Own Song Selectivity in the Songbird Auditory Pathway: Suppression by Norepinephrine

Like human speech, birdsong is a learned behavior that supports species and individual recognition. Norepinephrine is a catecholamine suspected to play a role in song learning. The goal of this study was to investigate the role of norepinephrine in bird's own song selectivity, a property thought to be important for auditory feedback processes required for song learning and maintenance.Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we show that injection of DSP-4, a specific noradrenergic toxin, unmasks own song selectivity in the dorsal part of NCM, a secondary auditory region.The level of norepinephrine throughout the telencephalon is known to be high in alert birds and low in sleeping birds. Our results suggest that norepinephrine activity can be further decreased, giving rise to a strong own song selective signal in dorsal NCM. This latent own song selective signal, which is only revealed under conditions of very low noradrenergic activity, might play a role in the auditory feedback and/or the integration of this feedback with the motor circuitry for vocal learning and maintenance

Use of prasugrel vs clopidogrel and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary clinical practice: Results from the PROMETHEUS study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the frequency of use and association between prasugrel and outcomes in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in clinical practice. METHODS: PROMETHEUS was a multicenter observational registry of acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing PCI from 8 centers in the United States that maintained a prospective PCI registry for patient outcomes. The primary end points were major adverse cardiovascular events at 90days, a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization. Major bleeding was defined as any bleeding requiring hospitalization or blood transfusion. Hazard ratios (HRs) were generated using multivariable Cox regression and stratified by the propensity to treat with prasugrel. RESULTS: Of 19,914 patients (mean age 64.4years, 32% female), 4,058 received prasugrel (20%) and 15,856 received clopidogrel (80%). Prasugrel-treated patients were younger with fewer comorbid risk factors compared with their counterparts receiving clopidogrel. At 90days, there was a significant association between prasugrel use and lower major adverse cardiovascular event (5.7% vs 9.6%, HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50-0.67, P<.0001) and bleeding (1.9% vs 2.9%, HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.83, P<.001). After propensity stratification, associations were attenuated and no longer significant for either outcome. Results remained consistent using different approaches to adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary clinical practice, patients receiving prasugrel tend to have a lower-risk profile compared with those receiving clopidogrel. The lower ischemic and bleeding events associated with prasugrel use were no longer evident after accounting for these baseline differences

Associations Between Complex PCI and Prasugrel or Clopidogrel Use in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Who Undergo PCI: From the PROMETHEUS Study.

BACKGROUND: Potent P2Y12 inhibitors might offer enhanced benefit against thrombotic events in complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We examined prasugrel use and outcomes according to PCI complexity, as well as analyzing treatment effects according to thienopyridine type. METHODS: PROMETHEUS was a multicentre observational study that compared clopidogrel vs prasugrel in acute coronary syndrome patients who underwent PCI (n = 19,914). Complex PCI was defined as PCI of the left main, bifurcation lesion, moderate-severely calcified lesion, or total stent length ≥ 30 mm. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization. Outcomes were adjusted using multivariable Cox regression for effect of PCI complexity and propensity-stratified analysis for effect of thienopyridine type. RESULTS: The study cohort included 48.9% (n = 9735) complex and 51.1% (n = 10,179) noncomplex patients. Second generation drug-eluting stents were used in 70.1% complex and 66.2% noncomplex PCI patients (P < 0.0001). Complex PCI was associated with greater adjusted risk of 1-year MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-1.39; P < 0.001). Prasugrel was prescribed in 20.7% of complex and 20.1% of noncomplex PCI patients (P = 0.30). Compared with clopidogrel, prasugrel significantly decreased adjusted risk for 1-year MACE in complex PCI (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.92) but not noncomplex PCI (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.08), albeit there was no evidence of interaction (P interaction = 0.281). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the use of contemporary techniques, acute coronary syndrome patients who undergo complex PCI had significantly higher rates of 1-year MACE. Adjusted magnitude of treatment effects with prasugrel vs clopidogrel were consistent in complex and noncomplex PCI without evidence of interaction

Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification:An individual participant data meta-analysis

