Barriers and Facilitators to Adoption of Genomic Services for Colorectal Care within the Veterans Health Administration.

We examined facilitators and barriers to adoption of genomic services for colorectal care, one of the first genomic medicine applications, within the Veterans Health Administration to shed light on areas for practice change. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 58 clinicians to understand use of the following genomic services for colorectal care: family health history documentation, molecular and genetic testing, and genetic counseling. Data collection and analysis were informed by two conceptual frameworks, the Greenhalgh Diffusion of Innovation and Andersen Behavioral Model, to allow for concurrent examination of both access and innovation factors. Specialists were more likely than primary care clinicians to obtain family history to investigate hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC), but with limited detail; clinicians suggested templates to facilitate retrieval and documentation of family history according to guidelines. Clinicians identified advantage of molecular tumor analysis prior to genetic testing, but tumor testing was infrequently used due to perceived low disease burden. Support from genetic counselors was regarded as facilitative for considering hereditary basis of CRC diagnosis, but there was variability in awareness of and access to this expertise. Our data suggest the need for tools and policies to establish and disseminate well-defined processes for accessing services and adhering to guidelines.

The (Un)Folding of Multidomain Proteins Through the Lens of Single-molecule Force-spectroscopy and Computer Simulation

Proteins are specialized molecules that catalyze most of the reactions that can sustain life, and they become functional by folding into a specific 3D structure. Despite their importance, the question, "how do proteins fold?" - first pondered in in the 1930's - is still listed as one of the top unanswered scientific questions as of 2005, according to the journal Science. Answering this question would provide a foundation for understanding protein function and would enable improved drug targeting, efficient biofuel production, and stronger biomaterials. Much of what we currently know about protein folding comes from studies on small, single-domain proteins, which may be quite different from the folding of large, multidomain proteins that predominate the proteomes of all organisms.

In this thesis I will discuss my work to fill this gap in understanding by studying the unfolding and refolding of large, multidomain proteins using the powerful combination of single-molecule force-spectroscopy experiments and molecular dynamic simulations.

The three model proteins studied - Luciferase, Protein S, and Streptavidin - lend insight into the inter-domain dependence for unfolding and the subdomain stabilization of binding ligands, and ultimately provide new insight into atomistic details of the intermediate states along the folding pathway.

When static meets dynamic: Comparing cone-beam computed tomography and acoustic reflection for upper airway analysis

INTRODUCTION: Upper airway measurement can be important for the diagnosis of breathing disorders. Acoustic reflection (AR) is an accepted tool for studying the airway. Our objective was to investigate the differences between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and AR in calculating airway volumes and areas. METHODS: Subjects with prescribed CBCT images as part of their records were also asked to have AR performed. A total of 59 subjects (mean age, 15 ± 3.8 years) had their upper airway (5 areas) measured from CBCT images, acoustic rhinometry, and acoustic pharyngometry. Volumes and minimal cross-sectional areas were extracted and compared with software. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation on 20 randomly selected subjects, remeasured 2 weeks apart, showed high reliability (r >0.77). Means of total nasal volume were significantly different between the 2 methods (P = 0.035), but anterior nasal volume and minimal cross-sectional area showed no differences (P = 0.532 and P = 0.066, respectively). Pharyngeal volume showed significant differences (P = 0.01) with high correlation (r = 0.755), whereas pharyngeal minimal cross-sectional area showed no differences (P = 0.109). The pharyngeal volume difference may not be considered clinically significant, since it is 758 mm3 for measurements showing means of 11,000 ± 4000 mm3. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT is an accurate method for measuring anterior nasal volume, nasal minimal cross-sectional area, pharyngeal volume, and pharyngeal minimal cross-sectional area.