A survey of integral α-helical membrane proteins

Membrane proteins serve as cellular gatekeepers, regulators, and sensors. Prior studies have explored the functional breadth and evolution of proteins and families of particular interest, such as the diversity of transport-associated membrane protein families in prokaryotes and eukaryotes, the composition of integral membrane proteins, and family classification of all human G-protein coupled receptors. However, a comprehensive analysis of the content and evolutionary associations between membrane proteins and families in a diverse set of genomes is lacking. Here, a membrane protein annotation pipeline was developed to define the integral membrane genome and associations between 21,379 proteins from 34 genomes; most, but not all of these proteins belong to 598 defined families. The pipeline was used to provide target input for a structural genomics project that successfully cloned, expressed, and purified 61 of our first 96 selected targets in yeast. Furthermore, the methodology was applied (1) to explore the evolutionary history of the substrate-binding transmembrane domains of the human ABC transporter superfamily, (2) to identify the multidrug resistance-associated membrane proteins in whole genomes, and (3) to identify putative new membrane protein families

Scheduled out-patient endoscopy and lack of compliance in a minority serving tertiary institution

Introduction: Lack of adherence to appointments wastes resources and portends a poorer outcome for patients. The authors sought to determine whether the type of scheduled endoscopic procedures affect compliance. Methods: The authors reviewed the final endoscopy schedule from January 2010 to August 2010 in an inner city teaching hospital that serves a predominantly African American population. The final schedule only includes patients who did not cancel, reschedule or notify the facility of their inability to adhere to their care plan up to 24 hours before their procedures. All patients had face to face consultation with gastroenterologists or surgeons before scheduling. The authors identified patients who did not show up for their procedures. They used Poisson regression models to calculate relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Of 2183 patients who were scheduled for outpatient endoscopy, 400 (18.3%) patients were scheduled for Esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD), 1,335 (61.2%) for colonoscopy and 448 (20.5%) for both EGD and colonoscopy. The rate of noncompliance was 17.5%, 22.8% and 22.1%, respectively. When compared with those scheduled for only EGD, patients scheduled for colonoscopy alone (RR = 1.47; 95% CI: 1.13-1.92) and patients scheduled for both EGD and colonoscopy (RR = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.01-1.84) were less likely to show up for their procedures. Conclusions: This study suggests a high rate of noncompliance with scheduled out-patient endoscopy, particularly for colonoscopy. Because this may be a contributing factor to colorectal cancer disparities, increased community outreach on colorectal cancer education is needed and may help to reduce noncompliance. © 2012 Southern Society for Clinical Investigation

Scheduled Out-Patient Endoscopy and Lack of Compliance in a Minority Serving Tertiary Institution

BACKGROUND: Lack of adherence to appointments wastes resources and portends a poorer outcome for patients. We sought to determine if the type of scheduled endoscopic procedures affect compliance. METHODS: We reviewed the final endoscopy schedule from January 2010 to August 2010 in an inner city teaching hospital that serves a predominantly African American population. The final schedule only includes patients who did not cancel, reschedule or notify the facility of their inability to adhere to their care plan up to 24 hours prior to their procedures. All patients had face to face consultation with gastroenterologists or surgeons prior to scheduling. We identified patients who did not show up for their procedures. We used Poisson regression models to calculate Relative Risks (RR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). RESULTS: Of 2,183 patients who were scheduled for outpatient endoscopy, 400 (18.3%) patients were scheduled for Esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD), 1,335 (61.2%) for colonoscopy and 448 (20.5%) for both EGD and colonoscopy. The rate of non compliance was 17.5%, 22.8% and 22.1%, respectively. When compared to those scheduled for only EGD, patients scheduled for colonoscopy alone (RR = 1.47; 95%CI: 1.13-1.92) and patients scheduled for both EGD and colonoscopy (RR = 1.36; 95%CI: 1.01-1.84) were less likely to show up for their procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests a high rate of non-compliance with scheduled out-patient endoscopy, particularly for colonoscopy. Since this may be a contributing factor to colorectal cancer disparities, increased community outreach on colorectal cancer education is needed and may help to reduce non compliance