The Impact of Depression on Patient Outcomes in Hip Arthroscopic Surgery.

Background: Mental health impairments have been shown to negatively affect preoperative self-reported function in patients with various musculoskeletal disorders, including those with femoroacetabular impingement. Hypothesis: Those with symptoms of depression will have lower self-reported function, more pain, and less satisfaction on initial assessment and at 2-year follow-up than those without symptoms of depression. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who were enrolled in a multicenter hip arthroscopic surgery registry and had 2-year outcome data available were included in the study. Patients completed the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) when consenting for surgery. At 2-year follow-up, patients were emailed the iHOT, the VAS, and a rating scale of surgical satisfaction. Initial SF-12 mental component summary (MCS) scores Results: A total of 781 patients achieved the approximate 2-year milestone (mean follow-up, 735 ± 68 days), with 651 (83%) having 2-year outcome data available. There were 434 (67%) female and 217 (33%) male patients, with a mean age of 35.8 ± 13.0 years and a mean body mass index of 25.4 ± 8.8 kg/m Conclusion: A large number of patients who underwent hip arthroscopic surgery presented with symptoms of depression, which negatively affected self-reported function, pain levels, and satisfaction on initial assessment and at 2-year follow-up. Surgeons who perform hip arthroscopic surgery may need to identify the symptoms of depression and be aware of the impact that depression can have on surgical outcomes

Allocation of Anchors During Labral Repair: A Multicenter Cohort Analysis of Labral Treatment in Hip Arthroscopy.

Background: While previous studies have established several techniques for suture anchor repair of the acetabular labrum to bone during arthroscopic surgery, the current literature lacks evidence defining the appropriate number of suture anchors required to effectively restore the function of the labral tissue. Purpose/Hypothesis: To define the location and size of labral tears identified during hip arthroscopy for acetabular labral treatment in a large multicenter cohort. The secondary purpose was to differentiate the number of anchors used during arthroscopic labral repair. The hypothesis was that the location and size of the labral tear as well as the number of anchors identified would provide a range of fixation density per acetabular region and fixation method to be used as a guide in performing arthroscopic repair. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We used a multicenter registry of prospectively collected hip arthroscopy cases to find patients who underwent arthroscopic labral repair by 1 of 7 orthopaedic surgeons between January 2015 and January 2017. The tear location and number of anchors used during repair were described using the clockface method, where 3 o’clock denoted the anterior extent of the tear and 9 o’clock the posterior extent, regardless of sidedness (left or right). Tear size was denoted as the number of “hours” spanned per clockface arc. Chi-square and univariate analyses of variance were performed to evaluate the data for both the entire group and among surgical centers. Results: A total of 1978 hips underwent arthroscopic treatment of the acetabular labrum; the most common tear size had a 3-hour span (n = 820; 41.5%). Of these hips, 1645 received labral repair, with most common repair location at the 12- to 3-o’clock position (n = 537; 32.6%). The surgeons varied in number of anchors per repair according to labral size (P Conclusion: Variation existed in the number of anchor implants per tear size. When labral repair involved a mean clockface arc \u3e2 hours, at least 2 anchor points were fixated

Promiscuous Aggregate-Based Inhibitors Promote Enzyme Unfolding

One of the leading sources of false positives in early drug discovery is the formation of organic small molecule aggregates, which inhibit enzymes nonspecifically at micromolar concentrations in aqueous solution. The molecular basis for this widespread problem remains hazy. To investigate the mechanism of inhibition at a molecular level, we determined changes in solvent accessibility that occur when an enzyme binds to an aggregate using hydrogen-deuterium exchange mass spectrometry. For AmpC beta-lactamase, binding to aggregates of the small molecule rottlerin increased the deuterium exchange of all 10 reproducibly detectable peptides, which covered 41% of the sequence of beta-lactamase. This suggested a global increase in proton accessibility upon aggregate binding, consistent with denaturation. We then investigated whether enzyme-aggregate complexes were more susceptible to proteolysis than uninhibited enzyme. For five aggregators, trypsin degradation of beta-lactamase increased substantially when beta-lactamase was inhibited by aggregates, whereas uninhibited enzyme was generally stable to digestion. Combined, these results suggest that the mechanism of action of aggregate-based inhibitors proceeds via partial protein unfolding when bound to an aggregate particle

