255 research outputs found

    Oral and dermal toxicity of alkenones extracted from Isochrysis species

    Get PDF
    Author Posting. © Bioscience Research Institute, 2020. This article is posted here by permission of Bioscience Research Institute for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in McIntosh, K., Sarver, J., Mell, K., Terrero, D. J., Ashby, C. R., Reddy, C., O’Neil, G., Ramapuram, J. B., & Tiwari, A. K. Oral and dermal toxicity of alkenones extracted from Isochrysis species. Frontiers in Bioscience-Landmark, 25(5), (2020): 817–837, https://doi.org/10.2741/4836.Isochrysis is commercially available marine algae used for animal feed, human nutrient supplements, and biodiesel. The Isochrysis species is one of five genera of haptophytes that produces unique, long-chain lipids known as alkenones that are promising new ingredients for green cosmetics, personal care products and pharmaceutical delivery. However, there is a lack of toxicity data for alkenones in animals, thus limiting their use in humans. In this study, we performed acute oral, acute dermal, and repeated 28-day dermal toxicity studies, using female SAS Sprague Dawley Rats. Our behavioral studies indicated that the specific alkenones had no overt behavioural effects at oral doses up to 4000 mg/kg. In the acute and chronic dermal toxicity studies, the alkenones produced less irritation and did not significantly damage the skin based on the Draize skin reaction scale and trans-epidermal water loss readings compared to the positive control, 1% sodium lauryl sulfate. Overall, our results indicated that alkenones are safe in Sprague Dawley rats, suggesting that they could be used for both oral and dermal formulations, although additional studies will be required.This work was supported by the Marine Biological Laboratory Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) under grant (N-126665-01, 2017), Washington Research Foundation, and University of Toledo start-up funding under a grant (F110760) to A.K.T. The authors declare no conflict of interest

    Effects of depression on employment and social outcomes: a Mendelian randomisation study

    Get PDF
    Background: Depression is associated with socioeconomic disadvantage. However, whether and how depression exerts a causal effect on employment remains unclear. We used Mendelian randomisation (MR) to investigate whether depression affects employment and related outcomes in the UK Biobank dataset. Methods: We selected 227 242 working-age participants (40–64 in men, 40–59 years for women) of white British ethnicity/ancestry with suitable genetic data in the UK Biobank study. We used 30 independent genetic variants associated with depression as instruments. We conducted observational and two-sample MR analyses. Outcomes were employment status (employed vs not, and employed vs sickness/disability, unemployment, retirement or caring for home/family); weekly hours worked (among employed); Townsend Deprivation Index; highest educational attainment; and household income. Results: People who had experienced depression had higher odds of non-employment, sickness/disability, unemployment, caring for home/family and early retirement. Depression was associated with reduced weekly hours worked, lower household income and lower educational attainment, and increased deprivation. MR analyses suggested depression liability caused increased non-employment (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.26) and sickness/disability (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.82), but was not causal for caring for home/family, early retirement or unemployment. There was little evidence from MR that depression affected weekly hours worked, educational attainment, household income or deprivation. Conclusions: Depression liability appears to cause increased non-employment, particularly by increasing disability. There was little evidence of depression affecting early retirement, hours worked or household income, but power was low. Effective treatment of depression might have important economic benefits to individuals and society

    Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The Medical Research Council published the second edition of its framework in 2006 on developing and evaluating complex interventions. Since then, there have been considerable developments in the field of complex intervention research. The objective of this project was to update the framework in the light of these developments. The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design, and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. METHODS: There were four stages to the update: (1) gap analysis to identify developments in the methods and practice since the previous framework was published; (2) an expert workshop of 36 participants to discuss the topics identified in the gap analysis; (3) an open consultation process to seek comments on a first draft of the new framework; and (4) findings from the previous stages were used to redraft the framework, and final expert review was obtained. The process was overseen by a Scientific Advisory Group representing the range of relevant National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council research investments. RESULTS: Key changes to the previous framework include (1) an updated definition of complex interventions, highlighting the dynamic relationship between the intervention and its context; (2) an emphasis on the use of diverse research perspectives: efficacy, effectiveness, theory-based and systems perspectives; (3) a focus on the usefulness of evidence as the basis for determining research perspective and questions; (4) an increased focus on interventions developed outside research teams, for example changes in policy or health services delivery; and (5) the identification of six 'core elements' that should guide all phases of complex intervention research: consider context; develop, refine and test programme theory; engage stakeholders; identify key uncertainties; refine the intervention; and economic considerations. We divide the research process into four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation and implementation. For each phase we provide a concise summary of recent developments, key points to address and signposts to further reading. We also present case studies to illustrate the points being made throughout. LIMITATIONS: The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. In many of the areas of innovation that we highlight, such as the use of systems approaches, there are still only a few practical examples. We refer to more specific and detailed guidance where available and note where promising approaches require further development. CONCLUSIONS: This new framework incorporates developments in complex intervention research published since the previous edition was written in 2006. As well as taking account of established practice and recent refinements, we draw attention to new approaches and place greater emphasis on economic considerations in complex intervention research. We have introduced a new emphasis on the importance of context and the value of understanding interventions as 'events in systems' that produce effects through interactions with features of the contexts in which they are implemented. The framework adopts a pluralist approach, encouraging researchers and research funders to adopt diverse research perspectives and to select research questions and methods pragmatically, with the aim of providing evidence that is useful to decision-makers. FUTURE WORK: We call for further work to develop relevant methods and provide examples in practice. The use of this framework should be monitored and the move should be made to a more fluid resource in the future, for example a web-based format that can be frequently updated to incorporate new material and links to emerging resources. FUNDING: This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (Department of Health and Social Care 73514)

    Opioid use trends in patients undergoing elective thoracic and lumbar spine surgery

    Get PDF
    © 2020 Joule Inc. or its licensors Background: Opioid use in North America has increased rapidly in recent years. Preoperative opioid use is associated with several negative outcomes. Our objectives were to assess patterns of opioid use over time in Canadian patients who undergo spine surgery and to determine the effect of spine surgery on 1year postoperative opioid use. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on prospectively collected data from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network for patients undergoing elective thoracic and lumbar surgery. Selfreported opioid use at baseline, before surgery and at 1 year after surgery was compared. Baseline opioid use was compared by age, sex, radiologic diagnosis and presenting complaint. All patients meeting eligibility criteria from 2008 to 2017 were included. Results: A total of 3134 patients provided baseline opioid use data. No significant change in the proportion of patients taking daily (range 32.3%–38.2%) or intermittent (range 13.7%–22.5%) opioids was found from pre2014 to 2017. Among patients who waited more than 6 weeks for surgery, the frequency of opioid use did not differ significantly between the baseline and preoperative time points. Significantly more patients using opioids had a chief complaint of back pain or radiculopathy than neurogenic claudication (p \u3c 0.001), and significantly more were under 65 years of age than aged 65 years or older (p \u3c 0.001). Approximately 41% of patients on daily opioids at baseline remained so at 1 year after surgery. Conclusion: These data suggest that additional opioid reduction strategies are needed in the population of patients undergoing elective thoracic and lumbar spine surgery. Spine surgeons can be involved in identifying patients taking opioids preoperatively, emphasizing the risks of continued opioid use and referring patients to appropriate evidencebased treatment programs

    A two-site flexible clamp mechanism for RET-GDNF-GFRα1 assembly reveals both conformational adaptation and strict geometric spacing

    Get PDF
    RET receptor tyrosine kinase plays vital developmental and neuroprotective roles in metazoans. GDNF family ligands (GFLs) when bound to cognate GFRα co-receptors recognize and activate RET stimulating its cytoplasmic kinase function. The principles for RET ligand-co-receptor recognition are incompletely understood. Here, we report a crystal structure of the cadherin-like module (CLD1-4) from zebrafish RET revealing interdomain flexibility between CLD2 and CLD3. Comparison with a cryo-electron microscopy structure of a ligand-engaged zebrafish RETECD-GDNF-GFRα1a complex indicates conformational changes within a clade-specific CLD3 loop adjacent to the co-receptor. Our observations indicate that RET is a molecular clamp with a flexible calcium-dependent arm that adapts to different GFRα co-receptors, while its rigid arm recognizes a GFL dimer to align both membrane-proximal cysteine-rich domains. We also visualize linear arrays of RETECD-GDNF-GFRα1a suggesting that a conserved contact stabilizes higher-order species. Our study reveals that ligand-co-receptor recognition by RET involves both receptor plasticity and strict spacing of receptor dimers by GFL ligands
    corecore