The Healthy Men Study: An Evaluation of Exposure to Disinfection By-Products in Tap Water and Sperm Quality

BackgroundChlorination of drinking water generates disinfection by-products (DBPs), which have been shown to disrupt spermatogenesis in rodents at high doses, suggesting that DBPs could pose a reproductive risk to men. In this study we assessed DBP exposure and testicular toxicity, as evidenced by altered semen quality.MethodsWe conducted a cohort study to evaluate semen quality in men with well-characterized exposures to DBPs. Participants were 228 presumed fertile men with different DBP profiles. They completed a telephone interview about demographics, health history, water consumption, and other exposures and provided a semen sample. Semen outcomes included sperm concentration and morphology, as well as DNA integrity and chromatin maturity. Exposures to DBPs were evaluated by incorporating data on water consumption and bathing and showering with concentrations measured in tap water. We used multivariable linear regression to assess the relationship between exposure to DBPs and adverse sperm outcomes.ResultsThe mean (median) sperm concentration and sperm count were 114.2 (90.5) million/mL and 362 (265) million, respectively. The mean (median) of the four trihalomethane species (THM4) exposure was 45.7 (65.3) μg/L, and the mean (median) of the nine haloacetic acid species (HAA9) exposure was 30.7 (44.2) μg/L. These sperm parameters were not associated with exposure to these classes of DBPs. For other sperm outcomes, we found no consistent pattern of increased abnormal semen quality with elevated exposure to trihalomethanes (THMs) or haloacetic acids (HAAs). The use of alternate methods for assessing exposure to DBPs and site-specific analyses did not change these results.ConclusionsThe results of this study do not support an association between exposure to levels of DBPs near or below regulatory limits and adverse sperm outcomes in humans

Preliminary examination of polymorphisms of GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTZ1 in relation to semen quality

Environmental, lifestyle, and occupational exposures on semen quality have been investigated in epidemiological studies with inconsistent results. Genetic factors involved in toxicant activation and detoxification have been examined in relation to the risk of outcomes such as cancer, cardiovascular, and neurologic disorders. However, the effect of common genetic variants in the metabolism of toxicants on semen quality parameters has rarely been evaluated. In this analysis, we evaluated functional SNPs of three genes of the glutathione-S-transferase (GSTM1, GSTT1, GSTZ1) enzyme family

The Eye of the Beholder: Youths and Parents Differ on What Matters in Mental Health Services

The goal of this study was to examine the degree to which youths and caregivers attend to different factors in evaluating their experiences with mental health programs. Youth (n = 251) receiving mental health services at community agencies and their caregivers (n = 275) were asked open-ended questions regarding the positive and negative aspects of the services. Qualitative analyses revealed some agreement but also divergence between youth and caregivers regarding the criteria by which services were evaluated and aspects of services that were valued most highly. Youths’ positive comments primarily focused on treatment outcomes while caregivers focused more on characteristics of the program and provider. Youths’ negative comments reflected dissatisfaction with the program, provider, and types of services offered while caregivers expressed dissatisfaction mainly with program characteristics. Results support the importance of assessing both youth and caregivers in attempts to understand the factors used by consumers to evaluate youth mental health services

An inherited duplication at the gene p21 protein-activated Kinase 7 (PAK7) is a risk factor for psychosis

FUNDING Funding for this study was provided by the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium 2 project (085475/B/08/Z and 085475/Z/08/Z), the Wellcome Trust (072894/Z/03/Z, 090532/Z/09/Z and 075491/Z/04/B), NIMH grants (MH 41953 and MH083094) and Science Foundation Ireland (08/IN.1/B1916). We acknowledge use of the Trinity Biobank sample from the Irish Blood Transfusion Service; the Trinity Centre for High Performance Computing; British 1958 Birth Cohort DNA collection funded by the Medical Research Council (G0000934) and the Wellcome Trust (068545/Z/02) and of the UK National Blood Service controls funded by the Wellcome Trust. Chris Spencer is supported by a Wellcome Trust Career Development Fellowship (097364/Z/11/Z). Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by the Wellcome Trust. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors sincerely thank all patients who contributed to this study and all staff who facilitated their involvement. We thank W. Bodmer and B. Winney for use of the People of the British Isles DNA collection, which was funded by the Wellcome Trust. We thank Akira Sawa and Koko Ishzuki for advice on the PAK7–DISC1 interaction experiment and Jan Korbel for discussions on mechanism of structural variation.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

NIST Interlaboratory Study on Glycosylation Analysis of Monoclonal Antibodies: Comparison of Results from Diverse Analytical Methods

