Quality of life and pain in premenopausal women with major depressive disorder: The POWER Study

BACKGROUND: Whereas it is established that organic pain may induce depression, it is unclear whether pain is more common in healthy subjects with depression. We assessed the prevalence of pain in premenopausal women with major depression (MDD). Subjects were 21- to 45-year-old premenopausal women with MDD (N = 70; age: 35.4 +/- 6.6; mean +/- SD) and healthy matched controls (N = 36; age 35.4 +/- 6.4) participating in a study of bone turnover, the P.O.W.E.R. (Premenopausal, Osteopenia/Osteoporosis, Women, Alendronate, Depression) Study. METHODS: Patients received a clinical assessment by a pain specialist, which included the administration of two standardized forms for pain, the Brief Pain Inventory – Short Form, and the Initial Pain Assessment Tool, and two scales of everyday stressors, the Hassles and Uplifts Scales. In addition, a quality-of-life instrument, the SF-36, was used. The diagnosis of MDD was established by a semi-structured interview, according to the DSM-IV criteria. Substance P (SP) and calcitonin-gene-related-peptide (CGRP), neuropeptides which are known mediators of pain, were measured every hour for 24 h in a subgroup of patients (N = 17) and controls (N = 14). RESULTS: Approximately one-half of the women with depression reported pain of mild intensity. Pain intensity was significantly correlated with the severity of depression (r(2 )= 0.076; P = 0.04) and tended to be correlated with the severity of anxiety, (r(2 )= 0.065; P = 0.07), and the number of depressive episodes (r(2 )= 0.072; P = 0.09). Women with MDD complained of fatigue, insomnia, and memory problems and experienced everyday negative stressors more frequently than controls. Quality of life was decreased in women with depression, as indicated by lower scores in the emotional and social well-being domains of the SF-36. SP (P < 0.0003) and CGRP (P < 0.0001) were higher in depressed subjects. CONCLUSION: Women with depression experienced pain more frequently than controls, had a lower quality of life, and complained more of daily stressors. Assessment of pain may be important in the clinical evaluation of women with MDD. SP and CGRP may be useful biological markers in women with MDD

Foreword to the Special Issue on the 2010 International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium

The IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Society celebrated the 30th International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS 2010) on July 25–30 at the Hilton Hawaiian Village in Honolulu, HI. This article discusses the highlights of IGARSS 2010 and the importance of crowd-sourcing or volunteerd geographic information for the future of remote sensing.JRC.H.6-Digital Earth and Reference Dat

Validation Assessment Model for Atmospheric Retrievals

A linear mathematical error model for the assessment of validation activity of atmospheric retrievals is presented. The purpose of the validation activity is to assess the actual performance of the remote sensing validated system while in orbit by comparing its measurements to some relevant—validating—data sets. The validating system samples volumes of the atmosphere at times and locations that are different from the ones when and where the validated system makes its own observations. The location of the validating system can be either stationary, e.g. a ground ARM site, or movable, e.g. an aircraft or some other satellites. The true states may be correlated or not. The sampled volumes differ from each other by their location, timing, and size. The validated and validating systems have different vertical resolution and grid, absolute accuracy, and noise level. All the above factors cause apparent differences between the data to be compared. The validation assessment model makes the comparison accurate by allowing for the differences. The model can be used for assessment and interpretation of the validation results when the above mentioned sources of discrepancies are significant, as well as for evaluation of a particular validating data source

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field