Karyotype variability in KP1(+) and KP1(-) strains of Trypanosoma rangeli isolated in Brazil and Colombia

In the present study, the molecular karyotypes of 12 KP1(+) and KP1(-) Trypanosoma rangeli strains were determined and 10 different molecular markers were hybridized to the chromosomes of the parasite, including seven obtained from T. rangeli [ubiquitin hydrolase (UH), a predicted serine/threonine protein kinase (STK), hexose transporter, hypothetical protein, three anonymous sequences] and three from Trypanosoma cruzi [ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2 (UBE2), ribosomal RNA methyltransferase (rRNAmtr), proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 6 (PSMD6)]. Despite intraspecific variation, analysis of the karyotype profiles permitted the division of the T rangeli strains into two groups coinciding with the KP1(+) and KP1(-) genotypes. Southern blot hybridization showed that, except for the hexose transporter probe, all other probes produced distinct patterns able to differentiate the KP1(+) and KP1(-) genotypes. The UH, STK and An-1A04 probes exclusively hybridized to the chromosomes of KP1(+) strains and can be used as markers of this group. In addition, the UBE2, rRNAmtr and PSMD6 markers, which are present in a conserved region in all trypanosomatid species sequenced so far, co-hybridized to the same T. rangeli chromosomal bands, suggesting the occurrence of gene synteny in these species. The finding of distinct molecular karyotypes in KP1(+) and KP1 (-) strains of T rangeli is noteworthy and might be used as a new approach to the study of genetic variability in this parasite. Together with the Southern blot hybridization results, these findings demonstrate that differences at the kDNA level might be associated with variations in nuclear DNA. (c) 2009 Elsevier BY. All rights reserved.

Anti-mullerian hormone is the best predictor of poor response in ICSI cycles of patients with endometriosis

Purpose: To correlate ovarian reserve (OR) markers with response in assisted reproduction techniques (ART) and determine their ability to predict poor response among patients with endometriosis (EDT). Methods: We evaluated ART cycles of 27 women with EDT and 50 with exclusive male factor. Basal follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) levels were determined. Ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation was assessed and correlation coefficients calculated between the variables and reserve markers. Areas under the curve (AUC) determined ability of tests to predict poor response. Results: AMH was significantly correlated with response in both groups and it was the only marker with significant discriminative capacity to predict poor response among EDT (AUC = 0.842; 95% CI: 0.651-0.952) and control group (AUC = 0.869; 95% CI: 0.743-0.947). Conclusion: Infertile patients with endometriosis can benefit from the pre-therapeutic assessment of OR markers. However, regardless of disease presence, only AMH predicts poor response to stimulus.

What is the best equation to estimate the basal energy expenditure of climacteric women?

Objectives The methods currently available for the measurement of energy expenditure in patients, such as indirect calorimetry and double-labelled water, are expensive and are limited in Brazil to research projects. Thus, equations for the prediction of resting metabolic rate appear to be a viable alternative for clinical practice. However, there are no specific equations for the Brazilian population and few studies have been conducted on Brazilian women in the climacteric period using existing and commonly applied equations. On this basis, the objective of the present study was to investigate the concordance between the predictive equations most frequently used and indirect calorimetry for the measurement of resting metabolic rate. Methods We calculated the St. Laurent concordance correlation coefficient between the equations and resting metabolic rate calculated by indirect calorimetry in 46 climacteric women. Results The equation showing the best concordance was that of the FAO/WHO/UNU formula (0.63), which proved to be better than the Harris & Benedict equation (0.55) for the sample studied. Conclusions On the basis of the results of the present study, we conclude that the FAO/WHO/UNU formula can be used to predict better the resting metabolic rate of climacteric women. Further studies using more homogeneous and larger samples are needed to permit the use of the FAO/WHO/UNU formula for this population group with greater accuracy.