Obesity inhibits the osteogenic differentiation of human adipose-derived stem cells

Additional file 3: Figure S3. No observable differences in lnASCs and obASCs during early bone regeneration. Critical size calvarial defects were created in the parietal bone of nude mice and assessed after 2 weeks. (A) Representative images of microCT scanning. (B) Quantification of microCT. Scale bar represents 1 mm. Bars, Âą SEM

Prevalence and prognosis of Alzheimer's disease at the mild cognitive impairment stage

Vos et al. compare the prevalence and prognosis of Alzheimer's disease at the mild cognitive impairment stage based on the IWG-1, IWG-2 and NIA-AA criteria. All three aid identification of early Alzheimer's disease, but combining amyloid and neuronal injury markers according to the NIA-AA criteria offers the most accurate prognosi

Noncoding deletions reveal a gene that is critical for intestinal function.

Large-scale genome sequencing is poised to provide a substantial increase in the rate of discovery of disease-associated mutations, but the functional interpretation of such mutations remains challenging. Here we show that deletions of a sequence on human chromosome 16 that we term the intestine-critical region (ICR) cause intractable congenital diarrhoea in infants1,2. Reporter assays in transgenic mice show that the ICR contains a regulatory sequence that activates transcription during the development of the gastrointestinal system. Targeted deletion of the ICR in mice caused symptoms that recapitulated the human condition. Transcriptome analysis revealed that an unannotated open reading frame (Percc1) flanks the regulatory sequence, and the expression of this gene was lost in the developing gut of mice that lacked the ICR. Percc1-knockout mice displayed phenotypes similar to those observed upon ICR deletion in mice and patients, whereas an ICR-driven Percc1 transgene was sufficient to rescue the phenotypes found in mice that lacked the ICR. Together, our results identify a gene that is critical for intestinal function and underscore the need for targeted in vivo studies to interpret the growing number of clinical genetic findings that do not affect known protein-coding genes

PIK3CA mutations are common in lobular carcinoma in situ, but are not a biomarker of progression

Sample and data collection were funded by Cancer Research UK. Analysis was funded by Breast Cancer Now, the Rosetrees Trust, Guys & St Thomas’ Charity (CanHelp) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London

Genetic predisposition to ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-invasive form of breast cancer. It is often associated with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and is considered to be a non-obligate precursor of IDC. It is not clear to what extent these two forms of cancer share low-risk susceptibility loci, or whether there are differences in the strength of association for shared loci. METHODS: To identify genetic polymorphisms that predispose to DCIS, we pooled data from 38 studies comprising 5,067 cases of DCIS, 24,584 cases of IDC and 37,467 controls, all genotyped using the iCOGS chip. RESULTS: Most (67 %) of the 76 known breast cancer predisposition loci showed an association with DCIS in the same direction as previously reported for invasive breast cancer. Case-only analysis showed no evidence for differences between associations for IDC and DCIS after considering multiple testing. Analysis by estrogen receptor (ER) status confirmed that loci associated with ER positive IDC were also associated with ER positive DCIS. Analysis of DCIS by grade suggested that two independent SNPs at 11q13.3 near CCND1 were specific to low/intermediate grade DCIS (rs75915166, rs554219). These associations with grade remained after adjusting for ER status and were also found in IDC. We found no novel DCIS-specific loci at a genome wide significance level of P < 5.0x10(-8). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study provides the strongest evidence to date of a shared genetic susceptibility for IDC and DCIS. Studies with larger numbers of DCIS are needed to determine if IDC or DCIS specific loci exist

Genetic predisposition to ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast

Background: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-invasive form of breast cancer. It is often associated with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and is considered to be a non-obligate precursor of IDC. It is not clear to what extent these two forms of cancer share low-risk susceptibility loci, or whether there are differences in the strength of association for shared loci. Methods: To identify genetic polymorphisms that predispose to DCIS, we pooled data from 38 studies comprising 5,067 cases of DCIS, 24,584 cases of IDC and 37,467 controls, all genotyped using the iCOGS chip. Results: Most (67 %) of the 76 known breast cancer predisposition loci showed an association with DCIS in the same direction as previously reported for invasive breast cancer. Case-only analysis showed no evidence for differences between associations for IDC and DCIS after considering multiple testing. Analysis by estrogen receptor (ER) status confirmed that loci associated with ER positive IDC were also associated with ER positive DCIS. Analysis of DCIS by grade suggested that two independent SNPs at 11q13.3 near CCND1 were specific to low/intermediate grade DCIS (rs75915166, rs554219). These associations with grade remained after adjusting for ER status and were also found in IDC. We found no novel DCIS-specific loci at a genome wide significance level of P < 5.0x10-8. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study provides the strongest evidence to date of a shared genetic susceptibility for IDC and DCIS. Studies with larger numbers of DCIS are needed to determine if IDC or DCIS specific loci exist

Long-term outcomes of the global tuberculosis and COVID-19 co-infection cohort

Background: Longitudinal cohort data of patients with tuberculosis (TB) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are lacking. In our global study, we describe long-term outcomes of patients affected by TB and COVID-19. Methods: We collected data from 174 centres in 31 countries on all patients affected by COVID-19 and TB between 1 March 2020 and 30 September 2022. Patients were followed-up until cure, death or end of cohort time. All patients had TB and COVID-19; for analysis purposes, deaths were attributed to TB, COVID-19 or both. Survival analysis was performed using Cox proportional risk-regression models, and the log-rank test was used to compare survival and mortality attributed to TB, COVID-19 or both. Results: Overall, 788 patients with COVID-19 and TB (active or sequelae) were recruited from 31 countries, and 10.8% (n=85) died during the observation period. Survival was significantly lower among patients whose death was attributed to TB and COVID-19 versus those dying because of either TB or COVID-19 alone (p&lt;0.001). Significant adjusted risk factors for TB mortality were higher age (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.07), HIV infection (HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.02-5.16) and invasive ventilation (HR 4.28, 95% CI 2.34-7.83). For COVID-19 mortality, the adjusted risks were higher age (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.04), male sex (HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.24-3.91), oxygen requirement (HR 7.93, 95% CI 3.44-18.26) and invasive ventilation (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.36-3.53). Conclusions: In our global cohort, death was the outcome in &gt;10% of patients with TB and COVID-19. A range of demographic and clinical predictors are associated with adverse outcomes

Global, regional, and national burden of traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) and spinal cord injury (SCI) are increasingly recognised as global health priorities in view of the preventability of most injuries and the complex and expensive medical care they necessitate. We aimed to measure the incidence, prevalence, and years of life lived with disability (YLDs) for TBI and SCI from all causes of injury in every country, to describe how these measures have changed between 1990 and 2016, and to estimate the proportion of TBI and SCI cases caused by different types of injury. METHODS: We used results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) Study 2016 to measure the global, regional, and national burden of TBI and SCI by age and sex. We measured the incidence and prevalence of all causes of injury requiring medical care in inpatient and outpatient records, literature studies, and survey data. By use of clinical record data, we estimated the proportion of each cause of injury that required medical care that would result in TBI or SCI being considered as the nature of injury. We used literature studies to establish standardised mortality ratios and applied differential equations to convert incidence to prevalence of long-term disability. Finally, we applied GBD disability weights to calculate YLDs. We used a Bayesian meta-regression tool for epidemiological modelling, used cause-specific mortality rates for non-fatal estimation, and adjusted our results for disability experienced with comorbid conditions. We also analysed results on the basis of the Socio-demographic Index, a compound measure of income per capita, education, and fertility. FINDINGS: In 2016, there were 27·08 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 24·30-30·30 million) new cases of TBI and 0·93 million (0·78-1·16 million) new cases of SCI, with age-standardised incidence rates of 369 (331-412) per 100 000 population for TBI and 13 (11-16) per 100 000 for SCI. In 2016, the number of prevalent cases of TBI was 55·50 million (53·40-57·62 million) and of SCI was 27·04 million (24·98-30·15 million). From 1990 to 2016, the age-standardised prevalence of TBI increased by 8·4% (95% UI 7·7 to 9·2), whereas that of SCI did not change significantly (-0·2% [-2·1 to 2·7]). Age-standardised incidence rates increased by 3·6% (1·8 to 5·5) for TBI, but did not change significantly for SCI (-3·6% [-7·4 to 4·0]). TBI caused 8·1 million (95% UI 6·0-10·4 million) YLDs and SCI caused 9·5 million (6·7-12·4 million) YLDs in 2016, corresponding to age-standardised rates of 111 (82-141) per 100 000 for TBI and 130 (90-170) per 100 000 for SCI. Falls and road injuries were the leading causes of new cases of TBI and SCI in most regions. INTERPRETATION: TBI and SCI constitute a considerable portion of the global injury burden and are caused primarily by falls and road injuries. The increase in incidence of TBI over time might continue in view of increases in population density, population ageing, and increasing use of motor vehicles, motorcycles, and bicycles. The number of individuals living with SCI is expected to increase in view of population growth, which is concerning because of the specialised care that people with SCI can require. Our study was limited by data sparsity in some regions, and it will be important to invest greater resources in collection of data for TBI and SCI to improve the accuracy of future assessments

