Glucagon receptor family in GtoPdb v.2023.1

The glucagon family of receptors (nomenclature as agreed by the NC-IUPHAR Subcommittee on the Glucagon receptor family [165]) are activated by the endogenous peptide (27-44 aa) hormones glucagon, glucagon-like peptide 1, glucagon-like peptide 2, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (also known as gastric inhibitory polypeptide), GHRH and secretin. One common precursor (GCG) generates glucagon, glucagon-like peptide 1 and glucagon-like peptide 2 peptides [121]. For a recent review on the current understanding of the structures of GLP-1 and GLP-1R, the molecular basis of their interaction, and the associated signaling events see de Graaf et al., 2016 [90]

Glucagon receptor family (version 2019.4) in the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology Database

The glucagon family of receptors (nomenclature as agreed by the NC-IUPHAR Subcommittee on the Glucagon receptor family [159]) are activated by the endogenous peptide (27-44 aa) hormones glucagon, glucagon-like peptide 1, glucagon-like peptide 2, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (also known as gastric inhibitory polypeptide), GHRH and secretin. One common precursor (GCG) generates glucagon, glucagon-like peptide 1 and glucagon-like peptide 2 peptides [116]. For a recent review on review the current understanding of the structures of GLP-1 and GLP-1R, the molecular basis of their interaction, and the signaling events associated with it, see de Graaf et al., 2016 [87]

Glucagon receptor family in GtoPdb v.2021.3

The glucagon family of receptors (nomenclature as agreed by the NC-IUPHAR Subcommittee on the Glucagon receptor family [162]) are activated by the endogenous peptide (27-44 aa) hormones glucagon, glucagon-like peptide 1, glucagon-like peptide 2, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (also known as gastric inhibitory polypeptide), GHRH and secretin. One common precursor (GCG) generates glucagon, glucagon-like peptide 1 and glucagon-like peptide 2 peptides [119]. For a recent review on the current understanding of the structures of GLP-1 and GLP-1R, the molecular basis of their interaction, and the associated signaling events see de Graaf et al., 2016 [89]

Creating Public History Master Programs: International Guidelines

Universities create new public history Master’s programs every year. Public history university programs first emerged in the United States (the first public history program was launched at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in 1976). Public history Master’s programs are now established throughout the world (See the IFPH’s map of public history programs) and the number of programs keeps growing. At the same time, creating a new program can be overwhelming and challenging. Indeed, while Public History belongs to the overall historical discipline, it bears some crucial specificity regarding its practices and training. In 2015, the National Council on Public History in the United States published useful best practices for “Establishing and Developing a Public History Program.” However, the field has rapidly changed in the past few years and numerous programs are emerging outside the United States. Although public history programs were successfully integrated into university systems in the United States, the same practices do not necessarily translate to other countries and contexts. In response to International Federation for Public History (IFPH) members and partnering universities’ needs for a set of teaching and training guidelines to be adapted to a range of international contexts, a Curriculum and Training committee was launched in 2021. Composed of IFPH members from a variety of national contexts and public history backgrounds, the Committee was tasked with leading practitioner discussions and drafting a new set of model practices to reference when creating Master’s level public history programs. More than 40 participants from all over the world took part in our online discussions. What started as a basic forum for ideas and questions evolved into more structured collaborative writing sessions. With the range and variations of national circumstances, university requirements, departmental objectives, and available resources, there can be no one-size-fits-all set of guidelines. Rather, this reference intends to offer ideas and suggestions, which may be applied, adapted, and modified according to national, local, and university contexts. Having said that, we strongly believe that these steps can help colleagues (faculty and administrators) around the globe launch discussions on the need and demand for a Master’s in Public History program at their institution. We are aware that each process and institution is unique. As such, this document presents different components for the creation of a public history program, identifies stages and processes, and proposes general guidelines with the aim of offering guidance in the creation, implementation, and evaluation of Master’s programs in public history

Molecular Tumor Board as a Clinical Tool for Converting Molecular Data Into Real-World Patient Care

PURPOSE The investigation of multiple molecular targets with next-generation sequencing (NGS) has entered clinical practice in oncology, yielding to a paradigm shift from the histology-centric approach to the mutational model for personalized treatment. Accordingly, most of the drugs recently approved in oncology are coupled to specific biomarkers. One potential tool for implementing the mutational model of precision oncology in daily practice is represented by the Molecular Tumor Board (MTB), a multidisciplinary team whereby molecular pathologists, biologists, bioinformaticians, geneticists, medical oncologists, and pharmacists cooperate to generate, interpret, and match molecular data with personalized treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS Since May 2020, the institutional MTB set at Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan met weekly via teleconference to discuss molecular data and potential therapeutic options for patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors. RESULTS Up to October 2021, among 1,996 patients evaluated, we identified >10,000 variants, 43.2% of which were functionally relevant (pathogenic or likely pathogenic). On the basis of functionally relevant variants, 711 patients (35.6%) were potentially eligible to targeted therapy according to European Society of Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets tiers, and 9.4% received a personalized treatment. Overall, larger NGS panels (containing >50 genes) significantly outperformed small panels (up to 50 genes) in detecting actionable gene targets across different tumor types. CONCLUSION Our real-world data provide evidence that MTB is a valuable tool for matching NGS data with targeted treatments, eventually implementing precision oncology in clinical practice