Innovative solutions to novel drug development in mental health

There are many new advances in neuroscience and mental health which should lead to a greater understanding of the neurobiological dysfunction in neuropsychiatric disorders and new developments for early, effective treatments. To do this, a biomarker approach combining genetic, neuroimaging, cognitive and other biological measures is needed. The aim of this article is to highlight novel approaches for pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment development. This article suggests approaches that can be taken in the future including novel mechanisms with preliminary clinical validation to provide a toolbox for mechanistic studies and also examples of translation and back-translation. The review also emphasizes the need for clinician-scientists to be trained in a novel way in order to equip them with the conceptual and experimental techniques required, and emphasizes the need for private-public partnership and pre-competitive knowledge exchange. This should lead the way for important new holistic treatment developments to improve cognition, functional outcome and well-being of people with neuropsychiatric disorders

A Rare Functional Noncoding Variant at the GWAS-Implicated MIR137/MIR2682 Locus Might Confer Risk to Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder

Schizophrenia (SZ) genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have identified common risk variants in >100 susceptibility loci; however, the contribution of rare variants at these loci remains largely unexplored. One of the strongly associated loci spans MIR137 (miR137) and MIR2682 (miR2682), two microRNA genes important for neuronal function. We sequenced ∼6.9 kb MIR137/MIR2682 and upstream regulatory sequences in 2,610 SZ cases and 2,611 controls of European ancestry. We identified 133 rare variants with minor allele frequency (MAF) <0.5%. The rare variant burden in promoters and enhancers, but not insulators, was associated with SZ (p = 0.021 for MAF < 0.5%, p = 0.003 for MAF < 0.1%). A rare enhancer SNP, 1:g.98515539A>T, presented exclusively in 11 SZ cases (nominal p = 4.8 × 10−4). We further identified its risk allele T in 2 of 2,434 additional SZ cases, 11 of 4,339 bipolar (BP) cases, and 3 of 3,572 SZ/BP study controls and 1,688 population controls; yielding combined p values of 0.0007, 0.0013, and 0.0001 for SZ, BP, and SZ/BP, respectively. The risk allele T of 1:g.98515539A>T reduced enhancer activity of its flanking sequence by >50% in human neuroblastoma cells, predicting lower expression of MIR137/MIR2682. Both empirical and computational analyses showed weaker transcription factor (YY1) binding by the risk allele. Chromatin conformation capture (3C) assay further indicated that 1:g.98515539A>T influenced MIR137/MIR2682, but not the nearby DPYD or LOC729987. Our results suggest that rare noncoding risk variants are associated with SZ and BP at MIR137/MIR2682 locus, with risk alleles decreasing MIR137/MIR2682 expression

Lesbian M/Otherhood: strategies of familial-linguistic management in lesbian parent families

In this article I examine how parental identities are negotiated in lesbian parent families. I argue that lesbian mothers’ extraordinary maternity is not dependent on a feminist egalitarian ethic but instead comes from families’ strategic articulation of same-sex parenthood, whereby gender is done and undone in multiple and contradictory ways. Focusing attention onto the ‘other (non-biological) mother’, I suggest that her lack of social status and (progenitor) maternal role disrupts simple readings of gendered parenthood. I demonstrate that children’s creative familial-linguistic management of ‘family’ facilitates an inclusive conceptual framework, representing families as process. The data cited in this article comes from in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 18 lesbian mothers and 13 of their children, who live across the Yorkshire region in the UK

Random period arc-induced long-period fiber gratings

Background: Twice-daily raltegravir with once-daily tenofovir-emtricitabine is an effective initial antiretroviral regimen for patients with HIV-1. On the basis of pharmacokinetic data suggesting efficacy of once-daily raltegravir and because adherence is often improved with once-daily dosing, we aimed to compare these dosing schedules. Methods: In our international, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority study, we enrolled antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV RNA loads of more than 5000 copies per mL and no baseline resistance to tenofovir or emtricitabine at 83 centres worldwide. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) by use of a computer-generated sequence to receive raltegravir once daily (two 400 mg tablets taken together every 24 h), or twice daily (one 400 mg tablet every 12 h), both in combination with once-daily co-formulated tenofovir 300 mg plus emtricitabine 150 mg. The primary outcome was virological response at 48 weeks (viral RNA loads <50 copies per mL) in patients who received at least one dose of study drug, counting non-completers as failure. We assessed non-inferiority in terms of the proportion of patients in both treatment groups who achieved the primary outcome, with a non-inferiority margin of -10%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00745823. Findings: From Oct 15, 2008, to Nov 2, 2009, we randomly allocated 775 patients, of whom 382 (99%) of 386 patients in the once-daily group and 388 (99%) of 389 in the twice-daily group received at least one dose of study drug. At baseline, 304 (39%) of 770 treated patients had viral loads of more than 100 000 copies per mL and 188 (24%) had CD4 cell counts of fewer than 200 cells per ?L. 318 (83%) of 382 patients in the once-daily group had virological response compared with 343 (89%) of 386 in the twice-daily group (difference -5 7%, 95% CI -10 7 to -0 83; p=0 044). Serious adverse events were reported in 26 (7%) of 382 once-daily recipients and 40 (10%) of 388 twice-daily recipients, and adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in four (1%) patients in each group. Interpretation: Despite high response rates with both regimens, once-daily raltegravir cannot be recommended in place of twice-daily dosing. Funding: Merck. " 2011 Elsevier Ltd.",,,,,,"10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70196-7",,,"http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12104/44049","http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-81855166275&partnerID=40&md5=6f046390ce51f7b7d60e001a291cdbd0",,,,,,"12",,"The Lancet Infectious Diseases",,"90