Measuring routine childhood vaccination coverage in 204 countries and territories, 1980-2019 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2020, Release 1

Background Measuring routine childhood vaccination is crucial to inform global vaccine policies and programme implementation, and to track progress towards targets set by the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) and Immunization Agenda 2030. Robust estimates of routine vaccine coverage are needed to identify past successes and persistent vulnerabilities. Drawing from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2020, Release 1, we did a systematic analysis of global, regional, and national vaccine coverage trends using a statistical framework, by vaccine and over time. Methods For this analysis we collated 55 326 country-specific, cohort-specific, year-specific, vaccine-specific, and dosespecific observations of routine childhood vaccination coverage between 1980 and 2019. Using spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, we produced location-specific and year-specific estimates of 11 routine childhood vaccine coverage indicators for 204 countries and territories from 1980 to 2019, adjusting for biases in countryreported data and reflecting reported stockouts and supply disruptions. We analysed global and regional trends in coverage and numbers of zero-dose children (defined as those who never received a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis [DTP] vaccine dose), progress towards GVAP targets, and the relationship between vaccine coverage and sociodemographic development. Findings By 2019, global coverage of third-dose DTP (DTP3; 81.6% [95% uncertainty interval 80.4-82 .7]) more than doubled from levels estimated in 1980 (39.9% [37.5-42.1]), as did global coverage of the first-dose measles-containing vaccine (MCV1; from 38.5% [35.4-41.3] in 1980 to 83.6% [82.3-84.8] in 2019). Third- dose polio vaccine (Pol3) coverage also increased, from 42.6% (41.4-44.1) in 1980 to 79.8% (78.4-81.1) in 2019, and global coverage of newer vaccines increased rapidly between 2000 and 2019. The global number of zero-dose children fell by nearly 75% between 1980 and 2019, from 56.8 million (52.6-60. 9) to 14.5 million (13.4-15.9). However, over the past decade, global vaccine coverage broadly plateaued; 94 countries and territories recorded decreasing DTP3 coverage since 2010. Only 11 countries and territories were estimated to have reached the national GVAP target of at least 90% coverage for all assessed vaccines in 2019. Interpretation After achieving large gains in childhood vaccine coverage worldwide, in much of the world this progress was stalled or reversed from 2010 to 2019. These findings underscore the importance of revisiting routine immunisation strategies and programmatic approaches, recentring service delivery around equity and underserved populations. Strengthening vaccine data and monitoring systems is crucial to these pursuits, now and through to 2030, to ensure that all children have access to, and can benefit from, lifesaving vaccines. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe