Tracking systems for virtual rehabilitation: objective performance vs. subjective experience. A practical scenario

Motion tracking systems are commonly used in virtual reality-based interventions to detect movements in the real world and transfer them to the virtual environment. There are different tracking solutions based on different physical principles, which mainly define their performance parameters. However, special requirements have to be considered for rehabilitation purposes. This paper studies and compares the accuracy and jitter of three tracking solutions (optical, electromagnetic, and skeleton tracking) in a practical scenario and analyzes the subjective perceptions of 19 healthy subjects, 22 stroke survivors, and 14 physical therapists. The optical tracking system provided the best accuracy (1.074 +/- 0.417 cm) while the electromagnetic device provided the most inaccurate results (11.027 +/- 2.364 cm). However, this tracking solution provided the best jitter values (0.324 +/- 0.093 cm), in contrast to the skeleton tracking, which had the worst results (1.522 +/- 0.858 cm). Healthy individuals and professionals preferred the skeleton tracking solution rather than the optical and electromagnetic solution (in that order). Individuals with stroke chose the optical solution over the other options. Our results show that subjective perceptions and preferences are far from being constant among different populations, thus suggesting that these considerations, together with the performance parameters, should be also taken into account when designing a rehabilitation system.The authors wish to thank the staff and patients of the Servicio de Neurorrehabilitacion y Dano Cerebral de los Hospitales NISA (Valencia, Spain) for their involvement in the study, particularly Maria Dolores Navarro for her coordination and Joan Ferri for his confidence. The authors also wish to thank the staff of LabHuman (Valencia, Spain) for their support in this project, especially Jose Miguel Martinez and Jose Roda for their assistance. This study was funded in part by Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad of Spain (Project NeuroVR, TIN2013-44741-R), by Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia Spain, Projects Consolider-C (SEJ2006-14301/PSIC), "CIBER of Physiopathology of Obesity and Nutrition, an initiative of ISCIII", and by the Excellence Research Program PROMETEO (Generalitat Valenciana. Conselleria de Educacion, 2008-157).Llorens Rodríguez, R.; Noé, E.; Naranjo Ornedo, V.; Borrego González, A.; Latorre, J.; Alcañiz Raya, ML. (2015). Tracking systems for virtual rehabilitation: objective performance vs. subjective experience. A practical scenario. Sensors. 15(3):6586-6606. https://doi.org/10.3390/s150306586S65866606153Sveistrup, H. (2004). Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 1(1), 10. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-1-10Rose, F. D., Brooks, B. M., & Rizzo, A. A. (2005). Virtual Reality in Brain Damage Rehabilitation: Review. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8(3), 241-262. doi:10.1089/cpb.2005.8.241Zhou, H., & Hu, H. (2008). Human motion tracking for rehabilitation—A survey. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 3(1), 1-18. doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2007.09.001Plantard, P., Auvinet, E., Pierres, A.-S., & Multon, F. (2015). Pose Estimation with a Kinect for Ergonomic Studies: Evaluation of the Accuracy Using a Virtual Mannequin. Sensors, 15(1), 1785-1803. doi:10.3390/s150101785De Joode, E. A., van Boxtel, M. P. J., Verhey, F. R., & van Heugten, C. M. (2012). Use of assistive technology in cognitive rehabilitation: Exploratory studies of the opinions and expectations of healthcare professionals and potential users. Brain Injury, 26(10), 1257-1266. doi:10.3109/02699052.2012.667590Raab, F., Blood, E., Steiner, T., & Jones, H. (1979). Magnetic Position and Orientation Tracking System. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, AES-15(5), 709-718. doi:10.1109/taes.1979.308860PrimeSense. Carmine 1.08http://www.i3du.gr/pdf/primesense.pdfKhoshelham, K., & Elberink, S. O. (2012). Accuracy and Resolution of Kinect Depth Data for Indoor Mapping Applications. Sensors, 12(2), 1437-1454. doi:10.3390/s120201437Lloréns, R., Gil-Gómez, J.-A., Alcañiz, M., Colomer, C., & Noé, E. (2014). Improvement in balance using a virtual reality-based stepping exercise: a randomized controlled trial involving individuals with chronic stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation, 29(3), 261-268. doi:10.1177/0269215514543333Lloréns, R., Noé, E., Colomer, C., & Alcañiz, M. (2015). Effectiveness, Usability, and Cost-Benefit of a Virtual Reality–Based Telerehabilitation Program for Balance Recovery After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 96(3), 418-425.e2. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2014.10.019Smith, P. R. (1981). Bilinear interpolation of digital images. Ultramicroscopy, 6(1), 201-204. doi:10.1016/s0304-3991(81)80199-4Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). «Mini-mental state». Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12(3), 189-198. doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6Tyson, S. F., & DeSouza, L. H. (2004). Development of the Brunel Balance Assessment: a new measure of balance disability post stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18(7), 801-810. doi:10.1191/0269215504cr744oaPage, A., De Rosario, H., Mata, V., Hoyos, J. V., & Porcar, R. (2006). Effect of marker cluster design on the accuracy of human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, 44(12), 1113-1119. doi:10.1007/s11517-006-0124-3Han, C., Wang, Q., Meng, P., & Qi, M. (2012). Effects of intensity of arm training on hemiplegic upper extremity motor recovery in stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 27(1), 75-81. doi:10.1177/0269215512447223Kwakkel, G., Wagenaar, R. C., Koelman, T. W., Lankhorst, G. J., & Koetsier, J. C. (1997). Effects of Intensity of Rehabilitation After Stroke. Stroke, 28(8), 1550-1556. doi:10.1161/01.str.28.8.1550Kwakkel, G. (2006). Impact of intensity of practice after stroke: Issues for consideration. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28(13-14), 823-830. doi:10.1080/09638280500534861Flaster, M., Sharma, A., & Rao, M. (2013). Poststroke Depression: A Review Emphasizing the Role of Prophylactic Treatment and Synergy with Treatment for Motor Recovery. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 20(2), 139-150. doi:10.1310/tsr2002-139Winstein, C. (1999). Motor learning after unilateral brain damage. Neuropsychologia, 37(8), 975-987. doi:10.1016/s0028-3932(98)00145-

Effect of a mixed reality-based intervention on arm, hand, and finger function on chronic stroke

[EN] Background: Virtual and mixed reality systems have been suggested to promote motor recovery after stroke. Basing on the existing evidence on motor learning, we have developed a portable and low-cost mixed reality tabletop system that transforms a conventional table in a virtual environment for upper limb rehabilitation. The system allows intensive and customized training of a wide range of arm, hand, and finger movements and enables interaction with tangible objects, while providing audiovisual feedback of the participants' performance in gamified tasks. This study evaluates the clinical effectiveness and the acceptance of an experimental intervention with the system in chronic stroke survivors. Methods: Thirty individuals with stroke were included in a reversal (A-B-A) study. Phase A consisted of 30 sessions of conventional physical therapy. Phase B consisted of 30 training sessions with the experimental system. Both interventions involved flexion and extension of the elbow, wrist, and fingers, and grasping of different objects. Sessions were 45-min long and were administered three to five days a week. The body structures (Modified Ashworth Scale), functions (Motricity Index, Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale), activities (Manual Function Test, Wolf Motor Function Test, Box and Blocks Test, Nine Hole Peg Test), and participation (Motor Activity Log) were assessed before and after each phase. Acceptance of the system was also assessed after phase B (System Usability Scale, Intrinsic Motivation Inventory). Results: Significant improvement was detected after the intervention with the system in the activity, both in arm function measured by the Wolf Motor Function Test (p < 0.01) and finger dexterity measured by the Box and Blocks Test (p < 0.01) and the Nine Hole Peg Test (p < 0.01); and participation (p < 0.01), which was maintained to the end of the study. The experimental system was reported as highly usable, enjoyable, and motivating. Conclusions: Our results support the clinical effectiveness of mixed reality interventions that satisfy the motor learning principles for upper limb rehabilitation in chronic stroke survivors. This characteristic, together with the low cost of the system, its portability, and its acceptance could promote the integration of these systems in the clinical practice as an alternative to more expensive systems, such as robotic instruments.The authors wish to thank the staff and patients of the Servicio de Neurorrehabilitación