Framework for sustained climate assessment in the United States

Author Posting. © American Meteorological Society, 2019. This article is posted here by permission of American Meteorological Society for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 100(5), (2019): 897-908, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0130.1.As states, cities, tribes, and private interests cope with climate damages and seek to increase preparedness and resilience, they will need to navigate myriad choices and options available to them. Making these choices in ways that identify pathways for climate action that support their development objectives will require constructive public dialogue, community participation, and flexible and ongoing access to science- and experience-based knowledge. In 2016, a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) was convened to recommend how to conduct a sustained National Climate Assessment (NCA) to increase the relevance and usability of assessments for informing action. The FAC was disbanded in 2017, but members and additional experts reconvened to complete the report that is presented here. A key recommendation is establishing a new nonfederal “climate assessment consortium” to increase the role of state/local/tribal government and civil society in assessments. The expanded process would 1) focus on applied problems faced by practitioners, 2) organize sustained partnerships for collaborative learning across similar projects and case studies to identify effective tested practices, and 3) assess and improve knowledge-based methods for project implementation. Specific recommendations include evaluating climate models and data using user-defined metrics; improving benefit–cost assessment and supporting decision-making under uncertainty; and accelerating application of tools and methods such as citizen science, artificial intelligence, indicators, and geospatial analysis. The recommendations are the result of broad consultation and present an ambitious agenda for federal agencies, state/local/tribal jurisdictions, universities and the research sector, professional associations, nongovernmental and community-based organizations, and private-sector firms.This report would not have been possible without the support and participation of numerous organizations and individuals. We thank New York State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo for announcing in his 2018 State of the State agenda that the IAC would be reconvened. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (Contract ID 123416), Columbia University’s Earth Institute, and the American Meteorological Society provided essential financial support and much more, including sage advice and moral support from John O’Leary, Shara Mohtadi, Steve Cohen, Alex Halliday, Peter deMenocal, Keith Seitter, Paul Higgins, and Bill Hooke. We thank the attendees of a workshop, generously funded by the Kresge Foundation in November of 2017, that laid a foundation for the idea to establish a civil-society-based assessment consortium. During the course of preparing the report, IAC members consulted with individuals too numerous to list here—state, local, and tribal officials; researchers; experts in nongovernmental and community-based organizations; and professionals in engineering, architecture, public health, adaptation, and other areas. We are so grateful for their time and expertise. We thank the members and staff of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee to Advise the U.S. Global Change Research Program for providing individual comments on preliminary recommendations during several discussions in open sessions of their meetings. The following individuals provided detailed comments on an earlier version of this report, which greatly sharpened our thinking and recommendations: John Balbus, Tom Dietz, Phil Duffy, Baruch Fischhoff, Brenda Hoppe, Melissa Kenney, Linda Mearns, Claudia Nierenberg, Kathleen Segerson, Soroosh Sorooshian, Chris Weaver, and Brian Zuckerman. Mary Black provided insightful copy editing of several versions of the report. We also thank four anonymous reviewers for their effort and care in critiquing and improving the report. It is the dedication, thoughtful feedback, expertise, care, and commitment of all these people and more that not only made this report possible, but allow us all to continue to support smart and insightful actions in a changing climate. We are grateful as authors and as global citizens. Author contributions: RM, SA, KB, MB, AC, JD, PF, KJ, AJ, KK, JK, ML, JM, RP, TR, LS, JS, JW, and DZ were members of the IAC and shared in researching, discussing, drafting, and approving the report. BA, JF, AG, LJ, SJ, PK, RK, AM, RM, JN, WS, JS, PT, GY, and RZ contributed to specific sections of the report

Evaluating knowledge to support climate action: A framework for sustained assessment. report of an independent advisory committee on applied climate assessment.

