Further contributions to the solution of the piltdown problem. By J. S. Weiner; W. E. Le Gros Clark; K. P. Oakley; G. F. Claringbull and M. H. Hey; F. H. Edmunds; S. H. U. Bowie and C. F. Davidson; C. F. M. Fryd; A. D. Baynes-Cope; A. E. A. Werner and R. J. Plesters. (Bulletin of the British Museum [Natural History], Geology, Volume 2, Number 6.) 63 pp., 7 figs., 5 plates. London. 1955

No Abstract.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/37455/1/1330130119_ftp.pd

Differentiation of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia B Cells into Immunoglobulin Secreting Cells Decreases LEF-1 Expression

Lymphocyte enhancer binding factor 1 (LEF-1) plays a crucial role in B lineage development and is only expressed in B cell precursors as B cell differentiation into mature B and plasma cells silences its expression. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cells aberrantly express LEF-1 and its expression is required for cellular survival. We hypothesized that modification of the differentiation status of CLL cells would result in loss of LEF-1 expression and eliminate the survival advantage provided by its aberrant expression. In this study, we first established a methodology that induces CLL cells to differentiate into immunoglobulin (Ig) secreting cells (ISC) using the TLR9 agonist, CpG, together with cytokines (CpG/c). CpG/c stimulation resulted in dramatic CLL cell phenotypic and morphologic changes, expression of cytoplasmic Ig, and secretion of light chain restricted Ig. CpG/c stimulation also resulted in decreased CLL cell LEF-1 expression and increased Blimp-1 expression, which is crucial for plasma cell differentiation. Further, Wnt pathway activation and cellular survival were impaired in differentiated CLL cells compared to undifferentiated CLL cells. These data support the notion that CLL can differentiate into ISC and that this triggers decreased leukemic cell survival secondary to the down regulation of LEF-1 and decreased Wnt pathway activation

Association of the PHACTR1/EDN1 genetic locus with spontaneous coronary artery dissection

Background: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is an increasingly recognized cause of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) afflicting predominantly younger to middle-aged women. Observational studies have reported a high prevalence of extracoronary vascular anomalies, especially fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD) and a low prevalence of coincidental cases of atherosclerosis. PHACTR1/EDN1 is a genetic risk locus for several vascular diseases, including FMD and coronary artery disease, with the putative causal noncoding variant at the rs9349379 locus acting as a potential enhancer for the endothelin-1 (EDN1) gene. Objectives: This study sought to test the association between the rs9349379 genotype and SCAD. Methods: Results from case control studies from France, United Kingdom, United States, and Australia were analyzed to test the association with SCAD risk, including age at first event, pregnancy-associated SCAD (P-SCAD), and recurrent SCAD. Results: The previously reported risk allele for FMD (rs9349379-A) was associated with a higher risk of SCAD in all studies. In a meta-analysis of 1,055 SCAD patients and 7,190 controls, the odds ratio (OR) was 1.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50 to 1.86) per copy of rs9349379-A. In a subset of 491 SCAD patients, the OR estimate was found to be higher for the association with SCAD in patients without FMD (OR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.53 to 2.33) than in SCAD cases with FMD (OR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.28 to 1.99). There was no effect of genotype on age at first event, P-SCAD, or recurrence. Conclusions: The first genetic risk factor for SCAD was identified in the largest study conducted to date for this condition. This genetic link may contribute to the clinical overlap between SCAD and FMD

2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease

The recommendations listed in this document are, whenever possible, evidence based. An extensive evidence review was conducted as the document was compiled through December 2008. Repeated literature searches were performed by the guideline development staff and writing committee members as new issues were considered. New clinical trials published in peer-reviewed journals and articles through December 2011 were also reviewed and incorporated when relevant. Furthermore, because of the extended development time period for this guideline, peer review comments indicated that the sections focused on imaging technologies required additional updating, which occurred during 2011. Therefore, the evidence review for the imaging sections includes published literature through December 2011