Genetic polymorphism in selenoprotein P modifies the response to selenium-rich foods on blood levels of selenium and selenoprotein P in a randomized dietary intervention study in Danes

Abstract Background Selenium is an essential trace element and is suggested to play a role in the etiology of a number of chronic diseases. Genetic variation in genes encoding selenoproteins, such as selenoprotein P and the glutathione peroxidases, may affect selenium status and, thus, individual susceptibility to some chronic diseases. In the present study, we aimed to (1) investigate the effect of mussel and fish intake on glutathione peroxidase enzyme activity and (2) examine whether single nucleotide polymorphisms in the GPX1, GPX4, and SELENOP genes modify the effect of mussel and fish intake for 26 weeks on whole blood selenium, plasma selenoprotein P concentrations, and erythrocyte GPX enzyme activity in a randomized intervention trial in Denmark. Results CC homozygotes of the SELENOP/rs3877899 polymorphism who consumed 1000 g fish and mussels per week for 26 consecutive weeks had higher levels of both selenoprotein P (difference between means − 4.68 ng/mL (95% CI − 8.49, − 0.871)) and whole blood selenium (difference between means − 5.76 (95% CI − 12.5, 1.01)) compared to fish and mussel consuming T-allele carriers although the effect in whole blood selenium concentration was not statistically significant. Conclusions Our study indicates that genetically determined variation in SELENOP leads to different responses in expression of selenoproteins following consumption of selenium-rich foods. This study also emphasizes the importance of taking individual aspects such as genotypes into consideration when assessing risk in public health recommendations

Public perceptions and expectations: disentangling the hope and hype of organoid research

Organoid technologies are rapidly advancing and hold great potential and hope for disease modeling and clinical translational research. Still, they raise a number of complex, ethical questions regarding their current and future use. Patient and public involvement is impor-tant in building public trust and helping to secure responsible conduct and valued innovations; nevertheless, research into patient and public perspectives on organoid technologies remains scarce. We report on a first public dialogue on organoid technologies through three cross-country deliberative workshops with a diverse group of stakeholders to identify their perceptions and concerns. Participants gener-ally support organoid technologies on the condition that responsible governance, ethical oversight, and sound informed consent procedures are in place. Yet, a broad set of potential concerns are identified, primarily concerning commercialization, healthcare access, and cerebral organoids. Participants' insights and recommendations can help inform researchers and ethics and policy bodies toward supporting responsible and ethical organoid approaches

Alcohol-related breast cancer in postmenopausal women - effect of CYP19A1, PPARG and PPARGC1A polymorphisms on female sex-hormone levels and interaction with alcohol consumption and NSAID usage in a nested case-control study and a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Alcohol consumption is associated with increased risk of breast cancer (BC), and the underlying mechanism is thought to be sex-hormone driven. In vitro and observational studies suggest a mechanism involving peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) in a complex with peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1-α (PGC-1α) and interaction with aromatase (encoded by CYP19A1). Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) may also affect circulating sex-hormone levels by modifying PPARγ activity. METHODS: In the present study we assessed whether genetic variation in CYP19A1 is associated with risk of BC in a case-control study group nested within the Danish “Diet, Cancer and Health” cohort (n(cases) = 687 and n(controls) = 687) and searched for gene-gene interaction between CYP19A1 and PPARGC1A, and CYP19A1 and PPARG, and gene-alcohol and gene-NSAID interactions. Association between the CYP19A1 polymorphisms and hormone levels was also examined among 339 non-HRT users. Incidence rate ratios were calculated based on Cox’ proportional hazards model. Furthermore, we performed a pilot randomised controlled trial to determine the effect of the PPARG Pro(12)Ala polymorphism and the PPARγ stimulator Ibuprofen on sex-hormone levels following alcohol intake in postmenopausal women (n = 25) using linear regression. RESULTS: Genetic variations in CYP19A1 were associated with hormone levels (estrone: P(rs11070844) = 0.009, estrone sulphate: P(rs11070844) = 0.01, P(rs749292) = 0.004, P(rs1062033) = 0.007 and P(rs10519297) = 0.03, and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG): P(rs3751591) = 0.03) and interacted with alcohol intake in relation to hormone levels (estrone sulphate: P(interaction/rs2008691) = 0.02 and P(interaction/rs1062033=) 0.03, and SHBG: P(interaction/rs11070844) = 0.03). CYP19A1/rs3751591 was both associated with SHBG levels (P = 0.03) and with risk of BC (Incidence Rate Ratio = 2.12; 95 % Confidence Interval: 1.02–4.43) such that homozygous variant allele carriers had increased levels of serum SHBG and were at increased risk of BC. Acute intake of alcohol decreased blood estrone (P = <0.0001), estrone sulphate (P = <0.0001), and SHBG (P = 0.009) levels, whereas Ibuprofen intake and PPARG Pro(12)Ala genotype had no effect on hormone levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that genetically determined variation in CYP19A1 is associated with differences in sex hormone levels. However, the genetically determined differences in sex hormone levels were not convincingly associated with BC risk. The results therefore indicate that the genetically determined variation in CYP19A1 contributes little to BC risk and to alcohol-mediated BC risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02463383, June 3, 2015. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-016-2317-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Designing and implementing a research integrity promotion plan: recommendations for research funders

Various stakeholders in science have put research integrity high on their agenda. Among them, research funders are prominently placed to foster research integrity by requiring that the organizations and individual researchers they support make an explicit commitment to research integrity. Moreover, funders need to adopt appropriate research integrity practices themselves. To facilitate this, we recommend that funders develop and implement a Research Integrity Promotion Plan (RIPP). This Consensus View offers a range of examples of how funders are already promoting research integrity, distills 6 core topics that funders should cover in a RIPP, and provides guidelines on how to develop and implement a RIPP. We believe that the 6 core topics we put forward will guide funders towards strengthening research integrity policy in their organization and guide the researchers and research organizations they fund

Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk

Counselling, coaches and collegiality — how institutions can share resources to promote best practice in science

Evaluative conversations: Translating between diverse stakeholders in regional RRI projects

Since the summer of 2020, researchers from ten projects pertaining to the Horizon2020 Science with and for Society (SwafS) call have been meeting virtually as the SwafS14 Monitoring and Evaluation ecosystem. Topics of discussion were the trials and tribulations of their regional Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) projects as well as their strategies for monitoring and evaluation. In this paper we make a first attempt at presenting these issues as problems of translation between different kinds of stakeholders. After an exploration of the diversity of stakeholders and the process of translation in regional RRI, we suggest evaluative conversations as a way of improving regional RRI. We intend to develop this idea in the future and that these conversations will facilitate more responsible and engaged monitoring and evaluation and contribute to better R&I policies