Glycosylation is a topic of intense current interest in the development of biopharmaceuticals because it is related to drug safety and efficacy. This work describes results of an interlaboratory study on the glycosylation of the Primary Sample (PS) of NISTmAb, a monoclonal antibody reference material. Seventy-six laboratories from industry, university, research, government, and hospital sectors in Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia submit- Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20993; 22Glycoscience Research Laboratory, Genos, Borongajska cesta 83h, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia; 23Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, University of Zagreb, A. Kovacˇ ic´ a 1, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia; 24Department of Chemistry, Georgia State University, 100 Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia 30303; 25glyXera GmbH, Brenneckestrasse 20 * ZENIT / 39120 Magdeburg, Germany; 26Health Products and Foods Branch, Health Canada, AL 2201E, 251 Sir Frederick Banting Driveway, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K9 Canada; 27Graduate School of Advanced Sciences of Matter, Hiroshima University, 1-3-1 Kagamiyama Higashi-Hiroshima 739–8530 Japan; 28ImmunoGen, 830 Winter Street, Waltham, Massachusetts 02451; 29Department of Medical Physiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, ul. Michalowskiego 12, 31–126 Krakow, Poland; 30Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, 400 N. Broadway Street Baltimore, Maryland 21287; 31Mass Spec Core Facility, KBI Biopharma, 1101 Hamlin Road Durham, North Carolina 27704; 32Division of Mass Spectrometry, Korea Basic Science Institute, 162 YeonGuDanji-Ro, Ochang-eup, Cheongwon-gu, Cheongju Chungbuk, 363–883 Korea (South); 33Advanced Therapy Products Research Division, Korea National Institute of Food and Drug Safety, 187 Osongsaengmyeong 2-ro Osong-eup, Heungdeok-gu, Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do, 363–700, Korea (South); 34Center for Proteomics and Metabolomics, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands; 35Ludger Limited, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 3EB, United Kingdom; 36Biomolecular Discovery and Design Research Centre and ARC Centre of Excellence for Nanoscale BioPhotonics (CNBP), Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia; 37Proteomics, Central European Institute for Technology, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, A26, 625 00 BRNO, Czech Republic; 38Max Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems, Sandtorstrasse 1, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany; 39Department of Biomolecular Sciences, Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, 14424 Potsdam, Germany; 40AstraZeneca, Granta Park, Cambridgeshire, CB21 6GH United Kingdom; 41Merck, 2015 Galloping Hill Rd, Kenilworth, New Jersey 07033; 42Analytical R&D, MilliporeSigma, 2909 Laclede Ave. St. Louis, Missouri 63103; 43MS Bioworks, LLC, 3950 Varsity Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108; 44MSD, Molenstraat 110, 5342 CC Oss, The Netherlands; 45Exploratory Research Center on Life and Living Systems (ExCELLS), National Institutes of Natural Sciences, 5–1 Higashiyama, Myodaiji, Okazaki 444–8787 Japan; 46Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nagoya City University, 3–1 Tanabe-dori, Mizuhoku, Nagoya 467–8603 Japan; 47Medical & Biological Laboratories Co., Ltd, 2-22-8 Chikusa, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464–0858 Japan; 48National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Blanche Lane, South Mimms, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire EN6 3QG United Kingdom; 49Division of Biological Chemistry & Biologicals, National Institute of Health Sciences, 1-18-1 Kamiyoga, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 158–8501 Japan; 50New England Biolabs, Inc., 240 County Road, Ipswich, Massachusetts 01938; 51New York University, 100 Washington Square East New York City, New York 10003; 52Target Discovery Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7FZ, United Kingdom; 53GlycoScience Group, The National Institute for Bioprocessing Research and Training, Fosters Avenue, Mount Merrion, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland; 54Department of Chemistry, North Carolina State University, 2620 Yarborough Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27695; 55Pantheon, 201 College Road East Princeton, New Jersey 08540; 56Pfizer Inc., 1 Burtt Road Andover, Massachusetts 01810; 57Proteodynamics, ZI La Varenne 20–22 rue Henri et Gilberte Goudier 63200 RIOM, France; 58ProZyme, Inc., 3832 Bay Center Place Hayward, California 94545; 59Koichi Tanaka Mass Spectrometry Research Laboratory, Shimadzu Corporation, 1 Nishinokyo Kuwabara-cho Nakagyo-ku, Kyoto, 604 8511 Japan; 60Children’s GMP LLC, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, 262 Danny Thomas Place Memphis, Tennessee 38105; 61Sumitomo Bakelite Co., Ltd., 1–5 Muromati 1-Chome, Nishiku, Kobe, 651–2241 Japan; 62Synthon Biopharmaceuticals, Microweg 22 P.O. Box 7071, 6503 GN Nijmegen, The Netherlands; 63Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co., 40 Landsdowne Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139; 64Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Texas Tech University, 2500 Broadway, Lubbock, Texas 79409; 65Thermo Fisher Scientific, 1214 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, California 94085; 66United States Pharmacopeia India Pvt. Ltd. IKP Knowledge Park, Genome Valley, Shamirpet, Turkapally Village, Medchal District, Hyderabad 500 101 Telangana, India; 67Alberta Glycomics Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G2 Canada; 68Department of Chemistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G2 Canada; 69Department of Chemistry, University of California, One Shields Ave, Davis, California 95616; 70Horva´ th Csaba Memorial Laboratory for Bioseparation Sciences, Research Center for Molecular Medicine, Doctoral School of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Egyetem ter 1, Hungary; 71Translational Glycomics Research Group, Research Institute of Biomolecular and Chemical Engineering, University of Pannonia, Veszprem, Egyetem ut 10, Hungary; 72Delaware Biotechnology Institute, University of Delaware, 15 Innovation Way Newark, Delaware 19711; 73Proteomics Core Facility, University of Gothenburg, Medicinaregatan 1G SE 41390 Gothenburg, Sweden; 74Department of Medical Biochemistry and Cell Biology, University of Gothenburg, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Medicinaregatan 9A, Box 440, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden; 75Department of Clinical Chemistry and Transfusion Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Bruna Straket 16, 41345 Gothenburg, Sweden; 76Department of Chemistry, University of Hamburg, Martin Luther King Pl. 6 20146 Hamburg, Germany; 77Department of Chemistry, University of Manitoba, 144 Dysart Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2; 78Laboratory of Mass Spectrometry of Interactions and Systems, University of Strasbourg, UMR Unistra-CNRS 7140, France; 79Natural and Medical Sciences Institute, University of Tu¨ bingen, Markwiesenstrae 55, 72770 Reutlingen, Germany; 80Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research and Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands; 81Division of Bioanalytical Chemistry, Amsterdam Institute for Molecules, Medicines and Systems, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 82Department of Chemistry, Waters Corporation, 34 Maple Street Milford, Massachusetts 01757; 83Zoetis, 333 Portage St. Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Author’s Choice—Final version open access under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY license. Received July 24, 2019, and in revised form, August 26, 2019 Published, MCP Papers in Press, October 7, 2019, DOI 10.1074/mcp.RA119.001677 ER: NISTmAb Glycosylation Interlaboratory Study 12 Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 19.1 Downloaded from https://www.mcponline.org by guest on January 20, 2020 ted a total of 103 reports on glycan distributions. The principal objective of this study was to report and compare results for the full range of analytical methods presently used in the glycosylation analysis of mAbs. Therefore, participation was unrestricted, with laboratories choosing their own measurement techniques. Protein glycosylation was determined in various ways, including at the level of intact mAb, protein fragments, glycopeptides, or released glycans, using a wide variety of methods for derivatization, separation, identification, and quantification. Consequently, the diversity of results was enormous, with the number of glycan compositions identified by each laboratory ranging from 4 to 48. In total, one hundred sixteen glycan compositions were reported, of which 57 compositions could be assigned consensus abundance values. These consensus medians provide communityderived values for NISTmAb PS. Agreement with the consensus medians did not depend on the specific method or laboratory type. The study provides a view of the current state-of-the-art for biologic glycosylation measurement and suggests a clear need for harmonization of glycosylation analysis methods. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 19: 11–30, 2020. DOI: 10.1074/mcp.RA119.001677.L