Author Posting. © American Meteorological Society, 2019. This article is posted here by permission of American Meteorological Society for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Weather Climate and Society 11(3), (2019):465-487, doi: 10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0134.1.As states, cities, tribes, and private interests cope with climate damages and seek to increase preparedness and resilience, they will need to navigate myriad choices and options available to them. Making these choices in ways that identify pathways for climate action that support their development objectives will require constructive public dialogue, community participation, and flexible and ongoing access to science- and experience-based knowledge. In 2016, a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) was convened to recommend how to conduct a sustained National Climate Assessment (NCA) to increase the relevance and usability of assessments for informing action. The FAC was disbanded in 2017, but members and additional experts reconvened to complete the report that is presented here. A key recommendation is establishing a new nonfederal “climate assessment consortium” to increase the role of state/local/tribal government and civil society in assessments. The expanded process would 1) focus on applied problems faced by practitioners, 2) organize sustained partnerships for collaborative learning across similar projects and case studies to identify effective tested practices, and 3) assess and improve knowledge-based methods for project implementation. Specific recommendations include evaluating climate models and data using user-defined metrics; improving benefit–cost assessment and supporting decision-making under uncertainty; and accelerating application of tools and methods such as citizen science, artificial intelligence, indicators, and geospatial analysis. The recommendations are the result of broad consultation and present an ambitious agenda for federal agencies, state/local/tribal jurisdictions, universities and the research sector, professional associations, nongovernmental and community-based organizations, and private-sector firms.This report would not have been possible without the support and participation of numerous organizations and individuals. We thank New York State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo for announcing in his 2018 State of the State agenda that the IAC would be reconvened. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (Contract ID 123416), Columbia University’s Earth Institute, and the American Meteorological Society provided essential financial support and much more, including sage advice and moral support from John O’Leary, Shara Mohtadi, Steve Cohen, Alex Halliday, Peter deMenocal, Keith Seitter, Paul Higgins, and Bill Hooke. We thank the attendees of a workshop, generously funded by the Kresge Foundation in November of 2017, that laid a foundation for the idea to establish a civil-society-based assessment consortium. During the course of preparing the report, IAC members consulted with individuals too numerous to list here—state, local, and tribal officials; researchers; experts in nongovernmental and community-based organizations; and professionals in engineering, architecture, public health, adaptation, and other areas. We are so grateful for their time and expertise. We thank the members and staff of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee to Advise the U.S. Global Change Research Program for providing individual comments on preliminary recommendations during several discussions in open sessions of their meetings. The following individuals provided detailed comments on an earlier version of this report, which greatly sharpened our thinking and recommendations: John Balbus, Tom Dietz, Phil Duffy, Baruch Fischhoff, Brenda Hoppe, Melissa Kenney, Linda Mearns, Claudia Nierenberg, Kathleen Segerson, Soroosh Sorooshian, Chris Weaver, and Brian Zuckerman. Mary Black provided insightful copy editing of several versions of the report. We also thank four anonymous reviewers for their effort and care in critiquing and improving the report. It is the dedication, thoughtful feedback, expertise, care, and commitment of all these people and more that not only made this report possible, but allow us all to continue to support smart and insightful actions in a changing climate. We are grateful as authors and as global citizens. Author contributions: RM, SA, KB, MB, AC, JD, PF, KJ, AJ, KK, JK, ML, JM, RP, TR, LS, JS, JW, and DZ were members of the IAC and shared in researching, discussing, drafting, and approving the report. BA, JF, AG, LJ, SJ, PK, RK, AM, RM, JN, WS, JS, PT, GY, and RZ contributed to specific sections of the report.2020-05-2

Complementarity Between a Docking and a High-Throughput Screen in Discovering New Cruzain Inhibitors†

Virtual and high-throughput screens (HTS) should have complementary strengths and weaknesses, but studies that prospectively and comprehensively compare them are rare. We undertook a parallel docking and HTS screen of 197861 compounds against cruzain, a thiol protease target for Chagas disease, looking for reversible, competitive inhibitors. On workup, 99 % of the hits were eliminated as false positives, yielding 146 well-behaved, competitive ligands. These fell into five chemotypes: two were prioritized by scoring among the top 0.1 % of the docking-ranked library, two were prioritized by behavior in the HTS and by clustering, and one chemotype was prioritized by both approaches. Determination of an inhibitor/cruzain crystal structure and comparison of the high-scoring docking hits to experiment illuminated the origins of docking false-negatives and false-positives. Prioritizing molecules that are both predicted by docking and are HTS-active yields well-behaved molecules, relatively unobscured by the false-positives to which both techniques are individually prone

The EYA Tyrosine Phosphatase Activity Is Pro-Angiogenic and Is Inhibited by Benzbromarone

Eyes Absents (EYA) are multifunctional proteins best known for their role in organogenesis. There is accumulating evidence that overexpression of EYAs in breast and ovarian cancers, and in malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors, correlates with tumor growth and increased metastasis. The EYA protein is both a transcriptional activator and a tyrosine phosphatase, and the tyrosine phosphatase activity promotes single cell motility of mammary epithelial cells. Since EYAs are expressed in vascular endothelial cells and cell motility is a critical feature of angiogenesis we investigated the role of EYAs in this process. Using RNA interference techniques we show that EYA3 depletion in human umbilical vein endothelial cells inhibits transwell migration as well as Matrigel-induced tube formation. To specifically query the role of the EYA tyrosine phosphatase activity we employed a chemical biology approach. Through an experimental screen the uricosuric agents Benzbromarone and Benzarone were found to be potent EYA inhibitors, and Benzarone in particular exhibited selectivity towards EYA versus a representative classical protein tyrosine phosphatase, PTP1B. These compounds inhibit the motility of mammary epithelial cells over-expressing EYA2 as well as the motility of endothelial cells. Furthermore, they attenuate tubulogenesis in matrigel and sprouting angiogenesis in the ex vivo aortic ring assay in a dose-dependent fashion. The anti-angiogenic effect of the inhibitors was also demonstrated in vivo, as treatment of zebrafish embryos led to significant and dose-dependent defects in the developing vasculature. Taken together our results demonstrate that the EYA tyrosine phosphatase activity is pro-angiogenic and that Benzbromarone and Benzarone are attractive candidates for repurposing as drugs for the treatment of cancer metastasis, tumor angiogenesis, and vasculopathies