Differential expression of proinflammatory cytokines and their inhibitors during the course of meningococcal infections

Contains fulltext : 4764.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

A high-stringency blueprint of the human proteome

The Human Proteome Organization (HUPO) launched the Human Proteome Project (HPP) in 2010, creating an international framework for global collaboration, data sharing, quality assurance and enhancing accurate annotation of the genome-encoded proteome. During the subsequent decade, the HPP established collaborations, developed guidelines and metrics, and undertook reanalysis of previously deposited community data, continuously increasing the coverage of the human proteome. On the occasion of the HPP's tenth anniversary, we here report a 90.4% complete high-stringency human proteome blueprint. This knowledge is essential for discerning molecular processes in health and disease, as we demonstrate by highlighting potential roles the human proteome plays in our understanding, diagnosis and treatment of cancers, cardiovascular and infectious diseases. The Human Proteome Project (HPP) was launched in 2010 to enhance accurate annotation of the genome-encoded proteome. Ten years later, the HPP releases its first blueprint of the human proteome, annotating 90% of all known proteins at high-stringency and discussing the implications of proteomics for precision medicine

Impact of methodological choices in comparative effectiveness studies: application in natalizumab versus fingolimod comparison among patients with multiple sclerosis

Abstract Background Natalizumab and fingolimod are used as high-efficacy treatments in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Several observational studies comparing these two drugs have shown variable results, using different methods to control treatment indication bias and manage censoring. The objective of this empirical study was to elucidate the impact of methods of causal inference on the results of comparative effectiveness studies. Methods Data from three observational multiple sclerosis registries (MSBase, the Danish MS Registry and French OFSEP registry) were combined. Four clinical outcomes were studied. Propensity scores were used to match or weigh the compared groups, allowing for estimating average treatment effect for treated or average treatment effect for the entire population. Analyses were conducted both in intention-to-treat and per-protocol frameworks. The impact of the positivity assumption was also assessed. Results Overall, 5,148 relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients were included. In this well-powered sample, the 95% confidence intervals of the estimates overlapped widely. Propensity scores weighting and propensity scores matching procedures led to consistent results. Some differences were observed between average treatment effect for the entire population and average treatment effect for treated estimates. Intention-to-treat analyses were more conservative than per-protocol analyses. The most pronounced irregularities in outcomes and propensity scores were introduced by violation of the positivity assumption. Conclusions This applied study elucidates the influence of methodological decisions on the results of comparative effectiveness studies of treatments for multiple sclerosis. According to our results, there are no material differences between conclusions obtained with propensity scores matching or propensity scores weighting given that a study is sufficiently powered, models are correctly specified and positivity assumption is fulfilled