DESORPTION YIELDS USING keV POLYATOMIC PROJECTILES

We have studied the negative secondary ion emission from solid organic targets bombarded by molecular ions and cluster ions. As an example we present here the results obtained with the compound phenylalanine. We have used organic projectiles of mass 73 [Si (CH3)+], 147[Si(CH3)3 OSi(CH3)2+], 300 [molecular ion of coronene C24H12]+, 598 [coronene dimer 2(M-H)]+, and atomic and polyatomic ions of mass 133 [Cs]+, 393 [Cs2I]+, 653 [Cs3I2]+. These primary ions have been produced in the bombardment of targets of coronene and CsI by fission fragment from a 252Cf source. They were accelerated and focussed on the sample target. Sophisticated time of flight measurements of the primary and secondary ions have been performed with a special data acquisition system. All the time of flight mass spectra were recorded at one. The secondary molecular ion yield of the phenilalanine (M-H)- = 164 has been studied as a function of the energy of impact and of the mass of the projectile. A large enhancement of the yield with the mass and the energy is observed

Variation in carotenoid-containing retinal oil droplets correlates with variation in perception of carotenoid coloration

This is the final version. Available on open access from Springer via the DOI in this recordData availability: Data have been provided as supplementary material and have been archived on the Duke University Data Repository: https://doi.org/10.7924/r4jw8dj9hCode availability: Codes have been provided as supplementary material and have been archived on the Duke University Data Repository: https://doi.org/10.7924/r4jw8dj9hIn the context of mate choice, males may vary continuously in their expression of assessment signals, typically reflecting information about variation in mate quality. Similarly, females may exhibit variation in mate preference, which could be due to differences in how individual females perceive signals. The extent to which perception varies across individuals, however, and whether differences in sensory physiology underlie perceptual differences is poorly understood. Carotenoid pigments create the orange-red coloration of many assessment signals, and they also play a role in color discrimination in many vertebrates via their presence in retinal oil droplets. Here, we link variation in oil droplet carotenoid concentration with the ability of female zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata) to discriminate an orange-red color continuum that parallels variation in male beak color, a mate assessment signal. We have shown previously that zebra finch females perceive this color range categorically, meaning they label color stimuli from this continuum as belonging to two categories and exhibit better discrimination between colors from different categories as compared with equally different colors from within a category. We quantified behavioral color discrimination and R-type (red) cone oil droplet spectral absorption, a proxy for carotenoid concentration. Oil droplet absorption was strongly predictive of variation in behavioral color discrimination ability. In particular, higher carotenoid concentration in oil droplets correlated with increased discrimination of colors from different sides of the previously identified category boundary. These data show that differences in the sensory periphery can correlate with individual variation in perception of a signal-relevant color range.Duke University Office of the ProvostHuman Frontier Science Progra

Smoking and health-related quality of life in English general population: Implications for economic evaluations

Copyright @ 2012 Vogl et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.Background: Little is known as to how health-related quality of life (HRQoL) when measured by generic instruments such as EQ-5D differ across smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers in the general population; whether the overall pattern of this difference remain consistent in each domain of HRQoL; and what implications this variation, if any, would have for economic evaluations of tobacco control interventions. Methods: Using the 2006 round of Health Survey for England data (n = 13,241), this paper aims to examine the impact of smoking status on health-related quality of life in English population. Depending upon the nature of the EQ-5D data (i.e. tariff or domains), linear or logistic regression models were fitted to control for biology, clinical conditions, socio-economic background and lifestyle factors that an individual may have regardless of their smoking status. Age- and gender-specific predicted values according to smoking status are offered as the potential 'utility' values to be used in future economic evaluation models. Results: The observed difference of 0.1100 in EQ-5D scores between never-smokers (0.8839) and heavy-smokers (0.7739) reduced to 0.0516 after adjusting for biological, clinical, lifestyle and socioeconomic conditions. Heavy-smokers, when compared with never-smokers, were significantly more likely to report some/severe problems in all five domains - mobility (67%), self-care (70%), usual activity (42%), pain/discomfort (46%) and anxiety/depression (86%) -. 'Utility' values by age and gender for each category of smoking are provided to be used in the future economic evaluations. Conclusion: Smoking is significantly and negatively associated with health-related quality of life in English general population and the magnitude of this association is determined by the number of cigarettes smoked. The varying degree of this association, captured through instruments such as EQ-5D, may need to be fed into the design of future economic evaluations where the intervention being evaluated affects (e.g. tobacco control) or is affected (e.g. treatment for lung cancer) by individual's (or patients') smoking status

Antigen-Specific Blocking of CD4-Specific Immunological Synapse Formation Using BPI and Current Therapies for Autoimmune Diseases

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Manikwar, P., Kiptoo, P., Badawi, A. H., Büyüktimkin, B. and Siahaan, T. J. (2012), Antigen-specific blocking of CD4-Specific immunological synapse formation using BPI and current therapies for autoimmune diseases. Med Res Rev, 32: 727–764. doi:10.1002/med.20243, which has been published in final form at http://doi.org/10.1002/med.20243. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.In this review, we discuss T-cell activation, etiology, and the current therapies of autoimmune diseases (i.e., MS, T1D, and RA). T-cells are activated upon interaction with antigen-presenting cells (APC) followed by a “bull’s eye”-like formation of the immunological synapse (IS) at the T-cell–APC interface. Although the various disease-modifying therapies developed so far have been shown to modulate the IS and thus help in the management of these diseases, they are also known to present some undesirable side effects. In this study, we describe a novel and selective way to suppress autoimmunity by using a bifunctional peptide inhibitor (BPI). BPI uses an intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1)-binding peptide to target antigenic peptides (e.g., proteolipid peptide, glutamic acid decarboxylase, and type II collagen) to the APC and therefore modulate the immune response. The central hypothesis is that BPI blocks the IS formation by simultaneously binding to major histocompatibility complex-II and ICAM-1 on the APC and selectively alters the activation of T cells from TH1 to Treg and/or TH2 phenotypes, leading to tolerance

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Meta-analysis identifies novel risk loci and yields systematic insights into the biology of male-pattern baldness

Life & Brain GmbH; the BONFOR programme of the University of Bonn; and the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR). M.M.N. is a member of the DFG Excellence Cluster ImmunoSensation

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