Objectives: Validated diagnostic interviews are required to classify depression status and estimate prevalence of disorder, but screening tools are often used instead. We used individual participant data meta-analysis to compare prevalence based on standard Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – depression subscale (HADS-D) cutoffs of ≥8 and ≥11 versus Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression and determined if an alternative HADS-D cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. Methods: We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (inception-July 11, 2016) for studies comparing HADS-D scores to SCID major depression status. Pooled prevalence and pooled differences in prevalence for HADS-D cutoffs versus SCID major depression were estimated. Results: 6005 participants (689 SCID major depression cases) from 41 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence was 24.5% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 20.5%, 29.0%) for HADS-D ≥8, 10.7% (95% CI: 8.3%, 13.8%) for HADS-D ≥11, and 11.6% (95% CI: 9.2%, 14.6%) for SCID major depression. HADS-D ≥11 was closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but the 95% prediction interval for the difference that could be expected for HADS-D ≥11 versus SCID in a new study was −21.1% to 19.5%. Conclusions: HADS-D ≥8 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. Of all possible cutoff thresholds, HADS-D ≥11 was closest to the SCID, but there was substantial heterogeneity in the difference between HADS-D ≥11 and SCID-based estimates. HADS-D should not be used as a substitute for a validated diagnostic interview.This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, KRS-144045 & PCG 155468). Ms. Neupane was supported by a G.R. Caverhill Fellowship from the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. Drs. Levis and Wu were supported by Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé (FRQS) Postdoctoral Training Fellowships. Mr. Bhandari was supported by a studentship from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. Ms. Rice was supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. Dr. Patten was supported by a Senior Health Scholar award from Alberta Innovates, Health Solutions. The primary study by Scott et al. was supported by the Cumming School of Medicine and Alberta Health Services through the Calgary Health Trust, and funding from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. The primary study by Amoozegar et al. was supported by the Alberta Health Services, the University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine, and the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. The primary study by Cheung et al. was supported by the Waikato Clinical School, University of Auckland, the Waikato Medical Research Foundation and the Waikato Respiratory Research Fund. The primary study by Cukor et al. was supported in part by a Promoting Psychological Research and Training on Health-Disparities Issues at Ethnic Minority Serving Institutions Grants (ProDIGs) awarded to Dr. Cukor from the American Psychological Association. The primary study by De Souza et al. was supported by Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust. The primary study by Honarmand et al. was supported by a grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. The primary study by Fischer et al. was supported as part of the RECODEHF study by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01GY1150). The primary study by Gagnon et al. was supported by the Drummond Foundation and the Department of Psychiatry, University Health Network. The primary study by Akechi et al. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research (11−2) from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. The primary study by Kugaya et al. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research (9–31) and the Second-Term Comprehensive 10-year Strategy for Cancer Control from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The primary study Ryan et al. was supported by the Irish Cancer Society (Grant CRP08GAL). The primary study by Keller et al. was supported by the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg (grant no. 175/2000). The primary study by Love et al. (2004) was supported by the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation (National Breast Cancer Foundation), the Cancer Council of Victoria and the National Health and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Love et al. (2002) was supported by a grant from the Bethlehem Griffiths Research Foundation. The primary study by Löwe et al. was supported by the medical faculty of the University of Heidelberg, Germany (Project 121/2000). The primary study by Navines et al. was supported in part by the Spanish grants from the Fondo de Investigación en Salud, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (EO PI08/90869 and PSIGEN-VHC Study: FIS-E08/00268) and the support of FEDER (one way to make Europe). The primary study by O'Rourke et al. was supported by the Scottish Home and Health Department, Stroke Association, and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Sanchez-Gistau et al. was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health of Spain (PI040418) and in part by Catalonia Government, DURSI 2009SGR1119. The primary study by Gould et al. was supported by the Transport Accident Commission Grant. The primary study by Rooney et al. was supported by the NHS Lothian Neuro-Oncology Endowment Fund. The primary study by Schwarzbold et al. was supported by PRONEX Program (NENASC Project) and PPSUS Program of Fundaçao de Amparo a esquisa e Inovacao do Estado de Santa Catarina (FAPESC) and the National Science and Technology Institute for Translational Medicine (INCT-TM). The primary study by Simard et al. was supported by IDEA grants from the Canadian Prostate Cancer Research Initiative and the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance, as well as a studentship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The primary study by Singer et al. (2009) was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (no. 01ZZ0106). The primary study by Singer et al. (2008) was supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (# 7DZAIQTX) and of the University of Leipzig (# formel. 1–57). The primary study by Meyer et al. was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The primary study by Stone et al. was supported by the Medical Research Council, UK and Chest Heart and Stroke, Scotland. The primary study by Turner et al. was supported by a bequest from Jennie Thomas through Hunter Medical Research Institute. The primary study by Walterfang et al. was supported by Melbourne Health. Drs. Benedetti and Thombs were supported by FRQS researcher salary awards. No other authors reported funding for primary studies or for their work on this study. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication

Within-sibship genome-wide association analyses decrease bias in estimates of direct genetic effects

Estimates from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of unrelated individuals capture effects of inherited variation (direct effects), demography (population stratification, assortative mating) and relatives (indirect genetic effects). Family-based GWAS designs can control for demographic and indirect genetic effects, but large-scale family datasets have been lacking. We combined data from 178,086 siblings from 19 cohorts to generate population (between-family) and within-sibship (within-family) GWAS estimates for 25 phenotypes. Within-sibship GWAS estimates were smaller than population estimates for height, educational attainment, age at first birth, number of children, cognitive ability, depressive symptoms and smoking. Some differences were observed in downstream SNP heritability, genetic correlations and Mendelian randomization analyses. For example, the within-sibship genetic correlation between educational attainment and body mass index attenuated towards zero. In contrast, analyses of most molecular phenotypes (for example, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol) were generally consistent. We also found within-sibship evidence of polygenic adaptation on taller height. Here, we illustrate the importance of family-based GWAS data for phenotypes influenced by demographic and indirect genetic effects

Synthetic Nanoparticles for Vaccines and Immunotherapy

The immune system plays a critical role in our health. No other component of human physiology plays a decisive role in as diverse an array of maladies, from deadly diseases with which we are all familiar to equally terrible esoteric conditions: HIV, malaria, pneumococcal and influenza infections; cancer; atherosclerosis; autoimmune diseases such as lupus, diabetes, and multiple sclerosis. The importance of understanding the function of the immune system and learning how to modulate immunity to protect against or treat disease thus cannot be overstated. Fortunately, we are entering an exciting era where the science of immunology is defining pathways for the rational manipulation of the immune system at the cellular and molecular level, and this understanding is leading to dramatic advances in the clinic that are transforming the future of medicine.1,2 These initial advances are being made primarily through biologic drugs– recombinant proteins (especially antibodies) or patient-derived cell therapies– but exciting data from preclinical studies suggest that a marriage of approaches based in biotechnology with the materials science and chemistry of nanomaterials, especially nanoparticles, could enable more effective and safer immune engineering strategies. This review will examine these nanoparticle-based strategies to immune modulation in detail, and discuss the promise and outstanding challenges facing the field of immune engineering from a chemical biology/materials engineering perspectiveNational Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grants AI111860, CA174795, CA172164, AI091693, and AI095109)United States. Department of Defense (W911NF-13-D-0001 and Awards W911NF-07-D-0004

Enhancing Discovery of Genetic Variants for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Through Integration of Quantitative Phenotypes and Trauma Exposure Information

