LYRIC/AEG-1 is targeted to different subcellular compartments by ubiquitinylation and intrinsic nuclear localization signals

PURPOSE: LYRIC/AEG-1 has been reported to influence breast cancer survival and metastases, and its altered expression has been found in a number of cancers. The cellular function of LYRIC/AEG-1 has previously been related to its subcellular distribution in cell lines. LYRIC/AEG-1 contains three uncharacterized nuclear localization signals (NLS), which may regulate its distribution and, ultimately, function in cells.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Immunohistochemistry of a human prostate tissue microarray composed of 179 prostate cancer and 24 benign samples was used to assess LYRIC/AEG-1 distribution. Green fluorescent protein-NLS fusion proteins and deletion constructs were used to show the ability of LYRIC/AEG-1 NLS to target green fluorescent protein from the cytoplasm to the nucleus. Immunoprecipitation and Western blotting were used to show posttranslational modification of LYRIC/AEG-1 NLS regions.

RESULTS: Using a prostate tissue microarray, significant changes in the distribution of LYRIC/AEG-1 were observed in prostate cancer as an increased cytoplasmic distribution in tumors compared with benign tissue. These differences were most marked in high grade and aggressive prostate cancers and were associated with decreased survival. The COOH-terminal extended NLS-3 (amino acids 546-582) is the predominant regulator of nuclear localization, whereas extended NLS-1 (amino acids 78-130) regulates its nucleolar localization. Within the extended NLS-2 region (amino acids 415-486), LYRIC/AEG-1 can be modified by ubiquitin almost exclusively within the cytoplasm.

CONCLUSIONS: Changes in LYRIC/AEG-1 subcellular distribution can predict Gleason grade and survival. Two lysine-rich regions (NLS-1 and NLS-3) can target LYRIC/AEG-1 to subcellular compartments whereas NLS-2 is modified by ubiquitin in the cytoplasm.

Perspectives on social citizenship in the EU – from status positivus to status socialis activus via two forms of transnational solidarity

Ever since the inauguration of EU citizenship, elements of social citizenship have been on the agenda of European integration. European level social benefits were proposed early on, and demands for collective labour rights have followed suit. This chapter uses the theoretical umbrella of transnational social citizenship in order to link transnational access to social benefits and collective labour rights. It promotes transnational rights as the best way to conceptualise EU social citizenship as an institution enabling the enjoyment of EU integration without being forced to forego social rights at other levels. Such a perspective sits well in a collection on EU citizenship and federalism, since it simultaneously challenges demands of renationalisation of social rights in the EU and pleas to reduce EU-level citizenship rights to a merely liberal dimension. Social citizenship as promoted here requires an interactive conceptualisation of regulatory and judicial powers at different levels of government as typical for federal systems.
In linking citizenship with human rights the chapter highlights different statuses of citizens. It argues that the rights constituted by social citizenship derive from a status positivus and a status socialis activus, expanding the time-honoured categories of Jellinek. This concept is developed further by linking the notions of receptive solidarity to the status positivus and the notion of participative solidarity to the status socialis activus. In relation to European Union citizenship it promotes a sustainable transnational social citizenship catering for receptive and participative solidarity.
These ideas contrast with most current discourses on EU citizenship. The stress on social citizenship takes issue with a retreat to mere liberalist notions of EU-level citizenship, and the stress on rights takes issue with conceptualising EU citizenship as a community bond with obligations, downplaying the empowering potential of rights. The difficulty of conceptualising transnational social citizenship is to avoid, on the one hand, taking up the tune of populist discourses imagining those moving beyond state borders as a threat to national social citizenship and, on the other hand, to reject the legitimate fears of those remaining at home of creating rupture in the social fabric of Europe’s society. Promoting transnational social citizenship rights based on receptive and participative solidarity the present chapter aims to contribute to avoiding these pitfalls.

Pan-retinal photocoagulation and other forms of laser treatment and drug therapies for non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy is an important cause of visual loss. Laser photocoagulation preserves vision in diabetic retinopathy but is currently used at the stage of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR).