Indigenous initiatives and information studies: Unlearning in the classroom

This paper provides a classroom-grounded inquiry into Library, Archival, and Information Studies (LAIS) engagement with Indigenous initiatives and issues. We review select diversity-oriented scholarship framed by our interest in LAIS pedagogy. We recognize incisive scholars who have identified pervasive racism and oppression within LAIS, called for change, and envisioned better futures. We contribute to this conversation through reflecting on our attempts to question professional norms in a LAIS classroom, specifically in relation to engagement with Indigenous initiatives. We share our experiences as educators, what we tried, what failed, what we think worked, and why. The paper concludes with our aspirations for diversity initiatives across LAIS education

The effect of geographic location and payor type on provincial-wide delivery of the GLA:D program for hip and knee osteoarthritis in Alberta, Canada

Objective: The Good Life with osteoArthritis: Denmark (GLA:D™) program for knee and hip osteoarthritis has been shown to be effective, but evaluations have yet to explore whether effectiveness differs by program context. The present study explores whether there are differences in effectiveness of the GLA:D™ program for treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis across program location (i.e., rural, urban, metro) and program payor (i.e., public, private) within Alberta, Canada. Design: The study population was adults with hip or knee osteoarthritis attending the 8-week GLA:D™ supervised exercise and education programme in Alberta between Sep 2017–Mar 2020. Outcomes of interest were joint-related pain and quality of life (HOOS/KOOS), health quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and performance-based functional (30-s chair stand test; 40-m walk test) measures. Minimally clinically important changes were calculated for each outcome and ANOVA and chi-square tests were used to determine statistical significance by program location or payor. Results: Of the 1321 eligible participants, 974 (73.7%) completed the baseline questionnaire, about 50% of participants participated in a metro area and 60% paid privately for the program. There were no statistically significant differences in improvements of joint-related pain, joint-related quality of life, health-related quality of life, or performance-based functional measures by program location or program payor, except for participants who received the program in a publicly covered primary care clinic who experienced significantly larger improvements in joint-related pain. Conclusion: The implementation of the GLA:D™ program for the treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis in Alberta is effective across a range of contexts