Funding Information: This work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health / U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command (Grant No. R01MH106595 [to CMN, IL, MBS, KJRe, and KCK], National Institutes of Health (Grant No. 5U01MH109539 to the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium ), and Brain & Behavior Research Foundation (Young Investigator Grant [to KWC]). Genotyping of samples was provided in part through the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Genetics at the Broad Institute supported by Cohen Veterans Bioscience . Statistical analyses were carried out on the LISA/Genetic Cluster Computer ( https://userinfo.surfsara.nl/systems/lisa ) hosted by SURFsara. This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank resource (Application No. 41209). This work would have not been possible without the financial support provided by Cohen Veterans Bioscience, the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Genetics at the Broad Institute, and One Mind. Funding Information: MBS has in the past 3 years received consulting income from Actelion, Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Aptinyx, Bionomics, BioXcel Therapeutics, Clexio, EmpowerPharm, GW Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Roche/Genentech and has stock options in Oxeia Biopharmaceuticals and Epivario. In the past 3 years, NPD has held a part-time paid position at Cohen Veterans Bioscience, has been a consultant for Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and is on the scientific advisory board for Sentio Solutions for unrelated work. In the past 3 years, KJRe has been a consultant for Datastat, Inc., RallyPoint Networks, Inc., Sage Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda. JLM-K has received funding and a speaking fee from COMPASS Pathways. MU has been a consultant for System Analytic. HRK is a member of the Dicerna scientific advisory board and a member of the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative, which during the past 3 years was supported by Alkermes, Amygdala Neurosciences, Arbor Pharmaceuticals, Dicerna, Ethypharm, Indivior, Lundbeck, Mitsubishi, and Otsuka. HRK and JG are named as inventors on Patent Cooperative Treaty patent application number 15/878,640, entitled “Genotype-guided dosing of opioid agonists,” filed January 24, 2018. RP and JG are paid for their editorial work on the journal Complex Psychiatry. OAA is a consultant to HealthLytix. All other authors report no biomedical financial interests or potential conflicts of interest. Funding Information: This work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health/ U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command (Grant No. R01MH106595 [to CMN, IL, MBS, KJRe, and KCK], National Institutes of Health (Grant No. 5U01MH109539 to the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium), and Brain & Behavior Research Foundation (Young Investigator Grant [to KWC]). Genotyping of samples was provided in part through the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Genetics at the Broad Institute supported by Cohen Veterans Bioscience. Statistical analyses were carried out on the LISA/Genetic Cluster Computer (https://userinfo.surfsara.nl/systems/lisa) hosted by SURFsara. This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank resource (Application No. 41209). This work would have not been possible without the financial support provided by Cohen Veterans Bioscience, the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Genetics at the Broad Institute, and One Mind. This material has been reviewed by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. There is no objection to its presentation and/or publication. The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting true views of the U.S. Department of the Army or the Department of Defense. We thank the investigators who comprise the PGC-PTSD working group and especially the more than 206,000 research participants worldwide who shared their life experiences and biological samples with PGC-PTSD investigators. We thank Mark Zervas for his critical input. Full acknowledgments are in Supplement 1. MBS has in the past 3 years received consulting income from Actelion, Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Aptinyx, Bionomics, BioXcel Therapeutics, Clexio, EmpowerPharm, GW Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Roche/Genentech and has stock options in Oxeia Biopharmaceuticals and Epivario. In the past 3 years, NPD has held a part-time paid position at Cohen Veterans Bioscience, has been a consultant for Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and is on the scientific advisory board for Sentio Solutions for unrelated work. In the past 3 years, KJRe has been a consultant for Datastat, Inc. RallyPoint Networks, Inc. Sage Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda. JLM-K has received funding and a speaking fee from COMPASS Pathways. MU has been a consultant for System Analytic. HRK is a member of the Dicerna scientific advisory board and a member of the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative, which during the past 3 years was supported by Alkermes, Amygdala Neurosciences, Arbor Pharmaceuticals, Dicerna, Ethypharm, Indivior, Lundbeck, Mitsubishi, and Otsuka. HRK and JG are named as inventors on Patent Cooperative Treaty patent application number 15/878,640, entitled ?Genotype-guided dosing of opioid agonists,? filed January 24, 2018. RP and JG are paid for their editorial work on the journal Complex Psychiatry. OAA is a consultant to HealthLytix. All other authors report no biomedical financial interests or potential conflicts of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Society of Biological PsychiatryBackground: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is heritable and a potential consequence of exposure to traumatic stress. Evidence suggests that a quantitative approach to PTSD phenotype measurement and incorporation of lifetime trauma exposure (LTE) information could enhance the discovery power of PTSD genome-wide association studies (GWASs). Methods: A GWAS on PTSD symptoms was performed in 51 cohorts followed by a fixed-effects meta-analysis (N = 182,199 European ancestry participants). A GWAS of LTE burden was performed in the UK Biobank cohort (N = 132,988). Genetic correlations were evaluated with linkage disequilibrium score regression. Multivariate analysis was performed using Multi-Trait Analysis of GWAS. Functional mapping and annotation of leading loci was performed with FUMA. Replication was evaluated using the Million Veteran Program GWAS of PTSD total symptoms. Results: GWASs of PTSD symptoms and LTE burden identified 5 and 6 independent genome-wide significant loci, respectively. There was a 72% genetic correlation between PTSD and LTE. PTSD and LTE showed largely similar patterns of genetic correlation with other traits, albeit with some distinctions. Adjusting PTSD for LTE reduced PTSD heritability by 31%. Multivariate analysis of PTSD and LTE increased the effective sample size of the PTSD GWAS by 20% and identified 4 additional loci. Four of these 9 PTSD loci were independently replicated in the Million Veteran Program. Conclusions: Through using a quantitative trait measure of PTSD, we identified novel risk loci not previously identified using prior case-control analyses. PTSD and LTE have a high genetic overlap that can be leveraged to increase discovery power through multivariate methods.publishersversionpublishe