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) given at the non-proliferative stage of diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) compared with waiting until the high-risk PDR (HR-PDR) stage was reached. There have been recent advances in laser photocoagulation techniques, and in the use of laser treatments combined with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs or injected steroids. Our secondary questions were: (1) If PRP were to be used in NPDR, which form of laser treatment should be used? and (2) Is adjuvant therapy with intravitreal drugs clinically effective and cost-effective in PRP?

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for efficacy but other designs also used.

REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review and economic modelling.

RESULTS: The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS), published in 1991, was the only trial designed to determine the best time to initiate PRP. It randomised one eye of 3711 patients with mild-to-severe NPDR or early PDR to early photocoagulation, and the other to deferral of PRP until HR-PDR developed. The risk of severe visual loss after 5 years for eyes assigned to PRP for NPDR or early PDR compared with deferral of PRP was reduced by 23% (relative risk 0.77, 99% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.06). However, the ETDRS did not provide results separately for NPDR and early PDR. In economic modelling, the base case found that early PRP could be more effective and less costly than deferred PRP. Sensitivity analyses gave similar results, with early PRP continuing to dominate or having low incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. However, there are substantial uncertainties. For our secondary aims we found 12 trials of lasers in DR, with 982 patients in total, ranging from 40 to 150. Most were in PDR but five included some patients with severe NPDR. Three compared multi-spot pattern lasers against argon laser. RCTs comparing laser applied in a lighter manner (less-intensive burns) with conventional methods (more intense burns) reported little difference in efficacy but fewer adverse effects. One RCT suggested that selective laser treatment targeting only ischaemic areas was effective. Observational studies showed that the most important adverse effect of PRP was macular oedema (MO), which can cause visual impairment, usually temporary. Ten trials of laser and anti-VEGF or steroid drug combinations were consistent in reporting a reduction in risk of PRP-induced MO.

LIMITATION: The current evidence is insufficient to recommend PRP for severe NPDR.

CONCLUSIONS: There is, as yet, no convincing evidence that modern laser systems are more effective than the argon laser used in ETDRS, but they appear to have fewer adverse effects. We recommend a trial of PRP for severe NPDR and early PDR compared with deferring PRP till the HR-PDR stage. The trial would use modern laser technologies, and investigate the value adjuvant prophylactic anti-VEGF or steroid drugs.

STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005408.

FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Clinical evaluation of three incision size-dependent phacoemulsification systems.

PURPOSE:

To compare the outcomes of cataract surgery performed with 3 incision size-dependent phacoemulsification groups (1.8, 2.2, and 3.0 mm).

DESIGN:

Prospective randomized comparative study.

METHODS:

One hundred twenty eyes of 120 patients with age-related cataract (grades 2 to 4) were categorized according to the Lens Opacities Classification System III. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned to 3 surgical groups using coaxial phacoemulsification through 3 clear corneal incision sizes (1.8, 2.2, and 3.0 mm). Different intraoperative and postoperative outcome measures were obtained, with corneal incision size and surgically induced astigmatism as the main clinical outcomes.

RESULTS:

There were no statistically significant differences in most of the intraoperative and postoperative outcome measures among the 3 groups. However, the mean cord length of the clear corneal incision was increased in each group after surgery. The mean maximal clear corneal incision thickness in the 1.8-mm group was significantly greater than for the other groups at 1 month. The mean surgically induced astigmatism in the 1.8- and 2.2-mm groups was significantly less than that in the 3.0-mm group after 1 month, without significant difference between the 1.8- and 2.2-mm groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

With appropriate equipment, smaller incisions may result in less astigmatism, but the particular system used will influence incision stress and wound integrity, and may thus limit the reduction in incision size and astigmatism that is achievable.

Abstract: Psychometric properties of two self-report clinical competence scales for nursing students.

