Adolescent standing postural response to backpack loads: a randomised controlled experimental study

BACKGROUND: Backpack loads produce changes in standing posture when compared with unloaded posture. Although 'poor' unloaded standing posture has been related to spinal pain, there is little evidence of whether, and how much, exposure to posterior load produces injurious effects on spinal tissue. The objective of this study was to describe the effect on adolescent sagittal plane standing posture of different loads and positions of a common design of school backpack. The underlying study aim was to test the appropriateness of two adult 'rules-of-thumb'-that for postural efficiency, backpacks should be worn high on the spine, and loads should be limited to 10% of body weight. METHOD: A randomised controlled experimental study was conducted on 250 adolescents (12–18 years), randomly selected from five South Australian metropolitan high schools. Sagittal view anatomical points were marked on head, neck, shoulder, hip, thigh, knee and ankle. There were nine experimental conditions: combinations of backpack loads (3, 5 or 10% of body weight) and positions (backpack centred at T7, T12 or L3). Sagittal plane photographs were taken of unloaded standing posture (baseline), and standing posture under the experimental conditions. Posture was quantified from the x (horizontal) coordinate of each anatomical point under each experimental condition. Differences in postural response were described, and differences between conditions were determined using Analysis of Variance models. RESULTS: Neither age nor gender was a significant factor when comparing postural response to backpack loads or conditions. Backpacks positioned at T7 produced the largest forward (horizontal) displacement at all the anatomical points. The horizontal position of all anatomical points increased linearly with load. CONCLUSION: There is evidence refuting the 'rule-of-thumb' to carry the backpack high on the back. Typical school backpacks should be positioned with the centre at waist or hip level. There is no evidence for the 10% body weight limit

Selection of Inhibitor-Resistant Viral Potassium Channels Identifies a Selectivity Filter Site that Affects Barium and Amantadine Block

BACKGROUND:Understanding the interactions between ion channels and blockers remains an important goal that has implications for delineating the basic mechanisms of ion channel function and for the discovery and development of ion channel directed drugs. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:We used genetic selection methods to probe the interaction of two ion channel blockers, barium and amantadine, with the miniature viral potassium channel Kcv. Selection for Kcv mutants that were resistant to either blocker identified a mutant bearing multiple changes that was resistant to both. Implementation of a PCR shuffling and backcrossing procedure uncovered that the blocker resistance could be attributed to a single change, T63S, at a position that is likely to form the binding site for the inner ion in the selectivity filter (site 4). A combination of electrophysiological and biochemical assays revealed a distinct difference in the ability of the mutant channel to interact with the blockers. Studies of the analogous mutation in the mammalian inward rectifier Kir2.1 show that the T-->S mutation affects barium block as well as the stability of the conductive state. Comparison of the effects of similar barium resistant mutations in Kcv and Kir2.1 shows that neighboring amino acids in the Kcv selectivity filter affect blocker binding. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:The data support the idea that permeant ions have an integral role in stabilizing potassium channel structure, suggest that both barium and amantadine act at a similar site, and demonstrate how genetic selections can be used to map blocker binding sites and reveal mechanistic features