Genome-wide association study of developmental dysplasia of the hip identifies an association with GDF5

Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is the most common skeletal developmental disease. However, its genetic architecture is poorly understood. We conduct the largest DDH genome-wide association study to date and replicate our findings in independent cohorts. We find the heritable component of DDH attributable to common genetic variants to be 55% and distributed equally across the autosomal and X-chromosomes. We identify replicating evidence for association between GDF5 promoter variation and DDH (rs143384, effect allele A, odds ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.34–1.56, P = 3.55 × 10−22). Gene-based analysis implicates GDF5 (P = 9.24 × 10−12), UQCC1 (P = 1.86 × 10−10), MMP24 (P = 3.18 × 10−9), RETSAT (P = 3.70 × 10−8) and PDRG1 (P = 1.06 × 10−7) in DDH susceptibility. We find shared genetic architecture between DDH and hip osteoarthritis, but no predictive power of osteoarthritis polygenic risk score on DDH status, underscoring the complex nature of the two traits. We report a scalable, time-efficient recruitment strategy and establish for the first time to our knowledge a robust DDH genetic association locus at GDF5

Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries

Background Process evaluation is increasingly recognized as an important component of effective implementation research and yet, there has been surprisingly little work to understand what constitutes best practice. Researchers use different methodologies describing causal pathways and understanding barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions in diverse contexts and settings. We report on challenges and lessons learned from undertaking process evaluation of seven hypertension intervention trials funded through the Global Alliance of Chronic Diseases (GACD). Methods Preliminary data collected from the GACD hypertension teams in 2015 were used to inform a template for data collection. Case study themes included: (1) description of the intervention, (2) objectives of the process evaluation, (3) methods including theoretical basis, (4) main findings of the study and the process evaluation, (5) implications for the project, policy and research practice and (6) lessons for future process evaluations. The information was summarized and reported descriptively and narratively and key lessons were identified. Results The case studies were from low- and middle-income countries and Indigenous communities in Canada. They were implementation research projects with intervention arm. Six theoretical approaches were used but most comprised of mixed-methods approaches. Each of the process evaluations generated findings on whether interventions were implemented with fidelity, the extent of capacity building, contextual factors and the extent to which relationships between researchers and community impacted on intervention implementation. The most important learning was that although process evaluation is time consuming, it enhances understanding of factors affecting implementation of complex interventions. The research highlighted the need to initiate process evaluations early on in the project, to help guide design of the intervention; and the importance of effective communication between researchers responsible for trial implementation, process evaluation and outcome evaluation. Conclusion This research demonstrates the important role of process evaluation in understanding implementation process of complex interventions. This can help to highlight a broad range of system requirements such as new policies and capacity building to support implementation. Process evaluation is crucial in understanding contextual factors that may impact intervention implementation which is important in considering whether or not the intervention can be translated to other contexts

The genetic epidemiology of joint shape and the development of osteoarthritis

Congruent, low-friction relative movement between the articulating elements of a synovial joint is an essential pre-requisite for sustained, efficient, function. Where disorders of joint formation or maintenance exist, mechanical overloading and osteoarthritis (OA) follow. The heritable component of OA accounts for ~ 50% of susceptible risk. Although almost 100 genetic risk loci for OA have now been identified, and the epidemiological relationship between joint development, joint shape and osteoarthritis is well established, we still have only a limited understanding of the contribution that genetic variation makes to joint shape and how this modulates OA risk. In this article, a brief overview of synovial joint development and its genetic regulation is followed by a review of current knowledge on the genetic epidemiology of established joint shape disorders and common shape variation. A summary of current genetic epidemiology of OA is also given, together with current evidence on the genetic overlap between shape variation and OA. Finally, the established genetic risk loci for both joint shape and osteoarthritis are discussed

Effect of intercropping on the growth and yield of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) and okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.) moench

ABSTRACT A field study was undertaken to investigate the growth and yield of cucumber and okra grown in an intercropped system. Okra as 1-row or 2-row was intercropped with cucumber. Sole cropping of okra resulted in higher number of fruits plant -1 , yield plant -1 and yield hectare -1 though the differences in these values and 1-row okra intercrop were not significant. Intercropping okra with cucumber resulted in reduced weed infestation, especially of broadleaf weeds. Land equivalent ratio (LER), 2.4 and 2.2 for one row okra and two rows okra intercrop, respectively showed that intercropping was more beneficial than sole cropping

Process evaluation in the field: Global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries

Background: Process evaluation is increasingly recognized as an important component of effective implementation research and yet, there has been surprisingly little work to understand what constitutes best practice. Researchers use different methodologies describing causal pathways and understanding barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions in diverse contexts and settings. We report on challenges and lessons learned from undertaking process evaluation of seven hypertension intervention trials funded through the Global Alliance of Chronic Diseases (GACD). Methods: Preliminary data collected from the GACD hypertension teams in 2015 were used to inform a template for data collection. Case study themes included: (1) description of the intervention, (2) objectives of the process evaluation, (3) methods including theoretical basis, (4) main findings of the study and the process evaluation, (5) implications for the project, policy and research practice and (6) lessons for future process evaluations. The information was summarized and reported descriptively and narratively and key lessons were identified. Results: The case studies were from low- and middle-income countries and Indigenous communities in Canada. They were implementation research projects with intervention arm. Six theoretical approaches were used but most comprised of mixed-methods approaches. Each of the process evaluations generated findings on whether interventions were implemented with fidelity, the extent of capacity building, contextual factors and the extent to which relationships between researchers and community impacted on intervention implementation. The most important learning was that although process evaluation is time consuming, it enhances understanding of factors affecting implementation of complex interventions. The research highlighted the need to initiate process evaluations early on in the project, to help guide design of the intervention; and the importance of effective communication between researchers responsible for trial implementation, process evaluation and outcome evaluation. Conclusion: This research demonstrates the important role of process evaluation in understanding implementation process of complex interventions. This can help to highlight a broad range of system requirements such as new policies and capacity building to support implementation. Process evaluation is crucial in understanding contextual factors that may impact intervention implementation which is important in considering whether or not the intervention can be translated to other contexts