y Daño Cerebral de los Hospitales NISA for their involvement in the study. The authors also wish to thank the staff of LabHuman for their support in this project, especially Francisco Toledo and José Roda for their assistance. This study was funded in part by the Project TEREHA (IDI-20110844) and Project NeuroVR (TIN2013-44741-R) of the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad of Spain, the Project Consolider-C (SEJ2006-14301/PSIC) of the Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia of Spain, the "CIBER of Physiopathology of Obesity and Nutrition, an initiative of ISCIII", and the Excellence Research Program PROMETEO of the Conselleria de Educacion of Generalitat Valenciana (2008-157).Colomer Font, C.; Llorens Rodríguez, R.; Noé Sebastián, E.; Alcañiz Raya, ML. (2016). Effect of a mixed reality-based intervention on arm, hand, and finger function on chronic stroke. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 13:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-016-0153-6S11013Fregni F, Pascual-Leone A. Hand motor recovery after stroke: tuning the orchestra to improve hand motor function. Cogn Behav Neurol. 2006;19(1):21–33.Patten C, Condliffe EG, Dairaghi CA, Lum PS. Concurrent neuromechanical and functional gains following upper-extremity power training post-stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013;10:1.Turolla A, Dam M, Ventura L, Tonin P, Agostini M, Zucconi C, et al. Virtual reality for the rehabilitation of the upper limb motor function after stroke: a prospective controlled trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013;10:85.Dancause N, Nudo RJ. Shaping plasticity to enhance recovery after injury. Prog Brain Res. 2011;192:273–95.Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Lindeman E. Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: facts and theories. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2004;22(3–5):281–99.Nielsen JB, Willerslev-Olsen M, Christiansen L, Lundbye-Jensen J, Lorentzen J. Science-based neurorehabilitation: recommendations for neurorehabilitation from basic science. J Mot Behav. 2015;47(1):7–17.Shaughnessy M, Resnick BM. Using theory to develop an exercise intervention for patients post stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009;16(2):140–6.Subramanian SK, Massie CL, Malcolm MP, Levin MF. Does provision of extrinsic feedback result in improved motor learning in the upper limb poststroke? A systematic review of the evidence. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24(2):113–24.Arya KN, Verma R, Garg RK, Sharma VP, Agarwal M, Aggarwal GG. Meaningful task-specific training (MTST) for stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2012;19(3):193–211.Levin MF, Weiss PL, Keshner EA. Emergence of Virtual Reality as a Tool for Upper Limb Rehabilitation: Incorporation of Motor Control and Motor Learning Principles. Phys Ther. 2015;95(3):415–25.Laver K, George S, Thomas S, Deutsch JE, Crotty M. Cochrane review: virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2012;48(3):523–30.Cameirao MS, Badia SB, Duarte E, Frisoli A, Verschure PF. The combined impact of virtual reality neurorehabilitation and its interfaces on upper extremity functional recovery in patients with chronic stroke. Stroke. 2012;43(10):2720–8.Saposnik G, Levin M, G. Outcome Research Canada Working. Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: a meta-analysis and implications for clinicians. Stroke. 2011;42(5):1380–6.Viau A, Feldman AG, McFadyen BJ, Levin MF. Reaching in reality and virtual reality: a comparison of movement kinematics in healthy subjects and in adults with hemiparesis. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2004;1(1):11.Thornton M, Marshall S, McComas J, Finestone H, McCormick A, Sveistrup H. Benefits of activity and virtual reality based balance exercise programmes for adults with traumatic brain injury: perceptions of participants and their caregivers. Brain Inj. 2005;19(12):989–1000.Mazzoleni S, Puzzolante L, Zollo L, Dario P, Posteraro F. Mechanisms of motor recovery in chronic and subacute stroke patients following a robot-aided training. IEEE Trans Haptics. 2014;7(2):175–80.Duff M, Chen Y, Cheng L, Liu SM, Blake P, Wolf SL, et al. Adaptive mixed reality rehabilitation improves quality of reaching movements more than traditional reaching therapy following stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27(4):306–15.Mousavi Hondori, H., M. Khademi, L. Dodakian, A. McKenzie, C.V. Lopes, and S.C. Cramer, Choice of Human-Computer Interaction Mode in Stroke Rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 2015.Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987;67(2):206–7.Paternostro-Sluga T, Grim-Stieger M, Posch M, Schuhfried O, Vacariu G, Mittermaier C, et al. Reliability and validity of the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale and a modified scale for testing muscle strength in patients with radial palsy. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(8):665–71.Kopp B, Kunkel A, Flor H, Platz T, Rose U, Mauritz KH, et al. The Arm Motor Ability Test: reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of an instrument for assessing disabilities in activities of daily living. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78(6):615–20.Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–98.Romero M, Sanchez A, Marin C, Navarro MD, Ferri J, Noe E. Clinical usefulness of the Spanish version of the Mississippi Aphasia Screening Test (MASTsp): validation in stroke patients. Neurologia. 2012;27(4):216–24.Llorens R, Marín C, Ortega M, Alcaniz M, Colomer C, Navarro MD, et al. Upper limb tracking using depth information for rehabilitative tangible tabletop systems, in 9th International Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality & Associated Technologies. Laval, France: The University of Reading; 2012. p. 463–466.Alt Murphy M, Resteghini C, Feys P, Lamers I. An overview of systematic reviews on upper extremity outcome measures after stroke. BMC Neurol. 2015;15:29.Sloan RL, Sinclair E, Thompson J, Taylor S, Pentland B. Inter-rater reliability of the modified Ashworth Scale for spasticity in hemiplegic patients. Int J Rehabil Res. 1992;15(2):158–61.van der Ploeg RJ, Fidler V, Oosterhuis HJ. Hand-held myometry: reference values. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1991;54(3):244–7.Duncan PW, Propst M, Nelson SG. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor recovery following cerebrovascular accident. Phys Ther. 1983;63(10):1606–10.Miyamoto S, Kondo T, Suzukamo Y, Michimata A, Izumi S. Reliability and validity of the Manual Function Test in patients with stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88(3):247–55.Woodbury M, Velozo CA, Thompson PA, Light K, Uswatte G, Taub E, et al. Measurement structure of the Wolf Motor Function Test: implications for motor control theory. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24(9):791–801.Mathiowetz V, Volland G, Kashman N, Weber K. Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther. 1985;39(6):386–91.Oxford Grice K, Vogel KA, Le V, Mitchell A, Muniz S, Vollmer MA. Adult norms for a commercially available Nine Hole Peg Test for finger dexterity. Am J Occup Ther. 2003;57(5):570–3.Hammer AM, Lindmark B. Responsiveness and validity of the Motor Activity Log in patients during the subacute phase after stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(14):1184–93.Bullinger HJ, F.-I.f.A.u. Organisation, and U.S.I.f.A.u. Technologiemanagement. Human Aspects in Computing: Design and use of interactive systems and work with terminals. Elsevier; 1991.McAuley E, Duncan T, Tammen VV. Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1989;60(1):48–58.Mazzoleni S, Sale P, Tiboni M, Franceschini M, Carrozza MC, Posteraro F. Upper limb robot-assisted therapy in chronic and subacute stroke patients: a kinematic analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;92(10 Suppl 2):e26–37.Lin KC, Hsieh YW, Wu CY, Chen CL, Jang Y, Liu JS. Minimal detectable change and clinically important difference of the Wolf Motor Function Test in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(5):429–34.Fu TS, Wu CY, Lin KC, Hsieh CJ, Liu JS, Wang TN, et al. Psychometric comparison of the shortened Fugl-Meyer Assessment and the streamlined Wolf Motor Function Test in stroke rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(11):1043–7.Hsieh YW, Wu CY, Lin KC, Chang YF, Chen CL, Liu JS. Responsiveness and validity of three outcome measures of motor function after stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2009;40(4):1386–91.van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. The responsiveness of the Action Research Arm test and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment scale in chronic stroke patients. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33(3):110–3.Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Ellis M, Archer AL, Morgan B, Piacentino A. Assessing Wolf Motor Function Test as Outcome Measure for Research in Patients After Stroke. Stroke. 