007471/1, BB/K016970/1, BB/M013146/1, BB/M011674/1]; National Institutes of Health [GM079429]; UK Medical Research Council [MR/L007835/1]; European Union [284209]; CCP4; European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL). Funding for open access charge: The Wellcome Trust.Published versio

Individualism, Collectivism, and Authoritarianism in Seven Societies

Building on Hofstede's finding that individualism and social hierarchy are incompatible at the societal level, the authors examined the relationship between individualism-collectivism and orientations toward authority at the individual level. In Study 1, authoritarianism was related to three measures of collectivism but unrelated to three measures of individualism in a U.S. sample (N = 382). Study 2 used Triandis's horizontal-vertical individualism-collectivism framework in samples from Bulgaria, Japan, New Zealand, Germany, Poland, Canada, and the United States (total N = 1,018). Both at the individual level and the societal level of analysis, authoritarianism was correlated with vertical individualism and vertical collectivism but unrelated to horizontal collectivism. Horizontal individualism was unrelated to authoritarianism except in post-Communist societies whose recent history presumably made salient the incompatibility between state authority and self-determination

Examining Group Forgiveness: Conceptual and Empirical Issues

What is group forgiveness and can it be measured in an unambiguous way? Recently, scientists have begun to consider the role group forgiveness may play in reducing conflict and enhancing prospects for peace among groups. The forgiveness construct has been, until very recently, primarily operationalized as an individual phenomenon. Increasingly, it is being mapped onto groups. These initial attempts either conflate individual and group capacities or insufficiently describe group forgiveness, rendering the construct ambiguous. While promoting group forgiveness might motivate intergroup peace, empirical support depends on coherent operationalization and sound measurement. We begin by examining the definition of interpersonal forgiveness and the emerging literature on group forgiveness. Based on this review, we present a philosophically coherent operationalization of group forgiveness. Finally, we consider future research directions for researchers interested in studying group forgiveness

Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing mindfulness-based programs for mental health promotion

Acknowledgements: We are very grateful to those in our professional and public stakeholder groups for their keen involvement. This publication presents independent research funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. All research from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Cambridge is supported by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014) and the NIHR East of England Applied Research Centre. J.G. is funded by an NIHR post-doctoral fellowship for this research project (PDF-2017-10-018, salary and all project costs). C.F.’s salary for this research project was funded by a Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust grant awarded to J.G. I.R.W. was supported by the UK Medical Research Council Programme MC_UU_00004/06. T.D. was supported by the UK Medical Research Council (SUAG/043 G101400), the Wellcome Trust (104908/Z/14/Z, 107496/Z/15/Z), and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. P.B.J. is supported by the Wellcome Trust (095844/Z/11/Z), the UK Medical Research Council (MR/N019067/1), and the NIHR ARC East of England. S.B.G. was supported by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K23AT010879 and by the Hope for Depression Research Foundation ‘Defeating Depression’ Award. Funders for the trials with data shared for inclusion in the IPD meta-analysis were as follows: the University of Newcastle and the University of Phayao64; the NIH National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine and the Clinical and Translational Science Award Program of the NIH National Center for Research Resources 104–110; the National Institutes of Health and National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine111–116; the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health of the National Institutes of Health117–119; Fundación Científica y Tecnológica de la Asociación Chilena de Seguridad120; the University of Cambridge and the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England39, 121–123; the Health Promotion Administration and the Ministry of Health and Welfare124; the Teachers Health Foundation125; the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the Fetzer Institute; the John Templeton Foundation and the Waisman Center from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development65, 126–128; the Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation and the Alberta Center for Child, Family and Community Research and the Alberta Family Wellness Initiative66, 129; the Foundation Alpe d’Huzes and the Dutch Cancer Society30, 130, 131; the Horizon 2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie Innovative Training Networks grant and with additional support from MIND Netherland and Karakter Child and Adolescent Psychiatry67, 132; and the Departments of Psychiatry and of Primary and Community Care and the Health Academy of the Radboudumc71, 133. The funders had no role in the study design or data collection.Funder: Cambridgeshire & Peterborough NHS Foundation TrustFunder: Hope for Depression Research Foundation (Depression Research Foundation); doi: https://doi.org/10.13039/100006346AbstractMindfulness-based programs (MBPs) are widely used to prevent mental ill health. Evidence suggests beneficial average effects but wide variability. We aimed to confirm the effect of MBPs and to understand whether and how baseline distress, gender, age, education, and dispositional mindfulness modify the effect of MBPs on distress among adults in non-clinical settings. We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42020200117). Databases were searched in December 2020 for randomized controlled trials satisfying a quality threshold and comparing in-person, expert-defined MBPs with passive-control groups. Two researchers independently selected, extracted and appraised trials using the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. IPD of eligible trials were sought from authors. The primary outcome was psychological distress (unpleasant mental or emotional experiences including anxiety and depression) at 1 to 6 months after program completion. Data were checked and imputed if missing. Pairwise, random-effects, two-stage IPD meta-analyses were conducted. Effect modification analyses followed a within-studies approach. Stakeholders were involved throughout this study. Fifteen trials were eligible; 13 trialists shared IPD (2,371 participants representing 8 countries. In comparison with passive-control groups, MBPs reduced average distress between 1 and 6 months post-intervention with a small to moderate effect size (standardized mean difference, −0.32; 95% confidence interval, −0.41 to −0.24; P &lt; 0.001; no heterogeneity). Results were robust to sensitivity analyses and similar for the other timepoint ranges. Confidence in the primary outcome result is high. We found no clear indication that this effect is modified by the pre-specified candidates. Group-based teacher-led MBPs generally reduce psychological distress among volunteering community adults. More research is needed to identify sources of variability in outcomes at an individual level.</jats:p