122 research outputs found

    The relationship of self-efficacy to catastrophizing and depressive symptoms in community-dwelling older adults with chronic pain: A moderated mediation model

    Get PDF
    Self-efficacy has been consistently found to be a protective factor against psychological distress and disorders in the literature. However, little research is done on the moderating effect of self-efficacy on depressive symptoms in the context of chronic pain. This cross-sectional study aimed to examine if pain self-efficacy attenuated the direct relationship between pain intensity and depressive symptoms, as well as their indirect relationship through reducing the extent of catastrophizing when feeling pain (moderated mediation). 664 community-dwelling Chinese older adults aged 60–95 years who reported chronic pain for at least three months were recruited from social centers. They completed a battery of questionnaires on chronic pain, pain self-efficacy, catastrophizing, and depressive symptoms in individual face-to-face interviews. Controlling for age, gender, education, self-rated health, number of chronic diseases, pain disability, and pain self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing was found to partially mediate the connection between pain intensity and depressive symptoms. Furthermore, the relationship between pain intensity and depressive symptoms was moderated by pain self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was also found to moderate the relationship between pain intensity and catastrophizing and the moderated mediation effect was confirmed using bootstrap analysis. The results suggested that with increasing levels of self-efficacy, pain intensity’s direct effect on depressive symptoms and its indirect effect on depressive symptoms via catastrophizing were both reduced in a dose-dependent manner. Our findings suggest that pain self-efficacy is a significant protective factor that contributes to psychological resilience in chronic pain patients by attenuating the relationship of pain intensity to both catastrophizing and depressive symptoms

    Preclinical evaluation of FLT190, a liver-directed AAV gene therapy for Fabry disease

    Get PDF
    Fabry disease is an X-linked lysosomal storage disorder caused by loss of alpha-galactosidase A (α-Gal A) activity and is characterized by progressive accumulation of glycosphingolipids in multiple cells and tissues. FLT190, an investigational gene therapy, is currently being evaluated in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial in patients with Fabry disease (NCT04040049). FLT190 consists of a potent, synthetic capsid (AAVS3) containing an expression cassette with a codon-optimized human GLA cDNA under the control of a liver-specific promoter FRE1 (AAV2/S3-FRE1-GLAco). For mouse studies FLT190 genome was pseudotyped with AAV8 for efficient transduction. Preclinical studies in a murine model of Fabry disease (Gla-deficient mice), and non-human primates (NHPs) showed dose-dependent increases in plasma α-Gal A with steady-state observed 2 weeks following a single intravenous dose. In Fabry mice, AAV8-FLT190 treatment resulted in clearance of globotriaosylceramide (Gb3) and globotriaosylsphingosine (lyso-Gb3) in plasma, urine, kidney, and heart; electron microscopy analyses confirmed reductions in storage inclusion bodies in kidney and heart. In NHPs, α-Gal A expression was consistent with the levels of hGLA mRNA in liver, and no FLT190-related toxicities or adverse events were observed. Taken together, these studies demonstrate preclinical proof-of-concept of liver-directed gene therapy with FLT190 for the treatment of Fabry disease

    Evaluating the Clinical Validity of Gene-Disease Associations: An Evidence-Based Framework Developed by the Clinical Genome Resource

    Get PDF
    Supplemental Data Supplemental Data include 65 figures and can be found with this article online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.04.015. Supplemental Data Document S1. Figures S1–S65 Download Document S2. Article plus Supplemental Data Download Web Resources ClinGen, https://www.clinicalgenome.org/ ClinGen Gene Curation, https://www.clinicalgenome.org/working-groups/gene-curation/ ClinGen Gene Curation SOP, https://www.clinicalgenome.org/working-groups/gene-curation/projects-initiatives/gene-disease-clinical-validity-sop/ ClinGen Knowledge Base, https://search.clinicalgenome.org/kb/agents/sign_up OMIM, http://www.omim.org/ Orphanet, http://www.orpha.net/consor/cgi-bin/index.php With advances in genomic sequencing technology, the number of reported gene-disease relationships has rapidly expanded. However, the evidence supporting these claims varies widely, confounding accurate evaluation of genomic variation in a clinical setting. Despite the critical need to differentiate clinically valid relationships from less well-substantiated relationships, standard guidelines for such evaluation do not currently exist. The NIH-funded Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) has developed a framework to define and evaluate the clinical validity of gene-disease pairs across a variety of Mendelian disorders. In this manuscript we describe a proposed framework to evaluate relevant genetic and experimental evidence supporting or contradicting a gene-disease relationship and the subsequent validation of this framework using a set of representative gene-disease pairs. The framework provides a semiquantitative measurement for the strength of evidence of a gene-disease relationship that correlates to a qualitative classification: “Definitive,” “Strong,” “Moderate,” “Limited,” “No Reported Evidence,” or “Conflicting Evidence.” Within the ClinGen structure, classifications derived with this framework are reviewed and confirmed or adjusted based on clinical expertise of appropriate disease experts. Detailed guidance for utilizing this framework and access to the curation interface is available on our website. This evidence-based, systematic method to assess the strength of gene-disease relationships will facilitate more knowledgeable utilization of genomic variants in clinical and research settings

