Membrane Association of the PTEN Tumor Suppressor: Molecular Details of the Protein-Membrane Complex from SPR Binding Studies and Neutron Reflection

The structure and function of the PTEN phosphatase is investigated by studying its membrane affinity and localization on in-plane fluid, thermally disordered synthetic membrane models. The membrane association of the protein depends strongly on membrane composition, where phosphatidylserine (PS) and phosphatidylinositol diphosphate (PI(4,5)P2) act pronouncedly synergistic in pulling the enzyme to the membrane surface. The equilibrium dissociation constants for the binding of wild type (wt) PTEN to PS and PI(4,5)P2 were determined to be Kd∼12 µM and 0.4 µM, respectively, and Kd∼50 nM if both lipids are present. Membrane affinities depend critically on membrane fluidity, which suggests multiple binding sites on the protein for PI(4,5)P2. The PTEN mutations C124S and H93R show binding affinities that deviate strongly from those measured for the wt protein. Both mutants bind PS more strongly than wt PTEN. While C124S PTEN has at least the same affinity to PI(4,5)P2 and an increased apparent affinity to PI(3,4,5)P3, due to its lack of catalytic activity, H93R PTEN shows a decreased affinity to PI(4,5)P2 and no synergy in its binding with PS and PI(4,5)P2. Neutron reflection measurements show that the PTEN phosphatase “scoots" along the membrane surface (penetration <5 Å) but binds the membrane tightly with its two major domains, the C2 and phosphatase domains, as suggested by the crystal structure. The regulatory C-terminal tail is most likely displaced from the membrane and organized on the far side of the protein, ∼60 Å away from the bilayer surface, in a rather compact structure. The combination of binding studies and neutron reflection allows us to distinguish between PTEN mutant proteins and ultimately may identify the structural features required for membrane binding and activation of PTEN

Improving the development, monitoring and reporting of stroke rehabilitation research: consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR)

Recent reviews have demonstrated that the quality of stroke rehabilitation research has continued to improve over the last four decades but despite this progress there are still many barriers in moving the field forward. Rigorous development, monitoring and complete reporting of interventions in stroke trials are essential in providing rehabilitation evidence that is robust, meaningful and implementable. An international partnership of stroke rehabilitation experts committed to develop consensus-based core recommendations with a remit of addressing the issues identified as limiting stroke rehabilitation research in the areas of developing, monitoring and reporting stroke rehabilitation interventions. Work exploring each of the three areas took place via multiple teleconferences and a two-day meeting in Philadelphia in May 2016. A total of 15 recommendations were made. To validate the need for the recommendations the group reviewed all stroke rehabilitation trials published in 2015 (n=182 papers). Our review highlighted that the majority of publications did not clearly describe how interventions were developed or monitored during the trial. In particular, under-reporting of the theoretical rationale for the intervention and the components of the intervention calls into question many interventions that have been evaluated for efficacy. More trials were found to have addressed the reporting of interventions recommendations than those related to development or monitoring. Nonetheless the majority of reporting recommendations were still not adequately described. To progress the field of stroke rehabilitation research and to ensure stroke patients receive optimal evidence based clinical care we urge the research community to endorse and adopt our recommendations

Regularity of center-of-pressure trajectories depends on the amount of attention invested in postural control

The influence of attention on the dynamical structure of postural sway was examined in 30 healthy young adults by manipulating the focus of attention. In line with the proposed direct relation between the amount of attention invested in postural control and regularity of center-of-pressure (COP) time series, we hypothesized that: (1) increasing cognitive involvement in postural control (i.e., creating an internal focus by increasing task difficulty through visual deprivation) increases COP regularity, and (2) withdrawing attention from postural control (i.e., creating an external focus by performing a cognitive dual task) decreases COP regularity. We quantified COP dynamics in terms of sample entropy (regularity), standard deviation (variability), sway-path length of the normalized posturogram (curviness), largest Lyapunov exponent (local stability), correlation dimension (dimensionality) and scaling exponent (scaling behavior). Consistent with hypothesis 1, standing with eyes closed significantly increased COP regularity. Furthermore, variability increased and local stability decreased, implying ineffective postural control. Conversely, and in line with hypothesis 2, performing a cognitive dual task while standing with eyes closed led to greater irregularity and smaller variability, suggesting an increase in the “efficiency, or “automaticity” of postural control”. In conclusion, these findings not only indicate that regularity of COP trajectories is positively related to the amount of attention invested in postural control, but also substantiate that in certain situations an increased internal focus may in fact be detrimental to postural control

A cluster randomized trial to improve adherence to evidence-based guidelines on diabetes and reduce clinical inertia in primary care physicians in Belgium: study protocol [NTR 1369]

Contains fulltext : 70617.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Most quality improvement programs in diabetes care incorporate aspects of clinician education, performance feedback, patient education, care management, and diabetes care teams to support primary care physicians. Few studies have applied all of these dimensions to address clinical inertia. AIM: To evaluate interventions to improve adherence to evidence-based guidelines for diabetes and reduce clinical inertia in primary care physicians. DESIGN: Two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians in Belgium. INTERVENTIONS: Primary care physicians will be randomly allocated to 'Usual' (UQIP) or 'Advanced' (AQIP) Quality Improvement Programs. Physicians in the UQIP will receive interventions addressing the main physician, patient, and office system factors that contribute to clinical inertia. Physicians in the AQIP will receive additional interventions that focus on sustainable behavior changes in patients and providers. OUTCOMES: Primary endpoints are the proportions of patients within targets for three clinical outcomes: 1) glycosylated hemoglobin < 7%; 2) systolic blood pressure differences </=130 mmHg; and 3) low density lipoprotein/cholesterol < 100 mg/dl. Secondary endpoints are individual improvements in 12 validated parameters: glycosylated hemoglobin, low and high density lipoprotein/cholesterol, total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, weight, physical exercise, healthy diet, smoking status, and statin and anti-platelet therapy. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ANALYSIS: Statistical analyses will be performed using an intent-to-treat approach with a multilevel model. Linear and generalized linear mixed models will be used to account for the clustered nature of the data, i.e., patients clustered withinimary care physicians, and repeated assessments clustered within patients. To compare patient characteristics at baseline and between the intervention arms, the generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach will be used, taking the clustered nature of the data within physicians into account. We will also use the GEE approach to test for differences in evolution of the primary and secondary endpoints for all patients, and for patients in the two interventions arms, accounting for within-patient clustering. TRIAL REGISTRATION: number: NTR 1369