p53 Interaction with JMJD3 Results in Its Nuclear Distribution during Mouse Neural Stem Cell Differentiation

Conserved elements of apoptosis are also integral components of cellular differentiation. In this regard, p53 is involved in neurogenesis, being required for neurite outgrowth in primary neurons and for axonal regeneration in mice. Interestingly, demethylases regulate p53 activity and its interaction with co-activators by acting on non-histone proteins. In addition, the histone H3 lysine 27-specific demethylase JMJD3 induces ARF expression, thereby stabilizing p53 in mouse embryonic fibroblasts. We hypothesized that p53 interacts with key regulators of neurogenesis to redirect stem cells to differentiation, as an alternative to cell death. Specifically, we investigated the potential cross-talk between p53 and JMJD3 during mouse neural stem cell (NSC) differentiation. Our results demonstrated that JMJD3 mRNA and protein levels were increased early in mouse NSC differentiation, when JMJD3 activity was readily detected. Importantly, modulation of JMJD3 in NSCs resulted in changes of total p53 protein, coincident with increased ARF mRNA and protein expression. ChIP analysis revealed that JMJD3 was present at the promoter and exon 1 regions of ARF during neural differentiation, although without changes in H3K27me3. Immunoprecipitation assays demonstrated a direct interaction between p53 and JMJD3, independent of the C-terminal region of JMJD3, and modulation of p53 methylation by JMJD3-demethylase activity. Finally, transfection of mutant JMJD3 showed that the demethylase activity of JMJD3 was crucial in regulating p53 cellular distribution and function. In conclusion, JMJD3 induces p53 stabilization in mouse NSCs through ARF-dependent mechanisms, directly interacts with p53 and, importantly, causes nuclear accumulation of p53. This suggests that JMJD3 and p53 act in a common pathway during neurogenesis

What is known about the patient's experience of medical tourism? A scoping review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Medical tourism is understood as travel abroad with the intention of obtaining non-emergency medical services. This practice is the subject of increasing interest, but little is known about its scope.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A comprehensive scoping review of published academic articles, media sources, and grey literature reports was performed to answer the question: what is known about the patient's experience of medical tourism? The review was accomplished in three steps: (1) identifying the question and relevant literature; (2) selecting the literature; (3) charting, collating, and summarizing the information. Overall themes were identified from this process.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>291 sources were identified for review from the databases searched, the majority of which were media pieces (<it>n </it>= 176). A further 57 sources were included for review after hand searching reference lists. Of the 348 sources that were gathered, 216 were ultimately included in this scoping review. Only a small minority of sources reported on empirical studies that involved the collection of primary data (<it>n </it>= 5). The four themes identified via the review were: (1) decision-making (e.g., push and pull factors that operate to shape patients' decisions); (2) motivations (e.g., procedure-, cost-, and travel-based factors motivating patients to seek care abroad); (3) risks (e.g., health and travel risks); and (4) first-hand accounts (e.g., patients' experiential accounts of having gone abroad for medical care). These themes represent the most discussed issues about the patient's experience of medical tourism in the English-language academic, media, and grey literatures.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This review demonstrates the need for additional research on numerous issues, including: (1) understanding how multiple information sources are consulted and evaluated by patients before deciding upon medical tourism; (2) examining how patients understand the risks of care abroad; (3) gathering patients' prospective and retrospective accounts; and (4) the push and pull factors, as well as the motives of patients to participate in medical tourism. The findings from this scoping review and the knowledge gaps it uncovered also demonstrate that there is great potential for new contributions to our understanding of the patient's experience of medical tourism.</p