25 research outputs found

    Endonuclease EEPD1 Is a Gatekeeper for Repair of Stressed Replication Forks

    Get PDF
    Replication is not as continuous as once thought, with DNA damage frequently stalling replication forks. Aberrant repair of stressed replication forks can result in cell death or genome instability and resulting transformation to malignancy. Stressed replication forks are most commonly repaired via homologous recombination (HR), which begins with 5' end resection, mediated by exonuclease complexes, one of which contains Exo1. However, Exo1 requires free 5'-DNA ends upon which to act, and these are not commonly present in non-reversed stalled replication forks. To generate a free 5' end, stalled replication forks must therefore be cleaved. Although several candidate endonucleases have been implicated in cleavage of stalled replication forks to permit end resection, the identity of such an endonuclease remains elusive. Here we show that the 5'-endonuclease EEPD1 cleaves replication forks at the junction between the lagging parental strand and the unreplicated DNA parental double strands. This cleavage creates the structure that Exo1 requires for 5' end resection and HR initiation. We observed that EEPD1 and Exo1 interact constitutively, and Exo1 repairs stalled replication forks poorly without EEPD1. Thus, EEPD1 performs a gatekeeper function for replication fork repair by mediating the fork cleavage that permits initiation of HR-mediated repair and restart of stressed forks

    Dialysis Initiation in Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease and Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease in ISCHEMIA-CKD

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: In participants with concomitant chronic coronary disease and advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), the effect of treatment strategies on the timing of dialysis initiation is not well characterized. METHODS AND RESULTS: In ISCHEMIA‐CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches–Chronic Kidney Disease), 777 participants with advanced CKD and moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to either an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Herein, we compare the proportion of randomized participants with non–dialysis‐requiring CKD at baseline (n=362) who initiated dialysis and compare the time to dialysis initiation between invasive versus conservative management arms. Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, we also sought to identify the effect of invasive versus conservative chronic coronary disease management strategies on dialysis initiation. At a median follow‐up of 23 months (25th–75th interquartile range, 14–32 months), dialysis was initiated in 18.9% of participants (36/190) in the invasive strategy and 16.9% of participants (29/172) in the conservative strategy (P=0.22). The median time to dialysis initiation was 6.0 months (interquartile range, 3.0–16.0 months) in the invasive group and 18.2 months (interquartile range, 12.2–25.0 months) in the conservative group (P=0.004), with no difference in procedural acute kidney injury rates between the groups (7.8% versus 5.4%; P=0.26). Baseline clinical factors associated with earlier dialysis initiation were lower baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (hazard ratio [HR] associated with 5‐unit decrease, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.72–2.56]; P<0.001), diabetes (HR, 2.30 [95% CI, 1.28–4.13]; P=0.005), hypertension (HR, 7.97 [95% CI, 1.09–58.21]; P=0.041), and Hispanic ethnicity (HR, 2.34 [95% CI, 1.22–4.47]; P=0.010). CONCLUSIONS: In participants with non–dialysis‐requiring CKD in ISCHEMIA‐CKD, randomization to an invasive chronic coronary disease management strategy (relative to a conservative chronic coronary disease management strategy) is associated with an accelerated time to initiation of maintenance dialysis for kidney failure

    Carbon-sensitive pedotransfer functions for plant available water

    Get PDF
    Currently accepted pedotransfer functions show negligible effect of management-induced changes to soil organic carbon (SOC) on plant available water holding capacity (θAWHC), while some studies show the ability to substantially increase θAWHC through management. The Soil Health Institute\u27s North America Project to Evaluate Soil Health Measurements measured water content at field capacity using intact soil cores across 124 long-term research sites that contained increases in SOC as a result of management treatments such as reduced tillage and cover cropping. Pedotransfer functions were created for volumetric water content at field capacity (θFC) and permanent wilting point (θPWP). New pedotransfer functions had predictions of θAWHC that were similarly accurate compared with Saxton and Rawls when tested on samples from the National Soil Characterization database. Further, the new pedotransfer functions showed substantial effects of soil calcareousness and SOC on θAWHC. For an increase in SOC of 10 g kg–1 (1%) in noncalcareous soils, an average increase in θAWHC of 3.0 mm 100 mm–1 soil (0.03 m3 m–3) on average across all soil texture classes was found. This SOC related increase in θAWHC is about double previous estimates. Calcareous soils had an increase in θAWHC of 1.2 mm 100 mm–1 soil associated with a 10 g kg–1 increase in SOC, across all soil texture classes. New equations can aid in quantifying benefits of soil management practices that increase SOC and can be used to model the effect of changes in management on drought resilience

    Primary anal malignant melanoma: A case report

    No full text
    Anal melanoma is a rare and highly aggressive mucosal melanocytic malignancy. It is the third most common after melanomas of the skin and retina. The peak incidence in seen in the sixth and seventh decades. The clinical symptoms are pain, anal mass, bleeding per rectum, tenesmus or change in the bowel habits. It affects anal canal, rectum or both with a tendency to spread along submucosal planes. It is mostly beyond complete resection at the time of diagnosis and majority of patients die of metastasis. MR imaging significantly increases the diagnosis of anal melanoma in its early stages

    Minimal Hepatic Encephalopathy in Cirrhosis- How Long to Treat?

