The effect of low-level laser irradiation (In-Ga-Al-AsP - 660 nm) on melanoma in vitro and in vivo

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been speculated that the biostimulatory effect of Low Level Laser Therapy could cause undesirable enhancement of tumor growth in neoplastic diseases. The aim of the present study is to analyze the behavior of melanoma cells (B16F10) <it>in vitro </it>and the <it>in vivo </it>development of melanoma in mice after laser irradiation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a controlled <it>in vitro </it>study on B16F10 melanoma cells to investigate cell viability and cell cycle changes by the Tripan Blue, MTT and cell quest histogram tests at 24, 48 and 72 h post irradiation. The <it>in vivo </it>mouse model (male Balb C, n = 21) of melanoma was used to analyze tumor volume and histological characteristics. Laser irradiation was performed three times (once a day for three consecutive days) with a 660 nm 50 mW CW laser, beam spot size 2 mm², irradiance 2.5 W/cm²and irradiation times of 60s (dose 150 J/cm²) and 420s (dose 1050 J/cm²) respectively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were no statistically significant differences between the <it>in vitro </it>groups, except for an increase in the hypodiploid melanoma cells (8.48 ± 1.40% and 4.26 ± 0.60%) at 72 h post-irradiation. This cancer-protective effect was not reproduced in the <it>in vivo </it>experiment where outcome measures for the 150 J/cm²dose group were not significantly different from controls. For the 1050 J/cm²dose group, there were significant increases in tumor volume, blood vessels and cell abnormalities compared to the other groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>LLLT Irradiation should be avoided over melanomas as the combination of high irradiance (2.5 W/cm²) and high dose (1050 J/cm²) significantly increases melanoma tumor growth <it>in vivo</it>.</p

Robust estimation of bacterial cell count from optical density

Optical density (OD) is widely used to estimate the density of cells in liquid culture, but cannot be compared between instruments without a standardized calibration protocol and is challenging to relate to actual cell count. We address this with an interlaboratory study comparing three simple, low-cost, and highly accessible OD calibration protocols across 244 laboratories, applied to eight strains of constitutive GFP-expressing E. coli. Based on our results, we recommend calibrating OD to estimated cell count using serial dilution of silica microspheres, which produces highly precise calibration (95.5% of residuals &lt;1.2-fold), is easily assessed for quality control, also assesses instrument effective linear range, and can be combined with fluorescence calibration to obtain units of Molecules of Equivalent Fluorescein (MEFL) per cell, allowing direct comparison and data fusion with flow cytometry measurements: in our study, fluorescence per cell measurements showed only a 1.07-fold mean difference between plate reader and flow cytometry data

Cryogenic 35 GHz pulse ENDOR probehead accommodating large sample sizes: performance and applications

The construction and performance of a cryogenic 35 GHz Pulse electron nuclear double resonance (ENDOR) probehead for large samples is presented. The resonator is based on a rectangular TE102 Cavity in which the radio frequency (rf) B-2-field is generated by a two turn saddle ENDOR coil crossing the resonator along the sample axis with minimal distance to the sample tube. An rf power efficiency factor is used to define the B-2-field strength per square-root of the transmitted rf power over the frequency range 2-180 MHz. The distributions of the microwave B-1- and E-1-field, and the rf B-2-field are investigated by electromagnetic field calculations. All dielectrics, the sample tube, and coupling elements are included in the Calculations. The application range of the probehead and the advantages of using large sample sizes are demonstrated and discussed on a number of paramagnetic samples containing transition metal ions

SEM results: Direct effects for <i>Cigarette Experimentation</i> among middle and high school students, NYTS, 2012^a.

