Variation in transcriptional regulation of cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor p21(waf1/cip1 )among human bronchogenic carcinomas

BACKGROUND: Cell proliferation control depends in part on the carefully ordered regulation of transcription factors. The p53 homolog p73, contributes to this control by directly upregulating the cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor, p21(waf1/cip1). E2F1, an inducer of cell proliferation, directly upregulates p73 and in some systems upregulates p21 directly. Because of its central role in controlling cell proliferation, upregulation of p21 has been explored as a modality for treating bronchogenic carcinoma (BC). Improved understanding of p21 transcriptional regulation will facilitate identification of BC tissues that are responsive to p21-directed therapies. Toward this goal, we investigated the role that E2F1 and p73 each play in the transcriptional regulation of p21. RESULTS: Among BC samples (N = 21) p21 transcript abundance (TA) levels varied over two orders of magnitude with values ranging from 400 to 120,000 (in units of molecules/10(6 )molecules β-actin). The p21 values in many BC were high compared to those observed in normal bronchial epithelial cells (BEC) (N = 18). Among all BC samples, there was no correlation between E2F1 and p21 TA but there was positive correlation between E2F1 and p73α (p < 0.001) TA. Among BC cell lines with inactivated p53 and wild type p73 (N = 7) there was positive correlation between p73α and p21 TA (p < 0.05). Additionally, in a BC cell line in which both p53 and p73 were inactivated (H1155), E2F1 TA level was high (50,000), but p21 TA level was low (470). Transiently expressed exogenous p73α in the BC cell line Calu-1, was associated with a significant (p < 0.05) 90% increase in p21 TA and a 20% reduction in E2F1 TA. siRNA mediated reduction of p73 TA in the N417 BC cell line was associated with a significant reduction in p21 TA level (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: p21 TA levels vary considerably among BC patients which may be attributable to 1) genetic alterations in Rb and p53 and 2) variation in TA levels of upstream transcription factors E2F1 and p73. Here we provide evidence that p73 upregulates p21 TA in BC tissues and upregulated p21 TA may result from E2F1 upregulation of p73 but not from E2F1 directly

Measuring underreporting and under-ascertainment in infectious disease datasets: a comparison of methods

Gibbons CL, Mangen M-JJ, Plaß D, et al. Measuring underreporting and under-ascertainment in infectious disease datasets: a comparison of methods. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1): 147.Background: Efficient and reliable surveillance and notification systems are vital for monitoring public health and disease outbreaks. However, most surveillance and notification systems are affected by a degree of underestimation (UE) and therefore uncertainty surrounds the 'true' incidence of disease affecting morbidity and mortality rates. Surveillance systems fail to capture cases at two distinct levels of the surveillance pyramid: from the community since not all cases seek healthcare (under-ascertainment), and at the healthcare-level, representing a failure to adequately report symptomatic cases that have sought medical advice (underreporting). There are several methods to estimate the extent of under-ascertainment and underreporting. Methods: Within the context of the ECDC-funded Burden of Communicable Diseases in Europe (BCoDE)-project, an extensive literature review was conducted to identify studies that estimate ascertainment or reporting rates for salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis in European Union Member States (MS) plus European Free Trade Area (EFTA) countries Iceland, Norway and Switzerland and four other OECD countries (USA, Canada, Australia and Japan). Multiplication factors (MFs), a measure of the magnitude of underestimation, were taken directly from the literature or derived (where the proportion of underestimated, under-ascertained, or underreported cases was known) and compared for the two pathogens. Results: MFs varied between and within diseases and countries, representing a need to carefully select the most appropriate MFs and methods for calculating them. The most appropriate MFs are often disease-,country-, age-, and sex-specific. Conclusions: When routine data are used to make decisions on resource allocation or to estimate epidemiological parameters in populations, it becomes important to understand when, where and to what extent these data represent the true picture of disease, and in some instances (such as priority setting) it is necessary to adjust for underestimation. MFs can be used to adjust notification and surveillance data to provide more realistic estimates of incidence

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)

Maintenance, reserve and compensation: the cognitive neuroscience of healthy ageing

Cognitive ageing research examines the cognitive abilities that are preserved and/or those that decline with advanced age. There is great individual variability in cognitive ageing trajectories. Some older adults show little decline in cognitive ability compared with young adults and are thus termed ‘optimally ageing’. By contrast, others exhibit substantial cognitive decline and may develop dementia. Human neuroimaging research has led to a number of important advances in our understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying these two outcomes. However, interpreting the age-related changes and differences in brain structure, activation and functional connectivity that this research reveals is an ongoing challenge. Ambiguous terminology is a major source of difficulty in this venture. Three terms in particular — compensation, maintenance and reserve — have been used in a number of different ways, and researchers continue to disagree about the kinds of evidence or patterns of results that are required to interpret findings related to these concepts. As such inconsistencies can impede progress in both theoretical and empirical research, here, we aim to clarify and propose consensual definitions of these terms

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field