Association of Phosphorylated Tau Biomarkers With Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography vs Tau Positron Emission Tomography

IMPORTANCE: The recent proliferation of phosphorylated tau (p-tau) biomarkers has raised questions about their preferential association with the hallmark pathologies of Alzheimer disease (AD): amyloid-β plaques and tau neurofibrillary tangles. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma p-tau biomarkers preferentially reflect cerebral β-amyloidosis or neurofibrillary tangle aggregation measured with positron emission tomography (PET). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cross-sectional study of 2 observational cohorts: the Translational Biomarkers in Aging and Dementia (TRIAD) study, with data collected between October 2017 and August 2021, and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), with data collected between September 2015 and November 2019. TRIAD was a single-center study, and ADNI was a multicenter study. Two independent subsamples were derived from TRIAD. The first TRIAD subsample comprised individuals assessed with CSF p-tau (p-tau181, p-tau217, p-tau231, p-tau235), [18F]AZD4694 amyloid PET, and [18F]MK6240 tau PET. The second TRIAD subsample included individuals assessed with plasma p-tau (p-tau181, p-tau217, p-tau231), [18F]AZD4694 amyloid PET, and [18F]MK6240 tau PET. An independent cohort from ADNI comprised individuals assessed with CSF p-tau181, [18F]florbetapir PET, and [18F]flortaucipir PET. Participants were included based on the availability of p-tau and PET biomarker assessments collected within 9 months of each other. Exclusion criteria were a history of head trauma or magnetic resonance imaging/PET safety contraindications. No participants who met eligibility criteria were excluded. EXPOSURES: Amyloid PET, tau PET, and CSF and plasma assessments of p-tau measured with single molecule array (Simoa) assay or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Associations between p-tau biomarkers with amyloid PET and tau PET. RESULTS: A total of 609 participants (mean [SD] age, 66.9 [13.6] years; 347 female [57%]; 262 male [43%]) were included in the study. For all 4 phosphorylation sites assessed in CSF, p-tau was significantly more closely associated with amyloid-PET values than tau-PET values (p-tau181 difference, 13%; 95% CI, 3%-22%; P = .006; p-tau217 difference, 11%; 95% CI, 3%-20%; P = .003; p-tau231 difference, 15%; 95% CI, 5%-22%; P < .001; p-tau235 difference, 9%; 95% CI, 1%-19%; P = .02) . These results were replicated with plasma p-tau181 (difference, 11%; 95% CI, 1%-22%; P = .02), p-tau217 (difference, 9%; 95% CI, 1%-19%; P = .02), p-tau231 (difference, 13%; 95% CI, 3%-24%; P = .009), and CSF p-tau181 (difference, 9%; 95% CI, 1%-21%; P = .02) in independent cohorts. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this cross-sectional study of 2 observational cohorts suggest that the p-tau abnormality as an early event in AD pathogenesis was associated with amyloid-β accumulation and highlights the need for careful interpretation of p-tau biomarkers in the context of the amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration, or A/T/(N), framework

Comparison of transcriptome-derived simple sequence repeat (SSR) and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers for genetic fingerprinting, diversity evaluation, and establishment of relationships in eggplants

[EN] Simple sequence repeat (SSR) and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers are amongst the most common markers of choice for studies of diversity and relationships in horticultural species. We have used 11 SSR and 35 SNP markers derived from transcriptome sequencing projects to fingerprint 48 accessions of a collection of brinjal (Solanum melongena), gboma (S. macrocarpon) and scarlet (S. aethiopicum) eggplant complexes, which also include their respective wild relatives S. incanum, S. dasyphyllum and S. anguivi. All SSR and SNP markers were polymorphic and 34 and 36 different genetic fingerprints were obtained with SSRs and SNPs, respectively. When combining both markers all accessions but two had different genetic profiles. Although on average SSRs were more informative than SNPs, with a higher number of alleles, genotypes and polymorphic