2001;32(7):1635–9.Reinkensmeyer DJ, Wolbrecht ET, Chan V, Chou C, Cramer SC, Bobrow JE. Comparison of three-dimensional, assist-as-needed robotic arm/hand movement training provided with Pneu-WREX to conventional tabletop therapy after chronic stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(11 Suppl 3):S232–41.Takahashi CD, Der-Yeghiaian L, Le V, Motiwala RR, Cramer SC. Robot-based hand motor therapy after stroke. Brain. 2008;131(Pt 2):425–37.Sale P, Mazzoleni S, Lombardi V, Galafate D, Massimiani MP, Posteraro F, et al. Recovery of hand function with robot-assisted therapy in acute stroke patients: a randomized-controlled trial. Int J Rehabil Res. 2014;37(3):236–42.Hwang CH, Seong JW, Son DS. Individual finger synchronized robot-assisted hand rehabilitation in subacute to chronic stroke: a prospective randomized clinical trial of efficacy. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(8):696–704.Timmermans AA, Seelen HA, Willmann RD, Kingma H. Technology-assisted training of arm-hand skills in stroke: concepts on reacquisition of motor control and therapist guidelines for rehabilitation technology design. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009;6:1.Levin MF, Kleim JA, Wolf SL. What do motor “recovery” and “compensation” mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(4):313–9.Rosati G, Oscari F, Spagnol S, Avanzini F, Masiero S. Effect of task-related continuous auditory feedback during learning of tracking motion exercises. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012;9:79.Imam B, Jarus T. Virtual reality rehabilitation from social cognitive and motor learning theoretical perspectives in stroke population. Rehabil Res Pract. 2014;2014:594540.Schuster-Amft C, Henneke A, Hartog-Keisker B, Holper L, Siekierka E, Chevrier E, et al. Intensive virtual reality-based training for upper limb motor function in chronic stroke: a feasibility study using a single case experimental design and fMRI. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10(5):385–92.Llorens R, Noe E, Colomer C, Alcaniz M. Effectiveness, usability, and cost-benefit of a virtual reality-based telerehabilitation program for balance recovery after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(3):418–25. e2.Llorens R, Gil-Gomez JA, Alcaniz M, Colomer C, Noe E. Improvement in balance using a virtual reality-based stepping exercise: a randomized controlled trial involving individuals with chronic stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2015;29(3):7

Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR): study protocol for a phase II randomised feasibility study of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture

Objective: To conduct a rigorous feasibility study for a future definitive parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation of an enhanced rehabilitation package for hip fracture.Setting: Recruitment from 3 acute hospitals in North Wales. Intervention delivery in the community.Participants: Older adults (aged ≥65) who received surgical treatment for hip fracture, lived independently prior to fracture, had mental capacity (assessed by clinical team) and received rehabilitation in the North Wales area.Intervention: Remote randomisation to usual care (control) or usual care+enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention), including six additional home-based physiotherapy sessions delivered by a physiotherapist or technical instructor, novel information workbook and goal-setting diary.Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary: Barthel Activities of Daily Living (BADL). Secondary measures included Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale (NEADL), EQ-5D, ICECAP capability, a suite of self-efficacy, psychosocial and service-use measures and costs. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up by blinded researchers.Results: 62 participants were recruited, 61 randomised (control 32; intervention 29) and 49 (79%) completed 3-month follow-up. Minimal differences occurred between the 2 groups for most outcomes, including BADL (adjusted mean difference 0.5). The intervention group showed a medium-sized improvement in the NEADL relative to the control group, with an adjusted mean difference between groups of 3.0 (Cohen's d 0.63), and a trend for greater improvement in self-efficacy and mental health, but with small effect sizes. The mean cost of delivering the intervention was £231 per patient. There was a small relative improvement in quality-adjusted life year in the intervention group. No serious adverse events relating to the intervention were reported.Conclusions: The trial methods were feasible in terms of eligibility, recruitment and retention. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the rehabilitation package should be tested in a phase III RCT

