Assessing Cognitive Performance in Badminton Players:A Reproducibility and Validity Study

Fast reaction and good inhibitory control are associated with elite sports performance. To evaluate the reproducibility and validity of a newly developed Badminton Reaction Inhibition Test (BRIT), fifteen elite (25 +/- 4 years) and nine non-elite (24 +/- 4 years) Dutch male badminton players participated in the study. The BRIT measured four components: domain-general reaction time, badminton-specific reaction time, domain-general inhibitory control and badminton-specific inhibitory control. Five participants were retested within three weeks on the badminton-specific components. Reproducibility was acceptable for badminton-specific reaction time (ICC = 0.626, CV = 6%) and for badminton-specific inhibitory control (ICC = 0.317, CV = 13%). Good construct validity was shown for badminton-specific reaction time discriminating between elite and non-elite players (F = 6.650, p 0.05). Concurrent validity for domain-general reaction time was good, as it was associated with a national ranking for elite (. = 0.70, p 0.05). In conclusion, reproducibility and validity of inhibitory control assessment was not confirmed, however, the BRIT appears a reproducible and valid measure of reaction time in badminton players. Reaction time measured with the BRIT may provide input for training programs aiming to improve badminton players' performance

Adverse outcome pathways:opportunities, limitations and open questions

Adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) are a recent toxicological construct that connects, in a formalized, transparent and quality-controlled way, mechanistic information to apical endpoints for regulatory purposes. AOP links a molecular initiating event (MIE) to the adverse outcome (AO) via key events (KE), in a way specified by key event relationships (KER). Although this approach to formalize mechanistic toxicological information only started in 2010, over 200 AOPs have already been established. At this stage, new requirements arise, such as the need for harmonization and re-assessment, for continuous updating, as well as for alerting about pitfalls, misuses and limits of applicability. In this review, the history of the AOP concept and its most prominent strengths are discussed, including the advantages of a formalized approach, the systematic collection of weight of evidence, the linkage of mechanisms to apical end points, the examination of the plausibility of epidemiological data, the identification of critical knowledge gaps and the design of mechanistic test methods. To prepare the ground for a broadened and appropriate use of AOPs, some widespread misconceptions are explained. Moreover, potential weaknesses and shortcomings of the current AOP rule set are addressed (1) to facilitate the discussion on its further evolution and (2) to better define appropriate vs. less suitable application areas. Exemplary toxicological studies are presented to discuss the linearity assumptions of AOP, the management of event modifiers and compensatory mechanisms, and whether a separation of toxicodynamics from toxicokinetics including metabolism is possible in the framework of pathway plasticity. Suggestions on how to compromise between different needs of AOP stakeholders have been added. A clear definition of open questions and limitations is provided to encourage further progress in the field

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Comparing in vitro human liver models to in vivo human liver using RNA-Seq

The liver plays an important role in xenobiotic metabolism and represents a primary target for toxic substances. Many different in vitro cell models have been developed in the past decades. In this study, we used RNA-sequencing (RNA-Seq) to analyze the following human in vitro liver cell models in comparison to human liver tissue: cancer-derived cell lines (HepG2, HepaRG 3D), induced pluripotent stem cell-derived hepatocyte-like cells (iPSC-HLCs), cancerous human liver-derived assays (hPCLiS, human precision cut liver slices), non-cancerous human liver-derived assays (PHH, primary human hepatocytes) and 3D liver microtissues. First, using CellNet, we analyzed whether these liver in vitro cell models were indeed classified as liver, based on their baseline expression profile and gene regulatory networks (GRN). More comprehensive analyses using non-differentially expressed genes (non-DEGs) and differential transcript usage (DTU) were applied to assess the coverage for important liver pathways. Through different analyses, we noticed that 3D liver microtissues exhibited a high similarity with in vivo liver, in terms of CellNet (C/T score: 0.98), non-DEGs (10,363) and pathway coverage (highest for 19 out of 20 liver specific pathways shown) at the beginning of the incubation period (0 h) followed by a decrease during long-term incubation for 168 and 336 h. PHH also showed a high degree of similarity with human liver tissue and allowed stable conditions for a short-term cultivation period of 24 h. Using the same metrics, HepG2 cells illustrated the lowest similarity (C/T: 0.51, non-DEGs: 5623, and pathways coverage: least for 7 out of 20) with human liver tissue. The HepG2 are widely used in hepatotoxicity studies, however, due to their lower similarity, they should be used with caution. HepaRG models, iPSC-HLCs, and hPCLiS ranged clearly behind microtissues and PHH but showed higher similarity to human liver tissue than HepG2 cells. In conclusion, this study offers a resource of RNA-Seq data of several biological replicates of human liver cell models in vitro compared to human liver tissue.status: publishe