<p>SEM, Structural Equation Model</p><p>NYTS, National Youth Tobacco Survey</p><p>^a Multivariate <i>N</i> = 24,654 based on all available cases across all variables used in analyses.</p><p>^b<i>B</i> = unstandardized regression coefficient, which represents the amount of change in the dependent variable per one-unit change in the independent variable.</p><p>^c β = standardized regression coefficient, which represents the SD change in the dependent variable per SD change in the independent variable.</p><p>^d Static exposure was defined as exposure to static tobacco advertisements on the Internet, in newspaper and magazines or retail stores.</p><p>^e Perception of peer tobacco use measured by student response to the questions (1) “Out of every 10 students in your grade at school, how many do you think smoke cigarettes?” and (2) “Out of every 10 students in your grade at school, how many do you think use tobacco products other than cigarettes?”</p><p>^f TV and movie exposure was defined as exposure to tobacco use in TV and movies.</p><p>^g Household member tobacco use was defined as number of tobacco products used by a family member or those living with the respondent.</p><p>^h Experimentation was defined as having puffed on a cigarette at least once but not having smoked a total of 100 lifetime cigarettes.</p><p>SEM results: Direct effects for <i>Cigarette Experimentation</i> among middle and high school students, NYTS, 2012<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0134734#t003fn003" target="_blank">^a</a>.</p

Demographic characteristics of respondents susceptible to cigarette use, cigarette experimenters, and current tobacco users, NYTS, 2012.

<p>NYTS, National Youth Tobacco Survey</p><p>^a Never-smokers who are susceptible to cigarette use was defined as never tried smoking cigarettes, even one or two puffs and responded other than “definitely not” to the following questions: “Do you think you will smoke a cigarette in the next year?” and “Do you think you will smoke a cigarette soon?” and “If one of your best friends would offer you a cigarette, would you smoke it?”</p><p>^b Reported <i>n</i> based on univariate analyses with missing values excluded.</p><p>^c Cigarette experimentation was defined as having puffed on a cigarette at least once but not having smoked a total of 100 lifetime cigarettes.</p><p>^d Current tobacco use was defined as using on at least 1 day in the past 30 days any of the following tobacco products: cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, pipe, bidis, kreteks, snus, hookah, roll-your-own cigarettes, dissolvable tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, or some other new tobacco product.</p><p>Demographic characteristics of respondents susceptible to cigarette use, cigarette experimenters, and current tobacco users, NYTS, 2012.</p

SEM results: Direct effects, <i>Susceptibility to Cigarette Use</i> among middle and high school students, NYTS, 2012^a.

<p>SEM, Structural Equation Model</p><p>NYTS, National Youth Tobacco Survey</p><p>^a Multivariate <i>n</i> = 17,188 based on all available cases across all variables used in analyses.</p><p>^b<i>B</i> = unstandardized regression coefficient which represents the amount of change in the dependent variable per one-unit change in the independent variable.</p><p>^c β = standardized regression coefficient, which represents the SD change in the dependent variable per SD change in the independent variable.</p><p>^d Static exposure was defined as exposure to static tobacco advertisements on the Internet, in newspaper and magazines or retail stores.</p><p>^e Perception of peer tobacco use measured by student response to the questions (1) “Out of every 10 students in your grade at school, how many do you think smoke cigarettes?” and (2) “Out of every 10 students in your grade at school, how many do you think use tobacco products other than cigarettes?”</p><p>^f TV and movie exposure was defined as exposure to tobacco use in TV and movies.</p><p>^g Household member tobacco use was defined as number of tobacco products used by a family member or those living with the respondent.</p><p>^h Susceptibility was defined as never tried smoking cigarettes, even 1 or 2 puffs and responded in any way other than “no” to the question, “Do you think you will smoke a cigarette in the next year?” and responded in any way other than “definitely not” to either question: “Do you think you will smoke a cigarette soon?” or “If one of your best friends would offer you a cigarette, would you smoke it?”</p><p>SEM results: Direct effects, <i>Susceptibility to Cigarette Use</i> among middle and high school students, NYTS, 2012<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0134734#t002fn003" target="_blank">^a</a>.</p

SEM results: Direct effects for <i>Current Tobacco Use</i> among middle and high school students, NYTS, 2012^a.