Identification of genetic variants associated with Huntington's disease progression: a genome-wide association study

Background Huntington's disease is caused by a CAG repeat expansion in the huntingtin gene, HTT. Age at onset has been used as a quantitative phenotype in genetic analysis looking for Huntington's disease modifiers, but is hard to define and not always available. Therefore, we aimed to generate a novel measure of disease progression and to identify genetic markers associated with this progression measure. Methods We generated a progression score on the basis of principal component analysis of prospectively acquired longitudinal changes in motor, cognitive, and imaging measures in the 218 indivduals in the TRACK-HD cohort of Huntington's disease gene mutation carriers (data collected 2008–11). We generated a parallel progression score using data from 1773 previously genotyped participants from the European Huntington's Disease Network REGISTRY study of Huntington's disease mutation carriers (data collected 2003–13). We did a genome-wide association analyses in terms of progression for 216 TRACK-HD participants and 1773 REGISTRY participants, then a meta-analysis of these results was undertaken. Findings Longitudinal motor, cognitive, and imaging scores were correlated with each other in TRACK-HD participants, justifying use of a single, cross-domain measure of disease progression in both studies. The TRACK-HD and REGISTRY progression measures were correlated with each other (r=0·674), and with age at onset (TRACK-HD, r=0·315; REGISTRY, r=0·234). The meta-analysis of progression in TRACK-HD and REGISTRY gave a genome-wide significant signal (p=1·12 × 10−10) on chromosome 5 spanning three genes: MSH3, DHFR, and MTRNR2L2. The genes in this locus were associated with progression in TRACK-HD (MSH3 p=2·94 × 10−8 DHFR p=8·37 × 10−7 MTRNR2L2 p=2·15 × 10−9) and to a lesser extent in REGISTRY (MSH3 p=9·36 × 10−4 DHFR p=8·45 × 10−4 MTRNR2L2 p=1·20 × 10−3). The lead single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in TRACK-HD (rs557874766) was genome-wide significant in the meta-analysis (p=1·58 × 10−8), and encodes an aminoacid change (Pro67Ala) in MSH3. In TRACK-HD, each copy of the minor allele at this SNP was associated with a 0·4 units per year (95% CI 0·16–0·66) reduction in the rate of change of the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS) Total Motor Score, and a reduction of 0·12 units per year (95% CI 0·06–0·18) in the rate of change of UHDRS Total Functional Capacity score. These associations remained significant after adjusting for age of onset. Interpretation The multidomain progression measure in TRACK-HD was associated with a functional variant that was genome-wide significant in our meta-analysis. The association in only 216 participants implies that the progression measure is a sensitive reflection of disease burden, that the effect size at this locus is large, or both. Knockout of Msh3 reduces somatic expansion in Huntington's disease mouse models, suggesting this mechanism as an area for future therapeutic investigation

Endometrial Cells Acutely Exposed to Phthalates In Vitro Do Not Phenocopy Endometriosis

Environmental factors that have been linked to an increased endometriosis risk include exposure to di-(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate (DEHP), an endocrine disruptor. This study aims to investigate whether DEHP in vitro exposure in primary endometrial stromal cells (EnSC), primary endometrial epithelial cells (EnEC), and the human endometrial adenocarcinoma cell line Ishikawa properly mimics alterations described in the eutopic endometrium of women with endometriosis. Primary EnSC and EnEC, isolated from six fertile egg donors, and Ishikawa cells were exposed to DEHP (0.1, 1, and 10 &micro;M) and were assessed for viability, endometriosis markers (IL-6, VEGF-A, HOXA10, EZH2, and LSD1), steroid receptor gene expressions (ER-1, ER-2, PR-T, PR-B, and PGRMC1), and invasive capacity. Viability after 72 h of DEHP exposure was not significantly affected. None of the endometriosis markers studied were altered after acute DEHP exposure, nor was the expression of steroid receptors. The invasive capacity of EnSC was significantly increased after 10 &micro;M of DEHP exposure. In conclusion, acute DEHP exposure in primary endometrial cells does not fully phenocopy the changes in the viability, expression of markers, or steroidal receptors described in endometriosis. However, the significant increase in EnSC invasiveness observed after DEHP exposure could be a link between DEHP exposure and increased endometriosis likelihood