13 research outputs found

    High Efficiency Planar Geometry Germanium-on-silicon Single-photon Avalanche Diode Detectors

    Get PDF
    This paper presents the performance of 26 μm and 50 μm diameter planar Ge-on-Si single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) detectors. The addition of germanium in these detectors extends the spectral range into the short-wave infrared (SWIR) region, beyond the capability of already well-established Si SPAD devices. There are several advantages for extending the spectral range into the SWIR region including: reduced eye-safety laser threshold, greater attainable ranges, and increased depth resolution in range finding applications, in addition to the enhanced capability to image through obscurants such as fog and smoke. The time correlated single-photon counting (TCSPC) technique has been utilized to observe record low dark count rates, below 100 kHz at a temperature of 125 K for up to a 6.6 % excess bias, for the 26 μm diameter devices. Under identical experimental conditions, in terms of excess bias and temperature, the 50 μm diameter device consistently demonstrates dark count rates a factor of 4 times greater than 26 μm diameter devices, indicating that the dark count rate is proportional to the device volume. Single-photon detection efficiencies of up to ~ 29 % were measured at a wavelength of 1310 nm at 125 K. Noise equivalent powers (NEP) down to 9.8 × 10-17 WHz-1/2 and jitters < 160 ps are obtainable, both significantly lower than previous 100 μm diameter planar geometry devices, demonstrating the potential of these devices for highly sensitive and high-speed imaging in the SWIR

    The maternal microbiome during pregnancy and allergic disease in the offspring

    Get PDF
    There is substantial epidemiological and mechanistic evidence that the increase in allergic disease and asthma in many parts of the world in part relates to changes in microbial exposures and diet acting via the composition and metabolic products of the intestinal microbiome. The majority of research in this field has focused on the gut microbiome during infancy, but it is increasingly clear that the maternal microbiome during pregnancy also has a key role in preventing an allergy-prone immune phenotype in the offspring. The mechanisms by which the maternal microbiome influences the developing fetal immune system include alignment between the maternal and infant regulatory immune status and transplacental passage of microbial metabolites and IgG. Interplay between microbial stimulatory factors such as lipopolysaccharides and regulatory factors such as short-chain fatty acids may also influence on fetal immune development. However, our understanding of these pathways is at an early stage and further mechanistic studies are needed. There are also no data from human studies relating the composition and metabolic activity of the maternal microbiome during pregnancy to the offspring's immune status at birth and risk of allergic disease. Improved knowledge of these pathways may inform novel strategies for tackling the increase in allergic disorders in the modern world

    Pretreatment prediction of response to ursodeoxycholic acid in primary biliary cholangitis: development and validation of the UDCA Response Score.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND Treatment guidelines recommend a stepwise approach to primary biliary cholangitis: all patients begin treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) monotherapy and those with an inadequate biochemical response after 12 months are subsequently considered for second-line therapies. However, as a result, patients at the highest risk can wait the longest for effective treatment. We determined whether UDCA response can be accurately predicted using pretreatment clinical parameters. METHODS We did logistic regression analysis of pretreatment variables in a discovery cohort of patients in the UK with primary biliary cholangitis to derive the best-fitting model of UDCA response, defined as alkaline phosphatase less than 1·67 times the upper limit of normal (ULN), measured after 12 months of treatment with UDCA. We validated the model in an external cohort of patients with primary biliary cholangitis and treated with UDCA in Italy. Additionally, we assessed correlations between model predictions and key histological features, such as biliary injury and fibrosis, on liver biopsy samples. FINDINGS 2703 participants diagnosed with primary biliary cholangitis between Jan 1, 1998, and May 31, 2015, were included in the UK-PBC cohort for derivation of the model. The following pretreatment parameters were associated with lower probability of UDCA response: higher alkaline phosphatase concentration (p<0·0001), higher total bilirubin concentration (p=0·0003), lower aminotransferase concentration (p=0·0012), younger age (p<0·0001), longer interval from diagnosis to the start of UDCA treatment (treatment time lag, p<0·0001), and worsening of alkaline phosphatase concentration from diagnosis (p<0·0001). Based on these variables, we derived a predictive score of UDCA response. In the external validation cohort, 460 patients diagnosed with primary biliary cholangitis were treated with UDCA, with follow-up data until May 31, 2016. In this validation cohort, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the score was 0·83 (95% CI 0·79-0·87). In 20 liver biopsy samples from patients with primary biliary cholangitis, the UDCA response score was associated with ductular reaction (r=-0·556, p=0·0130) and intermediate hepatocytes (probability of response was 0·90 if intermediate hepatocytes were absent vs 0·51 if present). INTERPRETATION We have derived and externally validated a model based on pretreatment variables that accurately predicts UDCA response. Association with histological features provides face validity. This model provides a basis to explore alternative approaches to treatment stratification in patients with primary biliary cholangitis. FUNDING UK Medical Research Council and University of Milan-Bicocca

