3 resultados para Graft combinations

em Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya (CSUC), Spain


Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Background: Protein domains represent the basic units in the evolution of proteins. Domain duplication and shuffling by recombination and fusion, followed by divergence are the most common mechanisms in this process. Such domain fusion and recombination events are predicted to occur only once for a given multidomain architecture. However, other scenarios may be relevant in the evolution of specific proteins, such as convergent evolution of multidomain architectures. With this in mind, we study glutaredoxin (GRX) domains, because these domains of approximately one hundred amino acids are widespread in archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes and participate in fusion proteins. GRXs are responsible for the reduction of protein disulfides or glutathione-protein mixed disulfides and are involved in cellular redox regulation, although their specific roles and targets are often unclear. Results: In this work we analyze the distribution and evolution of GRX proteins in archaea,bacteria and eukaryotes. We study over one thousand GRX proteins, each containing at least one GRX domain, from hundreds of different organisms and trace the origin and evolution of the GRX domain within the tree of life. Conclusion: Our results suggest that single domain GRX proteins of the CGFS and CPYC classes have, each, evolved through duplication and divergence from one initial gene that was present in the last common ancestor of all organisms. Remarkably, we identify a case of convergent evolution in domain architecture that involves the GRX domain. Two independent recombination events of a TRX domain to a GRX domain are likely to have occurred, which is an exception to the dominant mechanism of domain architecture evolution.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD) is the leading cause of late nonrelapse mortality (transplant-related mortality) after hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Given that there are a wide range of treatment options for cGvHD, assessment of the associated costs and efficacy can help clinicians and health care providers allocate health care resources more efficiently. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) compared with rituximab (Rmb) and with imatinib (Imt) in patients with cGvHD at 5 years from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. METHODS: The model assessed the incremental cost-effectiveness/utility ratio of ECP versus Rmb or Imt for 1000 hypothetical patients by using microsimulation cost-effectiveness techniques. Model probabilities were obtained from the literature. Treatment pathways and adverse events were evaluated taking clinical opinion and published reports into consideration. Local data on costs (2010 Euros) and health care resources utilization were validated by the clinical authors. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess the robustness of the model. RESULTS: The greater efficacy of ECP resulted in a gain of 0.011 to 0.024 quality-adjusted life-year in the first year and 0.062 to 0.094 at year 5 compared with Rmb or Imt. The results showed that the higher acquisition cost of ECP versus Imt was compensated for at 9 months by greater efficacy; this higher cost was partially compensated for ( 517) by year 5 versus Rmb. After 9 months, ECP was dominant (cheaper and more effective) compared with Imt. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ECP versus Rmb was 29,646 per life-year gained and 24,442 per quality-adjusted life-year gained at year 2.5. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the results. The main study limitation was that to assess relative treatment effects, only small studies were available for indirect comparison. CONCLUSION: ECP as a third-line therapy for cGvHD is a more cost-effective strategy than Rmb or Imt.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Oral implantology is a common procedure in dentistry, especially for fully or partially edentulous patients. The implants must be placed in the best location from both the aesthetic and functional point of view. Because of this it is increasingly more frequent to resort to regeneration techniques that use substitutes of the bone itself, in order to be able to insert the implants in the most appropriate location. Material and Methodology: A review was performed on the literature from the last ten years based on the following search limitations: "graft materials', 'allograft', 'xenograft', 'autologous graft" and 'dentistry". Results: 241 works were obtained that after reading their respective summaries, they were reduced to 38, and 9 previous works were included in order to summarize the concepts. Discussion: Autologous grafts are the 'gold standard' of the bone regeneration. They have obvious advantages, but they also have drawbacks. This is why allogeneic and xenogeneic tissues are used. The former because of their clear similarity with the recipient's tissue and the latter due to their wide availability. Given that these grafts also have drawbacks, the industry has developed synthetic materials that have properties similar to those of human bone tissue. However, as of today, the ideal material to substitute human bone has not yet been found. In recent years the tendency has been to combine these synthetic materials with the patient's own bone, which is extracted during drilling in implant placement, with bone marrow aspiration, or with bone morphogenetic proteins. Thus the intention is to equip these substances with the osteogenic capacity. Conclusions: There is currently no ideal graft material, with the exception of those materials that come directly from the patient. We hope that in the coming years we will have products that will allow us to perform rehabilitations with better results and provide a better quality of life for our patients, especially those who have more complex situations to resolve, like the patients that are operated on for head and neck cancer