Hypercholesterolemia and chronic ischemia alter myocardial responses to selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition

ObjectiveCyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors have been implicated in adverse cardiac events. We hypothesize that hypercholesterolemia and ischemia may alter the myocardial response to the cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor celecoxib.MethodsYorkshire swine fed normal chow (CX, n = 6) or high-cholesterol diet (HCX, n = 6) underwent placement of an Ameroid constrictor on the left circumflex artery and were started on celecoxib (200 mg/day). After 7 weeks, ischemic and nonischemic myocardium was analyzed for thrombogenic ratio (thromboxane content divided by prostacyclin content), total protein oxidative stress, and expression of prostacyclin synthase, thromboxane synthase, myeloperoxidase, and superoxide dismutase. Cardiac function, tissue perfusion, and vessel density were measured.ResultsHCX animals were significantly hypercholesterolemic compared with CX animals. Thrombogenic ratio was significantly higher in the HCX group than in the CX group, but prostacyclin and thromboxane synthase expression was similar in all tissues. Myocardial perfusion was decreased in the HCX group compared with the CX group. Total oxidative stress, myeloperoxidase, and superoxide dismutase were increased in ischemic tissue compared with nonischemic tissues, but there was no diet-induced difference between groups. There was no difference in capillary or arteriolar density between groups. Left ventricular contractility was greater in the HCX group than in the CX group, but there was no significant difference in heart rate, mean arterial pressure, or left ventricular pressure.ConclusionsHypercholesterolemic patients using celecoxib may be at higher risk for thrombotic events than those with normal cholesterol, but the relationship between dyslipidemia, ischemia, and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition is likely much more complicated than originally thought

Practical Issues in Imputation-Based Association Mapping

Imputation-based association methods provide a powerful framework for testing untyped variants for association with phenotypes and for combining results from multiple studies that use different genotyping platforms. Here, we consider several issues that arise when applying these methods in practice, including: (i) factors affecting imputation accuracy, including choice of reference panel; (ii) the effects of imputation accuracy on power to detect associations; (iii) the relative merits of Bayesian and frequentist approaches to testing imputed genotypes for association with phenotype; and (iv) how to quickly and accurately compute Bayes factors for testing imputed SNPs. We find that imputation-based methods can be robust to imputation accuracy and can improve power to detect associations, even when average imputation accuracy is poor. We explain how ranking SNPs for association by a standard likelihood ratio test gives the same results as a Bayesian procedure that uses an unnatural prior assumption—specifically, that difficult-to-impute SNPs tend to have larger effects—and assess the power gained from using a Bayesian approach that does not make this assumption. Within the Bayesian framework, we find that good approximations to a full analysis can be achieved by simply replacing unknown genotypes with a point estimate—their posterior mean. This approximation considerably reduces computational expense compared with published sampling-based approaches, and the methods we present are practical on a genome-wide scale with very modest computational resources (e.g., a single desktop computer). The approximation also facilitates combining information across studies, using only summary data for each SNP. Methods discussed here are implemented in the software package BIMBAM, which is available from http://stephenslab.uchicago.edu/software.html

sj-docx-1-jmh-10.1177_15579883231197910 – Supplemental material for The Variability of Semen Parameters With Sexual Abstinence Using Mail-in Sperm Testing Is Similar to That Seen With Traditional In-Office Semen Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jmh-10.1177_15579883231197910 for The Variability of Semen Parameters With Sexual Abstinence Using Mail-in Sperm Testing Is Similar to That Seen With Traditional In-Office Semen Analysis by Jad Badreddine, Stephen Rhodes, Nicholas Sellke, Felipe Navarrete, Stephanie Keller, Vrushab Gowda, Paul H. G. Simon and Ramy Abou Ghayda in American Journal of Men's Health</p

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