    Pretreatment prediction of response to ursodeoxycholic acid in primary biliary cholangitis: development and validation of the UDCA Response Score.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines recommend a stepwise approach to primary biliary cholangitis: all patients begin treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) monotherapy and those with an inadequate biochemical response after 12 months are subsequently considered for second-line therapies. However, as a result, patients at the highest risk can wait the longest for effective treatment. We determined whether UDCA response can be accurately predicted using pretreatment clinical parameters. METHODS: We did logistic regression analysis of pretreatment variables in a discovery cohort of patients in the UK with primary biliary cholangitis to derive the best-fitting model of UDCA response, defined as alkaline phosphatase less than 1·67 times the upper limit of normal (ULN), measured after 12 months of treatment with UDCA. We validated the model in an external cohort of patients with primary biliary cholangitis and treated with UDCA in Italy. Additionally, we assessed correlations between model predictions and key histological features, such as biliary injury and fibrosis, on liver biopsy samples. FINDINGS: 2703 participants diagnosed with primary biliary cholangitis between Jan 1, 1998, and May 31, 2015, were included in the UK-PBC cohort for derivation of the model. The following pretreatment parameters were associated with lower probability of UDCA response: higher alkaline phosphatase concentration (p<0·0001), higher total bilirubin concentration (p=0·0003), lower aminotransferase concentration (p=0·0012), younger age (p<0·0001), longer interval from diagnosis to the start of UDCA treatment (treatment time lag, p<0·0001), and worsening of alkaline phosphatase concentration from diagnosis (p<0·0001). Based on these variables, we derived a predictive score of UDCA response. In the external validation cohort, 460 patients diagnosed with primary biliary cholangitis were treated with UDCA, with follow-up data until May 31, 2016. In this validation cohort, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the score was 0·83 (95% CI 0·79-0·87). In 20 liver biopsy samples from patients with primary biliary cholangitis, the UDCA response score was associated with ductular reaction (r=-0·556, p=0·0130) and intermediate hepatocytes (probability of response was 0·90 if intermediate hepatocytes were absent vs 0·51 if present). INTERPRETATION: We have derived and externally validated a model based on pretreatment variables that accurately predicts UDCA response. Association with histological features provides face validity. This model provides a basis to explore alternative approaches to treatment stratification in patients with primary biliary cholangitis. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and University of Milan-Bicocca

    X Chromosome Contribution to the Genetic Architecture of Primary Biliary Cholangitis.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND & AIMS: Genome-wide association studies in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) have failed to find X chromosome (chrX) variants associated with the disease. Here, we specifically explore the chrX contribution to PBC, a sexually dimorphic complex autoimmune disease. METHODS: We performed a chrX-wide association study, including genotype data from 5 genome-wide association studies (from Italy, United Kingdom, Canada, China, and Japan; 5244 case patients and 11,875 control individuals). RESULTS: Single-marker association analyses found approximately 100 loci displaying P < 5 × 10(-4), with the most significant being a signal within the OTUD5 gene (rs3027490; P = 4.80 × 10(-6); odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.028-1.88; Japanese cohort). Although the transethnic meta-analysis evidenced only a suggestive signal (rs2239452, mapping within the PIM2 gene; OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26; P = 9.93 × 10(-8)), the population-specific meta-analysis showed a genome-wide significant locus in East Asian individuals pointing to the same region (rs7059064, mapping within the GRIPAP1 gene; P = 6.2 × 10(-9); OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.21-1.46). Indeed, rs7059064 tags a unique linkage disequilibrium block including 7 genes: TIMM17B, PQBP1, PIM2, SLC35A2, OTUD5, KCND1, and GRIPAP1, as well as a superenhancer (GH0XJ048933 within OTUD5) targeting all these genes. GH0XJ048933 is also predicted to target FOXP3, the main T-regulatory cell lineage specification factor. Consistently, OTUD5 and FOXP3 RNA levels were up-regulated in PBC case patients (1.75- and 1.64-fold, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This work represents the first comprehensive study, to our knowledge, of the chrX contribution to the genetics of an autoimmune liver disease and shows a novel PBC-related genome-wide significant locus.The article is available via Open Access. Click on the 'Additional link' above to access the full-text.Published version, accepted versio

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

    Get PDF
    In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

    No full text

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

    No full text
    In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field
    corecore