    Control and Manipulation of Pathogens with an Optical Trap for Live Cell Imaging of Intercellular Interactions

    Get PDF
    The application of live cell imaging allows direct visualization of the dynamic interactions between cells of the immune system. Some preliminary observations challenge long-held beliefs about immune responses to microorganisms; however, the lack of spatial and temporal control between the phagocytic cell and microbe has rendered focused observations into the initial interactions of host response to pathogens difficult. This paper outlines a method that advances live cell imaging by integrating a spinning disk confocal microscope with an optical trap, also known as an optical tweezer, in order to provide exquisite spatial and temporal control of pathogenic organisms and place them in proximity to host cells, as determined by the operator. Polymeric beads and live, pathogenic organisms (Candida albicans and Aspergillus fumigatus) were optically trapped using non-destructive forces and moved adjacent to living cells, which subsequently phagocytosed the trapped particle. High resolution, transmitted light and fluorescence-based movies established the ability to observe early events of phagocytosis in living cells. To demonstrate the broad applicability of this method to immunological studies, anti-CD3 polymeric beads were also trapped and manipulated to form synapses with T cells in vivo, and time-lapse imaging of synapse formation was also obtained. By providing a method to exert fine control of live pathogens with respect to immune cells, cellular interactions can be captured by fluorescence microscopy with minimal perturbation to cells and can yield powerful insight into early responses of innate and adaptive immunity.National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (U.S.) (grant T32EB006348)Massachusetts General Hospital (Department of Medicine Internal Funds)Center for Computational and Integrative Biology (Development fund)Center for Computational and Integrative Biology (AI062773)Center for Computational and Integrative Biology (grant AI062773)Center for Computational and Integrative Biology (grant DK83756)Center for Computational and Integrative Biology (grant DK 043351)National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (U.S.)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (grant AI057999

    Differentiating Protein-Coding and Noncoding RNA: Challenges and Ambiguities

    Get PDF
    The assumption that RNA can be readily classified into either protein-coding or non-protein–coding categories has pervaded biology for close to 50 years. Until recently, discrimination between these two categories was relatively straightforward: most transcripts were clearly identifiable as protein-coding messenger RNAs (mRNAs), and readily distinguished from the small number of well-characterized non-protein–coding RNAs (ncRNAs), such as transfer, ribosomal, and spliceosomal RNAs. Recent genome-wide studies have revealed the existence of thousands of noncoding transcripts, whose function and significance are unclear. The discovery of this hidden transcriptome and the implicit challenge it presents to our understanding of the expression and regulation of genetic information has made the need to distinguish between mRNAs and ncRNAs both more pressing and more complicated. In this Review, we consider the diverse strategies employed to discriminate between protein-coding and noncoding transcripts and the fundamental difficulties that are inherent in what may superficially appear to be a simple problem. Misannotations can also run in both directions: some ncRNAs may actually encode peptides, and some of those currently thought to do so may not. Moreover, recent studies have shown that some RNAs can function both as mRNAs and intrinsically as functional ncRNAs, which may be a relatively widespread phenomenon. We conclude that it is difficult to annotate an RNA unequivocally as protein-coding or noncoding, with overlapping protein-coding and noncoding transcripts further confounding this distinction. In addition, the finding that some transcripts can function both intrinsically at the RNA level and to encode proteins suggests a false dichotomy between mRNAs and ncRNAs. Therefore, the functionality of any transcript at the RNA level should not be discounted
    corecore