Comparing in vitro human liver models to in vivo human liver using RNA-Seq

The liver plays an important role in xenobiotic metabolism and represents a primary target for toxic substances. Many different in vitro cell models have been developed in the past decades. In this study, we used RNA-sequencing (RNA-Seq) to analyze the following human in vitro liver cell models in comparison to human liver tissue: cancer-derived cell lines (HepG2, HepaRG 3D), induced pluripotent stem cell-derived hepatocyte-like cells (iPSC-HLCs), cancerous human liver-derived assays (hPCLiS, human precision cut liver slices), non-cancerous human liver-derived assays (PHH, primary human hepatocytes) and 3D liver microtissues. First, using CellNet, we analyzed whether these liver in vitro cell models were indeed classified as liver, based on their baseline expression profile and gene regulatory networks (GRN). More comprehensive analyses using non-differentially expressed genes (non-DEGs) and differential transcript usage (DTU) were applied to assess the coverage for important liver pathways. Through different analyses, we noticed that 3D liver microtissues exhibited a high similarity with in vivo liver, in terms of CellNet (C/T score: 0.98), non-DEGs (10,363) and pathway coverage (highest for 19 out of 20 liver specific pathways shown) at the beginning of the incubation period (0 h) followed by a decrease during long-term incubation for 168 and 336 h. PHH also showed a high degree of similarity with human liver tissue and allowed stable conditions for a short-term cultivation period of 24 h. Using the same metrics, HepG2 cells illustrated the lowest similarity (C/T: 0.51, non-DEGs: 5623, and pathways coverage: least for 7 out of 20) with human liver tissue. The HepG2 are widely used in hepatotoxicity studies, however, due to their lower similarity, they should be used with caution. HepaRG models, iPSC-HLCs, and hPCLiS ranged clearly behind microtissues and PHH but showed higher similarity to human liver tissue than HepG2 cells. In conclusion, this study offers a resource of RNA-Seq data of several biological replicates of human liver cell models in vitro compared to human liver tissue

New approach methodologies to facilitate and improve the hazard assessment of non-genotoxic carcinogens-a PARC project.

Carcinogenic chemicals, or their metabolites, can be classified as genotoxic or non-genotoxic carcinogens (NGTxCs). Genotoxic compounds induce DNA damage, which can be detected by an established in vitro and in vivo battery of genotoxicity assays. For NGTxCs, DNA is not the primary target, and the possible modes of action (MoA) of NGTxCs are much more diverse than those of genotoxic compounds, and there is no specific in vitro assay for detecting NGTxCs. Therefore, the evaluation of the carcinogenic potential is still dependent on long-term studies in rodents. This 2-year bioassay, mainly applied for testing agrochemicals and pharmaceuticals, is time-consuming, costly and requires very high numbers of animals. More importantly, its relevance for human risk assessment is questionable due to the limited predictivity for human cancer risk, especially with regard to NGTxCs. Thus, there is an urgent need for a transition to new approach methodologies (NAMs), integrating human-relevant in vitro assays and in silico tools that better exploit the current knowledge of the multiple processes involved in carcinogenesis into a modern safety assessment toolbox. Here, we describe an integrative project that aims to use a variety of novel approaches to detect the carcinogenic potential of NGTxCs based on different mechanisms and pathways involved in carcinogenesis. The aim of this project is to contribute suitable assays for the safety assessment toolbox for an efficient and improved, internationally recognized hazard assessment of NGTxCs, and ultimately to contribute to reliable mechanism-based next-generation risk assessment for chemical carcinogens

Toxicogenomics directory of chemically exposed human hepatocytes

A long-term goal of numerous research projects is to identify biomarkers for in vitro systems predicting toxicity in vivo. Often, transcriptomics data are used to identify candidates for further evaluation. However, a systematic directory summarizing key features of chemically influenced genes in human hepatocytes is not yet available. To bridge this gap, we used the Open TG-GATES database with Affymetrix files of cultivated human hepatocytes incubated with chemicals, further sets of gene array data with hepatocytes from human donors generated in this study, and publicly available genome-wide datasets of human liver tissue from patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), cirrhosis, and hepatocellular cancer (HCC). After a curation procedure, expression data of 143 chemicals were included into a comprehensive biostatistical analysis. The results are summarized in the publicly available toxicotranscriptomics directory (http://wiki.toxbank.net/toxicogenomics-map/) which provides information for all genes whether they are up- or downregulated by chemicals and, if yes, by which compounds. The directory also informs about the following key features of chemically influenced genes: (1) Stereotypical stress response. When chemicals induce strong expression alterations, this usually includes a complex but highly reproducible pattern named 'stereotypical response.' On the other hand, more specific expression responses exist that are induced only by individual compounds or small numbers of compounds. The directory differentiates if the gene is part of the stereotypical stress response or if it represents a more specific reaction. (2) Liver disease-associated genes. Approximately 20 % of the genes influenced by chemicals are up- or downregulated, also in liver disease. Liver disease genes deregulated in cirrhosis, HCC, and NASH that overlap with genes of the aforementioned stereotypical chemical stress response include CYP3A7, normally expressed in fetal liver; the phase II metabolizing enzyme SULT1C2; ALDH8A1, known to generate the ligand of RXR, one of the master regulators of gene expression in the liver; and several genes involved in normal liver functions: CPS1, PCK1, SLC2A2, CYP8B1, CYP4A11, ABCA8, and ADH4. (3) Unstable baseline genes. The process of isolating and the cultivation of hepatocytes was sufficient to induce some stress leading to alterations in the expression of genes, the so-called unstable baseline genes. (4) Biological function. Although more than 2,000 genes are transcriptionally influenced by chemicals, they can be assigned to a relatively small group of biological functions, including energy and lipid metabolism, inflammation and immune response, protein modification, endogenous and xenobiotic metabolism, cytoskeletal organization, stress response, and DNA repair. In conclusion, the introduced toxicotranscriptomics directory offers a basis for a rationale choice of candidate genes for biomarker evaluation studies and represents an easy to use source of background information on chemically influenced genes