29 research outputs found
Quantitative imaging of directional transport through plasmodesmata in moss protonemata via single-cell photoconversion of Dendra2
Clinical evaluation of marketed orthodontic products: are researchers behind the times? A meta-epidemiological study.
BACKGROUND: The role of marketing and industry in the treatment decisions of orthodontists has received increasing attention in recent years with clinical research typically undertaken subsequent to established use of these devices and often failing to confirm the promise of manufacturers' claims. This meta-epidemiological study was undertaken to assess the proportion of clinical trials in orthodontics evaluating commercially marketed products and to evaluate the direction of the results of these studies. METHODS: Electronic searching was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published over a 5-year period (1 January 2012 to 31 December 2016). Data obtained included the type of marketed intervention, direction of effect and declaration of both industry sponsorship and conflict of interest. RESULTS: Eighty-four RCTs published in 23 scientific journals were included with the highest percentage in the American Journal of Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJO-DO) (23.8%), followed by the European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO) (14.3%), Journal of Orthodontics (JO) (10.7%) and Angle Orthodontist (AO) (10.7%). Overall, 45% (38/84) of clinical trials assessed involved analysis of marketed products after their introduction. Interventions to improve oral health or circumvent the risk of iatrogenic damage, such as white spot lesions, were most commonly assessed (15.8%), with the relative merits of non-surgical adjuncts (14.1%) and other orthodontic auxiliaries (13.1%) also frequently evaluated. In 44% of RCTs, a positive effect of the marketed intervention was not reported. Industry sponsorship of the research was declared in 9.5% RCTs. No significant associations between the direction of the effect and both declaration of industry sponsorship (p = 0.56) and conflict of interest (p = 0.96) were detected. Moreover, for marketed and non-marketed products, no significant associations for both declaration of industry sponsorship (p = 0.44) and conflict of interest (p = 0.28) were found. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of orthodontic clinical trials over the past 5 years involve analysis of marketed products after their introduction. The results highlight a potential source of waste in orthodontic research emanating from existing approaches to licensing and marketing of orthodontic products
Development of cognitive enhancers based on inhibition of insulin-regulated aminopeptidase
The peptides angiotensin IV and LVV-hemorphin 7 were found to enhance memory in a number of memory tasks and reverse the performance deficits in animals with experimentally induced memory loss. These peptides bound specifically to the enzyme insulin-regulated aminopeptidase (IRAP), which is proposed to be the site in the brain that mediates the memory effects of these peptides. However, the mechanism of action is still unknown but may involve inhibition of the aminopeptidase activity of IRAP, since both angiotensin IV and LVV-hemorphin 7 are competitive inhibitors of the enzyme. IRAP also has another functional domain that is thought to regulate the trafficking of the insulin-responsive glucose transporter GLUT4, thereby influencing glucose uptake into cells. Although the exact mechanism by which the peptides enhance memory is yet to be elucidated, IRAP still represents a promising target for the development of a new class of cognitive enhancing agents