Newly resolved relationships in an early land plant lineage: Bryophyta class Sphagnopsida (peat mosses).

UNLABELLED: PREMISE OF THE STUDY: The Sphagnopsida, an early-diverging lineage of mosses (phylum Bryophyta), are morphologically and ecologically unique and have profound impacts on global climate. The Sphagnopsida are currently classified in two genera, Sphagnum (peat mosses) with some 350-500 species and Ambuchanania with one species. An analysis of phylogenetic relationships among species and genera in the Sphagnopsida were conducted to resolve major lineages and relationships among species within the Sphagnopsida. • METHODS: Phylogenetic analyses of nucleotide sequences from the nuclear, plastid, and mitochondrial genomes (11 704 nucleotides total) were conducted and analyzed using maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference employing seven different substitution models of varying complexity. • KEY RESULTS: Phylogenetic analyses resolved three lineages within the Sphagnopsida: (1) Sphagnum sericeum, (2) S. inretortum plus Ambuchanania leucobryoides, and (3) all remaining species of Sphagnum. Sister group relationships among these three clades could not be resolved, but the phylogenetic results indicate that the highly divergent morphology of A. leucobryoides is derived within the Sphagnopsida rather than plesiomorphic. A new classification is proposed for class Sphagnopsida, with one order (Sphagnales), three families, and four genera. • CONCLUSIONS: The Sphagnopsida are an old lineage within the phylum Bryophyta, but the extant species of Sphagnum represent a relatively recent radiation. It is likely that additional species critical to understanding the evolution of peat mosses await discovery, especially in the southern hemisphere.

Impact of gene variants on sex-specific regulation of human Scavenger receptor class B type 1 (SR-BI) expression in liver and association with lipid levels in a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have noted that genetic variants of SCARB1, a lipoprotein receptor involved in reverse cholesterol transport, are associated with serum lipid levels in a sex-dependent fashion. However, the mechanism underlying this gene by sex interaction has not been explored. METHODS: We utilized both epidemiological and molecular methods to study how estrogen and gene variants interact to influence SCARB1 expression and lipid levels. Interaction between 35 SCARB1 haplotype-tagged polymorphisms and endogenous estradiol levels was assessed in 498 postmenopausal Caucasian women from the population-based Rancho Bernardo Study. We further examined associated variants with overall and SCARB1 splice variant (SR-BI and SR-BII) expression in 91 human liver tissues using quantitative real-time PCR. RESULTS: Several variants on a haplotype block spanning intron 11 to intron 12 of SCARB1 showed significant gene by estradiol interaction affecting serum lipid levels, the strongest for rs838895 with HDL-cholesterol (p=9.2x10(-4)) and triglycerides (p=1.3x10(-3)) and the triglyceride:HDL cholesterol ratio (p=2.7x10(-4)). These same variants were associated with expression of the SR-BI isoform in a sex-specific fashion, with the strongest association found among liver tissue from 52 young women<45 years old (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Estrogen and SCARB1 genotype may act synergistically to regulate expression of SCARB1 isoforms and impact serum levels of HDL cholesterol and triglycerides. This work highlights the importance of considering sex-dependent effects of gene variants on serum lipid levels.

The cost of biopharmaceutical R&D: Is biotech different?

The costs of developing the types of new drugs that have been pursued by traditional pharmaceutical firms have been estimated in a number of studies. However, similar analyses have not been published on the costs of developing the types of molecules on which biotech firms have focused. This study represents a first attempt to get a sense for the magnitude of the R&D costs associated with the discovery and development of new therapeutic biopharmaceuticals (specifically, recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies [mAbs]). We utilize drug-specific data on cash outlays, development times, and success in obtaining regulatory marketing approval to estimate the average pre-tax R&D resource cost for biopharmaceuticals up to the point of initial US marketing approval (in year 2005 dollars). We found average out-of-pocket (cash outlay) cost estimates per approved biopharmaceutical of $198 million, $361 million, and $559 million for the preclinical period, the clinical period, and in total, respectively. Including the time costs associated with biopharmaceutical R&D, we found average capitalized cost estimates per approved biopharmaceutical of $615 million, $626 million, and $1241 million for the preclinical period, the clinical period, and in total, respectively. Adjusting previously published estimates of R&D costs for traditional pharmaceutical firms by using past growth rates for pharmaceutical company costs to correspond to the more recent period to which our biopharmaceutical data apply, we found that total out-of-pocket cost per approved biopharmaceutical was somewhat lower than for the pharmaceutical company data ($559 million vs $672 million). However, estimated total capitalized cost per approved new molecule was nearly the same for biopharmaceuticals as for the adjusted pharmaceutical company data ($1241 million versus $1318 million). The results should be viewed with some caution for now given a limited number of biopharmaceutical molecules with data on cash outlays, different therapeutic class distributions for biopharmaceuticals and for pharmaceutical company drugs, and uncertainty about whether recent growth rates in pharmaceutical company costs are different from immediate past growth rates. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Economics of new oncology drug development.

PURPOSE: Review existing studies and provide new results on the development, regulatory, and market aspects of new oncology drug development. METHODS: We utilized data from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), company surveys, and publicly available commercial business intelligence databases on new oncology drugs approved in the United States and on investigational oncology drugs to estimate average development and regulatory approval times, clinical approval success rates, first-in-class status, and global market diffusion. RESULTS: We found that approved new oncology drugs to have a disproportionately high share of FDA priority review ratings, of orphan drug designations at approval, and of drugs that were granted inclusion in at least one of the FDA's expedited access programs. US regulatory approval times were shorter, on average, for oncology drugs (0.5 years), but US clinical development times were longer on average (1.5 years). Clinical approval success rates were similar for oncology and other drugs, but proportionately more of the oncology failures reached expensive late-stage clinical testing before being abandoned. In relation to other drugs, new oncology drug approvals were more often first-in-class and diffused more widely across important international markets. CONCLUSION: The market success of oncology drugs has induced a substantial amount of investment in oncology drug development in the last decade or so. However, given the great need for further progress, the extent to which efforts to develop new oncology drugs will grow depends on future public-sector investment in basic research, developments in translational medicine, and regulatory reforms that advance drug-development science.

Low Molecular Weight Opioid Peptide Esters Could be Developed as a New Class of Analgesics.

Low molecular weight opioid peptide esters (OPE) could become a class of analgesics with different side effect profiles than current opiates. OPE may have sufficient plasma stability to cross the blood brain barrier (BBB), undergo ester hydrolysis and produce analgesia. OPE of dipeptides, tyr-pro and tyr-gly conjugated to ethanol have a structure similar to the anesthestic agent, etomidate. Based upon the analgesic activity of dipeptide opioids, Lipinski's criteria, and permeability of select GABA esters to cross the BBB, opioid peptides (OP) conjugated to ethanol, cholesterol or 3-glucose are lead recommendations. Preliminary animal data suggests that tyr-pro-ethyl ester crosses the BBB and unexpectedly produces hyperalgesia. Currently, there are no approved OP analgesics available for clinical use. Clinical trials of good manufacturing practice OP administered to patients suffering from chronic pain with indwelling intrathecal pumps could resolve the issue that OP may be superior to opiates and may redirect research.

A comparison of the effectiveness of the team-based learning readiness assessments completed at home to those completed in class.

PURPOSE: The readiness assurance process (RAP) of team-based learning (TBL) is an important element that ensures that students come prepared to learn. However, the RAP can use a significant amount of class time which could otherwise be used for application exercises. The authors administered the TBL-associated RAP in class or individual readiness assurance tests (iRATs) at home to compare medical student performance and learning preference for physiology content. METHODS: Using cross-over study design, the first year medical student TBL teams were divided into two groups. One group was administered iRATs and group readiness assurance tests (gRATs) consisting of physiology questions during scheduled class time. The other group was administered the same iRAT questions at home, and did not complete a gRAT. To compare effectiveness of the two administration methods, both groups completed the same 12-question physiology assessment during dedicated class time. Four weeks later, the entire process was repeated, with each group administered the RAP using the opposite method. RESULTS: The performance on the physiology assessment after at-home administration of the iRAT was equivalent to performance after traditional in-class administration of the RAP. In addition, a majority of students preferred the at-home method of administration and reported that the at-home method was more effective in helping them learn course content. CONCLUSION: The at-home administration of the iRAT proved effective. The at-home administration method is a promising alternative to conventional iRATs and gRATs with the goal of preserving valuable in-class time for TBL application exercises.