    No full text
    Introduction: Minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) can reverse after short-term treatment. However, relapse rate of MHE after stopping treatment has not been studied so far. We aimed to evaluate long-term (9 months) efficacy of a short-term (3 months) treatment of MHE with lactulose/rifaximin, for maintenance of remission from MHE. Material and Methods: In this prospective study, consecutive patients with cirrhosis and MHE were treated with lactulose/rifaximin for 3 months. After treatment, they were followed up for 6 months. Psychometric testing for diagnosis of MHE was performed at baseline, 3 months and 9 months. Results: Of the 527 patients screened, 351 were found eligible and tested for MHE. Out of these, 112 (31.9%) patients had MHE (mean age 55.3 years; 75% males). They were randomized to receive Rifaximin (n = 57; 1,200 mg/day) or Lactulose (n = 55; 30-120 mL/day) for three months. At 3 months, 73.7% (42/57) patients in Rifaximin group experienced MHE reversal compared to 69.1% (38/55) in Lac-tulose group (p = 0.677). Six months after stopping treatment, 47.6% (20/42) in rifaximin group and 42.1% (16/38) patients in lactu-lose group experienced MHE relapse (p = 0.274). The overt hepatic encephalopathy development rate (7.1% vs. 7.9%) and mortality rate (0.23% vs. 0%) were similar in both groups. The Child-Turcotte-Pugh score and model for end stage liver disease (MELD) scores of patients who had MHE relapse were higher compared to those who didn’t. On multivariate regression analysis, MELD score was an independent predictor of MHE relapse. Conclusion: Of the patients who became MHE negative after short-term (3 months) treatment with rifaximin/lactulose, almost 50% had a relapse of MHE at 6 months follow-up

    To assess the serum and salivary biomarkers in people with and without diabetes

    No full text
    The study was conducted to assess the serum and salivary biomarkers in people with and without diabetes. Among the 100 participants in this cross-sectional comparative study, 59 men and 61 women aged 32 to 59 years old were randomly assigned to category I (consisting of 50 diabetes mellitus (DM) patients of both types 1 and 2) or category II (consisting of 50 healthy volunteers) to serve as comparisons. Since there is no difference in the amounts of salivary biomarkers across the various types of diabetes, they are all grouped together. Several biochemical indicators were measured by measuring the amounts in the participants' saliva and serum samples. There was little to no difference between the two categories when comparing saliva and serum levels. Although there was a strong correlation between serum and salivary glucose, amylase, total proteins, albumin, and globulin levels in DM patients, there was also a strong correlation between diabetics and non-diabetics for these same markers

    To Determine the Prevalence of Oral Mucosal Lesions and Their Association with Pattern of Tobacco

    Full text link
    Aim: To determine the Prevalence of Oral mucosal lesions and their association with Pattern of tobacco. Methods: Following ethical approval, a descriptive, cross sectional research with 200 participants was done at the department of oral pathology. Individuals aged 16 and up who visited the research location and were consulted for wilful involvement in the study were included. Personal interviews were used to collect demographic information as well as tobacco use status utilising a selfdesigned proforma. Tobacco consumption habits were broadly classified into four categories based on the following criteria: smokers were those who reported daily or less than daily use of smoked form of tobacco without use of smokeless tobacco, whereas smokeless tobacco users were those who reported daily or less than daily use of smokeless tobacco without use of smoked form of tobacco. Individuals who used both forms throughout the research were classified as dual users, whereas those who never used tobacco or had a history of quitting one or both kinds were classified as nontobacco users. Results: The study population consisted of 100 people, 70 percent of whom were men and 30 percent of whom were females, with a mean age of 47.41 10.52 years

    Comparing the efficacy of leishman–giemsa cocktail stain, giemsa stain, and papanicolaou stain in potentially malignant oral lesions: A study on 540 cytological samples

