Effects of assessing the productivity of faculty in academic medical centres : a systematic review

Background: Many academic medical centres have introduced strategies to assess the productivity of faculty as part of compensation schemes. We conducted a systematic review of the effects of such strategies on faculty productivity. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, Healthstar, Embase and PsycInfo databases from their date of inception up to October 2011. We included studies that assessed academic productivity in clinical, research, teaching and administrative activities, as well as compensation, promotion processes and satisfaction. Results: Of 531 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, we in cluded 9 articles reporting on eight studies. The introduction of strategies for assessing academic productivity as part of compensation schemes resulted in increases in clinical productivity (in six of six studies) in terms of clinical revenue, the work component of relative-value units (these units are nonmonetary standard units of measure used to indicate the value of services provided), patient satisfaction and other departmentally used standards. Increases in research productivity were noted (in five of six studies) in terms of funding and publications. There was no change in teaching productivity (in two of five studies) in terms of educational output. Such strategies also resulted in increases in compensation at both individual and group levels (in three studies), with two studies re - porting a change in distribution of compensation in favour of junior faculty. None of the studies assessed effects on administrative productivity or promotion processes. The overall quality of evidence was low. Interpretation: Strategies introduced to assess productivity as part of a compensation scheme appeared to improve productivity in research activities and possibly improved clinical productivity, but they had no effect in the area of teaching. Compensation increased at both group and individual levels, particularly among junior faculty. Higher quality evidence about the benefits and harms of such assessment strategies is needed

Genetic and epigenetic alterations as hallmarks of the intricate road to cancer.

Despite the clonal origin of most tumors, their tremendous heterogeneity suggests that cancer progression springs from the combined forces of both genetic and epigenetic events, which produce variant clonal populations, together with the selective pressures of the microenvironment, which promote growth and, perhaps, dissemination of variants with a specific set of characteristics. Although the importance of genetic mutations in cancer has long been recognized, the role of epigenetic events has been suggested more recently. This review focuses on the genetic and epigenetic molecular mechanisms involved in cancer onset and progression, and discusses the possibility of new strategies in the development of anticancer treatments

Cyclin T: Three forms for different roles in physiological and pathological functions

Cyclins are members of family of proteins involved in the cell cycle regulation. They are regulatory subunits of complexes with proteins called cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs). There are three forms of cyclin T: cyclin T1, cyclin T2a, and T2b. All cyclin T contain an N-terminal "cyclin homology box," the most conserved region among different members of the cyclin family that serves to bind CDK9. In addition to the N-terminal cyclin domain, cyclin T contains a putative coiled-coil motif, a His-rich motif, and a C-terminal PEST sequence. The CDK9/cyclin T complex is able to activate gene expression in a catalytic-dependent manner, phosphorylating the carboxy-terminal domain (CTD) of RNA polymerase II. In addition, only cyclin T1 supports interactions between Tat and TAR. The interaction of Tat with cyclin T1 alters the conformation of Tat to enhance the affinity and specificity of the Tat:TAR interaction. On the other hand, CDK9/cyclin T2 complexes are involved in the regulation of terminal differentiation in muscle cells. © 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc

Distribution of the serine protease HtrA1 in normal human tissues.

The human HtrA family of proteases consists of three members: HtrA1, HtrA2, and HtrA3. In bacteria, the chief role of HtrA is recognition and degradation of misfolded proteins in the periplasm, combining a dual activity of chaperone and protease. In humans, the three HtrA homologues appear to be involved in diverse functions such as cell growth, apoptosis, allergic reactions, fertilization, control of blood pressure, and blood clotting. Previous studies using RNA blot hybridization have shown that the expression of HtrA1 is ubiquitous in normal human tissues. Here we show by immunohistochemistry (IHC) that HtrA1 is widely expressed, although different tissue distributions and/or levels of expression were detected in the different tissues examined. In particular, high to medium HtrA1 expression was detected in mature layers of epidermis, in secretory breast epithelium, in liver, and in kidney tubules of cortex, in concordance with its secretory properties. Furthermore, we show a higher protein expression level in the epithelium of proliferative endometrium, in contrast to epithelium of secretory endometrium, which is almost completely negative for this protein. This suggests a possible role for HtrA1 in the modulation of tissue activity in this organ. The various expression levels in human tissues indicate several possible roles for HtrA1 in different cell types

RACK1 is a functional target of the E1A oncoprotein.

The adenoviral E1A proteins have been implicated in promotion of proliferation and transformation, inhibition of differentiation, induction of apoptosis, regulation of transcription, and suppression of tumor growth. The ability of E1A to override the fundamental controls of host cells is based on its ability to physically interact with several cellular proteins. We recently characterized RACK1 as a new E1A-interacting protein. In this report, we show that the extreme N-terminal region of E1A, spanning from aminoacids 1-36, and the conserved WD regions of RACK1 are responsible for this interaction. We also demonstrate that E1A and RACK1 colocalize at the perinuclear membrane in the cells. Furthermore, we provide evidence that E1A is able to antagonize the inhibitory effects of RACK1 on Src activity. These results suggest that RACK1 signaling pathway may be a functional target of E1A, contributing to E1A oncogenic effect in the host cells