information content (PIC), and expected heterozygosity (He) values, SNPs have proved highly informative in our materials. Low observed heterozygosity (Ho) and high fixation index (f) values confirm the high degree of homozygosity of eggplants. Genetic identities within groups of each complex were higher than with groups of other complexes, although differences in the ranks of genetic identity values among groups were observed between SSR and SNP markers. For low and intermediate values of pair-wise SNP genetic distances, a moderate correlation between SSR and SNP genetic distances was observed (r(2) = 0.592), but for high SNP genetic distances the correlation was low (r(2) = 0.080). The differences among markers resulted in different phenogram topologies, with a different eggplant complex being basal (gboma eggplant for SSRs and brinjal eggplant for SNPs) to the two others. Overall the results reveal that both types of markers are complementary for eggplant fingerprinting and that interpretation of relationships among groups may be greatly affected by the type of marker used.This work has been funded by European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No 677379 (G2P-SOL project: Linking genetic resources, genomes and phenotypes of Solanaceous crops) and by Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (Grant AGL2015-64755-R from MINECO/FEDER). Pietro Gramazio is grateful to Universitat Politecnica de Valencia for a pre-doctoral contract (Programa FPI de la UPV-Subprograma 1/2013 call). Mariola Plazas is grateful to Spanish Ministerio de Economia, Industria y Competitividad for a post-doctoral grant within the Juan de la Cierva-Formacion programme (FJCI-2015-24835).Gramazio, P.; Prohens Tomás, J.; Borras, D.; Plazas Ávila, MDLO.; Herraiz García, FJ.; Vilanova Navarro, S. (2017). Comparison of transcriptome-derived simple sequence repeat (SSR) and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers for genetic fingerprinting, diversity evaluation, and establishment of relationships in eggplants. Euphytica. 213(264):1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-017-2057-3S118213264Acquadro A, Barchi L, Gramazio P et al (2017) Coding SNPs analysis highlights genetic relationships and evolution pattern in eggplant complexes. PLoS ONE 12:e0180774. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180774Adeniji O, Kusolwa P, Reuben S (2013) Morphological descriptors and micro satellite diversity among scarlet eggplant groups. Afr Crop Sci J 21(1):37–49Aguoru C, Omoigui L, Olasan J (2015) Molecular characterization of Solanum species (Solanum aethiopicum complex; Solanum macrocarpon and Solanum anguivi) using multiplex RAPD primers. J Plant Stud 4:27–34. https://doi.org/10.5539/jps.v4n1p27Arumuganathan K, Earle E (1991) Nuclear DNA content of some important plant species. Plant Mol Biol Rep 9(3):208–218Ashrafi H, Hill T, Stoffel K et al (2012) De novo assembly of the pepper transcriptome (Capsicum annuum): a benchmark for in silico discovery of SNPs, SSRs and candidate genes. BMC Genom 13:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-13-571Augustinos AA, Petropoulos C, Karasoulou V et al (2016) Assessing diversity among traditional Greek and foreign eggplant cultivars using molecular markers and morphometrical descriptors. Span J Agric Res 14:e0710. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2016144-9020Avise JC (2012) Molecular markers, natural history and evolution. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2381-9Blanca J, Cañizares J, Roig C et al (2011) Transcriptome characterization and high throughput SSRs and SNPs discovery in Cucurbita pepo (Cucurbitaceae). BMC Genom 12:104. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-12-104Botstein D, White RL, Skolnick M, Davis RW (1980) Construction of a genetic linkage map in man using restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Am J Hum Genet 32(3):314–331Bukenya Z, Carasco J (1994) Biosystematic study of Solanum macrocarpon—S. dasyphyllum complex in Uganda and relations with Solanum linnaeanum. East Afr Agric For J 59(3):187–204Castillo A, Budak H, Varshney RK et al (2008) Transferability and polymorphism of barley EST-SSR markers used for phylogenetic analysis in Hordeum chilense. BMC Plant Biol 8:97. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-8-97Choudhary S, Sethy NK, Shokeen B, Bhatia S (2009) Development of chickpea EST-SSR markers and analysis of allelic variation across related species. Theor Appl Genet 118:591–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-008-0923-zCoates BS, Sumerford DV, Miller NJ et al (2009) Comparative performance of single nucleotide polymorphism and microsatellite markers for population genetic analysis. J Hered 100:556–564. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esp028D’Agostino N, Golas T, van de Geest H et al (2013) Genomic analysis of the native European Solanum species, S. dulcamara. BMC Genom 14:356. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-14-356Daunay MC, Hazra P (2012) Eggplant. In: Peter KV, Hazra P (eds) Handbook of Vegetables. Studium Press, Houston, pp 257–322Davey J, Hohenlohe P, Etter P et al (2011) Genome-wide genetic marker discovery and genotyping using next-generation sequencing. Nat Rev Genet 12:499–510. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3012De Barba M, Miquel C, Lobréaux S et al (2016) High-throughput microsatellite genotyping in ecology: improved accuracy, efficiency, standardization and success with low-quantity and degraded DNA. Mol Ecol Resour 17(3):492–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12594Doyle J, Doyle J (1987) A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochem Bull 19:11–15Ellegren H (2004) Microsatellites: simple sequences with complex evolution. Nat Rev Genet 5:435–445. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1348Felsenstein, J (2007). PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package) Version 3.67. Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USAFernandez-Silva I, Whitney J, Wainwright B (2013) Microsatellites for next-generation ecologists: a post-sequencing bioinformatics pipeline. PLoS ONE 8(2):e55990Filippi CV, Aguirre N, Rivas JG et al (2015) Population structure and genetic diversity characterization of a sunflower association mapping population using SSR and SNP markers. BMC Plant Biol 15:52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-014-0360-xFischer MC, Rellstab C, Leuzinger M et al (2017) Estimating genomic diversity and population differentiation—an empirical comparison of microsatellite and SNP variation in Arabidopsis halleri. BMC Genom 18:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-016-3459-7Furini A, Wunder J (2004) Analysis of eggplant (Solanum melongena)-related germplasm: morphological and AFLP data contribute to phylogenetic interpretations and germplasm utilization. Theor Appl Genet 108:197–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-003-1439-1Gadaleta A, Giancaspro A, Zacheo S et al (2011) Comparison of genomic and EST-derived SSR markers in phylogenetic analysis of wheat. Plant Genet Resour 9:243–246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147926211100030XGe H, Liu Y, Jiang M et al (2013) Analysis of genetic diversity and structure of eggplant populations (Solanum melongena L.) in China using simple sequence repeat markers. Sci Hortic 162:71–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.08.004Gonzaga ZJ (2015) Evaluation of SSR and SNP Markers for Molecular Breeding in Rice. Plant Breed Biotechnol 3:139–152. https://doi.org/10.9787/PBB.2015.3.2.139Goodwin S, McPherson J, McCombie W (2016) Coming of age: ten years of next-generation sequencing technologies. Nat Rev Genet 17(6):333–351Gramazio P, Blanca J, Ziarsolo P et al (2016) Transcriptome analysis and molecular marker discovery in Solanum incanum and S. aethiopicum, two close relatives of the common eggplant (Solanum melongena) with interest for breeding. BMC Genom 17:300. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-016-2631-4Grover A, Sharma PC (2014) Development and use of molecular markers: past and present. Crit Rev Biotechnol 8551:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3109/07388551.2014.959891Hamblin MT, Warburton ML, Buckler ES (2007) Empirical comparison of simple sequence repeats and single nucleotide polymorphisms in assessment of maize diversity and relatedness. PLoS ONE 2:e1367. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001367Hess JE, Matala AP (2011) Comparison of SNPs and microsatellites for fine-scale application of genetic stock identification of Chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin Comparison of SNPs and microsatellites for fine-scale application of genetic stock identification of Chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin. Mol Ecol Resour. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02958.xHighton R (1993) The relationship between the number of loci and the statistical support for the topology of UPGMA trees obtained from genetic distance data. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2:337–343Hirakawa H, Shirasawa K, Miyatake K, Nunome, T et al (2014) Draft genome sequence of eggplant (Solanum melongena L.): the representative solanum species indigenous to the old world. DNA Res 21:649–660. https://doi.org/10.1093/dnares/dsu027Hong CP, Piao ZY, Kang TW et al (2007) Genomic distribution of simple sequence repeats in Brassica rapa. Mol Cells 23:349–356.Hu J, Wang L, Li J (2011) Comparison of genomic SSR and EST-SSR markers for estimating genetic diversity in cucumber. Biol Plant 55:577–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10535-011-0129-0Isshiki S, Iwata N, Khan MMR (2008) ISSR variations in eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) and related Solanum species. Sci Hortic 117:186–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2008.04.003Jones ES, Sullivan H, Bhattramakki D, Smith JSC (2007) A comparison of simple sequence repeat and single nucleotide polymorphism marker technologies for the genotypic analysis of maize (Zea mays L.). Theor Appl Genet 115:361–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-007-0570-9Kalia RK, Rai MK, Kalia S et al (2011) Microsatellite markers: an overview of the recent progress in plants. Euphytica 177:309–334Kashi Y, King DG (2006) Simple sequence repeats as advantageous mutators in evolution. Trends Genet 22:253–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2006.03.005Kaushik P, Prohens J, Vilanova S et al (2016) Phenotyping of eggplant wild relatives and interspecific hybrids with conventional and phenomics descriptors provides insight for their potential utilization in breeding. Front Plant Sci 7:677Kim C, Guo H, Kong W et al (2016) Application of genotyping by sequencing technology to a variety of crop breeding programs. Plant Sci 242:14–22Knapp S, Vorontsova MS, Prohens J (2013) Wild relatives of the eggplant (Solanum melongena L.: Solanaceae): new understanding of species names in a complex group. PLoS ONE 8:e57039Kruglyak S, Durrett RT, Schug MD, Aquadro CF (1998) Equilibrium distributions of microsatellite repeat length resulting from a balance between slippage events and point mutations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:10774–10778. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.18.10774Lester RN, Daunay MC (2003) Diversity of African vegetable Solanum species and its implications for a better understanding of plant domestication. Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen 22:137–152Lester RN, Niakan L (1986) Origin and domestication of the scarlet eggplant, Solanum aethiopicum, from S. anguivi in Africa. In: D’Arcy WG (ed) Solanaceae: biology and systematics. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 433–456Lester RN, Jaeger PML, Bleijendaal-Spierings BHM et al (1990) African eggplants-a review of collecting in West Africa. Plant Genet Resour Newsl 81:17–26Levin R, Myers N, Bohs L (2006) Phylogenetic relationships among the ‘spiny solanums’ (Solanum subgenus Leptostemonum, Solanaceae). Am J Bot 93(1):157–169Li WH, Gojobori T, Nei M (1981) Pseudogenes as a paradigm of neutral evolution. Nature 292:237–239Li YC, Korol AB, Fahima T et al (2002) Microsatellites: genomic distribution, putative functions and mutational mechanisms: a review. Mol Ecol 11:2453–2465Liu K, Muse S (2005) PowerMarker: an integrated analysis environment for genetic marker analysis. Bioinformatics 21:2128–2129Mantel N (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 27:209–220. https://doi.org/10.1038/214637b0Martínez-Arias R, Calafell F, Mateu E et al (2001) Sequence variability of a human pseudogene. Genome Res 11:1071–1085. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.167701Meyer RS, Karol KG, Little DP et al (2012) Phylogeographic relationships among Asian eggplants and new perspectives on eggplant domestication. Mol Phylogenet Evol 63:685–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2012.02.006Muñoz-Falcón J, Prohens J, Vilanova S, Nuez F (2009) Diversity in commercial varieties and landraces of black eggplants and implications for broadening the breeders’ gene pool. Ann Appl Biol 154(3):453–465Nandha PS, Singh J (2014) Comparative assessment of genetic diversity between wild and cultivated barley using gSSR and EST-SSR markers. Plant Breed 133:28–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbr.12118Nei M (1972) Genetic distance between populations. Am Nat 106:283–292. https://doi.org/10.1086/282771Nunome T, Negoro S, Kono I et al (2009) Development of SSR markers derived from SSR-enriched genomic library of eggplant (Solanum melongena L.). Theor Appl Genet 119:1143–1153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-009-1116-0Page R (2001) TreeView. Glasgow University, GlasgowPeakall P, Smouse R (2012) GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research an update. Bioinformatics 28:2537–2539Pessarakli M, Dris R (2004) Pollination and breeding of eggplants. J Food Agric Environ 2:218–219Plazas M, Andújar I, Vilanova S et al (2014) Conventional and phenomics characterization provides insight into the diversity and relationships of hypervariable scarlet (Solanum aethiopicum L.) and gboma (S. macrocarpon L.) eggplant complexes. Front. Plant Sci 5:318Ranil R, Niran H, Plazas M et al (2015) Improving seed germination of the eggplant rootstock Solanum torvum by testing multiple factors using an orthogonal array design. Sci Hortic 193:174–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2015.07.030Sakata Y, Lester RN (1997) Chloroplast DNA diversity in brinjal eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) and related species. Euphytica 97:295–301. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003000612441Sakata Y, Nishio T, Matthews PJ (1991) Chloroplast DNA analysis of eggplant (Solanum melongena) and related species for their taxonomic affinity. Euphytica 55:21–26Särkinen T, Bohs L, Olmstead RG, Knapp S (2013) A phylogenetic framework for evolutionary study of the nightshades (Solanaceae): a dated 1000-tip tree. BMC Evol Biol 13:214. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-13-214Scheben A, Batley J, Edwards D (2017) Genotyping-by-sequencing approaches to characterize crop genomes: choosing the right tool for the right application. Plant Biotechnol J 15:149–161Sneath P, Sokal R (1973) Numerical taxonomy. The principles and practice of numerical classification. W H Freeman Limited, San FranciscoStàgel A, Portis E, Toppino L et al (2008) Gene-based microsatellite development for mapping and phylogeny studies in eggplant. BMC Genom 9:357. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-9-357Sunseri F, Polignano GB, Alba V et al (2010) Genetic diversity and characterization of African eggplant germplasm collection. Afr J Plant Sci 4:231–241Syfert MM, Castañeda-Álvarez NP, Khoury CK et al (2016) Crop wild relatives of the brinjal eggplant (Solanum melongena): poorly represented in genebanks and many species at risk of extinction. Am J Bot 103:635–651. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1500539Thiel T, Michalek W, Varshney R, Graner A (2003) Exploiting EST databases for the development and characterization of gene-derived SSR-markers in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Theor Appl Genet 106:411–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-002-1031-0Thomson MJ, Alfred J, Dangl J et al (2014) High-throughput SNP genotyping to accelerate crop improvement. Plant Breed Biotechnol 2:195–212. https://doi.org/10.9787/PBB.2014.2.3.195Thorvaldsdóttir H, Robinson JT, Mesirov JP (2013) Integrative genomics viewer (IGV): high-performance genomics data visualization and exploration. Brief Bioinform 14:178–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbs017Tumbilen Y, Frary A, Daunay MC, Doganlar S (2011) Application of EST-SSRs to examine genetic diversity in eggplant and its close relatives. Turk J Biol 35:125–136. https://doi.org/10.3906/biy-0906-57van Inghelandt D, Melchinger AE, Lebreton C, Stich B (2010) Population structure and genetic diversity in a commercial maize breeding program assessed with SSR and SNP markers. Theor Appl Genet 120:1289–1299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-009-1256-2Van Tassell CP, Smith TPL, Matukumalli LK et al (2008) SNP discovery and allele frequency estimation by deep sequencing of reduced representation libraries. Nat Methods 5:247–252. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1185Varshney R, Graner A, Sorrells M (2005) Genic microsatellite markers in plants: features and applications. Trends Biotechnol 23(1):48–55Varshney RK, Chabane K, Hendre PS et al (2007) Comparative assessment of EST-SSR, EST-SNP and AFLP markers for evaluation of genetic diversity and conservation of genetic resources using wild, cultivated and elite barleys. Plant Sci 173:638–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2007.08.010Vilanova S, Manzur JP, Prohens J (2012) Development and characterization of genomic simple sequence repeat markers in eggplant and their application to the study of diversity and relationships in a collection of different cultivar types and origins. Mol Breed 30:647–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-011-9650-2Vilanova S, Hurtado M, Cardona A (2014) Genetic diversity and relationships in local varieties of eggplant from different cultivar groups as assessed by genomic SSR markers. Not Bot Horti Agrobo Cluj-Napoca 42:59–65Vogel JP, Gu YQ, Twigg P et al (2006) EST sequencing and phylogenetic analysis of the model grass Brachypodium distachyon. Theor Appl Genet 113:186–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-006-0285-3Vorontsova MS, Stern S, Bohs L, Knapp S (2013) African spiny solanum (subgenus Leptostemonum, Solanaceae): a thorny phylogenetic tangle. Bot J Linn Soc 173:176–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/boj.12053Weese TL, Bohs L (2010) Eggplant origins: out of Africa, into the Orient. Taxon 59:49–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/27757050Wright S (1965) The interpretation of population structure by F-statistics with special regard to systems of mating. Evolution 19:395–420. https://doi.org/10.2307/2406450Xiao M, Zhang Y, Chen X et al (2013) Transcriptome analysis based on next-generation sequencing of non-model plants producing specialized metabolites of biotechnological interest. J Biotechnol 166:122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2013.04.004Yan J, Yang X, Shah T et al (2010) High-throughput SNP genotyping with the Goldengate assay in maize. Mol Breed 25:441–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-009-9343-2Yang X, Xu Y, Shah T et al (2011) Comparison of SSRs and SNPs in assessment of genetic relatedness in maize. Genetica 139:1045–1054. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10709-011-9606-9Yu J, Zhang Z, Zhu C et al (2009) Simulation appraisal of the adequacy of number of background markers for relationship estimation in association mapping. Plant Genome 2:63. https://doi.org/10.3835/plantgenome2008.09.0009Zhan L, Paterson I, Fraser B (2016) MEGASAT: automated inference of microsatellite genotypes from sequence data. Ecol Resour, Mol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.1256

Cuentos de nunca acabar. Aproximaciones desde la interculturalidad

Cuentos de nunca acabar. Aproximaciones desde la interculturalidad, surge después de la pandemia y su imposibilidad de socializar “en persona” con los compañeros de eventuales encuentros, porque la Comprensión Lectora tenía que reinventarse para su nueva reflexión cognitiva, adaptación contextual y reconstrucción del conocimiento. Este renovado enfoque de la realidad postpandemia, concebido en el marco de la educación intercultural comunitaria, busca potencializar los entornos naturales, sociales y culturales como recursos de aprendizaje multidisciplinario a través del lenguaje animado de los cuentos. En este marco, había que dinamizar la asignatura de Comunicación Oral y Escrita, que se dicta en los Primeros Niveles de los Centros de Apoyo de Otavalo, Cayambe, Latacunga y Riobamba, mediante un eje transversal donde los estudiantes escriban fundamentados en valores de la cosmovisión andina, considerando que provienen de varios lugares de la sierra y amazonía ecuatoriana. Todo surgió del encuentro presencial de un sábado cualquiera donde los estudiantes realizaban ejercicios narrativos, logrando una apreciable respuesta de imaginación, más emotiva que la clásica tarea de las Unidades, tanto así que, pasados unos días, seguían llegando sus escritos a mi correo. Entonces nos pusimos manos a la obra, cada estudiante tendría dos opciones como Actividad Integradora, la primera consistía en escribir un cuento de su propia inspiración, y la segunda analizar un clásico para comentar sus valores y antivalores. La mayor parte de estudiantes decidió escribir su propio cuento, de donde se escogieron algunas participaciones que podrían considerarse originales, para una edición que, respetando la transcripción de la tradición oral que prima en los sectores comunitarios, nos concretamos en revisar la puntuación y ortografía para publicarlos. Con esto buscamos innovar la Actividad Integradora, por algo más práctico y operativo para configurar los Objetos de Aprendizaje que buscamos. Así nació, en medio del camino, este libro de Cuentos de nunca acabar. Aproximaciones desde la interculturalidad, que ponemos en sus manos. Hernán Hermosa Mantilla Quito, junio de 202

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Adherence to pharmacotherapy and medication-related beliefs in patients with hypertension in Lima, Peru.

To characterize adherence to pharmacological medication and beliefs towards medication in a group of patients with hypertension in a large national hospital.Cross-sectional survey among patients with hypertension attending the outpatient clinic of a large national hospital. Exposure of interest was the patient's beliefs towards general medication and antihypertensive drugs, i.e. beliefs of harm, overuse, necessity and concern, measured using the Beliefs about Medication questionnaire. Main outcome was adherence measured using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-8. Multivariate analysis was conducted using Poisson distribution logistic regression, prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.Data from 115 participants, 67% females and mean age 62.7 years were analyzed. Low adherence was found in 57.4%. Highest scores were on the ideas of necessity and one of the most rated statements was "physicians would prescribe less medication if they spent more time with patients". Beliefs of harm about medications and concerns about antihypertensive drugs were higher in the low adherence group (p<0.01). Those who scored higher on ideas of harm were 52% less likely of being high adherents (PR 0.48; 95% CI 0.25-0.93) and those with higher scores on concerns were 41% less likely of being high adherents (PR 0.59; 95% CI 0.39-0.91). Patients whose ideas of necessity outweighed their concerns were more likely to be adherent (PR 2.65; 95% CI 1.21-5.81).Low adherence to antihypertensive medication is common. High scores on ideas of harm, concern and a high necessity-concern differential were predictors of medication adherence

Beliefs about Medications Questionnaire scores by adherence groups.

<p>*All p-values calculated with t-tests, except in those indicated with an asterisk where U Mann-Whitney was used.</p><p>Beliefs about Medications Questionnaire scores by adherence groups.</p

Amyloid beta plaque accumulation with longitudinal [18F]AZD4694 PET

Abstract Introduction [18F]AZD4694 is an amyloid beta (Aβ) imaging agent used in several observational studies and clinical trials. However, no studies have yet published data on longitudinal Aβ accumulation measured with [18F]AZD4694. Methods We assessed 146 individuals who were evaluated with [18F]AZD4694 at baseline and 2‐year follow‐up. We calculated annual rates of [18F]AZD4694 change for clinically defined and biomarker‐defined groups Results Cognitively unimpaired (CU) older adults displayed subtle [18F]AZD4694 standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) accumulation over the follow‐up period. In contrast, Aβ positive CU older adults displayed higher annual [18F]AZD4694 SUVR increases. [18F]AZD4694 SUVR accumulation in Aβ positive mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia was modest across the neocortex Discussion Larger increases in [18F]AZD4694 SUVR were observed in CU individuals who had abnormal amyloid positron emission tomography levels at baseline. [18F]AZD4694 can be used to monitor Aβ levels in therapeutic trials as well as clinical settings, particularly prior to initiating anti‐amyloid therapies