<p>SEM, Structural Equation Model</p><p>NYTS, National Youth Tobacco Survey</p><p>^a Multivariate <i>N</i> = 24,654 based on all available cases across all variables used in analyses.</p><p>^b<i>B</i> = unstandardized regression coefficient, which represents the amount of change in the dependent variable per one-unit change in the independent variable.</p><p>^c β = standardized regression coefficient, which represents the SD change in the dependent variable per SD change in the independent variable.</p><p>^d Static exposure was defined as exposure to static tobacco advertisements on the Internet, in newspaper and magazines or retail stores.</p><p>^e Perception of peer tobacco use measured by student response to the questions (1) “Out of every 10 students in your grade at school, how many do you think smoke cigarettes?” and (2) “Out of every 10 students in your grade at school, how many do you think use tobacco products other than cigarettes?”</p><p>^f TV and movie exposure was defined as exposure to tobacco use in TV and movies.</p><p>^g Household member tobacco use was defined as number of tobacco products used by a family member or those living with the respondent.</p><p>^h Current use was defined as using on at least 1 day in the past 30 days any of the following tobacco products: cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, pipe, bidis, kreteks, snus, hookah, roll-your-own cigarettes, dissolvable tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, or some other new tobacco product.</p><p>SEM results: Direct effects for <i>Current Tobacco Use</i> among middle and high school students, NYTS, 2012<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0134734#t004fn003" target="_blank">^a</a>.</p

Direct and indirect effects of protobacco media exposure on susceptibility, experimentation, and current use.

<p>Conceptual model demonstrating the direct and indirect effects of exposure to static ads and tobacco use in TV and movies on susceptibility to smoking cigarettes, cigarette experimentation, and current tobacco use among US youth. Variables presented in rectangular boxes are observed, whereas unmeasured (latent) variables, including static ad exposure and peer tobacco use, are represented within ellipses. Straight lines with a unidirectional arrow depict direct relationships between variables. Curved lines with bidirectional arrows represent covariation between variables. Covariates that were included in the SEM analyses and tables, but not depicted in the diagram: household member tobacco use, sex, grade in school, black race/ethnicity, Hispanic race/ethnicity, and other ethnicity.</p

Genotype-Dependent Effects of Dalcetrapib on Cholesterol Efflux and Inflammation Concordance With Clinical Outcomes

Background-Dalcetrapib effects on cardiovascular outcomes are determined by adenylate cyclase 9 gene polymorphisms. Our aim was to determine whether these clinical end point results are also associated with changes in reverse cholesterol transport and inflammation. Methods and Results-Participants of the dal-OUTCOMES and dal-PLAQUE-2 trials were randomly assigned to receive dalcetrapib or placebo in addition to standard care. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein was measured at baseline and at end of study in 5243 patients from dal-OUTCOMES also genotyped for the rs1967309 polymorphism in adenylate cyclase 9. Cholesterol efflux capacity of high-density lipoproteins from J774 macrophages after cAMP stimulation was determined at baseline and 12 months in 171 genotyped patients from dal-PLAQUE-2. Treatment with dalcetrapib resulted in placebo-adjusted geometric mean percent increases in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein from baseline to end of trial of 18.1% (P=0.0009) and 18.7% (P=0.00001) in participants with the GG and AG genotypes, respectively, but the change was -1.0% (P=0.89) in those with the protective AA genotype. There was an interaction between the treatment arm and the genotype groups (P=0.02). Although the mean change in cholesterol efflux was similar among study arms in patients with GG genotype (mean: 7.8% and 7.4%), increases were 22.3% and 3.5% with dalcetrapib and placebo for those with AA genotype (P=0.005). There was a significant genetic effect for change in efflux for dalcetrapib (P=0.02), but not with placebo. Conclusions-Genotype-dependent effects on C-reactive protein and cholesterol efflux are supportive of dalcetrapib benefits on atherosclerotic cardiovascular outcomes in patients with the AA genotype at polymorphism rs1967309.Funding Agencies|F. Hoffmann-La Roche</p