    No full text
    Background: This study was planned to compare and evaluate the staining efficacy of Leishman–Giemsa cocktail (LG), Papanicolaou, and Giemsa stain (G) in potentially malignant disorders and malignant lesions. Aims: To evaluate the quality of nuclear and cytoplasmic staining of LG with G, and rapid Papanicolaou stain (Pap) and to compare the total staining efficiency of LG against G and P. Materials and Methods: One hundred and eighty participants were studied under three groups – 60 as healthy controls, 60 with potentially malignant disorders, and 60 with malignant lesions; smears were taken thrice from the buccal mucosa. One smear was fixed with Bio-Fix spray and other two smears were allowed to air dry for 2–3 minutes. Then, the ethyl alcohol-fixed smear was stained with Pap and the two other air-dried smears were stained with G and LG stains. Analysis was done using Friedman test and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test with SPSS Version 15.0. Results: In the normal group, staining of LG was highly significant (P < 0.001). Among potentially malignant lesions, LG was observed to be highly significant (P < 0.001) when compared with G and was not significant when compared with Pap (P = 0.186). In the malignant group, LG was highly significant (P < 0.001). LG was superior with the highest average staining score of (2.018) than Pap and G. Conclusion: LG cocktail is a better stain with excellent cytoplasmic and nuclear staining intensity compared to Pap and G stains

    L-ornithine L-aspartate for prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy is a common complication of cirrhosis and has high associated morbidity and mortality. The condition is classified as overt if it is clinically apparent or minimal if only evident though psychometric testing. The exact pathogenesis of this syndrome is unknown although ammonia is thought to play a key role. L-ornithine L-aspartate has ammonia-lowering properties and may, therefore, benefit people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of L-ornithine L-aspartate versus placebo, no intervention, or other active interventions in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and Science Citation Index Expanded to December 2017 and manual searches of meetings and conference proceedings; checks of bibliographies; and corresponded with investigators and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding. We included participants with cirrhosis who had minimal or overt hepatic encephalopathy or who were at risk for developing hepatic encephalopathy. We compared: L-ornithine L-aspartate versus placebo or no intervention; and L-ornithine L-aspartate versus other active agents such as non-absorbable disaccharides, antibiotics, probiotics, or branched-chain amino acids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, working independently, retrieved data from published reports and correspondence with investigators and pharmaceutical companies. The primary outcomes were mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented the results as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains; we evaluated the risk of publication bias and other small trial effects in regression analyses; conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses; and performed Trial Sequential Analyses. We determined the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 36 randomised clinical trials, involving at least 2377 registered participants, which fulfilled our inclusion criteria including 10 unpublished randomised clinical trials. However, we were only able to access outcome data from 29 trials involving 1891 participants. Five of the included trials assessed prevention, while 31 trials assessed treatment. Five trials were at low risk of bias in the overall assessment of mortality; one trial was at low risk of bias in the assessment of the remaining outcomes.L-ornithine L-aspartate had a beneficial effect on mortality compared with placebo or no intervention when including all trials (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.72; I2 = 0%; 19 trials; 1489 participants; very low quality evidence), but not when the analysis was restricted to the trials at low risk of bias (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.58; 4 trials; 244 participants). It had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy compared with placebo or no intervention when including all trials (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83; 22 trials; 1375 participants; I2 = 62%; very low quality evidence), but not in the one trial at low risk of bias (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 63 participants). The analysis of serious adverse events showed a potential benefit of L-ornithine L-aspartate when including all randomised clinical trials (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90; 1 trial; 1489 participants; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence), but not in the one trial at low risk of bias for this outcome (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.65; 63 participants). The Trial Sequential Analyses of mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events found insufficient evidence to support or refute beneficial effects. Subgroup analyses showed no difference in outcomes in the trials evaluating evaluating the prevention or treatment of either overt or minimal hepatic encephalopathy or trials evaluating oral versus intravenous administration We were unable to undertake a meta-analysis of the three trials involving 288 participants evaluating health-related quality of life. Overall, we found no difference between L-ornithine L-aspartate and placebo or no intervention in non-serious adverse events (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.77; 14 trials; 1076 participants; I2 = 40%). In comparison with lactulose, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.17; 4 trials; 175 participants; I2 = 0%); hepatic encephalopathy (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.57); serious adverse events (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.11); or non-serious adverse events (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.18). In comparison with probiotics, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.51); serious adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.23 to 4.88); or changes in blood ammonia concentrations from baseline (RR -2.30 95% CI -6.08 to 1.48), but it had a possible beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90). Finally, in comparison with rifaximin, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.03; 2 trials; 105 participants); hepatic encephalopathy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.96); serious adverse events (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.42), or non-serious adverse events (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.42). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review suggest a possible beneficial effect of L-ornithine L-aspartate on mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events in comparisons with placebo or no-intervention, but, because the quality of the evidence is very low, we are very uncertain about these findings. There was very low quality evidence of a possible beneficial effect of L-ornithine L-aspartate on hepatic encephalopathy, when compared with probiotics, but no other benefits were demonstrated in comparison with other active agents. Additional access to data from completed, but unpublished trials, and new randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials are needed
    corecore