Disorder prediction methods, their applicability to different protein targets and their usefulness for guiding experimental studies

The role and function of a given protein is dependent on its structure. In recent years, however, numerous studies have highlighted the importance of unstructured, or disordered regions in governing a protein’s function. Disordered proteins have been found to play important roles in pivotal cellular functions, such as DNA binding and signalling cascades. Studying proteins with extended disordered regions is often problematic as they can be challenging to express, purify and crystallise. This means that interpretable experimental data on protein disorder is hard to generate. As a result, predictive computational tools have been developed with the aim of predicting the level and location of disorder within a protein. Currently, over 60 prediction servers exist, utilizing different methods for classifying disorder and different training sets. Here we review several good performing, publicly available prediction methods, comparing their application and discussing how disorder prediction servers can be used to aid the experimental solution of protein structure. The use of disorder prediction methods allows us to adopt a more targeted approach to experimental studies by accurately identifying the boundaries of ordered protein domains so that they may be investigated separately, thereby increasing the likelihood of their successful experimental solution.

The accuracy of HADS and GHQ-12 in detecting psychiatric morbidity in breast cancer patients

Objective: Psychological problems should be identified in breast cancer patients proactively if doctors and nurses are to help them cope with the challenges imposed by their illness. Screening is one possible way to identify emotional problems proactively. Self-report questionnaires can be useful alternatives to carrying out psychiatric interviews during screening, because interviewing a large number of patients can be impractical due to limited resources. Two such measures are the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12). Method: The present study aimed to compare the performance of the GHQ-12, and the HADS Unitary Scale and its subscales to that of the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (SADS) in identifying patients with affective disorders, including DSM major depression and generalized anxiety disorder. The sample consisted of 296 female breast cancer patients who underwent surgery for breast cancer a year previously. Results: A small number of patients (11%) were identified as having DSM major depression or generalized anxiety disorder based on SADS score. The findings indicate that the optimal thresholds in detecting generalized anxiety disorder and DSM major depression with the HADS anxiety and depression subscales were ≥ 8 and ≥ 7, with 93.3% and 77.3% sensitivity, respectively, and 77.9% and 87.1% specificity, respectively. They also had a 21% and 36% positive predictive value, respectively. Using the HADS Unitary Scale the optimal threshold for detecting affective disorders was ≥ 12, with 88.9% sensitivity, 80.7% specificity, and a 35% positive predictive value. In detecting affective disorders, the optimal threshold on the GHQ-12 was ≥ 2, with 77.8% sensitivity and 70.2% specificity. This scale also had a 24% positive predictive value. In detecting generalized anxiety disorder and DSM major depression, the optimal thresholds on the GHQ-12 were ≥ 2 and ≥ 4 with 73.3% and 77.3% sensitivity, respectively, and 67.5% and 82% specificity, respectively. The scale also had 12% and 29% positive predictive values, respectively. Conclusion: The HADS Unitary Scale and its subscales were effective in identifying affective disorders. They can be used as screening measures in breast cancer patients. The GHQ-12 was less accurate in detecting affective disorders than the HADS, but it can also be used as a screening instrument to detect affective disorders, generalized anxiety disorder, and DSM major depression.

Anger, preoccupied attachment and domain disorganisation in borderline personality disorder

Emotional dysregulation and attachment insecurity have been reported in borderline personality disorder (BPD). Domain disorganization, evidenced in poor regulation of emotions and behaviors in relation to the demands of different social domains, may be a distinguishing feature of BPD. Understanding the interplay between these factors may be critical for identifying interacting processes in BPD and potential subtypes of BPD. Therefore, we examined the joint and interactive effects of anger, preoccupied attachment, and domain disorganization on BPD traits in a clinical sample of 128 psychiatric patients. The results suggest that these factors contribute to BPD both independently and in interaction, even when controlling for other personality disorder traits and Axis I symptoms. In regression analyses, the interaction between anger and domain disorganization predicted BPD traits. In recursive partitioning analyses, two possible paths to BPD were identified: high anger combined with high domain disorganization and low anger combined with preoccupied attachment. These results may suggest possible subtypes of BPD or possible mechanisms by which BPD traits are established and maintained.

Parental responsibility beliefs: associations with parental anxiety and behaviours in the context of childhood anxiety disorders

Background: High levels of parental anxiety are associated with poor treatment outcomes for children with anxiety disorders. Associated parental cognitions and behaviours have been implicated as impediments to successful treatment. We examined the association between parental responsibility beliefs, maternal anxiety and parenting behaviours in the context of childhood anxiety disorders. Methods: Anxious and non-anxious mothers of 7-12 year old children with a current anxiety disorder reported their parental responsibility beliefs using a questionnaire measure. Parental behaviours towards their child during a stressor task were measured. Results: Parents with a current anxiety disorder reported a greater sense of responsibility for their child’s actions and wellbeing than parents who scored within the normal range for anxiety. Furthermore, higher parental responsibility was associated with more intrusive and less warm behaviours in parent-child interactions and there was an indirect effect between maternal anxiety and maternal intrusive behaviours via parental responsibility beliefs. Limitations: The sample was limited to a treatment-seeking, relatively high socio-economic population and only mothers were included so replication with more diverse groups is needed. The use of a range of stressor tasks may have allowed for a more comprehensive assessment of parental behaviours. Conclusions: The findings suggest that parental anxiety disorder is associated with an elevated sense of parental responsibility and may promote parental behaviours likely to inhibit optimum child treatment outcomes. Parental responsibility beliefs may therefore be important to target in child anxiety treatments in the context of parental anxiety disorders.