Abstract: Psychometric properties of two self-report clinical competence scales for nursing students.
Background: It is important to assess the clinical competence of nursing students to gauge their professional development and educational needs. This can be measured by self-assessment tools. Anema and McCoy (2010) contended that the currently available measures need further psychometric testing.
Aim: To test the psychometric properties of Nursing Competencies Questionnaire (NCQ) and Self-Efficacy in Clinical Performance (SECP) clinical competence scales.

Method: A non-randomly selected sample of n=248 2nd year nursing students completed NCQ, SECP and demographic questionnaires (June and September 2013). Mokken Scaling Analysis (MSA) was used to test the structural validity and scale properties, convergent and discriminant validity and reliability were subsequently tested.

Results: The NCQ provided evidence of a unidimensional scale which had strong scale scalability coefficients Hs =0.581; but limited evidence of item rankability HT =0.367. MSA undertaken with the SECP scale identified two potential unidimensional scales the SECP28 and SECP7, each with adequate evidence of good/reasonable scalablity psychometric properties as a summed scale but no/very limited evidence of scale rankability (SECP28: Hs = 0.55, HT=0.211; SECP7: Hs = 0.61, HT=0.049). Analysis of between cohort differences and NCQ/ SECP scale scores produced evidence of convergent and discriminant validity and good internal reliability: NCQ α = 0.93, SECP28 α = 0.96, and SECP7 α=0.89.

Discussion: The NCQ was verified to have evidence of reliability and validity; however, as the SECP findings are new, and the sample small, with reference to Straat and colleagues (2014), the SECP results should be interpreted with caution and verified on a second sample.

Conclusions: Measurement of perceived self-competence could inform the development of nursing competence and could start early in a nursing programme. Further testing of the NCQ and SECP scales with larger samples and from different years is indicated.


References:
Anema, M., G and McCoy, JK. (2010) Competency-Based Nursing Education: Guide to Achieving Outstanding Learner Outcomes. New York: Springer.
Straat, JH., van der Ark, LA and Sijtsma, K. (2014) Minimum Sample Size Requirements for Mokken Scale Analysis Educational and Psychological Measurement 74 (5), 809-822.

Evaluation of Restorative Dentistry Specialty Registrars’ Clinical Experience of Developmental Disorders: A Survey

Background

Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry (StRs) should be competent in the independent restorative management of patients with developmental disorders including hypodontia and cleft lip/palate upon completion of their specialist training.1 Knowledge and management may be assessed via the Intercollegiate Specialty Fellowship Examination (ISFE) in Restorative Dentistry.2

Objective

The aim of this study was to collate and compare data on the training and experience of StRs in the management of patients with developmental disorders across different training units within the British Isles.

Methods

Questionnaires were distributed to all StRs attending the Annual General Meeting of the Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry Group, Belfast, in October 2015. Participants were asked to rate their confidence and experience of assessing and planning treatment for patients with developmental disorders, construction of appropriate prostheses, and provision of dental implants. Respondents were also asked to record clinical supervision and didactic teaching at their unit, and to rate their confidence of passing a future ISFE station assessing knowledge of developmental disorders.

Results

Responses were obtained from 32 StRs (n=32) training within all five countries of the British Isles. The majority of respondents were based in England (72%) with three in Wales, and two in each of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland. Approximately one third of respondents (34%) were in the final years of training (years 4-6). Almost half of the StRs reported that they were not confident of independently assessing (44%) new patients with a developmental disorder, with larger numbers (72%) indicating a lack of confidence in treatment planning. Six respondents rated their experience of treating obturator patients as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. The majority (56%) rated their experience of implant provision in these cases as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ with three-quarters (75%) rating clinical supervision at their unit as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’. Less than half (41%) rated the didactic teaching at their unit as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, and only 8 StRs indicated that they were confident of passing an ISFE station focused on developmental disorders.

Conclusion

Experience and training regarding patients with developmental disorders is inconsistent for StRs across the British Isles with a number of trainees reporting a lack of clinical exposure.